Quick Modding Questions Thread

[Thorvald of Lym]

Do you make models for future units?

See this thread for requests. A Predator exists here.

 

[spqkfk]

See this thread for requests. A Predator exists here.

Thank you!!
Just checked this was the wrong post, lol

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Can anyone tell me why my tech tree is missing a bunch of lines here?
I know CIV4 automatically chooses whether to display a picture of the prerequisite tech in the top right corner or a line. But what makes it choose one or the other? And why is it constantly choosing to not draw the lines for me? You can see from the icons where they should go.

 

[<Nexus>]

IIRC it draws only OR lines, not AND lines.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

I see. Well if that is the case I think I shall have to look into the DLL to change that. As my mod has many, many AND relationships.

Relating to that but not really, is there any way to override the UI when it comes to allowing improvements to be built or not built in a certain spot from a script (DLL or python)? Basically I want to make it so that railroads can only be built on a tile next to a city or another railroad. But not next to two or more railroads. Basically to combat railroad spam in the late game. And I know logically what the script should look like, just not where to put it.

 

[Leoreth]

I'd like to have two separate improvements that both connect the same resource. Is it possible to configure the positioning of the resource graphics when worked differently depending on what the improvement is?

What I am trying to do is a pasture improvement that doesn't have fences. I feel confident I can edit the pasture art to remove the fences (got a working version that's fine and only requires cleaning up). But regardless of the pasture type the e.g. horses still huddle in the center of the tile where the fencing would be. Can I change this while still keeping the positioning for the existing fenced pasture?

 

[<Nexus>]

I see. Well if that is the case I think I shall have to look into the DLL to change that. As my mod has many, many AND relationships.

It can be overridden. Afforres wrote a code long ago that can overwrite the tech arrows. Do you want the source code?

Basically I want to make it so that railroads can only be built on a tile next to a city or another railroad. But not next to two or more railroads. Basically to combat railroad spam in the late game. And I know logically what the script should look like, just not where to put it.

That sounds really good. I'd be happy to merge such a modcomp.

 

[pecheneg]

Basically to combat railroad spam in the late game.

To be fair, railway spam is what some people do in real life. And on a scale that is technically impossible to reflect on the map of "Civilization". In Japan, Germany, Belgium – that is, in densely populated industrial countries - 10 kilometers of railways account for about 100 square kilometers of the country's area. That is, we can assume that one road runs through every 10 by 10 km square.
At the same time, one tile in a vanilla "Сivilization" is 100 by 100 miles, as you can easily see by looking at the "statistics". Such a density of the road network can be achieved only if ... 10 roads pass through the tile.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

I don't like it though. And the mod is my world of which I am the god of.

 

[pecheneg]

I don't like it though. And the mod is my world of which I am the god of.

Well, it was quite an abstract remark - basically that the standard density of the railway network in vanilla is quite realistic in itself. At the same time, according to my observations, the absolute meaninglessness of "spam" is mostly infuriating - after all, in real life, even the ubiquitous Victorian narrow-gauge railways did not connect "empty" tiles .

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Well, it was quite an abstract remark - basically that the standard density of the railway network in vanilla is quite realistic in itself. At the same time, according to my observations, the absolute meaninglessness of "spam" is mostly infuriating - after all, in real life, even the ubiquitous Victorian narrow-gauge railways did not connect "empty" tiles .

Basically what I dislike is that:
1. It looks bad
2. It trivializes movement
3. The production bonuses incentivize it heavily
4. It removes the strategic aspect of cutting railway lines, holding cities and generally makes things more dull.

What I would much rather see is a set of single lines between cities with normal roads used for connecting resources instead. That way you could park a stack on top of a railway line or bomb it from the air to cut the enemies movement speed and stuff. And it would look better too.

So I was thinking of doing is:
1. Remove all bonuses for worked tiles.
2. Make constructing railways slow. Like maybe as much as 5-10 times as many turns. Probably closer to 5.
3. Add this script if I can make it work.

 

[<Nexus>]

Basically what I dislike is that:
1. It looks bad
2. It trivializes movement
3. The production bonuses incentivize it heavily
4. It removes the strategic aspect of cutting railway lines, holding cities and generally makes things more dull.

I totally agree.
I had a similar idea for a long time:

• When you build a Railway-station building in in a city, the script puts Railways connect this city with every other "friendly" city (own or ones you have Open Borders or Right of Passage with) within 5 tiles.
• Railways are very expansive to build but you can still place them freely for strategic purposes, it just may not worth to spam them

I think this approach will do what you want and also discourage middle/late game micromanagement.

 

[pecheneg]

1. It looks bad
2. It trivializes movement
3. The production bonuses incentivize it heavily
4. It removes the strategic aspect of cutting railway lines, holding cities and generally makes things more dull.

"I subscribe to every word." Less available density would give a big plus to playability. Generally speaking, an innate flaw of "Civilization" pops up here - on a global map, which in theory depicts the entire planet, it is impossible to properly reflect not only tactics, but also the operational level.
And yes, as Nexus notes above, railways are an expensive pleasure even now (both in construction and in maintenance). At the same time, it is not difficult to imagine what the "multiplier of difficulties" looked like in the "long 19th century" (before 1914).

 

[pecheneg]

So I was thinking of doing is:
1. Remove all bonuses for worked tiles.
2. Make constructing railways slow. Like maybe as much as 5-10 times as many turns. Probably closer to 5.
3. Add this script if I can make it work.

I support with both hands the idea of making the construction of railways MUCH longer and more expensive. Moreover, at first it was VERY long and expensive, with a reduction in cost to simply high as technological development progressed. But, it seems to me, to maintain balance and realism, it would be better, on the contrary, to strengthen the economic importance. At the same time, in my opinion,for example, a decrease cost of maintenance of cities connected by the railway network will greatly add playability and realism. This will give an era of large continental empires, increasingly stepping on each other's feet as they move towards the end of the game.
P.S.

Spoiler :

If we consider the situation more globally, then... Historically, sea/overseas and river expansion has been relatively cheap. For example, already in Rome, despite the network of roads and moderate success in navigation, sea transportation was more than an order of magnitude cheaper than overland. That's why the empire looked the way it looked on the map.
In the "age of sail" the gap was obviously many times larger. As a result, the colonial powers successfully projected power on the coasts/peninsulas even in the other hemisphere, but the land "incoherence" caused problems.
However, as the railways developed, this advantage began to quickly erode... and the world was divided not by the classic maritime powers, but by "railway monsters".
In vanilla, all transport shifts are ignored in principle, and overseas expansion is not only no easier than continental, but is also subject to additional fines.
However, theoretically it is possible to reflect all this and it will even have more than practical significance. If railways are very expensive, but at the same time they are very important, then ... it will be almost as much fun as it was in reality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin–Baghdad_railway

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Note that in my Mod railroads are basically something you can build from the start. So I have to account for that as well. And giving players economic incentives to put railroads everywhere is going to unbalance the early game. Since I kind of already have too many hammers in there due to some tech shifting like electricity in era #2 as opposed to #5.

 

[Qgqqqqq]

Is there a way to make the AI expand more? E.g. tweak preferences so they're much more likely to build settlers/workers, use settlers to found new cities, etc.? Preferably a relatively easy way. I have options to stop them crashing their economy (e.g. no unit maintenance) if need be.

I'm asking because I play high-level FFH2, but always find myself leading in score pretty quickly because the AI is atrocious at expanding (no matter which modmod I play). It's quite frustrating.

 

[pecheneg]

Note that in my Mod railroads are basically something you can build from the start. So I have to account for that as well. And giving players economic incentives to put railroads everywhere is going to unbalance the early game. Since I kind of already have too many hammers in there due to some tech shifting like electricity in era #2 as opposed to #5.

Well, I do not propose to give out the "railway advantage" in full immediately at the beginning of the game.
For example, because in reality, rail transport over the past 100+ years has demonstrated, to put it mildly, progress. The freight turnover of railways in the same USA between 1900 and 2008 increased tenfold (for 1980-2008 - about twice), despite the fact that the length of railways even slightly decreased.

Spoiler :

"Green" is just the cargo turnover, the scale (in millions of tons per miles) is on the right.

At the same time, the cost of railways relative to available resources demonstrates no less interesting dynamics. Steel production in the USA is even now about 9 times more than in 1900 (there is some discrepancy in the figures).

Spoiler :

At the peak (in 1973) it was even more interesting.
Of course, the railway is not only steel. But if we take the share of railway equipment in the total production of mechanical engineering and Co., the ratio between 1900 and the present will be simply monstrous. The modern car industry is something terrible, from the point of view of squandering resources, including.

 

[lfgr]

I see. Well if that is the case I think I shall have to look into the DLL to change that. As my mod has many, many AND relationships.

Note though that you can always replace single ANDs with single ORs. In your screenshot, that would take care of almost all arrows.
For "Civil Engineering" you could have "Reinforced Concrete" (or "Steam Power"?) as a single OR requirement, and "Public Education" as an AND requirement. This is how vanilla civ does it in many places.

 

[<Nexus>]

Note though that you can always replace single ANDs with single ORs. In your screenshot, that would take care of almost all arrows.
For "Civil Engineering" you could have "Reinforced Concrete" (or "Steam Power"?) as a single OR requirement, and "Public Education" as an AND requirement. This is how vanilla civ does it in many places.

...and you can also use the same techs as AND andr OR requirements at the same time.
... at least I think.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Well, I do not propose to give out the "railway advantage" in full immediately at the beginning of the game.
For example, because in reality, rail transport over the past 100+ years has demonstrated, to put it mildly, progress. The freight turnover of railways in the same USA between 1900 and 2008 increased tenfold (for 1980-2008 - about twice), despite the fact that the length of railways even slightly decreased.

Spoiler :

"Green" is just the cargo turnover, the scale (in millions of tons per miles) is on the right.

At the same time, the cost of railways relative to available resources demonstrates no less interesting dynamics. Steel production in the USA is even now about 9 times more than in 1900 (there is some discrepancy in the figures).

Spoiler :

At the peak (in 1973) it was even more interesting.
Of course, the railway is not only steel. But if we take the share of railway equipment in the total production of mechanical engineering and Co., the ratio between 1900 and the present will be simply monstrous. The modern car industry is something terrible, from the point of view of squandering resources, including.

Do not complicate things. Complicated = bad. Simple = good.