isenchine
Empress
You're asking the question to Jon Shafer, right? 
Spoiler :
[SCENARIO] World War I
- Thread starter Jon Shafer
- Start date
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
I plead the fifth!
- Jon
- Jon
Hi Isenchine,
First of all congrats to you and Jon for this excellent scenario.
I just started playing a couple of days ago and I noticed that
the score only gives points as "population - 1".
I thought that it may require a certain number of turns to hold
territory, as I think happens in some scenarios, before getting
LandScore, but I am now in late 1915 with zero score for tech,
land, and wonders.
Is that a bug or is it something else? It will take a while to get
to a population of 1001 to win this way!
Thanks again for this excellent scenario.
Cheers,
giorgako
First of all congrats to you and Jon for this excellent scenario.
I just started playing a couple of days ago and I noticed that
the score only gives points as "population - 1".
I thought that it may require a certain number of turns to hold
territory, as I think happens in some scenarios, before getting
LandScore, but I am now in late 1915 with zero score for tech,
land, and wonders.
Is that a bug or is it something else? It will take a while to get
to a population of 1001 to win this way!
Thanks again for this excellent scenario.
Cheers,
giorgako
isenchine
Empress
Thank you giorgako! 
I commented on this in my post #419. It's not really a bug, rather an unfinished business. And I have no idea really how to finalise this. Wonders are irrelevant, big teams should more or less be at the same level for Techs, Land and Population are to the advantage of Russia.
Just forget about the score for the time being...
I commented on this in my post #419. It's not really a bug, rather an unfinished business. And I have no idea really how to finalise this. Wonders are irrelevant, big teams should more or less be at the same level for Techs, Land and Population are to the advantage of Russia.
Just forget about the score for the time being...
Hi isenchine,
Thank you for the clarification on scoring -- I will keep focusing on victory and keep getting more cities till I hit the magic 1000!
BTW, is there a difficulty level recommended? I tend to play scenarios on Deity to boost the challenge.
I am in mid-1917 with 30+ cities already, the French in tatters, and London under threat (I play Germany) -- The gameplay is really interesting and I enjoy it a lot!
Thanks,
giorgako
Thank you for the clarification on scoring -- I will keep focusing on victory and keep getting more cities
till I hit the magic 1000!BTW, is there a difficulty level recommended? I tend to play scenarios on Deity to boost the challenge.
I am in mid-1917 with 30+ cities already, the French in tatters, and London under threat (I play Germany) -- The gameplay is really interesting and I enjoy it a lot!
Thanks,
giorgako
isenchine
Empress
Hi giorgako,
I can't certainly help you at Deity level!
No particular level is recommended. I'm not even sure if it matters in such a set-up scenario. In BtS, the AI is not more intelligent at Deity, it just receives bigger advantages at the start of the game.
Further above the thread, there is a link to an on-going PBEM game (Play by E-Mail, although it's actually done through a tracker). A lot of the discussion is about the "Poison Gas" artillery, so don't hesitate to drop a comment here on it as it is currently under review (as the whole scenario actually!).
Have "fun"!
I can't certainly help you at Deity level!
No particular level is recommended. I'm not even sure if it matters in such a set-up scenario. In BtS, the AI is not more intelligent at Deity, it just receives bigger advantages at the start of the game.
Further above the thread, there is a link to an on-going PBEM game (Play by E-Mail, although it's actually done through a tracker). A lot of the discussion is about the "Poison Gas" artillery, so don't hesitate to drop a comment here on it as it is currently under review (as the whole scenario actually!).
Have "fun"!
isenchine
Empress
Following the first PBEM game on this WWI Scenario, here is the changelog for the new version number 10. Your comments are welcome!
Changelog:
Version 10 (released 8 May 2015):
UNITS:
- Naval mines no longer "always hostile": now, they are no longer the target of any other neutral ship but then, they can only hurt enemy ships.
- Naval mines have now a combat strength of 13 (against 8) (and maybe it's not even enough considering the damages done in WWI).
- Ships no longer allowed to range attack (bombard) when inside of a city (temporary interface solution for human players only)
- Autro-Hungarian infantries have now a combat strength equivalent to Russian and American ones.
BUILDINGS: reinstated Walls as Fortifications (50% Defense)
Improvement Fort: iDefenseModifier increased from 25% to 50%. Fort (Trenches) no longer "Act As City": you don't get the resource below, you can't station ships and planes.
Feature Forest: iDefense reduced from 50% to 25%.
MAP:
Added 116 Grocers
Added to Techs to USA as they can't tech effectively in game
Added wine and winery near Bordeaux (how could I miss that!)
PYTHON:
Fixed information message at top of screen not appearing correctly at resolution above x = 1440
Fixed popup messages to appear to every human players, not just the first one
Number of units allowed:
- Naval mines no longer count as "units"
- France allowed to 10% more units (from colonies outside the map)
- Great-Britain allowed to 40% more units (from Empire outside the map, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, ...)
Changed the math for entrance into war of Romania, Greece and Portugal (Alignment Mechanism): it is now depending more on the counter of units lost, which might delay or accelerate their entrance into war and even change their alliance and join the war on the other side.
Limited the number of Barbarians/Rebels spawning to the condition that their total number of units is below (GameTurn * 10) and below 666!
Poison Gas (PG):
- PG cannot be launched against cities and now you cannot launch them from cities anymore (winds are changing and PG were mostly used on the battlefield in WWI)
- PG have a 5% chance to blow in your face (changing winds, bad mechanism...)
- PG must have their movement points available to be launched (no rush missions for them)
- Damage limited to 72%, increasing progressively from 18 the first 36 turns (until January 1917) and decreasing progressively back to 18 the next 54 turns (July 1921, arbitrary date decided by algebra...) (more effective PG countered by more efficient methods)
- Damage decreased by 50% for Portable Machine Guns and for Advanced Infantries (they are supposed to be equipped with a gas mask)
## Platy Helpers ##
Ctrl + F12: TextReader: displays the help text in a seperate scrollable screen. Useful when encountering a huge army: mouse over it then press Ctrl+F12 to see its full composition!
And last but not least: A Gallipoli Event! Sorry to all Australians and New Zealanders that I missed Anzac day for the release...
Changelog:
Version 10 (released 8 May 2015):
UNITS:
- Naval mines no longer "always hostile": now, they are no longer the target of any other neutral ship but then, they can only hurt enemy ships.
- Naval mines have now a combat strength of 13 (against 8) (and maybe it's not even enough considering the damages done in WWI).
- Ships no longer allowed to range attack (bombard) when inside of a city (temporary interface solution for human players only)
- Autro-Hungarian infantries have now a combat strength equivalent to Russian and American ones.
BUILDINGS: reinstated Walls as Fortifications (50% Defense)
Improvement Fort: iDefenseModifier increased from 25% to 50%. Fort (Trenches) no longer "Act As City": you don't get the resource below, you can't station ships and planes.
Feature Forest: iDefense reduced from 50% to 25%.
MAP:
Added 116 Grocers
Added to Techs to USA as they can't tech effectively in game
Added wine and winery near Bordeaux (how could I miss that!)
PYTHON:
Fixed information message at top of screen not appearing correctly at resolution above x = 1440
Fixed popup messages to appear to every human players, not just the first one
Number of units allowed:
- Naval mines no longer count as "units"
- France allowed to 10% more units (from colonies outside the map)
- Great-Britain allowed to 40% more units (from Empire outside the map, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, ...)
Changed the math for entrance into war of Romania, Greece and Portugal (Alignment Mechanism): it is now depending more on the counter of units lost, which might delay or accelerate their entrance into war and even change their alliance and join the war on the other side.
Limited the number of Barbarians/Rebels spawning to the condition that their total number of units is below (GameTurn * 10) and below 666!
Poison Gas (PG):
- PG cannot be launched against cities and now you cannot launch them from cities anymore (winds are changing and PG were mostly used on the battlefield in WWI)
- PG have a 5% chance to blow in your face (changing winds, bad mechanism...)
- PG must have their movement points available to be launched (no rush missions for them)
- Damage limited to 72%, increasing progressively from 18 the first 36 turns (until January 1917) and decreasing progressively back to 18 the next 54 turns (July 1921, arbitrary date decided by algebra...) (more effective PG countered by more efficient methods)
- Damage decreased by 50% for Portable Machine Guns and for Advanced Infantries (they are supposed to be equipped with a gas mask)
## Platy Helpers ##
Ctrl + F12: TextReader: displays the help text in a seperate scrollable screen. Useful when encountering a huge army: mouse over it then press Ctrl+F12 to see its full composition!
And last but not least: A Gallipoli Event! Sorry to all Australians and New Zealanders that I missed Anzac day for the release...
Hi isenchine,
First of all a Big
is due! Both for the original work as well as the new change log planned.
Just comparing the BtS version to the vanilla one, my feeling is that now AI is not suicidal any more, and takes care of their units, trying to avoid the onset of Rebellion
The fact you removed randomisation and it is now formula-based is very cool, indeed!
I am thrilled to 'watch' the progress of the game by tigranes et al, and noticed the issue with PG - did not experience this myself as I had built none
I'm looking forward to the next installment that will incorporate all the changes mentioned in your post.
At the same time, I'm game for a PBEM game -- have never tried those before but I think they can be really useful as you (as a 'modder') get feedback on gameplay, while we enjoy a 'real' challenge
Cheers,
giorgako
PS: Do you mean that AI is equally smart/aggressive/etc in all levels of BtS, and only
its bonuses vary? Will check other Civ threads on that too
First of all a Big
is due! Both for the original work as well as the new change log planned.Just comparing the BtS version to the vanilla one, my feeling is that now AI is not suicidal any more, and takes care of their units, trying to avoid the onset of Rebellion
The fact you removed randomisation and it is now formula-based is very cool, indeed!
I am thrilled to 'watch' the progress of the game by tigranes et al, and noticed the issue with PG - did not experience this myself as I had built none
I'm looking forward to the next installment that will incorporate all the changes mentioned in your post.
At the same time, I'm game for a PBEM game -- have never tried those before but I think they can be really useful as you (as a 'modder') get feedback on gameplay, while we enjoy a 'real' challenge
Cheers,
giorgako
PS: Do you mean that AI is equally smart/aggressive/etc in all levels of BtS, and only
its bonuses vary? Will check other Civ threads on that too
isenchine
Empress
Hello giorgako and thanks for your words, they are very encouraging!
Indeed, I try to avoid too much randomness. I prefer when results are depending upon your choices of play.
Don't put too much hope on the AI though, the code is mostly in the dll which I haven't touched so far (and probably won't as it is beyond my capacity as an amateur coder). As for Python, the AI does not really understand it, it just follows the enforced rules without a real knowledge of what to do with them.
As for the AI question in your PS, yes, there is only one strategy designed for the AI, it is not smarter at higher difficulties. Check the file CIV4HandicapInfo.xml located in BtS/Assets/XML/GameInfo. It contains most of the differentiations between levels. Contrary to what I've said before, for this scenario, Happiness, Health, Maintenance, Production cost, Tech research and others have their importance when you change level of difficulty.
One of the big difficulty for a coder would be to teach the AI a real sense of memory. Like: I've used this strategy before and it does not work. Let's try something else. So far, the AI never remembers this sort of thing and will, for example, re-constitute a similar army and bang its head against a fortified city on a choke point, ever and ever. Each turn, all the strategy is re-calculated on the same basis.
For all these reasons, some people prefer to play PBEM (or multi-player) as it is a much higher challenge for them to play against human intelligence. Surely (I hope) another PBEM game will be set up after the release of the new version!
Indeed, I try to avoid too much randomness. I prefer when results are depending upon your choices of play.
Don't put too much hope on the AI though, the code is mostly in the dll which I haven't touched so far (and probably won't as it is beyond my capacity as an amateur coder). As for Python, the AI does not really understand it, it just follows the enforced rules without a real knowledge of what to do with them.
As for the AI question in your PS, yes, there is only one strategy designed for the AI, it is not smarter at higher difficulties. Check the file CIV4HandicapInfo.xml located in BtS/Assets/XML/GameInfo. It contains most of the differentiations between levels. Contrary to what I've said before, for this scenario, Happiness, Health, Maintenance, Production cost, Tech research and others have their importance when you change level of difficulty.
One of the big difficulty for a coder would be to teach the AI a real sense of memory. Like: I've used this strategy before and it does not work. Let's try something else. So far, the AI never remembers this sort of thing and will, for example, re-constitute a similar army and bang its head against a fortified city on a choke point, ever and ever. Each turn, all the strategy is re-calculated on the same basis.
For all these reasons, some people prefer to play PBEM (or multi-player) as it is a much higher challenge for them to play against human intelligence. Surely (I hope) another PBEM game will be set up after the release of the new version!
Hi isenchine,
Thank you for the clarification on the AI aggressiveness/smartness or lack thereof
I was under the impression that it may be a bit more 'coordinated' at higher levels but I can see how it can be really difficult to program 'intelligence' at such a multi-faceted and complex game.
I have played with the XML files a bit in the past, mostly increasing the bonuses of the AI etc to no avail... I better revert to PBEM like most people for a better challenge.
On the current list of changes, have you considered the fort's ability to station 4 planes and as many ships as one wants? This may be something you have already thought about, but it seems it makes it quite advantageous for Central Powers to launch an English invasion.
Good luck on your project ahead! If there is any minimal help on the Python files, I'd be happy to take a look -- I'm not a programmer, just an aspiring one, but anything formulaic or so I'd be keen to take a look.
Cheers,
giorgako
Thank you for the clarification on the AI aggressiveness/smartness or lack thereof
I was under the impression that it may be a bit more 'coordinated' at higher levels but I can see how it can be really difficult to program 'intelligence' at such a multi-faceted and complex game.
I have played with the XML files a bit in the past, mostly increasing the bonuses of the AI etc to no avail... I better revert to PBEM like most people
for a better challenge. On the current list of changes, have you considered the fort's ability to station 4 planes and as many ships as one wants? This may be something you have already thought about, but it seems it makes it quite advantageous for Central Powers to launch an English invasion.
Good luck on your project ahead! If there is any minimal help on the Python files, I'd be happy to take a look -- I'm not a programmer, just an aspiring one, but anything formulaic or so I'd be keen to take a look.
Cheers,
giorgako
isenchine
Empress
Hi giorgako,
Thanks for the help in Python. I have no idea what is your level but so far I can manage (I think). There is always help available on this forum otherwise (Platyping and others). You can have a look at the main CvWWIEvents.py file out of curiosity. The big part (structure) of it is still Jon Shafer's job. And honestly, for me, Python is the fun part!
As for the fort, well, I just tried to be sure. You can station planes and ships on a fort actually.
Thanks for the help in Python. I have no idea what is your level but so far I can manage (I think). There is always help available on this forum otherwise (Platyping and others). You can have a look at the main CvWWIEvents.py file out of curiosity. The big part (structure) of it is still Jon Shafer's job. And honestly, for me, Python is the fun part!
As for the fort, well, I just tried to be sure. You can station planes and ships on a fort actually.
Hi isenchine,
My apologies for not being clear earlier! I meant that the fort seems to be too powerful currently as it can host ships and 4 planes. A typical 'trench' of WWI was more of a land fortification -- rather than an airstrip/port
I am not sure if the PBEM guys or you have thought of this before. No strong feelings on my side, just a suggestion
Good to know that you have people to help -- my Python is just enough to read the files with the events and so on, and get to know the rules for enjoying the gameplay. I have done minor changes once in a while for experimentation.
My apologies for not being clear earlier! I meant that the fort seems to be too powerful currently as it can host ships and 4 planes. A typical 'trench' of WWI was more of a land fortification -- rather than an airstrip/port
I am not sure if the PBEM guys or you have thought of this before. No strong feelings on my side, just a suggestion
Good to know that you have people to help -- my Python is just enough to read the files with the events and so on, and get to know the rules for enjoying the gameplay. I have done minor changes once in a while for experimentation.
isenchine
Empress
Oh, I see, sorry, I read your post too quickly.
It's true that a fort remains a fort, not a trench. Trenches are difficult to represent. It's not so much the graphics but rather the units in it or rather not in it as half-seen units would be a huge task to undertake, including dll changes (don't count on me). Plus at the start of the war (this scenario), there were no trenches...
It remains the problem no1, from the beginning of this thread onwards.
So, I'm asking a question here to all:
1) Forts are forts as in BtS and you can station planes and ships (bActAsCity = 1).
2) Forts are actually trenches and that's it, no planes, no ships (bActAsCity = 0, no access to the resource below either).
Some facts to consider:
- it's not that we build in game as many forts as there were trenches.
- let's imagine that Germany occupies Antwerp and its port, as it was the case in WWI but Antwerp is not represented on the map. From there, they launch an invasion...
- we're talking about air fields for bi-planes, not airports really
Nevertheless, I'm actually in favour of answer 2.
It's true that a fort remains a fort, not a trench. Trenches are difficult to represent. It's not so much the graphics but rather the units in it or rather not in it as half-seen units would be a huge task to undertake, including dll changes (don't count on me). Plus at the start of the war (this scenario), there were no trenches...
It remains the problem no1, from the beginning of this thread onwards.
So, I'm asking a question here to all:
1) Forts are forts as in BtS and you can station planes and ships (bActAsCity = 1).
2) Forts are actually trenches and that's it, no planes, no ships (bActAsCity = 0, no access to the resource below either).
Some facts to consider:
- it's not that we build in game as many forts as there were trenches.
- let's imagine that Germany occupies Antwerp and its port, as it was the case in WWI but Antwerp is not represented on the map. From there, they launch an invasion...
- we're talking about air fields for bi-planes, not airports really
Nevertheless, I'm actually in favour of answer 2.
The problem is that I never had a reason to build forts so far. I went into the PBEM expecting to build a defensive line from the sea to the Swiss borders as in reality. But in the end I settled for having my 3 eastern French cities garrisoned with large armies. Which did the same job without needing to spread them all over the map, as I could reposition them quickly via rail as needed.
I'd have both in a ideal world, option 1 as a stand in for the likes of Verdun etc. Option 2 for the trench systems dug over the war. Weaker than option one but receiving better defenses over the course of the war. Couple % defense boni for this or that tech. Historically these fortifications became more and more sophisticated over the war.
Graphically you could make them similar to roads so they'd link up with neighbouring ones.
Just one quick comment on mines, before I forget about them again. I feel they are not doing enough damage if you attack them. Those things sunk battleship with a few hits, here they are a minor annoyance.
I'd have both in a ideal world, option 1 as a stand in for the likes of Verdun etc. Option 2 for the trench systems dug over the war. Weaker than option one but receiving better defenses over the course of the war. Couple % defense boni for this or that tech. Historically these fortifications became more and more sophisticated over the war.
Graphically you could make them similar to roads so they'd link up with neighbouring ones.
Just one quick comment on mines, before I forget about them again. I feel they are not doing enough damage if you attack them. Those things sunk battleship with a few hits, here they are a minor annoyance.
isenchine
Empress
I think you hit a major point here: in Civ4, trenches are not really needed! I reduced the velocity of railroads but even then, considering that one turn is supposed to be one month, your army can legitimately go from one city to the other as needed. There isn't really a no-man's land here. In Civ4, big battles are not enough fought in the field as it used to be in reality.
Graphically, I thought of using the earthquake "improvement" of hrochland, but connecting them is a big problem. Why bother if we don't use them.
Progressively better defenses: there is the system with cottages to improve in hamlets. It wouldn't work in this case. Three different improvements to be rebuilt each time. Again, I'm not sure we would use them.
You're right about naval mines. I already decided to increase their strength from 8 to 10 but feel it's not enough.
As a reminder:
- Mine Tender: 12
- Transport: 15
- Submarine: 24
- Destroyer: 22
- Cruiser: 27
- Pre-Dreadnought: 24
- Dreadnought: 32
I'm now thinking of 13 or even 15. Perhaps more. Any suggestion?
Graphically, I thought of using the earthquake "improvement" of hrochland, but connecting them is a big problem. Why bother if we don't use them.
Progressively better defenses: there is the system with cottages to improve in hamlets. It wouldn't work in this case. Three different improvements to be rebuilt each time. Again, I'm not sure we would use them.
You're right about naval mines. I already decided to increase their strength from 8 to 10 but feel it's not enough.
As a reminder:
- Mine Tender: 12
- Transport: 15
- Submarine: 24
- Destroyer: 22
- Cruiser: 27
- Pre-Dreadnought: 24
- Dreadnought: 32
I'm now thinking of 13 or even 15. Perhaps more. Any suggestion?
isenchine
Empress
per memory (extracts from World War I - thread in the Civ4 PBEM Games section).
And yes, by "interface solution", I mean for human players only.
isenchine
Empress
It is nice to have a business with you, sir 
. Are you limiting your interest to WW1 only? Some amazing WW2 scenario is in dire need for some short but serious help 
Tigranes
Armenian
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
- Messages
- 10,413
I honestly think that mines should be at least as 'bad" as transports, but destroyers must be able to 'disarm' them already. And totally cool function for Mine Tender could be the ability to not only avoid enemy Mines, but literally sweep hostile mines making them friendly and loaded unto Tender. But I am not sure how often mines were re-used in the real life against their original owners.
I agree with all that mines should be stronger. I'd say 16 or 18, so that WW I Destroyers can 'disarm' them but not without any harm to them
I really liked KiwiTT's 'Historical WW II' mines: there they have +400% against all ships, except for one ship type only that can 'destroy them' marginally. But those 'strong' mines are not buildable 'till an advanced tech is researched.
Coming to our WW I scenario, without introducing an extra ship type and the like, I think decent strength of 18 is somewhat justified. But if we strengthen 'em maybe we should raise their build cost proportionately? Double it? Any thoughts?
I really liked KiwiTT's 'Historical WW II' mines: there they have +400% against all ships, except for one ship type only that can 'destroy them' marginally. But those 'strong' mines are not buildable 'till an advanced tech is researched.
Coming to our WW I scenario, without introducing an extra ship type and the like, I think decent strength of 18 is somewhat justified. But if we strengthen 'em maybe we should raise their build cost proportionately? Double it? Any thoughts?
Similar threads
