Discussion in 'Rhye's and Fall - Dawn of Civilization' started by TJDowling, Jun 8, 2018.
I support greater exploration into this.
Are these implementable in BtS? If so, it may be another decade before DoC is finished. I mean that as a very good thing.
Or, Leoreth can finally found his own development studio and duly put [REDACTED] and Paradox both out of business and make each one of us who provide seed capital here a small fortune in the process.
Whichever takes less time and effort, really. I'm beginning to think perhaps the second one.
It could replace the Lighthouse, considering they are also used for inland navigational purposes, and it would make sense for Inuit not to be able to build conventional lighthouses.
Most of this looks easy enough to implement, I'm more concerned about not complicating the game rules too much with special cases.
Inuksuk is definitely the best candidate for a UB, and lighthouse is a good fit, you're right. Extra benefit being that Inuit can build Inuksuk anywhere, not just on the coast (not that they are likely to have inland settlements). I think Inuksuk could have the same benefit as igloo, food-boosting, as navigation is key to survival and hunting in the Arctic.
In the case that Inuksuk is the UB, I guess the UP would change from Power of Inuksuk to something else. "Power of Igloo-building" sounds pretty boring. And literally just means "the power of house-building" as igloo is the word for "house" snow or not.
Power of Arctic Navigation? Land units can pass over sea ice, why limit it just to the UU? Then the UU Qamutik's power could be that it is a dual settler/combat unit, with strong Arctic defense and/or offense?
When I'm off work for the summer I'm going to seriously look into working on this. It should be challenging but I think I can piece parts of it together.
Oh but damn I just thought of something... what if the UP allowed the Inuit to gain production/food/commerce from destroying animal units? Could script it so more animals spawn in the Arctic for longer. That way you're also not creating an imbalance by adding food resources.
I think the idea to give +1 food to Deer, Fur, Whale to the UB was a good one, not in the least because that is already a type of effect that exists. What name/effect is left to the UP depends on what they actually need to work as a civ, but ignoring limitations of the terrain around them sounds good.
Food from defeating animal units would be great but honestly could also apply to other Amerindian civs, so it depends on what their general rules are.
By the way, here is a WIP dog sled for the UU that has apparently never been finished.
Which leader in DoC would you guys say best matches the attitude of an Inuit civilization? Currently I intend to use a notable Inuit shaman Aua as leaderhead. So I'm looking for spiritual, friendly, peacful, interested in trade, alliances, etc. I thought about Asoka or Gandhi as a base because they are peaceful but it's quite complex and I'm not sure what all of the variables indicate looking at the LeaderHeadInfos XML file.
Google is your friend.
The modiki is also usually helpful regarding the purpose of XML tags.
Expert opinion: Is it feasible to have a settler unit with combat ability? Or would the AI invariably build these as settlers and always use them as settlers, not combat units?
Also somewhat related:
I've been using the modiki which is very useful but the modiki was not very descriptive about what UnitAIWeightModifiers, it just said that it relates to what units the AI prioritizes and said "all 100". Any insight into what the numerical values represent in this case? Also is it SETTLE = Settler and RESERVE = all other units?
Does this just indicate special weighting, like if there is a unit type that the leader will especially prefer you add it here? Meaning that you can simply leave it empty if there is no need?
A settler built as a settler AI will always be a settler AI until that is changed. You could probably have that specific civ recalculate the AI of each settler unit every couple turns. I did this a while ago in CMC when implementing an AI for Polynesian Wakas to switch from Settler Sea to Worker Sea after dropping off a unit, you could probably repurpose that.
I'm not sure an insular, isolationist civilization that had virtually no friendly relationships with the peoples to the south of them (in fact, they were hostile with several, such the Gwi'chin, who coined the derogatory slur "Eskimo" for the Inuit in the first place) and preferred to just avoid dealing with non-Inuit whenever possible, and drove the Dorset Culture people into more and more isolated areas as they expanded that the latter could no longer viably feed themselves and became extinct, really quite matches your description there.
Ahh yes the waka! I knew there was a unit that was dual class like that. Hmm, it could work but I honestly have no idea, it's a bit out of my league, though if you wanted to send that code my way I could take a look. Would it be better to build it as a combat unit and have settling be the exception? Maybe, the Qamutik (dog sled) could be a Chariot class unit with the possibility of operating as a settler. I could give the Inuit one settler in the beginning and one Qamutik, that way the AI can prioritize it for combat use but still have the option of settling. Still maybe it's unnecessary and they could just separate the UU (dog sled = chariot) and settler.
Patine, you're not wrong. Though in a modern perspective, they are very peaceful, spiritual interested in trade/alliances. From a gameplay perspective they have no local civilizations to wage wars against, they would essentially be fighting barbarians and animals exclusively until the Vikings arrived if at all. During and after the colonial era they engaged in trade with European civilizations.
EDIT: The main hang-up with making them isolationist, hostile and unfriendly besides that they have no one to be isolationist, hostile and unfriendly towards until Europeans arrive when they became much less hostile is the proposed UHV related to the Inuit Circumpolar Council. If they have a diplomatically related UHV then these traits don't fit very well. I guess they could have two leaders Aua, a more hostile pre-modern leader and then a more friendly modern leader like Paul Okalik or someone.
I hate trudging through past commits on Github, a constant stream of previous page previous page. Unless you already know what condition you want it to switch to and from on, I'd say it'd be best to do something a bit simpler.
All that said, your reminder has made me rethink some of the attributes I put into the LeaderHeadInfos... I'll probably go back and reduce inclination towards giving help, make them a bit more suspicious of others. As far as AI goes it doesn't matter if they can complete the UHVs and human player can play any way they want in regards to diplomacy. But again, they will be isolated mostly by geography than anything else and I don't think their is much use making them antagonistic towards peaceful distant civilizations. Civilizations that attack them, definitely.
I don't understand this completely but the basic idea is that a unit has a starting unit AI that it will always have until something prompts the AI to reconsider its role, and a possible list of unit AIs that is chosen based on the circumstances. The weight modifier only affects how the possible AIs are weighted after the actual situation has been taken into account.
What do you actually want to achieve? A settler that can defend itself? A settler that can actually function as a military unit? I think the latter won't work because of the cost alone.
I agree, peaceful but isolationist seems more appropriate.
Yeah, I've opted to make the Qamutik a chariot class unit and leave the settler separate.
Separate names with a comma.