1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

The Medieval Economy

Discussion in 'Civ4Col - Medieval: Conquests' started by Kailric, Sep 15, 2013.

  1. Kailric

    Kailric Jack of All Trades

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,094
    Location:
    Marooned, Y'isrumgone
    Yes, I am in aggreeance with you. I've added more Upkeep to this release already. Your empire will need Gold and other yields produced each turn in order to keep its Civics up. There is tons of balancing we can do there also so it all needs play tested.
     
  2. orlanth

    orlanth Storm God. Yarr!

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2001
    Messages:
    1,759
    I think there really needs to be an effect of supply and demand on local prices for things to work and be naturally balanced while adding interesting strategy. :gold:

    Ie, when the local Demand for a yield goes unfulfilled for long period, this would naturally cause the price there to creep upward, along with citizens there becoming slightly discontented. This would naturally incentivize you to supply that Yield there and resolve the shortage (because of the higher price, it becomes feasible to buy it in other markets or in a Tradescreen and import it to resolve the shortage if you need to.) AI traders could be lured by the higher price to sell there which would be a cool and natural mechanic. You could also find situations where a foreign city or Tradescreen has higher local prices at the moment than your own - this would create interesting strategic choice about whether you sell to the foreign market to get maximum profit, or keep your domestic market well supplied at home to keep everyone content, while making profit slightly less than you could. :king::gold:

    Contrarily suppose you are in one of those situations where you can produce lots of a certain good and are having too easy of a time making money from it (can happen a lot especially in late games getting runaway production boosts from stacking bonuses from citizens/buildings/fealty etc). If your local demand for the yield is constantly filled by overproduction, this should gradually move down local prices acting as a balancing mechanism making profits come less easily. You would have to be creative to seek out foreign cities where Demand for that yield was high and profit that way, or make special journey to a Tradescreen market with a good price for that yield, thus acting as a safety-valve mechanism. Some other strategic options would be to focus on acquiring citizens and Building types which generate more domestic demand for that yield; thus gradually building up a self-sufficient domestic economy in an interesting way. You would raise your profit potential from Domestic Market by gaining elite citizen types with high Demands, but you would also have to make sure to manage carefully to keep those Demands fulfilled to keep the gold flowing and keep your subjects content! :gold::king:

    Overall, the effects of supply/demand balance on local prices is the core of economics, and that may be the missing piece to make the economy system really gel and balance in an interesting & natural way.

    I'm not sure what the current mechanism is for Tradescreen price adjustment, but the vanilla mechanism for this is bad for sure (amounting to there being a random chance of large percentage lurches in price, which can be triggered by sales but has a huge degree of randomness). Overall there should be distinct roles for the domestic market and special Tradescreens (the Tradescreens can't be a generic "dumping ground" where you can easily dump almost everything you produce like in vanilla. Rather it would be more interesting if evolving prices change where it is most profitable to sell a certain good, incentivizing you to think and seek out the best opportunities for trade). Ideally the effects of local supply/demand of cities on the map would enable interesting price differences to emerge between them, which could be percieved and profited from by AI traders and human and AI players noting the profit opportunity and acting to supply needed goods. The Tradescreens could act more like special unique markets which you can use as a "safety valve" where you can't find the supply/demand you want in nearby cities.
     
  3. Lib.Spi't

    Lib.Spi't Overlord of the Wasteland

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    3,671
    Location:
    UK
    To be honest I kind of disagree.

    Domestic Economics is always occuring 'under the hood' in the Col. Engine. I put it forth once before that if we start talking about 'realistic' domestic economics then the whole production system fails to meet this criteria.

    You give your farmer food for free so he doesn't die, the farmer grows grapes which he gives you for free, you give the grapes (and food so he doesn't die) to your wine maker, who makes wine and gives you that for free. You could then use that wine to improve your empire in someway, putting it back into the (gold free) domestic economy.

    Or taking it to foreign lands and converting it to 'gold' (which is essentially backing up the concept of your empire having something that makes it's currency worth something) that the rest of the world will officially recognise.

    Getting it to those foreign places is the key part, and we eventually need to develop an AI that will often do whatever it can to shoot or stab it's opponents before they get there. Or who will otherwise produce more goods faster and get them there before the price drops to an 'unlucrative' level.

    One of my favourite things in M:C is taking goods between the trade screens, when yo do this the trade screens begin to react and eventually that 'best choice' product ceases to be profitable to move around anymore. I do agree that the price needs to drop a bit faster, as I can make a quite a bit more than a reasonable butt tonne (when combined with the interest rate mechanic) but that is a relatively minor balance change (you can only sell 5000 of a yield before the price has plummeted rather than 10000 or 20000 or whatever), rather than a need for a wholesale economic model shift.

    Most wars were one by the side that kept their trade lines open rather than purely having the strongest domestic economy.
     
  4. Nightinggale

    Nightinggale Chieftain Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,987
    I think orlanth pretty much said what my original goal was. However nobody ever coded it like that.

    We could make something interesting with the trade screen prices. Say we give them units and they steadily grow to match a growing world population. This will give them a demand, which together with supply will control prices. Maybe it should add some more demands or they will never demand stuff like weapons.
    The units shouldn't actually be real CvUnit kind of units. It just need a unit count and access to CvUnitInfo, meaning a UnitArray would be enough.

    While reading this, I started thinking on supplying yields domestically. I came up with a new concept for units: domestic peddler.

    This unit is intended to work automatically and might actually appear automatically when your empire is big enough. It can only move in the same plotgroup on plots you own. It has restrictions on the price of the combined yields it carries and a low number (say 20, but can be increased with civics). It can only carry luxury goods and raw materials for those. No yields, which can be used to make units.
    The good part about this unit is that it has no cargo slots. Instead it has a YieldArray. This mean it can carry say 5 different yields if it only has 4 of each. That makes it good to supply low quantity numbers like domestic demands can be.

    Alternatively I though of another solution earlier. Cargo hold separation unit. It is an immobile unit, which can be placed in a cargo slot. It then gives the unit 50% of the cargo slot capacity, but then it can carry the yields in a YieldArray meaning it will can carry many yields of low quantities.

    We could also make a unit, which can only carry yields, has 6 slots, but max 10 units in each slot. That will also allow moving many different yields of low quantity.

    Either way the vanilla (current) system with 100 units of a yield in each cargo slots is horrible at delivering a steady supply like we would like to have with an automated domestic marked.
     
  5. Nightinggale

    Nightinggale Chieftain Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,987
    I disagree with your statement. M:C has never been intended to be a reskin of vanilla. Even if vanilla is based on exports, M:C will not have to do the same. Medieval times were a time of make do with what you have protectionism. The open border trade as we know it today wasn't that widespread. Sure long distance trade happened, but not to the scale as it is in M:C right now and certainly not to the scale that vanilla has.
     
  6. Kailric

    Kailric Jack of All Trades

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,094
    Location:
    Marooned, Y'isrumgone
    All I am going to say for now is we done spent 24 pages on this topic :deadhorse:, I'm taking a break and then coming back later to read all everyone has wrote.. keep at it;):popcorn:
     
  7. Lib.Spi't

    Lib.Spi't Overlord of the Wasteland

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    3,671
    Location:
    UK
    I disagree with your disagreement! :D

    My point with that statement was that if you are going to make half of the domestic economy system more 'realistic' you either have to ignore or change the fact that the other half is not 'realistic' which is to say all this moving and shaking of goods internally with no money ever being exchanged.

    My point is that the domestic economy is functional as both a 'realism' conceptualism, and as a game mechanic. No foreign power cares what you buy and sell internally, therefore it doesn't really represent your 'clout' on the global/foreign stage.

    Mechanically your empire will not collapse without a 'foreign recognised' currency. It just won't be that powerful either.

    The game begins in the 'protectionism' state. All your stuff is yours, and you can decide whether or not to sell any of it to your next door neighbour (This is a good idea because it gives you way more clout and success as an empire) but you don't have to.

    The goal of the game is to move away from this state to become the most powerful 'world' power. Much like Byzantium was in this period, with a massive foreign trading infrastructure, and all the wealth and power that went along with it.

    Your ability to control a slice of the foreign market pie, is pretty much directly linked to your ability to control a slice of the world power pie.... mmmmm pie.

    The size of those pies will usually be fairly equal.
     
  8. Nightinggale

    Nightinggale Chieftain Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,987
    Wrong. If it did, then the other players would reject your traders, which is what I have been trying to say. You should have the risk of that happening. You get a booming economy with foreign trade, but you risk losing your marked. If you pay attention to build up a domestic marked, you will not get money as quickly, but the income with be more steadily and secure.

    Foreign prices will also be more unstable and with foreign trade, the instability will enter your domestic prices. If you shut down the link, the production and supply will stabilize the prices and you will not lose trade income because country B sells a lot of grapes to a number of countries (not including you).

    With current and planned upkeeps (civics, soldiers etc), the claim that you can run your empire without an income isn't valid.
     
  9. Lib.Spi't

    Lib.Spi't Overlord of the Wasteland

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    3,671
    Location:
    UK
    It is valid.

    As I stated earlier in this long running conversation over many threads :D, and again in this one too, (in not so many words, about improvements), is that you can run an empire without foreign recognised currency, you just can't run the best empire.

    In another thread, probably a military one, I talked about the concept of having militia/levy and professional types of troops, levies are rubbish in comparison to professionals, but they don't require money (a bit like right now you can make soldiers with tools rather than weapons). Professionals are better in every way, but require money, if you want a world beating military you need that money from foreign markets.

    Same with civics, not all civics have to cost money to upkeep, Kail has already talked about the potential (maybe even actual need now?) for other yields to be involved as well, so you could potentially have some 'domestically viable' civics that only require yields that are not currency. The best and most powerful ones can be reserved for those empires that get their act together and get the global clout they need to be a world power.

    I know of very few instances where a nation would refuse to buy something they want or need when it is in their lap, usually it is about not selling what you want or need to you the decision usually comes from the possessor(Spelling? how many sssss's does it want!) rather than the purchaser.

    Protectionism only really stops the buying when there are people inside that country selling who do not want foreign competition.

    This is already represented by the need to get open border/trade treaties with other powers(if they don't like you they block you), before you can get in to sell to them or you have to go on a long (and should be eventually more dangerous) expedition to the great Trade Screens of yonderlands that accept so much traffic that they are essentially immune to protectionism, because there will always be someone willing to buy and sell (maybe even someone who is making a killing buying cheap foreign goods to sell in their protected markets... cheeky monkeys!).

    The state of the world at this time was more about the fact that you couldn't get from A to B to trade, rather than people saying 'we don't want your nice things' when you manage to get there.

    The initial foreign trade with natives is that you have the power of manufacturing and they don't. You have the wine, they only have grapes, you have the ale, they only have the barley, you have the weapons! (ooooooh stabby!) they only have the ore.

    By exploiting this, you grow into a more dominant world recognised power.
     
  10. Nightinggale

    Nightinggale Chieftain Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,987
    :wallbash:
    We are going in circles. We want the game to be flexible when it comes to XML setup. The DLL should be able to do more or less anything we can think of. I want the same flexibility to ingame decisions. You have to be able to win using the domestic marked as income. End of story.

    "You can play without an income, but you will not win" is the same as saying that's not a way you can play. Even vanilla did this better. You could be Spain and kill all natives, or you could be France and make peace. Both valid options. We need war to be a valid option.

    Also it makes no sense that you become rich by having 5 cities, but poor if you have 8 because to make room for the last 3, you killed the natives and then you have nobody to sell to. Big should be better, not worse.
     
  11. Lib.Spi't

    Lib.Spi't Overlord of the Wasteland

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    3,671
    Location:
    UK
    We are not going in circles, this was not a debate about the moddability of the .dll. (it can already do money from domestic sales. So there is nothing to upgrade if you want money from the domestic sales functionality.)

    This is a debate about the game mechanic of M:C and others about domestic markets making money. I am saying I don't like it as a game mechanic, because the domestic market making money is boring and gives no sensation of reward. If it stopped your population from wanting to kill you.... I would be more motivated. (I am arguing for more moddability not less...)

    Your 'End of Story' Arguments are flawed... You make an argument on a game wide scale, then 'prove' it by referring to only part of a mechanic...

    Spoiler :

    "You can play without an income, but you will not win" is the same as saying that's not a way you can play. Even vanilla did this better. You could be Spain and kill all natives, or you could be France and make peace. Both valid options. We need war to be a valid option.


    If every civ is playing by the same rules, one develops his foreign market and domestic market(plays better), the other develops only a domestic market, 1 player is only playing half the game.. and will lose. Just as if one player only develops his foreign market, under my suggestions (that domestic market in some way stops your empire collapsing, exploding or in someway pitch forking you) that player will lose too, he will have a big bag of money, but his empire will fall into chaos.

    You are making an argument, and then backing it up with only half a game mechanic.

    It's like saying.. I can win by only doing grape production.... then complaining because you didn't win...saying that the game lacks playstyle options.

    War is a viable option, Peace is a viable option, you may not get a choice in which one you focus on, if a horde of baddies attacks you! However none of my points preclude either of these options..

    You are arguing that you cannot win if you kill all natives because you kill the ability to make money. There are 3 ways to make money. Natives, other 'Players' and the Trade Screens. Also when you kill natives you get money....

    You might be able to win by ignoring a large portion of the game, but it would be extremely difficult!!

    If you build a massive empire, with hordes of levy/militia, you could drown your opponents by sheer weight of numbers and win, but it would be really hard, because you are ignoring a whole portion of the game.

    It's like wanting to win vanilla col. without ever trading with europe. It is probably technically possible (more or less) but it would be nigh on impossible...

    Spoiler :
    Also it makes no sense that you become rich by having 5 cities, but poor if you have 8 because to make room for the last 3, you killed the natives and then you have nobody to sell to. Big should be better, not worse.


    This again doesn't make sense, at no point did I make an arguement that bigger is not better... 3 native villages is nothing! There are loads of native villages!! 3 extra cities is good, it means more production, which means more goods will likely be available to sell to foreign markets, and probably you will have to buy less from foreign markets, making you stronger and more self sufficient. (Such as having your own ore industry to make weapons).

    You also still have at least 2 (If not still all 3) ways of making money. Natives are the level 1 way of making money, and they are a limited money making oppurtunity, because they run out of Gold.

    At which point (hopefully) you have the way to the higher level market oppurtunities, and your large empire should (hopefully) have the size and strength to begin capitalising on the new oppurtunity.

    You can also decide whether to kill the natives when they run out of money (to get a conquest hit of money) or work to vassalise them so you can tax them.

    My goal is to make both foreign and domestic trade distinctively different, but equally neccessary, under the concept I propose, you ignore either at your peril..
     
  12. Kailric

    Kailric Jack of All Trades

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,094
    Location:
    Marooned, Y'isrumgone
    As Lib has mentioned the issue with attempting any kind of real simulated economy/supply/demand is that there would be two different and very conflicting systems going at once. The players ability to, as you say, have "dumping grounds", undermines and belittles any other economic system. Unless we change how the one system works it is pointless to put any more effort into it. We would have to redo the whole system to work together.

    For one we would have to limit the players ability to "dump" goods. Instead there would have to be a market demand that slowly syphoned away his goods and makes him profits, and this would be the means at which the player gains income. Once trade began to hit full stride in the high middle ages there was sort of a dumping on the Trade Routes. Ships laden with cargo would arrive at a foreign port and perhaps trade all their cargo for luxury items they could not get at home. They didn't (that I know of) load up on foreign currency. We would need to implement such a system so the Trade Screens wouldn't become dumping grounds, but instead allowed you to trade Highly Demanded goods for Highly Demanded goods.

    For example, Norse merchants in the 9th century sailed to the Black Sea carrying fish and fur from Scandinavia, honey from Poland, wheat from England, wine from France, beer from the Low Countries, and swords from Germany which they traded for Silver. This Silver was returned and used as a source of bullion to mint coins. If we follow this example we could make it so that you can only Trade goods at Trade Screens and not buy and sell them. Silver then could be brought home and minted into Coins that the Player could then spend on his upkeep, speeding production, paying troops, summoning experts, etc. Systems of exchange like this could be set up, with domestic markets set up also to slowly trickle in money for your empire as well.

    Also, the player couldn't dump his goods at foreign villages. But would have to slowly sell them off at your Trading posts through the PlotGroup Markets. Its those Big Dumps that makes anything else redundant.

    If you are the first to expose a Plotgroup to far eastern goods such as Silk, then your Trading post will be reaping in big gains for quite a while. But in order to get that Silk you will have to produce something that the eastern markets demand instead of exchanging to them your minted coins. Which in the Norse example the merchants on the Black Sea would have no desire for your silver coins, the silver of which they traded to you to start with, unless they had a really pimping image of you, perhaps in a speedo.:commerce::drool:

    The current system needs tested well and could use some attention. However, code is in place so that much can be done here compared to vanilla. Each trade screen has its own market with moving prices as well.

    I would like to see it a bit more difficult in the beginning to get people to trade with you. You meet some total stranger and right off the bat they want to make deals with you. While some may do this, some would show a bit more caution and wait to see what kind of person you really are and wait to hear from others how your dealings have been.
     
  13. Lib.Spi't

    Lib.Spi't Overlord of the Wasteland

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    3,671
    Location:
    UK
    That is really player on player dealings.

    I think if a tribe saw you had something that they had never seen (or more likely knew about but couldn't make) they would be fairly eager to see if they could get some.

    Maybe it could be that step one with a tribe is only barter, you give them wine they give you sheep. After a while if they are still happy with you, gold comes on to the table. You press them too hard, too many times for better deals and such, and they will refuse to even barter with you.

    I don't have a problem with the 'dumping' system, it is only a dumping system if you think you make so much stuff that your little european empire is out stripping virtually the whole worlds consumption. (or at least land connected by land to mainland europe)

    I do agree prices need to be tightened up some, because I can get way too much money at high prices, before it is completely tapped, but the fact is I have tapped out the trade screens in my game.

    I just need to tap out at thousands rather than millions. (or maybe even possibly billions before the game freaked out and flipped my number to negative :D) Part of that was the 'slightly' overpowered interest system. :D

    That is not a mechanic that needs replacing though, it just needs the math tweaking...
     
  14. Nightinggale

    Nightinggale Chieftain Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,987
    And this is precisely what I object to. You argue that if people do not do as you do, they should lose. That's not good gameplay. Good gameplay should allow you to do what you want and find most suiting for the current situation.

    Imagine we have upkeep for soldiers. You start on an island with just one native civ and you have no ship to begin with. If the natives turn hostile, your people will not defend themselves because the only real income is to sell to those natives, hence no soldiers.

    Stating that you have to sell in Europe in vanilla isn't really a valid argument because you always start with access to Europe and a ship to handle the transport. You do not have that luxury in M:C.

    BTS has domestic income and upkeep. You can run a great empire even if you do not contact anybody else. You can trade bonus resources for gold and stuff like that, but that will improve the other player as well and not doing that is a valid strategy.

    I'm not arguing that we need the current implementation of a domestic marked, because that one is broken. We need to figure out how to design multiple economic options, which can coexist.
     
  15. orlanth

    orlanth Storm God. Yarr!

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2001
    Messages:
    1,759
    Don't worry yall, I think there is less of a disagreement than it might seem and it is actually possible to get a good system going that can make the current Domestic Markets more interesting while still having Tradescreens play an independent role. Especially if this is set up so that aspects can be modded and adjusted with playtesting.

    For example, imagine if a few XML parameters can set Domestic and Tradescreen price sensitivity, a multiplier on gold income from Domestic markets, and the amount by which fulfilled/undersupplied Demands effect Fealty or not. This would open up a whole range of possibilities, which would enable you to shape the game as you like, and adjust the impact of each system to your taste depending on how things work out with playtesting.

    You could choose to make a mod where Domestic Markets consumption is more of an Upkeep mechanism, generating little or no gold income but having more of its effects through Fealty etc. Or you could easily choose to make a mod that doesn't activate Domestic mechanism at all and focuses entirely on Tradescreens. You could choose to have a mod focusing on Domestic markets and trade between map cities, with lesser or no role of Tradescreens (this would be good for a Hanseatic League type scenario, like the Patrician series of games where you plan manufacturing and trade networks between cities on the map). Or you could have one or two Yields which focus on Domestic demand, and others focused on Tradescreen export. After all Variety is the Spice Route of Life. :gold::king::p

    Link to video.

    It will be a matter of balancing for sure, I think none of us can know for sure how things will work out in actual gameplay until trying out some alternative setups; so the relative roles of each system can be tweaked and adjusted to everyone's taste (one system and one batch of settings won't be the same for all possible mods and everyones personal tastes, but I wouldn't expect it to.)

    Anyway to my personal taste at least, I think it is actually good that Domestic and Tradescreen can both stay in the game and play their own role in the economy. I actually don't think it's bad per se that Tradescreens can be one option for you to use as a "dumping ground" when you need to. In fact that can be an important "safety valve" giving you another available option when the local supply and demand situation warrants it. However they should just not always necessarily be always the single best choice for everything, where you would "set and forget" all your exports to perpetually stream into a single tile, as is essentially the whole extent of the economy in vanilla. With the possibility of Domestic demand, the real added interest comes from the potential that some cities on the map can become willing to pay higher prices than the generic tradescreen, when they have thriving Demand and are undersupplied causing prices to grow there. You have the potential to seek out special markets like that and take advantage of the opportunity (but only if you have trade relations with the owner, and make the strategic decision that its better to take profits from selling into that market rather than reserving all your goods for domestic consumption). It's that type of emergent strategic possibilities that could make it so interesting, especially as an option that can play less or more role in different mods. :gold::king:

    I would like to see this as a possibility (I think Leaderheadinfos.xml can be used to make leaders start initially more or less trusting, or have a greater impact from long trade relationships, or be more or less sensitive to your expansion, etc). One thing I think would be particularly cool is having a Quest event through the Events system, where a neighbor minor civ asks you to deliver X units of Yield Y to prove your friendship. It would be particularly cool if fulfilling these kind of quests consistently for them would eventually make them friendly enough to give more gifts and eventually consider become your Vassal. :king: Whereas consistently refusing or failing their requests can only lead to raids and blood and thunder :mad::viking:
     
  16. Nightinggale

    Nightinggale Chieftain Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,987
    I think you are on to something here. Tradescreens should be able to be dumping grounds if needed and that should be configurable in XML, preferably based on each yield. For instance the silk route could be dumping ground for something, which can only grow in Europe, but they don't want to buy yields, which will go bad in transport (such as food).

    We might also make era affect how trading behaves. For instance first era can have dumping grounds for raw yields, such as barley and grapes while players are presumably more developed in later eras and they will have to convert them into wine and ale in order to sell them.

    That will require that we unlock the hugely underused era system. Colo has the BTS era system, but it only has two eras: colonial and revolution. We could change it into having a bunch of eras in XML and trigger conditions for next era there as well, such as number of techs, specific techs, population etc. Maybe trade is affected by the most advanced civ in the game meaning if you for trading purposes avoid moving forward in era, somebody else might do it and then you have a problem. Maybe it needs a certain percentage of alive major players to have reached a certain era for trade to affect all players. There are a bunch of possibilities for expansion in this area.

    I like that idea. However the question is if such settings should be XML based, random or both (like checkbox for random personalities). Something like threshold modifier for changing attitude 1 point and init attitude.

    We might also consider that init attitude could be randomly generated when you first encounter them meaning the friendly civ might not be that friendly towards everybody.
     
  17. Lib.Spi't

    Lib.Spi't Overlord of the Wasteland

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    3,671
    Location:
    UK
    Again you are making an argument that directly ignores what I have said...You can't say I have bad gameplay design then make an argument to prove it that ignores my gameplay design...

    That's just not cricket sir! :crazyeye:

    I made the point of saying if we had soldier upkeep, not all soldiers would have upkeep(or at least foreign recognised currency upkeep).

    If you were to start on an island with just one native, I would say one of your first priorities would be making a ship to go find more land, otherwise the world will leave you behind.

    At no point have I excluded a strategy, every strategy you say I have excluded, I am fairly certain I have shown I haven't.

    The point is that if you play a game, and willfully ignore a portion of that game, it is going to be very difficult (if not impossible) to win that game, because you are ignoring half your tools.

    It's like saying the Anno series is a bad game design because you have to setup colonies and trade routes with certain areas to get certain goods and access certain parts required for victory. That's the game...
     
  18. orlanth

    orlanth Storm God. Yarr!

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2001
    Messages:
    1,759
    Yes sounds cool :cool::king:. There are configurable Eras in GameInfo/Civ4EraInfos.xml which can already apply some effects using tags in that file, if this could also apply an Era-specific effect from the new PlayerEffectInfos that would add a ton of versatility. As you say the other issue is that these are currently fixed to switch at a given turn number, rather than based on anything that happens in game. It could be cool to bring back a natural role of Techs advancing the era for that player like in Civ4 Bts (if PlayerEffectInfos.xml has a tag <TriggersEra>, this would let you trigger a new Era based on almost anything you want!) Civ4EventTriggerInfos has a lot of sensors for population, units, etc - if an Event can provide a Civic/Tech then modders could also go about it this way. On progress to a new Era, allowing a popup box to display text and a DDS graphic would be a nice touch of classic Civ4 (e.g. "You have entered the Renaissance Era!"). :king: I think classic Civ4 Eras are a per-player measure of advancement not per-game or by fixed number of years, so you can have some players in a more backward Era and others have a more modernized society.
     
  19. Lib.Spi't

    Lib.Spi't Overlord of the Wasteland

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    3,671
    Location:
    UK
    Yeah in Bts I don't think the eras actually do anything. You just have techs that are in each era, when you research a tech in the next era you advance, but nothing actually happens to the gamepplay other than some graphics changes. Other mods have done more with eras.

    Doane has an interesting era system.

    It will advance to each new era eventually based on turn number or you can get there quicker by completing several goals. You also have some options of which goals to choose, you have primary and secondary, and you have to do all primary and say 4 out of 5 secondary.

    These include things like number of colonies, size of colonies, average rebel sentiment of colonies, money, yield sales, number of defenders per colony, etc.

    Each new era unlocks a lot of stuff, new buildings and units and the ability to do things like colonise inland rather than just the coast.
     
  20. Nightinggale

    Nightinggale Chieftain Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,987
    We have CvPlayer::doEra(), where we set the conditions for moving to a new era. This mean we can set the criteria to whatever we want.

    Thinking a bit about this, I think it would be cool if we add a civic CivEffect to eras. That way a player gains that CivEffect when he change era. Presumably he should keep the old ones too, making it an addition instead of a replacement.

    We should also add a CivEffect that all players gain at the start of the game, lets call it initCivEffect which would allow XML setup of how we want CivEffects to behave.

    Imagine we have Tech A and EraEffect B both providing +1 to allow trade screen. It would unlock if you have either of those. However if initCivEffect has -1, you would have to have BOTH Tech A and EraEffect B to end up with a total of +1 in order to unlock. Naturally this is true for everything in the allow arrays (units, buildings etc), not just trade screens.

    Giving a CivEffect to eras will also allow the other interesting stuff like gold to first to discover and all that.
     

Share This Page