Python Performance and Interface Overhaul (PPIO)

[Dancing Hoskuld]

There is already code in the dll to shorten such text by putting "..." in long lists of things that are the same eg all the Story buildings. Usually this is done by listing 2 or 3 then "..." then the last one of that type so that the reader gets the idea that there is a lot of them and can look them up in some way.

 

[Thunderbrd]

There is already code in the dll to shorten such text by putting "..." in long lists of things that are the same eg all the Story buildings. Usually this is done by listing 2 or 3 then "..." then the last one of that type so that the reader gets the idea that there is a lot of them and can look them up in some way.

There probably is. On some lists. Each one needs to be individually programmed by tag. If some haven't got it, they don't got it. I haven't seen anything in the code that does this for longer lists on a tag but since you say it's there I assume it is somewhere.

Actually, if you could point me to a tag that operates in this manner on any kind of info, I'd appreciate it... would help to have a template of code to work with. I could build it but I'm lazy that way.

 

[Toffer90]

v0.5.8.5

• Improved the demolish popup code.
• Bugfix - The gold amount that is displayed is what you now get, 20% of buildings hammer cost in gold.
  • @Noriad2: Wasn't it you who have complained a couple of times about the gold discrepancy here? Well, someone did anyhow.
• Abandon city now give you the gold you would have gotten from selling all buildings.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

v0.5.8.5

• Improved the demolish popup code.
• Bugfix - The gold amount that is displayed is what you now get, 20% of buildings hammer cost in gold.
• Abandon city now give you the gold you would have gotten from selling all buildings.

So who buys those building that were in the abandoned city? We tried but did not succeed in stopping a city from being abandoned if any buildings were sold in that turn.

 

[Toffer90]

So who buys those building that were in the abandoned city?

The state sells off building materials, office supplies, vehicles, work animals, company shares; whatever, to the private sector both foreign and domestic...
Should we remove the gold return for demolishing buildings completely?
Or perhaps lower it from a 20% return to a 5% return?

We tried but did not succeed in stopping a city from being abandoned if any buildings were sold in that turn.

There would have to be some dll interactions to achieve that.
Make the dll store in the gamestate a bool that is turned on when a building is sold and turned off at the beginning of a new turn.

Edit: Perhaps it should cost money to demolish a city?
Something like: ▬ 100 * gamespeed * population - demolish_all_buildings_gold_return
gamespeed is a number between 1-10

 

[JosEPh_II]

What is this stuff going on about Abandon Cities and selling off buildings? A direct assault on my Another MP game ploy to stop an invader from reaping the owners hard earned efforts to build?

If an empire being invaded wants to abandon an endangered city it should have right to do so. And should have the right to recuperate a goodly amount of the effort (in time, production, and gold) . Not some measly 5% or even 20%. It should be a Higher % in this case.

And if a conguering empire can capture the city before the owning Empire can abandon, then the % the conqueror recieves should be as equally higher as well. Risks vs Rewards, so why punish both with a measly 5% return, UGH!

The % should be at least 50% in either circumstance.

The Cost of abandonment is that you don't get the Full value. And That is sufficient in and of itself. We don't Need another mechanism another formula to muck it up, imhpo.

 

[Toffer90]

Not some measly 5% or even 20%. It should be a Higher % in this case.
The % should be at least 50% in either circumstance.

20% is a pretty good rate though. In my test game on snail gamespeed I have a size 30 city in the early classical era, and I get 21 480 gold for razing it.
That's a hell of a lot of money from destroying a large conquered city in the early classical era on snail speed... 50% would be over 50 000 gold right in the pocket.
Edit: In addition to the gold I also get 4 settlers and 6 workers.

The thing is that the AI don't understand this warfare tactic and is completely unable to even perform a demolish city action, so it is a major cheat against the AI.

 

[Thunderbrd]

The thing is that the AI don't understand this warfare tactic and is completely unable to even perform a demolish city action, so it is a major cheat against the AI.

This game would lose all enjoyability if that were to take place as well.

 

[Toffer90]

This game would lose all enjoyability if that were to take place as well.

What do you mean?

• This game would lose all enjoyability
  1. if the AI was thought to use that tactic.
  2. if abandon city had a gold cost based on population.
     • Both?

 

[Thunderbrd]

I mean if the AI started sacking its cities as soon as it could tell it couldn't stop you from invasion, the game would lose all ability to enjoy. It'd be like fishing for fish that jump in the boat as soon as they become hooked. The fight is the fun.

 

[JosEPh_II]

20% is a pretty good rate though. In my test game on snail gamespeed I have a size 30 city in the early classical era, and I get 21 480 gold for razing it.
That's a hell of a lot of money from destroying a large conquered city in the early classical era on snail speed... 50% would be over 50 000 gold right in the pocket.
Edit: In addition to the gold I also get 4 settlers and 6 workers.

The thing is that the AI don't understand this warfare tactic and is completely unable to even perform a demolish city action, so it is a major cheat against the AI.

Of course it is against the AI. But it is not against another human player. And isn't there a No Raze City Option? Or is that only for barbarians?

 

[JosEPh_II]

I mean if the AI started sacking its cities as soon as it could tell it couldn't stop you from invasion, the game would lose all ability to enjoy.

Only for War Dogs.........

 

[Thunderbrd]

Only for War Dogs.........

Pretty sure it wouldn't matter who you were, it would be completely unenjoyable. Who wants to win a game of chess by intimidating your opponent into admitting defeat? Takes the game out of the game entirely.

 

[Toffer90]

I mean if the AI started sacking its cities as soon as it could tell it couldn't stop you from invasion, the game would lose all ability to enjoy. It'd be like fishing for fish that jump in the boat as soon as they become hooked. The fight is the fun.

Ok, so you are in favour of adding a cost related to abandoning cities?
It makes sense too, e.g. I don't think USA could pay down on their dept by abandoning New York city.
It shouldn't be free to remove a city from the map peacefully, just think about the logistics involved

 

[Thunderbrd]

Ok, so you are in favour of adding a cost related to abandoning cities?
It makes sense too, e.g. I don't think USA could pay down on their dept by abandoning New York city.
It shouldn't be free to remove a city from the map peacefully, just think about the logistics involved

I'm not sure. Getting something out of liquidating seems fair but nothing more than that 20% we already have and that's even hard to justify.

Mostly my point was about ensuring the AI isn't playing that fold strategy. If I set it up I'd do it under an option and it would purely be to make the point to those who think it would be fun just how NOT fun it actually is.

 

[Noriad2]

Russians destroyed their own stuff to defend against Napoleon - it's called scorched earth tactic.
Regardless of logic, it shouldn't give too much money. The currect 4% is fine in my opinion.

N.B. the STATED % is 20% but the REAL % is 4%.

Even at Nightmare difficulty, from Renaissance era onwards there is too much money in the game. Making enemy cities huge cash pinata's will make money meaningless even earlier in the game.

 

[Toffer90]

N.B. the STATED % is 20% but the REAL % is 4%.

Not entirely correct, whithout this modmod the gold you get (REAL) is not scaled by gamespeed while the STATED gold amount is.
So the REAL is close to 20% on normal gamespeed, then smaller and smaller for each slower gamespeed.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Ok, so you are in favour of adding a cost related to abandoning cities?
It makes sense too, e.g. I don't think USA could pay down on their dept by abandoning New York city.
It shouldn't be free to remove a city from the map peacefully, just think about the logistics involved

This analogy means nothing to the game. The AI is not going to Abandon any city "peacefully", ever! smh

Even at Nightmare difficulty, from Renaissance era onwards there is too much money in the game. Making enemy cities huge cash pinata's will make money meaningless even earlier in the game.

And ppl still ***** that I have the iGoldModifier set too high. I had it higher but modders and Scenario makers cried boohoo. Because they were uncomfortable at game start and could not keep the research slider at 100%. Even you posted that having the research slider at 70% was untenable. So which way is it now?

And If i would put the gold modifier at the same level for each GS the gold glut would be even worse than it is now. I'm ready to increase the rates for all GS by at least 10-15% just for starters.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Because they were uncomfortable at game start and could not keep the research slider at 100%. Even you posted that having the research slider at 70% was untenable. So which way is it now?

And If i would put the gold modifier at the same level for each GS the gold glut would be even worse than it is now. I'm ready to increase the rates for all GS by at least 10-15% just for starters.

Obviously there are different preferences and that's part of things.

But I think if we look at what he said carefully, that the problem is a factor for the renaissance onward, not for before that, then we should look at ways to influence later game gold. One thing might be to continue to increase the maximum number of cities that continue to build up numcity upkeep. Maybe add to that cap by a lot or double it and see how the later game goes.

 

[Toffer90]

This analogy means nothing to the game. The AI is not going to Abandon any city "peacefully", ever! smh

That is exactly why I'm arguing that the human player should not be richly rewarded for abandoning a city peacefully when it fits them to do so. You either raze it the moment you capture the city through the capture city pop up, or youvhave to take the penalty for abandoning the city later.

And ppl still ***** that I have the iGoldModifier set too high.

That tag is not a panacea cure all for gold balance. As long as the game has an unbalanced on gold income it won't matter what value you use in that tag. It will be unbalanced one way or another until all buildings are balanced and all unit/civics upkeep is balanced and until all the different maintenance tags are balanced.

There are no shortcut for achieving gold balance in C2C. Thousands of xml tag values need to be changed and tweaked over and over again until one even can get close to achieving that balance.