Spawn system

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Yes, but I was wondering which particular value is doubled/halved to achieve that. And if AIAndy's two new tags he added were included in that doubling. If the density isn't doubled, a fast spawn would reach or maintain the density faster, but not increase the total number of spawns achievable in that Area.

I think the standard setting is a little soft currently to be honest. I think Neanderthals and Animals should wander into cultural borders. I don't think animals should attack cities, but Neanderthals should as should the normal barbs. Raging should just double their intensity and maybe widen the range they will move to seek out Civs.

If we change TreatAsBarb for animals to 0, then we may need an option to Double Animals-- like they have in FFH2. Think they call it Wild Animals or Animal Kingdom or something like that.

The definition of animal in BtS = "barbarian that can't enter borders".

 

[EldrinFal]

The definition of animal in BtS = "barbarian that can't enter borders".

Doesn't mean we can't redefine it.

 

[EldrinFal]

@Dancing Hoskuld

Just letting you know the animal spawn rate overall seems high. I ran a bunch of autoplay games tonight to test the Neanderthal adjustments and there were quite a large number of animals. They seemed diverse, but added up together, quite prolific!

Maybe once AIAndy implements his change to divide the "barbarians" into "teams" we can have a dedicated animal one (or two) and then get some spawn code to limit their numbers as a group.

 

[Koshling]

@Dancing Hoskuld

Just letting you know the animal spawn rate overall seems high. I ran a bunch of autoplay games tonight to test the Neanderthal adjustments and there were quite a large number of animals. They seemed diverse, but added up together, quite prolific!

Maybe once AIAndy implements his change to divide the "barbarians" into "teams" we can have a dedicated animal one (or two) and then get some spawn code to limit their numbers as a group.

It wouldn't be hard to add a 'group' concept so that you could tag spawns into groups and have the density limits apply to the group regardless of the teasm they eventually wind up on.

 

[EldrinFal]

It wouldn't be hard to add a 'group' concept so that you could tag spawns into groups and have the density limits apply to the group regardless of the teasm they eventually wind up on.

Sounds good to me. Then we can separate animals and Neanderthals (and future barbs), and even sub-divide animals. Ideally I think only Barbarian and Predator-type animals should actually attack other units. Other animal types I'm wondering if they should flee away from units? Might be an interesting concept to force the player to use more than one unit or strategic movement to corner those non-aggressive but valuable types.

 

[Koshling]

Sounds good to me. Then we can separate animals and Neanderthals (and future barbs), and even sub-divide animals. Ideally I think only Barbarian and Predator-type animals should actually attack other units. Other animal types I'm wondering if they should flee away from units? Might be an interesting concept to force the player to use more than one unit or strategic movement to corner those non-aggressive but valuable types.

You misunderstand I think. Changing their behaviour once spawned would require modification to the animal AI. I'm only talking about grouping them for spawn purposes so that the spawn densities can correspond to groups (so overall animal density, or predator density or whatever could be controled in the spawn). This would not influence their behaviour once spawned at all.

Adding multiple animal AIs (or just tweaking the one we have to interpret some new predator/prey tag) is a separate thing.

 

[EldrinFal]

You misunderstand I think. Changing their behaviour once spawned would require modification to the animal AI. I'm only talking about grouping them for spawn purposes so that the spawn densities can correspond to groups (so overall animal density, or predator density or whatever could be controled in the spawn). This would not influence their behaviour once spawned at all.

Adding multiple animal AIs (or just tweaking the one we have to interpret some new predator/prey tag) is a separate thing.

Ah.. yeah, and I guess AI settings are per individual unit anyway. For some reason I had it in my head that the AI was attached to "Barbarian."

But I do understand the spawning aspect. Off the top of my head I would think all Land animals would be in one group, Water in another, and then Neanderthals / Normal barbarian unit types. Do you see a reason to sub-divide land animal spawns?

Maybe we need some Neanderthal chiefs that are a little more powerful. Then group them separately for a much less rare chance. Would need a slightly altered model though.

 

[Thunderbrd]

We have an ability to make an animal 'aggressive' and thus willing to attack, vs ... I'm not sure the setting, but nevertheless, it was a line in the XML from what I understand.

Splitting groups into Barbarian, Predator, and Prey categories would be helpful nevertheless to create a very biologically self interacting world. And I agree that most Prey creatures wouldn't be aggressive but should have a strong ability to flee built in with defensive withdraw and some withdraw percentage (even some predators should have this though since most animals, even the really fierce ones, cats in particular, will flee as soon as they are hurt in any way.)

This wouldn't change the ai settings for the animals at all I don't think... since we already have a toggle to tell them whether to be aggressive or to avoid combat.

 

[EldrinFal]

We have an ability to make an animal 'aggressive' and thus willing to attack, vs ... I'm not sure the setting, but nevertheless, it was a line in the XML from what I understand.

Splitting groups into Barbarian, Predator, and Prey categories would be helpful nevertheless to create a very biologically self interacting world. And I agree that most Prey creatures wouldn't be aggressive but should have a strong ability to flee built in with defensive withdraw and some withdraw percentage (even some predators should have this though since most animals, even the really fierce ones, cats in particular, will flee as soon as they are hurt in any way.)

This wouldn't change the ai settings for the animals at all I don't think... since we already have a toggle to tell them whether to be aggressive or to avoid combat.

If we have it that's great. But there IS a difference between simply not attacking and actively moving away from all Human units (maybe even eventually include fleeing away from predators, who will attack them).

Although there has to be a limit to the distance. It would be pointless if every single "Bambi" unit clustered in the farthest peninsula of the continent!

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

@Dancing Hoskuld

Just letting you know the animal spawn rate overall seems high. I ran a bunch of autoplay games tonight to test the Neanderthal adjustments and there were quite a large number of animals. They seemed diverse, but added up together, quite prolific!

Maybe once AIAndy implements his change to divide the "barbarians" into "teams" we can have a dedicated animal one (or two) and then get some spawn code to limit their numbers as a group.

I know. I had them working fine then, probably with all the new animals, they have blown out.

We have an ability to make an animal 'aggressive' and thus willing to attack, vs ... I'm not sure the setting, but nevertheless, it was a line in the XML from what I understand.

That is the bDefendOnly tag. If it is on they wont attack. If off they will. All wild animals have it off and subdued animals have it on.

When the animals were not aggressive, you could not capture them because human units could not catch up with them.

Splitting groups into Barbarian, Predator, and Prey categories would be helpful nevertheless to create a very biologically self interacting world. And I agree that most Prey creatures wouldn't be aggressive but should have a strong ability to flee built in with defensive withdraw and some withdraw percentage (even some predators should have this though since most animals, even the really fierce ones, cats in particular, will flee as soon as they are hurt in any way.)

This wouldn't change the ai settings for the animals at all I don't think... since we already have a toggle to tell them whether to be aggressive or to avoid combat.

The cobra has a chance to withdraw, and does on occasion. However I am suspecting that this chance to withdraw is causing human units to get excessive promotions since they survive the combat also.

If I remember my ecosystem stuff it is one predator for every 200 prey.

 

[Koshling]

If I remember my ecosystem stuff it is one predator for every 200 prey.

Depends on the specific predator and prey to some extent. More than 200 plankton to each Sperm whale ;-)

 

[AIAndy]

Depends on the specific predator and prey to some extent. More than 200 plankton to each Sperm whale ;-)

In the end it depends on the flow and loss of energy throughout the ecosystem.
From the sun to the plants to the herbivores and onwards through the food chain. Every level loses a lot of the energy and has therefore considerably lower biomass.

 

[Koshling]

In the end it depends on the flow and loss of energy throughout the ecosystem.
From the sun to the plants to the herbivores and onwards through the food chain. Every level loses a lot of the energy and has therefore considerably lower biomass.

There was a smiley on my post for a reason!

 

[Hydromancerx]

We have an ability to make an animal 'aggressive' and thus willing to attack, vs ... I'm not sure the setting, but nevertheless, it was a line in the XML from what I understand.

Splitting groups into Barbarian, Predator, and Prey categories would be helpful nevertheless to create a very biologically self interacting world. And I agree that most Prey creatures wouldn't be aggressive but should have a strong ability to flee built in with defensive withdraw and some withdraw percentage (even some predators should have this though since most animals, even the really fierce ones, cats in particular, will flee as soon as they are hurt in any way.)

This wouldn't change the ai settings for the animals at all I don't think... since we already have a toggle to tell them whether to be aggressive or to avoid combat.

What if you had flight or fight system like this ...

Aggressive = Always attacks you on sight.
Defensive = Attacks you if you get too close.
Indifferent = Will not run or attack you on sight.
Cautious = Runs Away if you get too close.
Skittish = Runs away from you on sight.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Great options Hydro... I'd like to add:

Arrogant = Moves randomly and if happens to attack you in so doing, so be it.

Hmm... so how would we do this Koshling? Establish an ai routine for animals based on each of these sorts?

 

[Koshling]

Great options Hydro... I'd like to add:

Arrogant = Moves randomly and if happens to attack you in so doing, so be it.

Hmm... so how would we do this Koshling? Establish an ai routine for animals based on each of these sorts?

Easiest way would be to create new unitAIs for each (which implies a separate routine in unitAI.cpp yes, though obviously they would share mostly common sub-routines from the current animal AI). However, this would not be enough to cause them to fight other animals (or barbarians) - AIAndy's proposed splitting into multipel barbarian teasm would eb needs AS WELL for that.

 

[AIAndy]

Easiest way would be to create new unitAIs for each (which implies a separate routine in unitAI.cpp yes, though obviously they would share mostly common sub-routines from the current animal AI). However, this would not be enough to cause them to fight other animals (or barbarians) - AIAndy's proposed splitting into multipel barbarian teasm would eb needs AS WELL for that.

The long term plan I would suggest is:

• A new XML file for specifying special players and their relation to each other (will also require going over a LOT of code referencing BARBARIAN_PLAYER and the barbarian or minor civ property of players)
• Several new unit AIs
• Specify special player and unit AI in the spawn info

For starters maybe just some unit AIs and the possibility to spawn with a specified unit AI.

 

[Koshling]

The long term plan I would suggest is:

• A new XML file for specifying special players and their relation to each other (will also require going over a LOT of code referencing BARBARIAN_PLAYER and the barbarian or minor civ property of players)
• Several new unit AIs
• Specify special player and unit AI in the spawn info

For starters maybe just some unit AIs and the possibility to spawn with a specified unit AI.

Don't think we need the unitAI seopecified in teh sopwn for now. Just new unitAIs and they would be the default AIs for those animals in the animal's def (regardless how they spawn)

 

[AIAndy]

Don't think we need the unitAI seopecified in teh sopwn for now. Just new unitAIs and they would be the default AIs for those animals in the animal's def (regardless how they spawn)

I am not sure if in the long run you might want to spawn the same animal sometimes with one AI and sometimes with another. But you are right that that can easily be added later.

 

[EldrinFal]

I am not sure if in the long run you might want to spawn the same animal sometimes with one AI and sometimes with another. But you are right that that can easily be added later.

I suppose that could be interesting if you could assign a name tag to them at the same time. "Rabid Boar" "Timid Elephant"

Once the barbarians are broken up, I'm wondering if they should have some kind of location restriction so two tribes aggro to each other aren't spawning from the same points on the map.