Requests for new components (and features)

[EmperorFool]

I like these ideas, and the IconGrid could certainly be extended again to allow the number with the icon. Maybe the tech shown in the column should be removed from the Can Research column as well?

I would also like to see on that screen the list of technologies you have acquired via trade/gift/demand--i.e. not tradeable by you--as I have been playing mostly with No Tech Brokering lately and I keep getting tripped up thinking an AI as researched a tech that they haven't because it's not listed in the Wants column.

If that game option is set we could add a block across the top just like your extra resources are shown. The list doesn't change for each rival, so that makes more sense than a new column--a Can't Trade for your techs.

I would also love to fix that screen (and Civ4lerts) so it doesn't tell you that AIs will trade techs to you when you are at war. They should either all be listed under Won't Trade or Can't Trade.

 

[Dresden]

I like these ideas, and the IconGrid could certainly be extended again to allow the number with the icon. Maybe the tech shown in the column should be removed from the Can Research column as well?

Yeah, good idea. No reason to show it twice, so the current research goal could be ignored in the "Wants" and "Can Research" columns.

I would also like to see on that screen the list of technologies you have acquired via trade/gift/demand--i.e. not tradeable by you--as I have been playing mostly with No Tech Brokering lately and I keep getting tripped up thinking an AI as researched a tech that they haven't because it's not listed in the Wants column.

If that game option is set we could add a block across the top just like your extra resources are shown. The list doesn't change for each rival, so that makes more sense than a new column--a Can't Trade for your techs.

I've never played with that option on. As for the display, there is a difference between "you can't trade it to X because of brokering restrictions" and "you can't trade it to X regardless of brokering because X already has it." Is there a way to tell that difference while playing? Along those lines, are the techs absent in the diplomacy window or are they redlined? It's too bad we haven't gotten grayed-out icons working because if you can tell the difference, a grayed-out wants icon might be useful if they do want it but you can't provide it. Although... shouldn't it simply be in "Can Research" then?

I would also love to fix that screen (and Civ4lerts) so it doesn't tell you that AIs will trade techs to you when you are at war. They should either all be listed under Won't Trade or Can't Trade.

Technically, they are willing to trade them for peace if you beat them down enough. But yeah, handling war as a special-case "won't trade" makes more sense from a practical standpoint.

 

[EmperorFool]

Yeah, good idea. No reason to show it twice, so the current research goal could be ignored in the "Wants" and "Can Research" columns.

That points out a possible downside: if we remove it from those columns, you'll have to remember that you have it to know if you can trade it to them. Plus, if they are close to finishing, they won't accept it. I haven't paid close enough attention to say where it lands in that case.

I've never played with that option on.

I like it because it allows you to more freely trade your techs since you know the AIs can't immediately swap them around with each other.

As for the display, there is a difference between "you can't trade it to X because of brokering restrictions" and "you can't trade it to X regardless of brokering because X already has it."

I think that right now you can't tell the difference, which means we can't specifically tell the player either (UG). However, we can at least list those techs the player cannot possibly trade to anyone at the top since it doesn't vary per rival.

Is there a way to tell that difference while playing?

Because I remember being confused by it, I'm thinking perhaps if it would normally show up in the Wants column but you acquired it via trade, it simply doesn't show anywhere, making it look like the AI has it already. I'll have to open some past saves to see what the deal is or just dig into the code.

Along those lines, are the techs absent in the diplomacy window or are they redlined?

Absent, in contrast to techs the AI is very close to researching themselves and won't accept from you.

Although... shouldn't it simply be in "Can Research" then?

See above regarding my confusion. This could also cause confusion though as I'd wonder why it wasn't in the Wants column. However, that would have been less confusing I think as I would at least see the tech. My memory is that the tech was totally absent, but StratAdv showed that they couldn't build the unit it opened up.

Technically, they are willing to trade them for peace if you beat them down enough.

But you must add "Peace Treaty" to the diplomacy trade window before the techs even show up. I think putting them in Won't Trade is the best solution, and those that would normally show in Can't Trade should go there if they aren't already. Basically, move everything in Will Trade to Won't Trade; problem solved.

 

[Handel]

I don't see a good way to tie this to Reminders, but Civ4lerts could certainly be extended with new alerts for

Montezuma has acquired Chemistry but won't trade it​

and

Montezuma has acquired Chemistry but can't trade it​

and changing the "will trade" alert to differentiate between being acquired and simply changing their mind.

Montezuma has acquired Chemistry and will trade it​

Actually it is a kind of cheat. Checking which tech disappeared from the "wanted" list shows what the AI researched (or bought) and this is in-game feature. The only drawback is you have to check it every turn because no alerts for it. A tech doesn't show in the "trade" or "don't trade" list if the human player already have it.
But it is often useful to know what older tech the AI got too and putting this in the alerts list will help.
The alerts should be

Montezuma doesn't want Chemistry anymore​

As I said this sounds like a cheat for me - spying without a spy, but nevertheless it is a game feature.

EDIT: Maybe it will be usefull the alerts to have the option for certain types of alerts to be with bigger fonts (besides the colors)

 

[DanF5771]

I have refined my amateurish whip-threshold idea from above a bit. You can find it here.

 

[Handel]

Actually it is a kind of cheat. Checking which tech disappeared from the "wanted" list shows what the AI researched (or bought) and this is in-game feature. The only drawback is you have to check it every turn because no alerts for it. A tech doesn't show in the "trade" or "don't trade" list if the human player already have it.
But it is often useful to know what older tech the AI got too and putting this in the alerts list will help.
The alerts should be

Montezuma doesn't want Chemistry anymore​

As I said this sounds like a cheat for me - spying without a spy, but nevertheless it is a game feature.

Actually it will be much better to put (optionally of course) on the main screen a bar with the techs the AI wants and can research. It may be a bar with the tech icons which can rotate to show different civ AND a drop down menu to shows a semitransparebt table for all the known civs. It is very usefull when planning a complex tech brokering and going non-stop to the advisor screen is a PITA.

 

[The Doc]

Actually it will be much better to put (optionally of course) on the main screen a bar with the techs the AI wants and can research. It may be a bar with the tech icons which can rotate to show different civ AND a drop down menu to shows a semitransparebt table for all the known civs. It is very usefull when planning a complex tech brokering and going non-stop to the advisor screen is a PITA.

I don't want to discourage you but I don't think that this is feasible for technical reasons. Also, to me it sounds like cheating.

 

[EmperorFool]

I don't want to discourage you but I don't think that this is feasible for technical reasons. Also, to me it sounds like cheating.

I think Handel is merely suggesting showing the F4:TECHS page information on the main screen, either summarized (show all techs any AI wants together) or selectable by AI. For people that play at high resolution, they'd be able to see the info while the diplomacy trade window is up.

That doesn't seem like cheating (same info), and it should be feasible. If you mock up a screenshot, you might be able to entice a coder to build it.

 

[The Doc]

I think Handel is merely suggesting showing the F4:TECHS page information on the main screen, either summarized (show all techs any AI wants together) or selectable by AI. For people that play at high resolution, they'd be able to see the info while the diplomacy trade window is up.

That doesn't seem like cheating (same info), and it should be feasible. If you mock up a screenshot, you might be able to entice a coder to build it.

Ok, but where's the challenge when you get every information on the main screen? You should at least have to call up that screen by pressing the F4-button. I mean, if the information just flies into your mouth all by itself like the roasted pigeons in Cockaigne, you could as well start a game with AI-Autoplay switched on...



Then, let's start thinking about it.
A table, like Handel suggested, should work fine, perhaps placed right under the research/culture/espionage sliders. Maybe just a miniaturized version of the corresponding F4-screen. Rows for the leaders and columns for wanted techs and tradeable techs (all shown as icons with hover text).
Would be great if we could have meaningful icons for the column head instead of text. That way the columns wouldn't grow larger than they should be (e.g. if there's just a single tech icon in one column).
Another thing would be a automatic filtering system so that only leaders are displayed that are actually considering a tech trade in either way. That would limit the number of rows at first, especially when a huge amount of civs is present in a game.
Any other suggestions?

 

[_alphaBeta_]

It would be nice if the CDA could be set to show how many super specialists are settled in the various cities. I was specifically hoping to have a column for how many GGs were settled as instructors.

 

[EmperorFool]

It would be nice if the CDA could be set to show how many super specialists are settled in the various cities.

I'm adding this now, but where to put the 2 free Scientists from the Great Library? The icon used in the CDA for normal Scientists is the beaker, and I'll use the same icon for settled Scientists since it will be a different column, but then I can't use the same icon for a free Scientist.

The real trouble will making this code work with mods as there's no way to map in Python a Scientists to a Great Scientist as far as specialists go, meaning I have to hard code the connection. If a mod adds a new specialist type, the CDA will be drawn incorrectly.

Adding a new column "Free Specialists" in addition to "Settled Specialists" to make the icon issue go away won't fix this problem.

 

[_alphaBeta_]

I'm adding this now, but where to put the 2 free Scientists from the Great Library? The icon used in the CDA for normal Scientists is the beaker, and I'll use the same icon for settled Scientists since it will be a different column, but then I can't use the same icon for a free Scientist.

The real trouble will making this code work with mods as there's no way to map in Python a Scientists to a Great Scientist as far as specialists go, meaning I have to hard code the connection. If a mod adds a new specialist type, the CDA will be drawn incorrectly.

Adding a new column "Free Specialists" in addition to "Settled Specialists" to make the icon issue go away won't fix this problem.

Well maybe it doesn't need to be that complicated. What about just adding a column for GGs settled as instructors (for +2XP). The rest of the super specialists' effects are represented under other columns. For example, the beakers added by a super scientist still show up under the research column.

A settled GG is different as his effects aren't represented anywhere else in the CDA. Perhaps we don't need super specialists beyond GGs. What is it really telling us?

Either way, thanks for looking into it.

 

[GooglyBoogly]

It would be nice if the CDA could be set to show how many super specialists are settled in the various cities. I was specifically hoping to have a column for how many GGs were settled as instructors.

I have checked the Sourceforge features request page, and didnt see it there so I am postnig a reply here...

You should also consider how to handle free specialists from events (not just wonders and GP)

 

[EmperorFool]

What about just adding a column for GGs settled as instructors (for +2XP).

I thought the CDA had a column showing how much free XP each unit gets, but I don't see it in the code. Given that it would either have to have 3 columns (1 for each domain), it seems better to add the # of settled GGs as a separate column.

You should also consider how to handle free specialists from events (not just wonders and GP)

The code I'm adding doesn't care where the free specialists come from--they will all be included.

 

[Ktulu]

The major problem with using the espionage graph to estimate total spending is that there's no absolute scale. The top of the graph could mean 500 or it could mean 500,000. Knowing that Monty has twice as much total spending as me is meaningless in terms of estimating the totals if I don't know one of our two actual totals. The only way to know my total is if I've (a) never run a mission so that it's the sum of all my banked points or (b) kept track of how much every mission I've ever run has cost. While it may be possible to do (b) I'm not sure that the total spending is at all useful to know anyhow.

AFAIC the important things to know regarding espionage points are

• how much is banked vs each civ (seen from diplo)
• how much was banked last turn (can be calculated from changes on diplo readout)
• estimated weightings (can be calculated by comparing the last turn accumulations)
• whether points have been spent (indicating active missions; also possibly calculated from changes on diplo readout)
• and what the cost modifier is (seen on espionage advisor).

Is there anything missing from that list that would be good to know? And, is there anything in that list that provides more information than we are comfortable displaying?

Note that there is some small room for error in tracking spending this way since if Monty's EP against me doesn't change from one turn to the next it can either mean (a) he isn't putting points against me or (b) he ran a mission against me that exactly balanced how much was added. But the latter would be a pretty rare situation and so per-turn deltas will be useful most of the time.

I don't know if it has been mentioned, but I would like more information on "counter espionage status".

 

[Dresden]

Well maybe it doesn't need to be that complicated. What about just adding a column for GGs settled as instructors (for +2XP). The rest of the super specialists' effects are represented under other columns. For example, the beakers added by a super scientist still show up under the research column.

A settled GG is different as his effects aren't represented anywhere else in the CDA. Perhaps we don't need super specialists beyond GGs. What is it really telling us?

Either way, thanks for looking into it.

This reminds me of one of the 1003 things on my BTS wish list. I've always wanted the production popup and/or city screen buttons to tell me what experience and free promos the units it creates will get. I've just never gotten around to determining how hard it would be to do. The production popup comes from the SDK, but the city screen or CDA could probably use the CyCity.getFooFreeExperience methods to do it.

 

[EmperorFool]

Actually, I'll be using CyCity.getSpecialistCount(SpecialistTypes.SPECIALIST_GREAT_GENERAL) to find the number of settled GGs. Of course, that isn't a real constant. I'll actually grab the ID using getInfoTypeForString(), but that's not important.

I believe that getFreeExperience() counts buildings like the Pentagon and West Point. Then there's getDomainFreeExperience() for Barracks, Airport, and Drydock. For promotions, you have isFreePromotion(PromotionType). I have no idea what getFreePromotionCount(PromotionType) is for--I don't think a unit can have two Combat I promotions.

So the columns I was going to add include

• # of settled GGs
• Total generic free XP
• Total domain-specific free XP (3 columns)

Should the domain-specific columns include the generic XP? My initial response is yes as I probably wouldn't show the generic free XP column when showing the domain-specific columns.

 

[Dresden]

Yes, I would include the generic XP in the domain XP counts because I expect most people just want to know "how much XP will my maceman get?" rather than "what portion of my maceman's XP comes from barracks?" Although I've never tested to see what all these different functions actually return. Note there is also a getUnitCombatFreeExperience() which is probably for stuff like the Stable's Mounted bonus and Spanish Citadel Siege bonus. It'd be hard to list those one unless we limited it to the unit combat types in the standard game which get such bonuses (are there any others?)

The most useful things to me on a military/production page would be the totals for each of the 3 domains and possibly the unit combat stuff too. Settled GGs could be useful as part of a list of all settled specialists on a general info/specialist page but if their XP is included in the totals, I'd consider the settled GGs extraneous info on a military/production page. It should definitely be an option though because I'm sure somebody will find it useful.


BTW, another idea I had was color-coding in the currently-producing list. I suppose it would need to be optional, but if units (either as one or by domain) were one color, buildings another color, wonders, etc, it might prove useful. I hadn't gotten as far as determining the colors yet though. Any thoughts on that?


BTW#2 (I'm jumping all over tonight) what about changing the priest's specialist icon on the CDA from to so that it's consistent with the GP bar? The icon always seemed a little odd to me since it doesn't actually do anything for happiness and that's the only one I think is different between the CDA & GP Bar.

 

[_alphaBeta_]

I'm adding this now...

Will this be included in the next release? I haven't been following BUG development, so how much time is typically between releases? I'm in no hurry, just curious.

 

[EmperorFool]

Will this be included in the next release? I haven't been following BUG development, so how much time is typically between releases? I'm in no hurry, just curious.

I've been meaning to do a maintenance (3.5.1) release for weeks to fix the problems with 3.5 but haven't had the time. I think I'm secretly hoping Alerum will have a free weekend.

In any case, I think we go a few months between releases typically. 3.0 was at the end of July. 3.5 in October. Even if we don't do a 3.5.1 release, I'd like to do 3.6 before Christmas (within a month).

Of course you can always be on the bleeding edge and either use SVN to install BUG or grab a ZIP of a nightly snapshot. There's no EXE installer that way, but it's not rocket science (see the download thread for instructions).