Proposal: War events

Drunk-Monk

Chieftain
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
55
Colonial competition often revolved around warfare. The less successful colonial powers (Sweden, Courland) found their colonies destroyed, and one of the triggers for the Wars of Independence, were periods of intensive warfare involving the mother country; the Seven Years War for the U.S.A, the French Revolution for Haiti and the Napoleonic Wars for Latin America.

I feel that war is one of the areas, that could be far better developed in the mod. I think there should be more events surrounding war with other powers, rather than the case now where the King suddenly decides to declare war or peace and you follow or not. For example, there should be more events about war tension, or some indication of the relations between the Kings in Europe. This would allow the player and the AI to have more information about the conflict, allowing the colonies to receive reinforcements and allow you and the AI to start preparing war material. At the moment, it is often very easy to defeat the other AI colonies, as they have very few troops deployed. Also, the player has almost no information, as to when a war is going to begin or end, and what nations are going to present a threat or an opportunity.

As many wars in this period were fought in coalitions, with shifting alliances, this can also be introduced, rather than the situation now where Wars seem to be 1vs1. This would also make it harder to maintain friendships with the other powers, which would balance the end game, whereas of now you receive a great deal of support.

Wars would occur via events and the diplo screen, where the King would make his requests. The King would ask you for troops, you would have the option of contributing, and the King could reward you such as by improving his relations with the player and possibly freezing your tax. Or if you did not contribute, punishing you. There would be a risk reward dynamic, as your troops would gain experience and FF points but also have the possibility of dying. Their experience and quality would reflect their survival chance. You also have the dilemmas of contributing troops and thus leaving your colonies underprotected, the risks to your units of destruction, in the Naval War there could be the possibility of increased privateer activity, or markets being blocked for several turns, and you could choose to sit back and make profit from selling war material but run the risk of facing punishment.

My proposal for war events includes three different types of conflict. A European War, representing the incessant conflicts that plagued Europe in the period. A Naval War, representing conflicts that were primarily fought at sea, like the Anglo-Dutch wars and finally the World War, representing large scale conflicts like the Seven Years War or the Napoleonic Wars.

In the first, the target would be an offscreen European power (1), prices would rise for War material in Europe (Guns, Blades, Cannon, Horses, Soldiers). The King would ask you for men.

In the Second, the target would be an offscreen European power, prices would rise for Nautical material (Sails, Ropes, Wood, Cannons, Ships). The King would ask you for ships.

In the third, the World war would be a more detailed version of the existing War event, where you have to attack a rival colony, but it would most likely feature coalitions of nations. Prices would rise for all War and Nautical material (Guns, Blades, Cannon, Horses, Soldiers, Sails, Ropes, Wood, Cannons, Ships).

Of course, you can also have the option of starting a war that is unapproved by your King, but this would generate a very negative response from both your own and the rivals King.

Feel free, to ask any questions if you need more clarification.


(1) Offscreen powers, would be those players that are absent in the game, or if all Nations are utilized, others that are not represented in the game. For example, Poland for Northern Europe, the Ottomans for Southern Europe and Austria for England and France. The Barbary Pirates could be a Naval antagonist. We wouldn’t necessarily need a leader head, as it would all be accounted for in the event.
 

raystuttgart

Civ4Col Modder
Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
8,549
Location
Stuttgart, Germany
Feel free, to ask any questions if you need more clarification.
While I do understand what you are generally suggesting I have no idea what should be implemented exactly and how. :dunno:
I would simply need a detailled concept (gameplay, feature / choice effects, balancing, visualization, implementation, AI, ...) for every single "War Event".

In the current state I can simply not tell "Do I like it?", "How much effort is it?", "What are the risks?" ...
Thus I cannot tell if I would personally want to work on it.

Just to give you a general orientation:

For every single of the current DLL-Diplo-Events (added in TAC or RaR) it took about 16+ hours of work.
And those seem to be a lot easier than some of the things I read above.

If we talk about really simple Python-Events we might however need only 4+ hours of work for each.
But those are of course much more limitted and could not do most of the things you are suggesting.
 
Last edited:

OzzyKP

Emperor
Joined
Dec 16, 2000
Messages
1,729
Location
Washington, DC USA
On a side, but related note. When the king declares war on someone and I ask for troops, that is a huge boost in my military. A man of war and some royal troops is often enough to start conquering. In a recent game I eliminated the British just with these royal troops. Does the AI European power also get some additional troops? When I conquering the Brits they didn't have any royal troops, so that gives a pretty big advantage to the human player.
 

raystuttgart

Civ4Col Modder
Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
8,549
Location
Stuttgart, Germany
On a side, but related note.
Let us please not mix discussions in feature threads too much. :)
Otherwise threads will become difficult to follow.

When the king declares war on someone and I ask for troops, that is a huge boost in my military.
The balancing seems to have changed compared to RaR balancing I had known. :dunno:
We will need to figure out why and discuss this in the team.

Does the AI European power also get some additional troops?
Not in my old implementation from RaR. But that might be considered.
You could post an issue here and suggest it. :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:

KommissarReb

Chieftain
Joined
Aug 28, 2015
Messages
30
Location
United States
Heh...it's funny you say this. I sort of had an idea for a standalone mod where the kings not only fight in the Old World, but also send their REF's into the New World fighting on the side of their colonies just like in real life how the British did help Washington's forces fight the French colonial and Royal forces. Some people might think it's a crazy idea because it might be harder to fight the REF if it's already in the new world, but in real life the British did occupy the colonies for their own protection (and to squash dissenters). Don't know how this would work in WTP if it was implemented, because honestly I found winning the WOI a cakewalk in RAR compared to Vanilla on Conquistador difficulty.
 

Drunk-Monk

Chieftain
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
55
I would simply need a detailled concept (gameplay, feature / choice effects, balancing, visualization, implementation, AI, ...) for every single "War Event".

There needs to be a more coherent system for conflict, at the moment for no rhyme or reason you are suddenly at war with another power and then suddenly you are at peace, and all if forgiven. This would remove the need for the player to start arbitrary conflicts with the natives or others, as the only way to strengthen their forces and gain FF and Great General points. It would also reflect the fact that many of the leaders of the revolutions, had experience fighting in the military's of their 'mother country'.

Here is a timeline of how I imagine it could function in a game. In this example the player is Sweden and the Rivals are France, Denmark and Russia.

1492 - Game Start

1523 -The player is informed that tensions are rising with Poland. Prices rise for military goods

1531 - The player is asked to contribute troops. Troops are too expensive to justify buying in Europe and the player contributes two Dragoons, a light cannon, a line infantry and a militia from their colony.

April 1533 – The player is informed that the war is going well, and will soon be over

November 1533 – The players troops return as veterans with exp points to spend apart from the militia which has been destroyed. The player gains military FF points and Great General points. The player gains a 2+ bonus in relations with the King.

November 1597 – The player is informed that tensions are rising with Russia. The player starts producing war material in anticipation. Prices rise for military goods

July 1602 – The King declares War on Russia. The player is asked to declare War. Prices rise for military goods. The player asks the King for units, which he receives.

October 1602 – The King of Denmark declares war on Russia. The Danish Colonies declare war on the Russian Colonies.

January 1603 - The player begins attacking the Russian colonies

July 1604 – The player is making good progress against the Russians in the new world. Refugees start appearing on the dock in Europe. The player is making good profits from selling war materials in Europe

March 1606 - The player is informed that an agreement is being formed in Europe, so he decides to let his units heal and to withdraw his units from Russian territory.

October 1606 – Sweden, Denmark and Russia form a peace agreement. The player gains a 2+ bonus in relations with the King. Prices for war materials drop. The player gains a 2+ bonus in relations with the King of Denmark.

March 1657 – The player is informed that tensions are rising with Holland. Prices rise for Nautical material.

December 1657 - The player is in a Naval war with Holland. The King asks for ships, but the player contributes only a man-o-war, and one sloop.

July 1659 – The player is informed that the war is not going well. Africa is blockaded and the player is unable to trade there for several turns. More Privateers appear in the players waters.

January 1661 – The war with Holland ends. The players man-o-war, and sloop return as veterans but damaged. Prices fall for Nautical material. The player gains a 1+ bonus in relations with the King.

I hope this has made my points somewhat clearer, these are just preliminary examples and I could go into more detail. We could also consider other events such as civil wars, that would greatly affect immigration, and conflicts in Port Royal and Africa that would disrupt trade.
 

KommissarReb

Chieftain
Joined
Aug 28, 2015
Messages
30
Location
United States
March 1657 – The player is informed that tensions are rising with Holland. Prices rise for Nautical material.

December 1657 - The player is in a Naval war with Holland. The King asks for ships, but the player contributes only a man-o-war, and one sloop.

July 1659 – The player is informed that the war is not going well. Africa is blockaded and the player is unable to trade there for several turns. More Privateers appear in the players waters.

January 1661 – The war with Holland ends. The players man-o-war, and sloop return as veterans but damaged. Prices fall for Nautical material. The player gains a 1+ bonus in relations with the King.
Why do so many people keep calling The Netherlands Holland? That's like calling the United States Texas, the USSR Russia, and The United Kingdom England.

Sorry, I just had to get that one off my chest. Conflating a region with a nation just gets to me.
 

raystuttgart

Civ4Col Modder
Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
8,549
Location
Stuttgart, Germany
A) So you want this to be fixed by hard historical dates? So no random / chance based feature? All of these events fire only once?
  • How could this be handled if somebody wants to play a Scenario where these historical dates don't mach.
  • Human Player would always exactly know what is going to happen and there would be no surprise.
  • Would our community even like to play such a Script? (A poll could clarify it .)
  • Would it work for every Nation a Player chooses? Would we even need alternative Scripts?
  • Would it work if some of the Nations you mention would not be in the game?
B) Should all of this be hardcoded in DLL and XML (e.g. DLL-Diplo-Events)?
  • Basically you suggest to have a hardcoded historical Scenario System in DLL because we have little other possibility. (DLL should not hardcode Scenarios. It should stay flexible.)
  • With current Python Event System I see no chance of doing something like "Units gone for 4 Turns" and (same) "Units returning".
  • Maybe a few of the smaller events could be done in Python-Events. (e.g. giving FF points or stuff like that, but without any DLL adaptions at all ...)
  • We would need to do like a dozen of hardcoded DLL-Events that trigger only once a game.
  • Or somebody is going to create a competely new "Historic Event System" base functionality. (That is fully XML configurable like Python Event System.)
C) What if the Player does not like to follow this Script?
  • This is really pushing a certain Script on Players and limits their free decisions.
  • What would be the negative effects of not following the King's demands?
  • Would the Script be broken if you do not follow it all the time?
  • Should there be some Game Option to deactivate it?
D) How would AI handle this?
  • How much is AI affected? (It seems like it affects AI a lot, since you have lots Wars and Peace Agreements with AI in there.)
  • Do we really want to force AIs to declare war to other AIs if there is no need considering game situation?
E) What about balancing ?
  • Is this really balanced? (I currently cannot tell.)
----------

For now basically every single line you are asking for would be a DLL-Diplo-Event / Python Event of its own. (16+ hours / 4+ hours of work)
I absolutely disagree in hardcoding DLL for a single / one-time event - but only for things that occur more often and a bit more flexible.

But currently no other current System could support this desired functionality fully.
(Only the most easy things can be done in Python Events - but real Event / Quest chains work very poorly.)

Maybe however a team member is interested to code this completely new "Historic Event System". :dunno:
Maybe this suggestion of Nightinggale might go into that direction though. :think:

----------

So do not misunderstand me, it really sounds interesting. :thumbsup: (Some people might love to play such a historical Scenario.)
But it seems like it needs implementing 10 DLL Diplo-Events (160 hours of work) + 5 Python Events (20 hours of work) = 180 hours of work (for coding DLL, Python, writing texts, balancing, testing, ....) and lots of risks.

So Sorry, I am not interested in spending my own effort, it is too big and too complex.
It is also so strongly tied to "one time fired events per game" and "historic dates" and thus too unflexible for me. :dunno:

But maybe I got the wrong impression and one of the other team members really likes to work on it. :dunno:
If there is another team member who wants to work on this implementation and also implements it as Game Option, I have no objections. :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:

raystuttgart

Civ4Col Modder
Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
8,549
Location
Stuttgart, Germany
Ok, I think I get it a bit better now.
(The text was too unstructered for me and confused me, sorry. :) )

I tried to structure your post a bit:
(There is some editing of myself in there.)
My proposal for war events includes three different types of conflict.
  1. A European War, representing the incessant conflicts that plagued Europe in the period.
  2. A Naval War, representing conflicts that were primarily fought at sea, like the Anglo-Dutch wars and
  3. finally the World War, representing large scale conflicts like the Seven Years War or the Napoleonic Wars.
  1. In the first, the target would be an offscreen European power, prices would rise for War material in Europe (Guns, Blades, Cannon, Horses, Soldiers). The King would ask you for men.
  2. In the Second, the target would be an offscreen European power, prices would rise for Nautical material (Sails, Ropes, Wood, Cannons, Ships). The King would ask you for ships.
  3. In the third, the World war would be a more detailed version of the existing War event, where you have to attack a rival colony, but it would most likely feature coalitions of nations. Prices would rise for all War and Nautical material (Guns, Blades, Cannon, Horses, Soldiers, Sails, Ropes, Wood, Cannons, Ships).

Basically it comes down to creating a completely new "Historical Scenario System" (XML configurable).
(Ten times better than hardcoding DLL-Diplo-Events that fire only once per game.)

Or the current Python-Event-System is heavily expanded - which will need DLL coding as well of course
(We would need Python Events anyways.)

What we would need from your text / explanation here:
(Configurable in XML)
  • Possibility to set as "Historic Event" (if included in Python Event System)
  • Possibility to have real event chains / quests (which current Python events can do only poorly)
  • Possibility to set turn dates to trigger (later scaled by GameSpeed to match the Year)
  • Possibility to specify certain trigger conditions (e.g. Nations in Game, Player playing as specific Nation)
  • Price effects on a list of specific Yields
  • King asking specific Troops
  • Possibility to choose the Units you give to the King
  • Human declaring Wars to AIs
  • Human declaring Peace to AIs
  • AIs declaring Wars to each other
  • AIs declaring Peace to each other
  • AIs / Human forming alliances / defensive pacts
  • Python Event and Pop-Ups triggered (we should forget about DLL-Diplo-Pop-Ups)
  • Units given to the King returning
  • Promotions given to Units returning
  • Units spawning on Docks
  • Units spawning in Colonies
  • FF-Points given
  • Africa / Europe not reachable (blockaded)
  • Attitude impact to specific Players
  • Maybe some gold rewards
  • Most likely punishments if you don't oblige
  • Most likely a GameOption to deactivate the feature
  • ...
Puh, lots of work.
(Not only the coding - including AI, but all the XML Event setups, testing, balancing, texts ...)

But might be interesting. :dunno:

Also, we still need to clarify:
  • AI impacts / AI concept
  • balancing
  • game play effects
So basically that is the concept we could build on as I currently understand it. :thumbsup:
Maybe somebody (or maybe even the complete team) is interested in investing the work. :dunno:
 
Last edited:

ConjurerDragon

King
Supporter
Joined
Dec 13, 2012
Messages
643
Location
Rhineland-Palatinate
Why do so many people keep calling The Netherlands Holland?

Because Holland was THE one most important province of the "Dutch Republic"/Republic of the Seven united Netherlands in all regards, be it economy or military. Nowadays the old Holland provinces has even been split to North and South Holland to at least somewhat break it’s dominance. In Germany most people speak of Holland when talking about the Netherlands. Pars pro toto. Similar to how Germany is called e.g. Saxa or such in Finland (Saxony is just a part), Allemagne in France (sure the Allemannes were a germanic tribe that settled in southwest Germany but only a part...)...

That's like calling the United States Texas, the USSR Russia, and The United Kingdom England.

Well, Texas in Colonizations timeframe was still part of New Spain and later Mexico and not even part of the not yet existing US... More like calling it New England. Tsarist Russia and the USSR share quite a lot of territorry and Russia always had been the majority of it and the central part so that they can be used as synonyms.

And who would call England the United Kingdom at the start of Colonization? The United Kingdom is only created later when England and Scotland merge in 1707 so very far into Colonizations gametime. So England is the only correct term at the start of the game and for most of the game.

Sorry, I just had to get that one off my chest. Conflating a region with a nation just gets to me.

So calling the US "America" is out of the question as it would be conflating just one of many countries with a whole continent then? :rolleyes:
 

KommissarReb

Chieftain
Joined
Aug 28, 2015
Messages
30
Location
United States
Because Holland was THE one most important province of the "Dutch Republic"/Republic of the Seven united Netherlands in all regards, be it economy or military. Nowadays the old Holland provinces has even been split to North and South Holland to at least somewhat break it’s dominance. In Germany most people speak of Holland when talking about the Netherlands. Pars pro toto. Similar to how Germany is called e.g. Saxa or such in Finland (Saxony is just a part), Allemagne in France (sure the Allemannes were a germanic tribe that settled in southwest Germany but only a part...)…
Maybe. But I often see Dutch people complaining that the name of their whole country is "The Netherlands". Besides, if that's the correct name I don't see why not to refer to them as such. Kind of like how some people call Ukraine The Ukraine (as if there's more than one).
Tsarist Russia and the USSR share quite a lot of territorry and Russia always had been the majority of it and the central part so that they can be used as synonyms.
I disagree with that because the USSR was the Russian Empire separating itself into 15 countries unified under a unified government. I'm not saying that Russia's spearheading of the Soviet Union was equal to let alone less than the Kazak, Uzbek, or Ukrainian SSR's, but even then there were plenty of Ukrainians that definitely wouldn't want to be called "Russian" (modern-day politics notwithstanding).
And who would call England the United Kingdom at the start of Colonization? The United Kingdom is only created later when England and Scotland merge in 1707 so very far into Colonizations gametime. So England is the only correct term at the start of the game and for most of the game.
The point I was trying to make is it's inaccurate to refer to a country by one of it's regions or territories if it doesn't represent the country as a whole. I suppose Cornwall is part of England the way Brittany is part of France, but
So calling the US "America" is out of the question as it would be conflating just one of many countries with a whole continent then? :rolleyes:
Funny you say that, I am not really fond of referring to the United States as "America" or Citizens of the US as "Americans" given past events along with how the word "America" refers to the continents. Of course, I am painfully aware that I am one of very few people in my own country that holds that opinion.
 

ConjurerDragon

King
Supporter
Joined
Dec 13, 2012
Messages
643
Location
Rhineland-Palatinate
Maybe. But I often see Dutch people complaining that the name of their whole country is "The Netherlands".

Even WIKI mentions that the Netherlands are informally called Holland... :rolleyes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands

Well, Netherlands is such a confusing term. For someone who plays For the Glory / Europa Universalis or has some historical interest the Burgundian/Spanish/Austrian Netherlands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nethe...itical_map_of_the_Low_Countries_(1350)-NL.svg
have been a thing - and all 3 are something different. Then there was the Kingdom of the United Netherlands (nowadays Netherlands+Belgium+Luxemburg) which was something else again :king:. So to me "Niederlande"/Netherlands is a synonym to "Benelux" and I casually speak of Holland to most people to be sure that we mean the same.

Besides, if that's the correct name I don't see why not to refer to them as such. Kind of like how some people call Ukraine The Ukraine (as if there's more than one).

There is in a sense
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krajina
So quite a lot of regions that were border regions have a name that sounds a bit similar to Ukraine, Krajina, Krain etc.

The point I was trying to make is it's inaccurate to refer to a country by one of it's regions or territories if it doesn't represent the country as a whole. I suppose Cornwall is part of England the way Brittany is part of France, but

Cornwall is part of Wales if anything and the Sassenachs/Saxons/Anglosaxons/English are just occupying the area

Brittany < Great Britain and Brittany is one of the former independant Duchys that have been treated so wrongly by France that their former capital is outside their nowadays borders...

Funny you say that, I am not really fond of referring to the United States as "America" or Citizens of the US as "Americans" given past events along with how the word "America" refers to the continents. Of course, I am painfully aware that I am one of very few people in my own country that holds that opinion.

Exactly. To me America is the continent and the US are just one country on it. However many people use America to mean the US.

Edit: And about the theme of the thread - I like the game to nudge me into historical wars. If a player tries to avoid wars he should be drawn into a european war that involves the colonial nations. And having events e.g. for the 30 years-war/80jaarige Orloog or French and Indian/7-Years-War would be fun to me.
 

OzzyKP

Emperor
Joined
Dec 16, 2000
Messages
1,729
Location
Washington, DC USA
A) So you want this to be fixed by hard historical dates? So now random / chance based feature?

I think you misunderstand his proposal. He doesn’t want a script of historical, real world events to show up in the game (though that’d be awesome), he just wants to expand and provide some variations on the current event where that king gives you troops to attack a rival power.

The new events would have different effects, but would trigger and operate the same way as now. He just included that timeline to provide one possible example of how the feature would look in an actual game.
 

raystuttgart

Civ4Col Modder
Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
8,549
Location
Stuttgart, Germany
I think you misunderstand his proposal. He doesn’t want a script of historical, real world events to show up in the game (though that’d be awesome), ...
He just wants to expand and provide some variations on the current event where that king gives you troops to attack a rival power.
If that is correct, I would personally have much less problems with it, because I do not like to force Sripts on players. :)
It would also be much less effort.

A) It would become more flexible and thus more adaptable to all kinds of scenarios. (Because there be no preset date and no preset Nations and not 15 different preset texts.)
B) We might only need to implement 2 or 3 DLL-Diplo-Events (that are triggered more often in game, with a bit of random variation involved e.g. the selected Yields for price changes or the different AIs in conflict) instead of 15.

Thanks for the input. :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:

ConjurerDragon

King
Supporter
Joined
Dec 13, 2012
Messages
643
Location
Rhineland-Palatinate
If that is correct, I would personally have much less problems with it, because I do not like to force Sripts on players. :)

Sid Meiers Pirates! (the remake) has scripted dates on which the european nations go to war. And the player is not forced to anything as he can simply ignore them if he wishes. If however he does not ignore them he can capitalize on them by hunting down one nations ships and looting their colonial cities - and cashing in rewards from the other for that.

So even if a script (at least the major almost "worldwar"-wars like e.g. the 7yearswar/French and Indian War) would fire an event around the historical date placing European France and European England at each others throats and both calling out to their colonial nations to fall in line and attack the common enemy I would like that.

Sure random events that fire again and again would serve the same purpose, but they would lack the flavour of the historical events (Seven Years War/French and Indian War, 30years war/80tigjaarige Orloog, War of Spanish Succesion, War ofJenkins ear..)- at least until the AI has learned to give glorious names to the generic random wars that will have been fought...
 

raystuttgart

Civ4Col Modder
Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
8,549
Location
Stuttgart, Germany
Sure random events that fire again and again would serve the same purpose, but they would lack the flavour of the historical events ...
Hard-scripted events (or even more so event chains) with historical dates are only nice if they fit to your current scenario. (e.g. Nations in the game, Nation you play or other settings)
There is also no suprise with them and you can fire them only once. It is a huge effort to code for a one-time event.

To a huge degree WTP is still a "sandbox game" that creates an alternative history. It is not an accurate history sim. :dunno:

And the current suggestions really have a lot of complexity and effort in them combined - if we would code a separate DLL-Diplo-Event for each.
(e.g. "Units being gone - then returning with Promotions" does simply not exist currently.)

If other team members want to create such a "Historic Event System" (configurable in XML) and make it a "GameOption" or alternatively expand Python Event System I have no objections at all. :thumbsup:
(It would be quite a bit of effort though, to create all the implementation, XML setup, texts, balancing, ...)

Also coding the system if nobody invests all the effort to create all the "Historic Events" that use it, is just wasted effort for me.

I would also support a bit (e.g. in testing or other small things) but I am simply not interested in investing too much effort for that myself. :dunno:
(Especially if we talk about "one time" events each that might only be fired in rare "Player Scenarios".)

Summary:
I would myself maybe volunteer to implement 1 or 2 random / flexible DLL-Diplo-Events (that could fire several times a game with a bit of variation) which might be similar to the suggestions.
If others want to do something bigger and better (and more historically accurate) I have no objections of course.
 
Last edited:

Nightinggale

Deity
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
4,982
If other team members want to create such a "Historic Event System" (configurable in XML) and make it a "GameOption" or alternatively expand Python Event System I have no objections at all. :thumbsup:
(It would be quite a bit of effort though, to create all the implementation, XML setup, texts, balancing, ...)
We could add a list of events to the scenario file, complete with which turn they trigger and which player (all should be an option too). This way it should be possible to trigger events, which have no event trigger meaning they won't show up in other games, only the scenario. If an event only shows up in a single scenario, then we can add events, which affects specific map coordinates and stuff like that.

I don't think I would personally use such a system (I prefer the sandbox approach), but if somebody really wants a system like that, then I'm not against it.

Come to think of it, maybe this is the solution to the tutorial thread.

Also coding the system if nobody invests all the effort to create all the "Historic Events" that use it, is just wasted effort for me.
I agree. Each time we make something, it means deciding to postpone something else we want to add to the game. Adding a feature, which will never be activated ingame is just wasted time, which could be used on something, which will actually improve the gameplay.
 

raystuttgart

Civ4Col Modder
Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
8,549
Location
Stuttgart, Germany
Come to think of it, maybe this is the solution to the tutorial thread.
Maybe, but "Tutorial of Game Mechanics" does not need to be tied to "Game Turns".
Also many of the game mechanics explained above are not even in the game currently. (like e.g. Units leaving and then coming back with promotions or XP)

I agree. Each time we make something, it means deciding to postpone something else we want to add to the game. Adding a feature, which will never be activated ingame is just wasted time, which could be used on something, which will actually improve the gameplay.
Exactly, as long as there is no serious interest of one or several team members to fully create the feature we do not need to waste time on creating a "technical system" for it. :thumbsup:
And I also fully agree with focussing on things that "actually improve the gameplay". (Althought that heavily depends on personal taste of course.)
 
Top Bottom