PerfectWorld6 7

[cephalo]

I haven't messed with floodplains yet so maybe I can take advantage of your testing

It sounds like placing floodplains via the "old" method in featuregenerator.lua makes floodplains that give the old food bonus but don't actually flood, is that correct? If so that's actually kind of cool in a way, but unfortunate that we can't fully re-write that placement code for ourselves. Did you see if floodplains placed that way allow for the dam to be built on them like the new floodplains? I'd actually be curious about testing for their presence in a tile (the new style floodplains) since they appear to use the same feature ID.

I'm guessing there's an underlying database that is separate from the actual tile data, similar to the river naming scheme. It's unfortunate they couldn't fix all this stuff up after a map is generated, but I suppose it's not a small task. One disadvantage to this is that the default placement will not overwrite any features, but if you run the floodplains first, you get floodplains everywhere. I would not be surprised if you subsequently replaced the fp after, if the tile would not still flood anyway, but I have not tested that.

 

[cephalo]

Things are going very well, start placement looks great. i had an amazing colonial war in the new world during play testing. I was taking part in an international action against congo, and we didn't have the technology to do much damage to each other in the old world, but in the new world, he levied his city state against my small holdings there and I had to levy my own allies in the region. So almost the whole war was fought by indigenous troops. Cool.

 

[Qarisma]

Things are going very well, start placement looks great. i had an amazing colonial war in the new world during play testing. I was taking part in an international action against congo, and we didn't have the technology to do much damage to each other in the old world, but in the new world, he levied his city state against my small holdings there and I had to levy my own allies in the region. So almost the whole war was fought by indigenous troops. Cool.

Absolutely Amazing!! I wish old world placement was a base game option. That's the kind of thing I've been wanting to see in my games. I end up usually removing city states entirely because they spawn right in between all the major civs and the game just devolves into a race to conquer them before the AI does in most cases...

 

[Strec]

Things are going very well, start placement looks great. i had an amazing colonial war in the new world during play testing. I was taking part in an international action against congo, and we didn't have the technology to do much damage to each other in the old world, but in the new world, he levied his city state against my small holdings there and I had to levy my own allies in the region. So almost the whole war was fought by indigenous troops. Cool.

Stop playing and give us a version

 

[cephalo]

Ok, I had another weekend of marathon programming. This time I made a system that lets me take over the placement of a particular natural wonder. This might seem like icing on the icing, but it's actually pretty important, because there are many natural wonders that really can't be placed on PW very well because of all the rivers and busy stuff going on. For R+F you probably saw a lot of desert NW's and not very many other ones for that reason.

This allows me to also showcase natural wonders a little better and put them in a context that makes sense. So far I handled Torres del Paine and Yosemite, because they have the same placement requirements. Check out this little village. These people have almost no use for civilization, they already have food, production, science, gold and a spectacular view all around

These two wonders are placed this good just about every time. On to the others!

 

[PonderThis]

I’m so excited! I wish I could help in some way.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

do you think your NW placement code is going to interact nicely with Terra Mirabilis? alongside with adding 19 new ones, it also changes the rules a bit:

- Lowered the distance between Natural Wonders from 8 tiles to 5. This will increase the chances of them appearing closer to each other, thus freeing up space to fit more on the map.
- Tripled the amount of natural wonders that will spawn on each map size. While this won't guarantee that you will see X amount of wonders in the game, it will increase the likelihood of it. An example: Huge Maps now have 21 Natural Wonders, as opposed to the default 7.
- City-States will now spawn 5 tiles away from a natural wonder where possible, up from the default 3 tiles.

 

[cephalo]

do you think your NW placement code is going to interact nicely with Terra Mirabilis? alongside with adding 19 new ones, it also changes the rules a bit:

- Lowered the distance between Natural Wonders from 8 tiles to 5. This will increase the chances of them appearing closer to each other, thus freeing up space to fit more on the map.
- Tripled the amount of natural wonders that will spawn on each map size. While this won't guarantee that you will see X amount of wonders in the game, it will increase the likelihood of it. An example: Huge Maps now have 21 Natural Wonders, as opposed to the default 7.
- City-States will now spawn 5 tiles away from a natural wonder where possible, up from the default 3 tiles.

I'm not sure how that mod works, but if it uses the existing placement system in NaturalWonderGenerator.lua, it should work fine. Any wonders I don't mess with get placed with the normal code, so unless the normal code in that file is altered, it should work fine. For example if it's only tweaking the xml rules it should be fine.

 

[cephalo]

Here's a natural wonder I've never even seen before. Cool! This can now be placed on PW for the first time ever probably. Ha, I accidentally made the waterfalls line up with the river system... Oopsies!

Here is a shot of Everest, it gets placed near the middle of the biggest or second biggest mountain range. Access is guaranteed through one or more directions.

On to the next wonders! Bear with me while I work on these.

EDIT: Also, I have a philosophical question, how many wonders on a map is too many? PW is a bit bigger than most maps, so I was going to place an extra compared with the standard maps. tp Gekko mentioned Terra Mirablis puts 21 on the huge map! Is that obscene? Does it ruin the game? How many should be placed?

 

[sampo]

That Mount Roraima in the thick of the jungle looks simply breathtaking. Fantastic work. Thank you Cephalo.

I'd say go with the default number (+ maybe the size multiplier) for NW's. Less is more.

 

[Strec]

Too much NW would kill the game, and reduce interest on them.

As I'm a fan of gameplay and mainly of civs specialisation my dream would be that every civ have access to a NW concerning its biases, this could explain why this particular civ is specialised. For the others it would be random without obligation to have acces to a NW.

I would also see more NW on the new world, making the interest of conquering it bigger.

To resume, less NW on the old world but corresponding to the civs and more NW on the new world (why not specialized to the minor civs).


Note as an impatient player I would eventually say no wonders at all if it give us the script earlier

 

[Daedraug]

This looks fantastic!
I'm waiting for PerfectWorld to play Gathering Storm; I hope you're almost done (no pressure )
Congratulation and thank you for your work for the past few years!

 

[Daedraug]

Also, I have a philosophical question, how many wonders on a map is too many? PW is a bit bigger than most maps, so I was going to place an extra compared with the standard maps. tp Gekko mentioned Terra Mirablis puts 21 on the huge map! Is that obscene? Does it ruin the game? How many should be placed?

I don't have a number, but I think NW must give the feeling of something rare and exceptional, if you find a new one every turn of exploration, this makes them less exciting and less useful, as everybody will have many boosts from many other NW.

NW should actually be a goal of war, their rarity and the bonus they offer should be a sufficient reason for engaging in a conflict with a neighbor.

And you know what? The beauty of the placement of the NW you just showed us would be a good reason, for me, to go to war : I want those beautiful lands for my people!

 

[Daedraug]

Could you put a slider in the configuration screen to determine how many NW on the map? Same as we can choose number of City-States?

 

[cvb]

First I want to Thank You very much for your fantastic work! Your maps are really beautiful - even if in the end "they are only used to play upon" ...

Also, I have a philosophical question, how many wonders on a map is too many? PW is a bit bigger than most maps, so I was going to place an extra compared with the standard maps. tp Gekko mentioned Terra Mirablis puts 21 on the huge map! Is that obscene? Does it ruin the game? How many should be placed?

Less IS more. In civ6 we already have too much of too many things (eg. by accumulating the right modifiers the production costs for units can be reduced to 0, exactly 0, 100% reduction - so what?) and still too few of (important) others - and I hear the crowd yelling just for even more, they "need" a 3rd expansion ...

"It seems that perfection is attained not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to remove."

.

Two more remarks towards gameplay in general:

The new "Tunnel-effect" allows to _teleport_ alongside a gratuitous long mountain range at ZERO movement costs. OTOH such mountain ranges are huge obstacles in crossways direction. Maybe it is better for the playability & balance of the game to limit somehow the length of mountain ranges? (Just in case FXS doesn't change that Tunnel rule & and also doesn't allow us to do it)

I think, for a great 'age of exploration' feeling it is necessary to need navigation / 2nd generation of ships. This means emphasis on (some, not all!) landmasses being not only separated by coast, but separated by ocean. IDK whether you already have a routine to check for that?
Even room for an extra layer inbetween could be interesting. In civ4 I modified in the running game the map along with appropriate techs in order to have an extra level of naval exploration: changed every 'Ocean' tile adjacent to a 'Coast' tile into a 'Coast' tile. I loved it to have a second exploration phase with triremes/galleys in a "Broader Coast Line" before the arrival of caravels (able to cross the deep ocean) and a third exploration phase ...

.

 

[Strec]

Like Europe, Asia and Africa or like the 2 american ones?

The more a game is varied the more it is fun, why only authorize exploration by sea? (edit : sorry if due to my bad English knowledge I misunderstood)

 

[cvb]

Like Europe, Asia and Africa or like the 2 american ones?

If you like to take our earth as example, you shouldn't just look at today. I think, it is quite clear, that we have more of the "continents" more separated by deep ocean if you take larger parts of earth's history. I mean, where was NorthAmerica, Eurasia & Australia when Africa & SouthAmerica split and the Nile no longer flowed as Amazon into the "Pacific" (ie. western coast of the continent)?

The more a game is varied the more it is fun

That is 100% what I want. From what I see and hear (eg. @Victoria), the problem is less, that you cannot find any new land with galleys & triremes, but that you find most or all other landmasses without caravels etc.

why only authorize exploration by sea?

Not only thin air, but pure vacuum is where you take this from?! I advocate to explore with lots of scouts in outwards going spirals, diligently examine every edge of the land in order to detect signs of other land ("break on through to the other side") and then have two phases of exploration with 1st generation ships before caravels & navigation ...

 

[Strec]

The new "Tunnel-effect" allows to _teleport_ alongside a gratuitous long mountain range at ZERO movement costs. OTOH such mountain ranges are huge obstacles in crossways direction. Maybe it is better for the playability & balance of the game to limit somehow the length of mountain ranges? (Just in case FXS doesn't change that Tunnel rule & and also doesn't allow us to do it).

Hope I understood this part better than the other

I'm not sure cutting the mountains range is a good idea because if I'm not wrong :
- The tunnel effect for normal civs don't soon so you can prepare your defense (note I think at this area you are near to get air attacks)
- This effect is one of the base advantage of the Incas and they will be grantly disavantaged

Finally it would be a big change in balance of the start of the game giving a very little difference in the end game.

 

[cephalo]

andmasses being not only separated by coast, but separated by ocean.

In PW, the pangaea breaker considers 'coast' to be land, so the new world(s) are always separated by ocean.

That's interesting that mountain ranges can be used for warp gates, but you know, we used to have railroads that did the same thing and it was Ok.

 

[Qarisma]

In PW, the pangaea breaker considers 'coast' to be land, so the new world(s) are always separated by ocean.

That's interesting that mountain ranges can be used for warp gates, but you know, we used to have railroads that did the same thing and it was Ok.

Every post you make gets me more excited for the eventual release of this map script.