Python Performance and Interface Overhaul (PPIO)

[Harrier]

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?.

I agree, the research rate should be based on your game decisions. You should not be able to keep it at 100% all the time, unless you sacrifice other choices.

If I was to put a limit (which I would not) - it would be no more that 10% research. Even at 0% you still get some research from buildings. If you have decided to build them.

 

[Thunderbrd]

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.

Getting no gold and costing no gold might be the way to go. Given all the arguments. The one thing I like a lot about being able to demolish a city later than at the time you conquer is that when you conquer you can't always see very well all the factors, like map placement in particular, that might make you prefer to start all over. It doesn't give you the ability to review your options carefully at that point. The popup is a demanding little sucker.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I agree, the research rate should be based on your game decisions. You should not be able to keep it at 100% all the time, unless you sacrifice other choices.

If I was to put a limit (which I would not) - it would be no more that 10% research. Even at 0% you still get some research from buildings. If you have decided to build them.

Civ certainly makes one wonder what a world would be like where nations realize how powerful it is to progress with research as quickly as possible. I wonder how fast we'd develop if governments spent so much on R&D.

 

[Harrier]

Civ certainly makes one wonder what a world would be like where nations realize how powerful it is to progress with research as quickly as possible. I wonder how fast we'd develop if governments spent so much on R&D.

My point was that research goes on regardless of the government.

 

[tmv]

My point was that research goes on regardless of the government.

And sometimes the government can direct research in a completely wrong direction (Lysenkoism).

 

[JosEPh_II]

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.
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.

No, I agree it's not a panacea but it is a major tool.

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.

This was done in part thru many of the Civic changes I made. The Num Cities and Dist tp Palace are overused, and there is Global Defines in place for these 2 modifiers that I feel are too high to start with.
A major problem is isolating the buildings in different eras past Ancient Era that Jump gold/turn. Now that you have finished the Recosting of buildings I have to find these buildings and start reducing their gold benefits by small increments. And I will most likely have to adjust per Era as well. If I have the mechanism to do so.

IF players would post buildings they see that do this type of thing (jump Gold/turn significantly) it would help in speeding up this process.

EDIT: Shouldn't this discussion be in the GS thread and not in this one?

 

[Faustmouse]

Regarding abandoning a City, how about having two different options: if you are at war with a civ that has high influence in that city, it gives a diplo Penalty and wont give gold, but during Peace You can sell your stuff for Profit. The war Penalty or Gold Penalty should also apply if you want to abandon a city that is under siege.

 

[tmv]

Or the citizens could get captured by the enemy if you're unlucky.

In fact @Thunderbrd With SM on it might be a good idea not to have a single soldier be a viable escort for millions of civilians - no matter the attacker's group size - perhaps a military unit should not be more than, say, two group sizes below the unit they want to escort. If attacker and escort are both company-sized but the civilian unit has millions of people the attacker should always be able to attack unescorted civilians.

 

[Thunderbrd]

In fact @Thunderbrd With SM on it might be a good idea not to have a single soldier be a viable escort for millions of civilians - no matter the attacker's group size - perhaps a military unit should not be more than, say, two group sizes below the unit they want to escort. If attacker and escort are both company-sized but the civilian unit has millions of people the attacker should always be able to attack unescorted civilians.

Perhaps a defender should only be able to defend once, then another unit in the stack must defend (which may mean being captured) and so on until all defenders have been attacked and then it can cycle back through them once more.

I have long thought to make it so no unit is completely helpless, except perhaps commanders.

 

[Toffer90]

v0.5.8.6

• Code cleanup and performance tweaks.
• Made some changes to demolish/abandon.
• Abandoning City now gives Immigrants units, the amount equals the city population size.
  
• Now possible to abandon last city if playing with "Require Complete Kill" option.
  • May prove interesting later when we start thinking about nomadic starts.
  • One of the immigrants will be replaced with a settler unit in this case.
• Fixed wrong color on gold income in one particular case.
• Probably more... I changed a lot of files and kinda forgot some things.
  • it is possible that I forgot to add all the files I modified to the zip, though hopefully not.

Edit: Perhaps abandoning the city should also give some merchants based on the value of all buildings in the city??

 

[Thunderbrd]

Abandoning City now gives Immigrants units, the amount equals the city population size.

I was just thinking about suggesting this if it hadn't been already...

Now possible to abandon last city if playing with "Require Complete Kill" option.

• May prove interesting later when we start thinking about nomadic starts.
• One of the immigrants will be replaced with a settler unit in this case.

I feel there should be other conditions that would provide a settler... but I love this thinking. It would be nice if the unit could be used to found OR join another city.

Edit: Perhaps abandoning the city should also give some merchants based on the value of all buildings in the city??

And again, I was going to suggest this, and perhaps some food merchants based on how much food was stored.

 

[Toffer90]

It would be nice if the unit could be used to found OR join another city.

Um... Settlers can join cities...

And again, I was going to suggest this, and perhaps some food merchants based on how much food was stored.

Haha, I thought about suggesting that as well when I added that "Edit", but decided that it wasn't necessary to mention, can't have one without the other kinda thinking.

I feel there should be other conditions that would provide a settler...

Ok, like?

 

[Thunderbrd]

Um... Settlers can join cities...

Yeah? I did not know that...

Ok, like?

Well, if settlers can join a city as well then I'd say always have the first one be a settler.

 

[Toffer90]

always have the first one be a settler.

Sure, makes sense. ^^

 

[Noriad2]

Hmm, would it also be possible that deleting a city gives a Band of homo sapiens if done early in the game (say, before Tribalism, and if number of cities = 1) with deletion of the Tribal Guardian? That way you can relocate your initial city if you find a much better spot close by. A kind of semi-nomadic start.
N.B. important is that you get a new Palace also. Hence the number of cities = 1 requirement. Note that it is possible to get another city through conquest before Tribalism.

 

[Raven Destroyer]

Perhaps a defender should only be able to defend once, then another unit in the stack must defend (which may mean being captured) and so on until all defenders have been attacked and then it can cycle back through them once more.
I have long thought to make it so no unit is completely helpless, except perhaps commanders.

Maybe a system where a unit could get a promotion to defend more then once, (bit like the promotion to attack more then once), or have specific instances of the promotion, like a unit Only being able to defend more then once while in a City, or in a Forest, maybe also having the same for the Attacking promotion, like Cavalry being only able to attack a second time on flat terrain,

 

[Thunderbrd]

Maybe a system where a unit could get a promotion to defend more then once, (bit like the promotion to attack more then once), or have specific instances of the promotion, like a unit Only being able to defend more then once while in a City, or in a Forest, maybe also having the same for the Attacking promotion, like Cavalry being only able to attack a second time on flat terrain,

That could certainly work into such a game rule approach. I'm not thinking on this too seriously right yet but was counterproposing what I think would be a more realistic approach to the same logic problem that was being chewed on to suggest a singular unit be so limited. The same thinking applies to a lot more cases than just singular units really. A single unit can always try to take a bottleneck with the people in a building as you hold the doorway or the Gandalf 'none shall pass' scenario. But the issue seems to me to be more that whilst one front is being held by a unit, another front can be circled in upon by another attacking force.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Hmm, would it also be possible that deleting a city gives a Band of homo sapiens if done early in the game (say, before Tribalism, and if number of cities = 1) with deletion of the Tribal Guardian? That way you can relocate your initial city if you find a much better spot close by. A kind of semi-nomadic start.
N.B. important is that you get a new Palace also. Hence the number of cities = 1 requirement. Note that it is possible to get another city through conquest before Tribalism.

Very interesting.

 

[tmv]

A single unit can always try to take a bottleneck with the people in a building as you hold the doorway

unless the attacker has sappers ... alright, I admit this can get a bit too complicated with the various options soldiers would have in real life to enable / disable such tactics.

 

[Toffer90]

v0.5.8.7

• Code cleanup and performance tweaks. I think BUG options opens faster now, about 4 seconds for me, I seem to remember that it took closer to 8 secs before.
• When you abandon a city with a tribal guardian, its experience will transfer to the settler you get, lets call him "settler A".
• When a city is founded on the plot settler A is on, the city will get a tribal guardian who has the exp from settler A.
  • If you for some reason had a "settler B" who were to found a city on the same plot as settler A is on, settler A will lose his exp and a tribal Guardian will appear with the same amount of exp that settler A lost. When Settler A finally founds a city, there will not appear a Tribal guardian because it was used up when settler B founded his city.
  • If Settler B were to found a city on another plot than the plot that settler A is on, no tribal guardian will appear in that city even if it is your only city at the time. When settler A then founds his city a tribal guardian will appear in that city even though it is not the city that has a palace.
• This tribal guardian functionality will stop working when you invent colonialism, if you for some strange reason still have a settler around at that time that is carrying the exp of a tribal guardian from a city you abandoned, no tribal guardian will appear when you found a city with this settler.
  • This was done to reduce processing overhead when founding a city after colonialism.
  • I used that tech because it was already stored in memory by that python script and because the function that is run every time a city is built already makes a check if the player has that tech, so why not utilize that check to enable disable a piece of code later in the function. (When you have colonialism your city will be founded with an additional population point.)

v0.5.8.7.1 - Hotfix

• Adjusted the modmod to changes in SVN rev 9753 gold display.

Next update will have merchants that appears when abandoning a city.

v0.5.8.8

• Demolition UI got a visual and technical code overhaul
  • Nothing with a gameplay impact
  • Can enter the pedia from list of building to demolish by right clicking a building.

Spoiler Picture :

Next update will have merchants that appears when abandoning a city. ( Edit: This time I promise it... ^^ { Edit: Hotfixes does not count lol } )

v0.5.8.8.1 - Hotfix

• Forgot to change the unhappy text for religious building to the unhappy face icon.

v0.5.8.8.2 - Hotfix

• A small mistake in v0.5.8.8.1 broke demolition screen.

v0.5.8.8.3 - Hotfix

• Building list wasn't scrollable - Fixed.