Somebody613
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2019
- Messages
- 2,379
Huh, "pressing Alt"? Is that why my viewed predictions sometimes end with my units losing a supposedly 80% battle? Because I merely "right-mouse-over"? Hm...
Quick Questions , Quick Answers
- Thread starter TaylorItaly
- Start date
ranagrande
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2009
- Messages
- 72
In my experience, yes it does have to be a capital. Also if you're using the "start as minor civs" option, it won't work until the target is a full civilization.
For regular attacks you have to opt-in to see odds using Alt, so yeah I don’t use it. But for hidden attacks you can’t choose not to see it.But err, isnt the option to not look at odds already present? I mean if you don't press alt manually, you just don't see it. Just like if you don't reload, well, you don't
I guess checking a checkbox that disable that behavior would change things *a bit* since you'll have to uncheck it AND then press alt to see them... But I admit I don't really see the difference in the end.
I might be missing something here though.
EDIT 1: ho btw I didnt forget you guys but I do have more work/stuff than expected in this end of week. I'll do my best! Later: I do have a working checkbox now, I'll have to look/ask at how to release it (github?).
EDIT 2: maybe you were talking about a mode where the checkbox is before game creation and then can't switch? I was going for a mode "no rng" that can be switched in-game. Not to encourage "cheating" or anything (I myself don't have a checkbox yet and simply enjoy the expected outcomes, per my tastes), but so pple don't have to start over to try it. Also if you don't like it and realize it after 20+hours into your game, it's kinda cool to not have to start over just to uncheck it.
And anyway, since there is a WB and mostly solo gaming, I don't really see the point in anti-cheat whatsoever; let people play how they want, trying to give them the best experience and that's it, but that is another point.
Might be that it always shows for go to as well, don’t really remember.
No no, I was answering to someone asking to remove the view odds possibility. We got confused.
Losing a 80% battle happens, even lost a 98.60% just before finally porting my so called "no rng stuff" to C2C.
Ha? Didnt notice. I checked with a thief (I'm still in early game), didnt see odds before attacking without pressing alt. But if it is true somewhere (and I believe you ofc!), I get your point.
Might want a separate option for that though, it seems a different topic than inside roll-mechanics to me.
No luck with capital (that was hopefully on the coast too) either so far.
I don't think I used that minor civ option, since I launched the game without customization (and never played C2C before), just chosed difficulty, speed and map.
They seem like a pretty normal civ to me.
I suppose it's a bug or that we need openborders? But then again why am I able to enter their borders with the fleet if I need open border in the end?
Sorry for being unclear, I meant when you’re assassinating something in the same space as you.
Well I needed open borders.
Researched writing, not enough. Made open borders (same turn), bingo!
Seems like some sort of small bug to me (v43.1): why give the unit the ability to roam inside borders without open borders BUT then need open border to conduct the actual trading mission? Not a big deal (except I didnt want open borders with them
).Got it!
I think there are unflagged units that can do trade missions as well, in that case it’s sort of logical if:Well I needed open borders.
Researched writing, not enough. Made open borders (same turn), bingo!
Seems like some sort of small bug to me (v43.1): why give the unit the ability to roam inside borders without open borders BUT then need open border to conduct the actual trading mission? Not a big deal (except I didnt want open borders with them
Unflagged trade units can conduct shady trade missions without agreement
Regular trade units can conduct regular trade missions with open borders (I do think right of passage should suffice though)
Don’t know if that’s how its currently implemented though.
Dev question, about releasing the no-rng checkbox:
I looked at this: https://github.com/caveman2cosmos/Caveman2Cosmos/wiki/Developer-Guide
I'm not much used to git yet, worked with svn a lot (I know I'm outdated!).
- Should I really get GitKraken? Seems to me it's 7 days trial then pay now (and I don't plan to). Any advice? Atm I used TortoiseGit, although I kind of never use it anyway.
- I was thinking of a Pull or Pull Request to https://github.com/caveman2cosmos/Caveman2Cosmos/tree/v43.1patch which seems the proper way to go? Create a branch for just this checkbox seems overkill to me but you tell me.
Btw I use the term pull as in the doc mentioned above but in my mind this should be push (ie commit), I guess git terminology is still obscur to me.
Any other direction appreciated
EDIT : here is what I was about to do (screenshot), please let me know: I wait an ok confirmation from devs here before commiting.
I looked at this: https://github.com/caveman2cosmos/Caveman2Cosmos/wiki/Developer-Guide
I'm not much used to git yet, worked with svn a lot (I know I'm outdated!).
- Should I really get GitKraken? Seems to me it's 7 days trial then pay now (and I don't plan to). Any advice? Atm I used TortoiseGit, although I kind of never use it anyway.
- I was thinking of a Pull or Pull Request to https://github.com/caveman2cosmos/Caveman2Cosmos/tree/v43.1patch which seems the proper way to go? Create a branch for just this checkbox seems overkill to me but you tell me.
Btw I use the term pull as in the doc mentioned above but in my mind this should be push (ie commit), I guess git terminology is still obscur to me.
Any other direction appreciated
EDIT : here is what I was about to do (screenshot), please let me know: I wait an ok confirmation from devs here before commiting.
Attachments
Last edited:
Blazenclaw
eccentric eclectic
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2010
- Messages
- 496
Would recommend; it is free, the 7 days trial is for the pro version or something like that, which isn't needed. I've never given them any payment info, at least.
Pull = copying the files from remote (github.com) to your local machine. Pull Request ("PR") = telling github you have some files you'd like to change, and you/other people will confirm before the changes actually take place (see examples https://github.com/caveman2cosmos/Caveman2Cosmos/pulls ).
I think you should be making the PR to the master branch; v43.1 is what Toffer is maintaining (tho he's also currently the most active dev in general).
Our current configuration is a bit weird. Master is our primary development branch, which we periodically merge into the "release" branch. Every time release updates, there's an autobuild process that creates a new SVN build. v43.1 branch is a 'patch branch' of sorts that can be applied to v43 players, who don't want to use SVN.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Criminals can conduct black market trade missions without agreement nor open borders. Regular trade units can conduct trade missions with open borders or rite of passage.
Thanks for the infos!!
Will try to do that PR, hope I don't break anything
Will do my best. I guess I don't have write access directly anyway.EDIT : well if I do the PR to the master branch while the files I worked on are from v43.1, isn't that an issue? He (some dev) will manually merge and check those?
Yeah I finally noticed it was indeed said in pedia that it needs open border. What confused me is that the unit didnt need open borders to enter the borders though (at peace)...
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Water unit travel is a LITTLE different and I've noticed it seems a bit contradictory where it comes to whether it lets units in, through, in cities, etc. Might need some fixing on that but I'm not sure.
Got GitKraken.
Honestly I have no idea how I did it but it seems the PR was created. I tried to PR to master but it just wouldnt because the files I used were unmergeable to master (which is logical, I pulled the v43.1). So I ended up with PR to v43.1.
Please let me know if this is ok. Or at least usable.
Sidenote, my journey with git (gitkraken)
:Seemed I needed to create my own fork. Ok.
The steps afterwards were lots of "errr is this it? err no..."
Access denied? Ok... No changes? Ok...At one point I saw a new PR on github in browser. I thought nothing I did worked, but something obviously did.
I'm clearly not getting the step by step process, sorry.
I feel lost, and old for some reason.
Nimek
Emperor
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2010
- Messages
- 1,208
HOe to disable for custom scenario Heroes and Alternative timelines (both overpowered IMO)
There is no game option in UI for IT but @JosEPh_II I believe yu will know how to disable it
There is no game option in UI for IT but @JosEPh_II I believe yu will know how to disable it
JosEPh_II
TBS WarLord
The version of Rev in C2C is very old. In fact the new care takers of REV came on here several years ago and were upset we had it in the Mod.
That said the REV we have in C2C destroys the AI and makes the game easier to win.
If you are going to play on a Gigantic map I hope you do not expect short End of Turn waits. We don't really recommend Gigantic maps anymore.
Now in the Modmods Sub forum Pit has a UEM Map that you might like. Don't expect to get to the Last 5 Eras though. Game will long be over before then even IF the Turn waits are bearable. I can't wait 10 mins between turns anymore. Don't have the time or patience for it. At 71 years of age now, I got other things I need to be doing and fixing.
Small issue (but not so small gameplay-wise) :
There is a "doomstack" (compared to era) of 80 units of an AI civ on a tile. We are at war and it is this civ main stack by very far. I managed to corner them with only 3 units per tile, on 4 tiles.
Due to defensive bonuses of terrain, if one of their unit attack, it will lose (and the same goes for me if I attack but I see no reason why since I have very few units vs a lot). BUT ofc if they all attack they will overall win and get "out" and wreck havock.
The thing is they don't, they just keep fortifying here while I take their cities elsewhere.
I feel this is a bit lame, too easy, ruins the gameplay a bit.
Is there an option/thing (either at start or elsewhere), so that the AI is not so cautious when attacking (when at war)? IE: if they have enough units on a spot, they would suicide some to win the overall battle instead of just doing nothing.
I dont think I selected aggressive AI (if it exists and influence that) or anything.
Or maybe a hint at what/where to change this behavior in the source dll/xml? (maybe a cautious/aggressive parameter somewhere?)
I don't want to make the AI more prone to declare war, this part is fine (they did once, when they had the upper hand, seems fine), just more aggressive "tacticaly", especially when this is so obivous.
EDIT : it is true that 40 units in the stack were a bit crappy, 20 were a bit less strong than mine and 20 +/- strong as mines (but with terrain bonuses, def win on a single fight). Maybe that's why he didn't attack and pass for 20 turns, but still it would have been better to attack, even if suicide a bunch of crappy units here and there (and win with so many units). Always pass/fortify while I take his cities really gives a "I break the AI" feeling.
You get the idea.
There is a "doomstack" (compared to era) of 80 units of an AI civ on a tile. We are at war and it is this civ main stack by very far. I managed to corner them with only 3 units per tile, on 4 tiles.
Due to defensive bonuses of terrain, if one of their unit attack, it will lose (and the same goes for me if I attack but I see no reason why since I have very few units vs a lot). BUT ofc if they all attack they will overall win and get "out" and wreck havock.
The thing is they don't, they just keep fortifying here while I take their cities elsewhere.
I feel this is a bit lame, too easy, ruins the gameplay a bit.
Is there an option/thing (either at start or elsewhere), so that the AI is not so cautious when attacking (when at war)? IE: if they have enough units on a spot, they would suicide some to win the overall battle instead of just doing nothing.
I dont think I selected aggressive AI (if it exists and influence that) or anything.
Or maybe a hint at what/where to change this behavior in the source dll/xml? (maybe a cautious/aggressive parameter somewhere?)
I don't want to make the AI more prone to declare war, this part is fine (they did once, when they had the upper hand, seems fine), just more aggressive "tacticaly", especially when this is so obivous.
EDIT : it is true that 40 units in the stack were a bit crappy, 20 were a bit less strong than mine and 20 +/- strong as mines (but with terrain bonuses, def win on a single fight). Maybe that's why he didn't attack and pass for 20 turns, but still it would have been better to attack, even if suicide a bunch of crappy units here and there (and win with so many units). Always pass/fortify while I take his cities really gives a "I break the AI" feeling.
You get the idea.
Last edited:
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
It's going to take some very deep AI improvements. There's no simple fix here sadly.
Yeah. But I just hoped there was an option I didn't check (worst case I "check it" code-side with true locally if it's at game start), like "agressive AI" back in the days but more tactical than diplo.
If nothing exists already, yeah I guess that would be a grind to improve.
Side-note: my personal opinion on Turn based strategy games overall is that considering 2 pitfalls "attack too much and lose some units stupidly" and "cautious too much and don't act at all when it should", I prefer the first shortcoming.
Of course, neither is good, but at least with the first one you there is no real way to "cheat out" a 1v5 strength war, like you can with the second. It's "just" not perfect, but still more playable imho.
That doesn't solve anything here, it's just general thoughts cause I like to share
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
It's just so many lightyears more complicated than such an easy boolean of attack or don't. It's a series of questions - a lot of them.Yeah. But I just hoped there was an option I didn't check (worst case I "check it" code-side with true locally if it's at game start), like "agressive AI" back in the days but more tactical than diplo.
If nothing exists already, yeah I guess that would be a grind to improve.
Side-note: my personal opinion on Turn based strategy games overall is that considering 2 pitfalls "attack too much and lose some units stupidly" and "cautious too much and don't act at all when it should", I prefer the first shortcoming.
Of course, neither is good, but at least with the first one you there is no real way to "cheat out" a 1v5 strength war, like you can with the second. It's "just" not perfect, but still more playable imho.
That doesn't solve anything here, it's just general thoughts cause I like to share
