That's not a problem.
Could you screenshot the issue you're having?
Quick Questions , Quick Answers
- Thread starter TaylorItaly
- Start date
Could you screenshot the issue you're having?
Vylinius
College Student
I decided to go ahead and try playing the game and so far besides getting my butt kicked by the AI because I haven't played in so long, I haven't had any difficulties. I just assumed something was wrong because the font of the text appeared similar to that of Ashes of Erebus when I'm not playing with the correct version of the game.
Apologies for the false alarm.
Last edited:
Yudishtira
Spiritual/Creative
You need the Clockpunk culture wonder as well as the tech.
BUG option.
Where? In the settings I did not find, can you show the screenshot where is it?
Attachments
civRookieGr
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2018
- Messages
- 12
Is it logical to exist Neanderthal cities over the classical era and don't grow to barbarians or minor civs ?
Blazenclaw
eccentric eclectic
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2010
- Messages
- 509
I think it makes sense. Barbarians and Neanderthals represent different things. If the Barbarian Civ option is on though, might be interesting to see Neanderthal cities evolve into Wrub if he's not already in the game.
It's alternate history which is not something we steer away from in C2C.
Agree with blaze that it would be interesting if all (some? all on the same landmass that have the most neander cities?) neanderthal cities became Wrub (a normal civ) some time into the ancient era if Wrub is not already a civ at that point.
Agree with blaze that it would be interesting if all (some? all on the same landmass that have the most neander cities?) neanderthal cities became Wrub (a normal civ) some time into the ancient era if Wrub is not already a civ at that point.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Wrub doesn't HAVE to be the only Neanderthal leader either...
Somebody613
Somebody613
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2019
- Messages
- 2,813
Wasn't sure I want to make a separate thread for this.
I haven't played Civ for a few months now, so the point might be obsolete (which I doubt), or maybe I even asked this before (not sure, sorry).
Specifically:
I highly dislike the fact that increasing a unit's Quality resets its XP, but not its level of Promotions.
This means that Quality-up is almost equal to stopping Promotions from ever progressing.
Cause you'd have to gain some 100+ (or even 200+) XP to train the unit from zero to its current Promotion level.
Which is, sorry again, but either stupid or annoying, depending on the mood.
You could alternatively reset ALL unit's Promotions, if you zeroing its XP.
Or something else, but not leaving it "in stasis" for any unforeseeable future.
That's just WRONG.
Additionally, I'd find it a good idea (and merely a bit more text to add), if Promotions somehow correlated with Quality (they don't now, right).
Like, you get a 10% boost if you're at the lowest Quality, but then you Quality-UP, retrain the unit, and it's now, say, a 15% boost and so on.
Would make it much more interesting to actually invest in units gaining XP in various ways, even if making OPed units even more OPed (which I LIKE, lol).
Just saying.
I haven't played Civ for a few months now, so the point might be obsolete (which I doubt), or maybe I even asked this before (not sure, sorry).
Specifically:
I highly dislike the fact that increasing a unit's Quality resets its XP, but not its level of Promotions.
This means that Quality-up is almost equal to stopping Promotions from ever progressing.
Cause you'd have to gain some 100+ (or even 200+) XP to train the unit from zero to its current Promotion level.
Which is, sorry again, but either stupid or annoying, depending on the mood.
You could alternatively reset ALL unit's Promotions, if you zeroing its XP.
Or something else, but not leaving it "in stasis" for any unforeseeable future.
That's just WRONG.
Additionally, I'd find it a good idea (and merely a bit more text to add), if Promotions somehow correlated with Quality (they don't now, right).
Like, you get a 10% boost if you're at the lowest Quality, but then you Quality-UP, retrain the unit, and it's now, say, a 15% boost and so on.
Would make it much more interesting to actually invest in units gaining XP in various ways, even if making OPed units even more OPed (which I LIKE, lol).
Just saying.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Exactly why you dislike the design decision to give an OP decision a major backlash.
On one hand, yes it stops the unit from levelling for a very long time - on the other hand it makes it almost impossible to kill that unit if you're careful with it, therefore it can then rapidly earn a lot more XP and eventually catch up. I've had some key units upgrade quality 3-4 times and largely its in part because they get so powerful they can easily gather up a lot more XP.
That last concept would be interesting except it would require that SM really wasn't an option so that these more core things can be further modified by other things happening in SM. HOWEVER, since a rank shift in quality/size/volume will influence the unit based on final totals, there actually IS a correlation. A +10% str from combat is a LOT more effective when applied to a 20 str than it is when applied to a 12.
Somebody613
Somebody613
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2019
- Messages
- 2,813
I thought you already knew me as the "there is no such thing as OP" guy, lol.
As of Promotions, maybe you could somehow factor in a "needs more XP" modifier (combined with Q-UP resetting the entire XP to zero) that would make the unit "work harder to get better Proms".
Because while you are obviously correct that 10% of 5 is not the same as 10% of 10, the whole RESETTING thing would make it much more interesting.
But this is just a semi-random suggestion simply to enliven the game with some unique stuff that I doubt exists in other mods.
And it's not too hard to do, since there aren't that many Qualities in there.
Somebody613
Somebody613
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2019
- Messages
- 2,813
Totally new question.
What is the actual reason of the Max Civs limit in the game (50, in your mod's case it being 40 players + 10 NPCs)?
Is it just a random arbitrarily chosen number that everyone feels happy with and thus never bothered to change, or is there some programming reason behind it?
Yes, I most probably have asked this before - and you answered with "it's lagging as it is already", but that's my problem, not yours.
My question is whether it is possible to easily increase that number by myself or not, not about whether I should do it.
Thanks and sorry for "being annoying", lol.
What is the actual reason of the Max Civs limit in the game (50, in your mod's case it being 40 players + 10 NPCs)?
Is it just a random arbitrarily chosen number that everyone feels happy with and thus never bothered to change, or is there some programming reason behind it?
Yes, I most probably have asked this before - and you answered with "it's lagging as it is already", but that's my problem, not yours.
My question is whether it is possible to easily increase that number by myself or not, not about whether I should do it.
Thanks and sorry for "being annoying", lol.
Blazenclaw
eccentric eclectic
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2010
- Messages
- 509
Not certain, but I think it could be a hardlock of the EXE. There's a number of things like that where we're just kinda up the creek without a paddle. The relative placement of the Barbarian team compared to others is one such thing for instance, but again not sure if that's exactly the case here. Additionally, 'it's your problem' isn't strictly true; the engine itself can only fundamentally keep track of so many things due to implementation, so in some cases the best computer in the world won't be able to handle it because it's not a problem of the computer, but the code we're building off of.
Somebody613
Somebody613
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2019
- Messages
- 2,813
Do you know of any specific ones?
I only bumped into the 50 one, which is what triggered this question to begin with.
As in, is it just that everyone is using someone's ancient mod and nobody ever bothers to increase its capacity - or, like was said, that is hard-coded in some stupid way.
Note that "performance reasons" mean that 10 civs with 20 cities each (total = 200 cities) will still take MORE resources than 100 civs with just 1 city each (total = 100 cities).
So it's not an IMMEDIATE problem all by itself.
Similar threads
