[Religion and Revolution]: Mod Development

[raystuttgart]

By the way:

Already now we have added more than 30 !!!! smaller and larger features to TAC.
(Not counting the ones where development is just started or all the Economy-stuff we did not yet include because of balancing.)

Not too bad, right ?

Spoiler :

Yes, yes, many of them need finetuning (AI, graphics, balancing, texts, ...)
but it is still quite amazing to me, how much we have accomplished.

@team:

 

[raystuttgart]

Withdrawal

In the TAC-Thread here at CivFanatics, there was a short discussion about a "Withdrawal" feature for land units.
(It was also said, that something like that was implemented in AODII. I haven't checked yet. But I would probably program something on my own.)


My basic idea:

With some chance land military troops loosing a fight could successfully withdraw from battle,
if there is some unoccupied plot, where they could move to.

Of course, they would be heavily damaged then.
(They would have minimal health.)

Both, attackers and defenders could generally withdraw.
(Althought for attackers it might usually only make sense if they withdraw on a plot with a friendly unit,
because they would not have movement points anymore.)

(XML-)Settings for configuring chances would exist on 3 Levels:

A) Professions (Different Settings for Cavalry and Infantry or Professions of Natives, for example)
B) Units (Differentiation for Veterans, for example. Artillery could also get a minimal withdrawal chance.)
C) Terrain-Features (Withdrawal in woods could be easier, than on open Terrain, for example.)

Basic Formula for Withdrawal-Chance: (A + B) * C

If this sounds interesting, then I could program such a feature.
(Should be possible with reasonable efforts.)

Good Balancing would need to be found in testing.

Feedback ?

 

[Robert Surcouf]

Hi everyone,
Sorry I was a little occupied these last few days...

Of course, it would be interesting to see such new global concept. However, now it's look unreal because Culture, Influence, Administration, Health, and Satisfaction are absent at all.

Maybe better to go "step-by-step" and implement/improve/fix/balance new ideas one after another? Of course, taking into account the possible development of new concepts as Satisfaction, etc.

This seems very interesting, I'll have to check the German forum. And yes we could of course discuss this!

Initial plan after Release 1 was:

Release 2 -> Focus on Economy
Release 3 -> Focus on Religions

Everything beyond that is covered in a fog of uncertainty ...

I would like to discuss this too. I mean what is the long term plan?
Actually I would like to stick with Release 1 as it is. I would like to see what it looks like with the things we have already planed. And we still have a lot of things to do.

What happens if we finish release 1's todo-list before TAC 2.03 is released? I guess we could then (and only then) add new features in the todo-list. Or should we only do balancing?
Is everyone OK with this or am I missing something?
I like the idea of having release 2 focusing on economy exclusively and release 3 focusing on religion.
The we could focus on inventions, couldn't we?

 

[raystuttgart]

I mean what is the long term plan ?

To be honest, I don't think we really have a long term plan.
We simply have a lot of ideas and concepts we have generally agreed to.

Actually I would like to stick with Release 1 as it is. I would like to see what it looks like with the things we have already planed. And we still have a lot of things to do.

I basically agree, although I also don't mind modifications or additions to the "plan for release 1" as long as all team members agree to them.

What happens if we finish release 1's todo-list before TAC 2.03 is released?

Then the team will discuss the next steps.
But I guess, we would probably add further features to the list for release 1.
I personally think we should start "finetuning phase" for release 1 after TAC 2.03 is released.

I like the idea of having release 2 focusing on economy exclusively and release 3 focusing on religion.

That was only what I understood from our discussions early in the beginning of the project.
But I did not mean "exclusively" one topic for each release.
I am really only talking about a certain focus.

The we could focus on inventions, couldn't we?

Whatever the team likes.

Summary:

Let us continue like now.

It really does not make sense to have strict plans or rules for a project like ours.
Fun and motivation are more important than anything else.
However we should also try to coordinate ourselves as a team in order to get certain things done and not sink into chaos.

We are going step by step.
Once we have reached a milestone, we - as a team - will discuss, what we will do next.
If somebody wants to do a feature right now or at any other point, we will also discuss it.

Nothing is really carved into stone in this project.
(Everything can change and plans or decisions can be reconsidered.)
It is only important, that our team finds a consense about what we are doing.

 

[raystuttgart]

No feedback at all to this ?

 

[Androrc the Orc]

That feature already exists in vanilla Civ4Col, if I recall correctly. I think the Dragoon has it, for instance.

 

[raystuttgart]

That feature already exists in vanilla Civ4Col, if I recall correctly. I think the Dragoon has it, for instance.

Yes I think, Dragoons (or generally professions with horses) can withdraw if they have certain promotions.
(Would need to check the sources, I am not sure either ...)

But other land troops generally cannot and also chances are not configurable in a differentiated way.
(At least to my knowledge.)

I am talking about a "Fully-XML-Configurable-Withdrawal-Feature".
(Profession, Units and Terrain-Features.)

I am actually pretty sure, that something like I am talking about does not exist.

Edit:

<iWithdrawalProb> exists on Unit-Level.
<iWithdrawalChange> exists on Promotion-Level.

This might have worked for Civ4, but in CivCol, something like that should also exist on Profession-Level.

For me it seems, like the "Withdrawal" of Civ4 has never been properly adapted to the concepts of CivCol.
(Civ4 thinks only in Units, but in CivCol Professions are important, too.)

------------------

I give you some examples of possible "Withdrawal"-Probabilities with my concept:
(Again, actual numbers are just examples how this could look like.)

Units:

Natives -> 10%
Native Mercenaries -> 10%
Converted Natives -> 10%
Hessian Mercenaries -> 5%
Veterans -> 5%
Royal Infantry -> 5%

Professions:

Basically Professions with horses would give +10%.

In total then:

Native Cavalry -> 20%
Converted Native Cavalry -> 20%
European Veteran Cavalry -> 15%
Royal Cavalry -> 15%
European Cavalry -> 10%

Promotions:

Would add to "Wihdrawal Chances" just like now.

Terrain-Features:

Woods for example could influence chances of Withdrawal, too.

 

[Androrc the Orc]

You mean you want to add the option of having withdrawal to professions and depending on terrain? I think it is a great idea

I think it should be implemented in the same manner as promotions, as a "iWithdrawalChange", with such changes being applied upon the unit's "base" withdrawal probabilities, yielding results like those you mentioned (Native Cavalry with 20%, etc.)

 

[Robert Surcouf]

Hi everyone, I've updated Domestic Advisor screen on the SVN network.
We can now see a city's desired yield.
And I've corrected Missionary rate which was incorrect (you must select no variables hidden to see all modifications)
Could someone check?

I only forgot to comment out one line... That means we can see all native cities at the start of th game. Sorry it's easier for me to work with all the cities shown, but I forgot to remove that condition... I'll fix it!

Oh ! You're right Ray, I forgot to give you some feedback! Sorry!
Yes I like the idea.
I'd like to as a few questions though...
1) What about naval units? Privateer too have withdrawal chances?
And maybe we should add withdrawal chances to wind plots...
2) Are you going to distinguish attack and defense?
Because dragoons now can withdraw if they are attacking but not if they're defending. What about plots? A jungle would somehow slow you down wouldn't it? So if you defending in a jungle wouldn't it be more difficult to withdraw? And if you attack someone in a jungle it would be easier to withdraw... Am I right?

What do you think?.

 

[raystuttgart]

You mean you want to add the option of having withdrawal to professions and depending on terrain? I think it is a great idea

Yes exactly.

1) What about naval units? Privateer too have withdrawal chances?
And maybe we should add withdrawal chances to wind plots...
2) Are you going to distinguish attack and defense?
Because dragoons now can withdraw if they are attacking but not if they're defending. What about plots? A jungle would somehow slow you down wouldn't it? So if you defending in a jungle wouldn't it be more difficult to withdraw? And if you attack someone in a jungle it would be easier to withdraw... Am I right?

In the end we will have separately "Withdrawal-Configuration-Possibilities" on these 4 levels:

A. Units (Percent)
B. Professions (Percent)
C. Promotions (Percent)
D. Terrain Features (Percentual Modifier)

Formula:

Withdrawal_Chance_Total: (A + B + C) * (100 + D) / 100

This will give us tons of possibilities:

1. Land Troops with their professions can be distinguished properly.
2. Ships could get withdrawal chances, too of course.
3. Terrain Features like Woods, Jungle, Storms and Winds could influence
...

For now:

I would first of all create all the configuartion possibilities and include the withdrawal properly into the sources.

Attackers and defenders would be treated the same.
(Both being able to withdraw.)

If later test show, that this is a bad idea, we can try to give attackers and defenders different withdrawal behaviour.

After the technological basics are created we should start discussing how we will actually use it and do a good balancing.

----------------------

So I guess, this concept is accepted ?

I would simply put it in our list and see, when I got time to implement it.

 

[raystuttgart]

Hi everyone, I've updated Domestic Advisor screen on the SVN network.
We can now see a city's desired yield.
And I've corrected Missionary rate which was incorrect (you must select no variables hidden to see all modifications)
Could someone check?

Great.
I will try to check today.

 

[raystuttgart]

Hi Robert,

I have checked the "Native Advisor Screen".

Looks good.
(If you remove "all villages are visible from beginning" it is perfect. )

Another small thing, you had already mentioned before is the display of the Traits in the "Settings-Screen".
It looks pretty ugly currently.

Could you please take a look and eventually fix it ?
(You had already pointed to the code in an earlier post.)

It would really be great, if you could do that.
(I am planning to do a merge with latest TAC development today.)

Spoiler :

 

[raystuttgart]

@Team:

Yesterday night I was working on solving AI problems for "Rebuild Horses".

Spoiler :

This is basically done.
Although AI is playing with "easier" rules for that feature now.
(Don't worry, AI is not "cheating", meaning to get something for free.)

I don't think these "easier rules for AI" are a problem since AI cannot use other features at all.
To my opinion it is really important that AI can handle horse production.

While doing so, I realized that AI is incredibly stupid when choosing which Improvements to build.

So currently I am working on improving AI logic for that.
(This may take some time, but I think it is necessary.)

Edit:

Success !
AI behaves much smarter now considering building improvements !
Wonderful.

Now for example it is really building "Improvement Pasture" on "Bonus Horses".
(Before that it was usually building "Plantation" or "Farm".)

Edit 2:

It is uploaded to SVN.

Would be great if somebody would do some testing.
Eventually further improvement might be needed.

Some Bonus-Ressources and Improvements like "Furs" and "Trapper Hut" give 2 different Yields for example.
AI might still not be perfect there and still make wrong decisions.

 

[Robert Surcouf]

Hi,

Ok, I'll test it soon... (probably not today unfortunately).
I'll do the changes to the Victory screen (and domestic advisor screen) too!

 

[Robert Surcouf]

I've tested the last version. It works, and AI seems to build correct improvements.

What should I check exactly? AI builds a few improvements, and I haven't seen any huge mistake...

However, I've noticed a few problems. 100 yields as base storage seems too low. I'd like to change it (would 250 be ok? Or should we add some storage for every building? Or only basecamp/village hall etc...)...

Some prices are too low. I sold 100 tools in Chichen Itza. They bought them 582 gold...
In Europe, I could have sold them 600 gold. (I had to sell them quickly since I had no storage left in Quebec!)

 

[raystuttgart]

I've tested the last version. It works, and AI seems to build correct improvements.

What should I check exactly? AI builds a few improvements, and I haven't seen any huge mistake...

Acutally I am sure, that my code is working.
So no further testing needed.

In TAC / Vanilla:

AI-Pioneers very often used to build "wrong" improvements on Bonus-Ressources.
(Try it to see the differences to our version. )

Examples:

Bonus Tobacco -> AI sometimes built "Farm" instead of "Plantation"
Bonus Fur -> AI sometimes built Farm and thus "destroyed" Bonus Fur

Now in Religion and Revolution:

AI-Pioneers should always build improvements on Bonus-Ressources appropriately.

Example:

Bonus Tobacco -> AI will always build "Plantation" there.
Bonus Fur -> AI will always build "Trapperhut" there.

However, I've noticed a few problems. 100 yields as base storage seems too low. I'd like to change it (would 250 be ok? Or should we add some storage for every building? Or only basecamp/village hall etc...)...

That should not be the case.

Starting storage should be 200.
(100 general city storage + 100 from base buildings.)

For everything else, we got the storage buildings.

Or do you mean that starting storage of 200 is still not enough ?

I would not like to increase that, because this would make the game easier.
I don't want to have everything too easy in our mod.

Some prices are too low. I sold 100 tools in Chichen Itza. They bought them 582 gold...
In Europe, I could have sold them 600 gold. (I had to sell them quickly since I had no storage left in Quebec!)

I am not sure, if we should really increase iNativeBuyPrice for Tools.
But if you really want to, you could increase it to 9.

The rest is ok to my opinion.

 

[agaro]

# Withdrawal issue:

One issue I have with current (or TAC's?) Withdrawal management is that the AI seems to not be able to take advantage of it. For example:
- I attack an AI merchantman with my Privateer. Unfortunately I fail to sink the merchantman or capture its goods. The merchantman Withdraws to its home port.
- But then the AI, not appreciating its lucky break in getting its ship and goods back, just relaunches the damaged ship on its next turn. It is a very easy target for any pirate around. So if the damaged ship is just sunk anyway in the next few turns, the AI nation gains nothing from the initial withdrawal event.

So perhaps we should be cautious about introducing a lot more Withdrawing of units, unless we can also get AI to improve its healing / conserving of damaged units.

 

[raystuttgart]

So perhaps we should be cautious about introducing a lot more Withdrawing of units, unless we can also get AI to improve its healing / conserving of damaged units.

Good point.

But it is possible to change UnitAIs to a smarter behaviour when being damaged.
(Of course it is also time and efforts ...)

Edit:

agaro, could you please check the behaviour you have described about "Fleeing Ships" again in game ?
(With Religion and Revolution, of course.)

As far as I remember koma had implemented some improvements of UnitAIs for that already in TAC.

 

[Robert Surcouf]

Bonus Tobacco -> AI sometimes built "Farm" instead of "Plantation"
Bonus Fur -> AI sometimes built Farm and thus "destroyed" Bonus Fur

I see.

Bonus Tobacco -> AI will always build "Plantation" there.
Bonus Fur -> AI will always build "Trapperhut" there.

Indeed up till now, I've noticed that too (in our last version) !

That should not be the case.

Starting storage should be 200.
(100 general city storage + 100 from base buildings.)

Yes, for standard human player starting storage is 200 (for natives it is either 100 or 500)...
But the problem is, if you choose to put both of your two starting units in your first colony you already have 200 yields stored !!! This is quite problematic. Moreover, with the standard (old) system you could have up to 100 * number of yields, which is probably more than 1000 at least much more than 200.

I don't want the game to be too easy either... I just want to make sure we can play normally. First turns may be problematic and even maybe during the Revolution era...

Trust me. Check for yourself. I wouldn't bother everyone if it weren't problematic !!!

 

[raystuttgart]

But the problem is, if you choose to put both of your two starting units in your first colony you already have 200 yields stored !!!

How is that possible ?
(Your 2 starting units should only have 50 Equipment each.)

2 * 50 = 100

I don't want the game to be too easy either... I just want to make sure we can play normally. First turns may be problematic and even maybe during the Revolution era...

Trust me. Check for yourself. I wouldn't bother everyone if it weren't problematic !!!

I don't really see any problems myself.
(As I said, you can relatively easy build storage buildings.)

But if this really bothers you, go ahead and change it.