Discussion in 'RFC mod-mod: Classical World' started by srpt, Dec 8, 2011.
Are you working from a different file or can I just open up the city name map in RFCCW?
To get an engineer in year 216 (turn 69) you need a 280 blacksmith in turn 29, which is impossible without getting any slaves, and it is far from unlikely to not get a single one in the first 30 turns. I think you should either start with some slaves, or with an expanded citycross that covers the iron and stones.
If you send your starting units immediately to the independent cities in China, there is a fairly good chance you'll get at least 1 slave. And it's also good for the conqueror UHV.
I don't know how many units there are in those cities exactly. IIRC, there are 4 cities, and a 5th one spawning later. If each of these cities have 1-2 units, there is a 67,3-90.3% you get at least 1 slave. (if the chance of getting a slave still is 20% each time) And this is even without barbs. (Which have IIRC a 40% chance of being enslaved)
Combined with the fact that their UP doubles the production you get for hurrying production with them, it is managable. But hard, that's true.
I'm working from the existing city-name map. Don't use the spreadsheet; I'm pretty sure it isn't up to date.
For the Barbs: I played 3 times, there wasn't a single Barbarian near my cities before turn 30.
For the independent cities:
There are 4 cities which you can conquer AND send the slave back before turn 30, all have 2 units. The probability of not getting a slave in one fight is 4/5, the probability of not getting one in 8 fights are (4/5)^8, which is about 1/6 - IF you win all the fights.
So, even IF you manage to conquer all those cities in 30 Turns (which is really bad for your stability, since you have to declare war 4 times) and even IF you figure out the exact building order you need to get the two world wonders and even IF you manage to keep all your cities when the barbarians show up after you spread your starting units over 5 cities, you still have a one-in-six chance of losing the game besides that. This isn't hard, it is luck-based.
Send your units off to somewhere barbs spawn a lot and camp a hill with a couple spearmen and a melee-bonus unit. The slaves will come flowing in.
you shouldn't be getting stability checks from declaring war on independent cities. can't remember when I made that change but it may have stayed out of the svn til just now since I was holding back while working on the harbor idea.
I'm fine with starting Xian at the 1st cutural expansion. regardless of the actual % chance, I don't want them to be in the position of losing a UHV in the 1st 30 turns purely to the rng, as seems to be the case.
the Egyptian 3rd goal is really fixed now.
and yes if everyone is comfortable working from the actual CityNameManager.py file it is simpler and less likely to get confused.
if you want to try out the harbor airlift or paradrop amphibious attacks just change the Airlift tag in the BuildingInfos.xml and/or the AirDropRange tag in UnitInfos.xml.
I think the best way to divide the work is this: you keep up your work on the city names. If there are places you think are named wrong or that you can't figure out, just leave them the way they are. Then, when your changes are put in the svn, I'll take a look and correct/add in the city names where appropriate. So don't puzzle over a difficult region if it is too hard; I'll lend a hand.
I've finished what is now Aquitaine and Burgundy, attached here, along with Celtic cultural names.
those new city names are in the svn. the spreadsheet is up to date as well. I realised it is much nicer to work with since it has the water, peaks and main city sites marked on it.
lowered starting city population from 3 to 2 to avoid some cities starving when founded.
moved the spawn of Turpan forward to avoid the Tocharian flip
fixed the Dongola site. it didn't have enough food to work its resources. hopefully the AI will found it now
gave the Qin 1 more UU and 1 more chariot
Do the Romans get Great General stacks against independents? They never seem to leave Italy in any of their games. They can't possibly be consistently unable to capture cities with their stacks...
Edit: there's still a crash around the beginning of AD or end of BC when I load up a civ like Byzantium (for AI testing).
I'm looking into the AI Roman behaviour. in my last Carthage game they had at least taken Athens by the time I broke off to start moving resources around.
as for the crash, in the save DC123456789 posted it has to do with the Antigonids founding Perga and then collapsing to their core. if you want to continue that game, open WB and either delete the Anitogind settler of bump them up to stable.
I noticed that Tyre, Jerusalem and Antioch change hands among the Greeek AIs fairly often so thats good.
Mhm, I've seen the Levant change hands often enough. The Ptolemids probably need a little help, but I see them found a city in Cyprus, so it's pretty interesting. Unfortunately, with the Seleucids between them and the Antigonids, they don't pressure the latter enough (who should be the one under the most pressure). Perhaps this new port mechanic will change that.
There are definitely more pressing concerns such as the western civ balancing/mechanics. (Rome, Carthage, Gauls, Greece/Macedonia...etc).
Okay thanks! Are you going to do something so that if its happens in the future, it doesn't cause a crash?
Oh and 2 east of gold, one N-W of cow on the Nile, as Meroe. City name is missing, but should be called "Dongola" (as seen here).
Shouldn't it be called Tungul?
Right you are sir!
Tungul it is. now if I could just get the Nubians to settle it...
I have another save where a crash happens when Rome collapses to their core so hopefully I will have solved soon. if you get a crash just make the collapsing civ stable and the game should continue, but post the save 1st.
I'll dig through the autosaves if I get a crash on civ autoturns. I've never crashed while playing, only when loading, hence why I can never be very descriptive.
I think the crash may have to do with a civ building a city and collapsing not just in the same turn, but in the same action. in both cases the civ got a stability check from founding a new city, failed the check and then lost the city it was in the process of founding in the same instant.
when I was trying to write my python mechanism to give back cities conquered by the AI at absurd distance I noticed that the unit that took the city did not exist on any tile during the actual action of taking it. I could not locate that unit via any plot coordinates in order to delete or move it.
so I took out the stability checks for founding cities. the only reason they were there was to ensure that large successful AI empires would still face checks, and at this stage that's hardly important.
also I think I will take the next step with the Roman civil wars and make them the actual mechanism for Rome's long survival and dominance: the Romans will have civil wars instead of severe level crises, and they will always come out of those civil wars at stable. this will be the case up until the Byzantine spawn. after that western Rome will be treated like any civ.
I think it's probably appropriate to do something similar in China, at least during the dominant periods of the Han and Tang.
Separate names with a comma.