Any chance we could also have this feature for religious victory goals?
Updated Plans for DoC 1.18
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
Yeah, the way the code works is that the goal doesn't care if it's part of a historical or religious victory, so that should already be the case. But expiring goals are pretty rare for religious victories anyway, the only one I can think of is the Protestant tech goal. And that's definitely covered - tech goals were my initial motivation for adding this feature because it is useful to know who your competition is for which tech when this goal fails and you have to plan your next run.
Genghis Khaiser
King
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2012
- Messages
- 701
How much is left before the 1.18 version is ready?
This is still up to date. I am currently making my way through all civilizations in order of start date and am currently on the second page (out of four) of the civ selection screen.
freethink
Prince
what is the coding for that like? is it like making new civs before or is it different now?
The civilizations already exist (when I finished their implementation I shared the post summarising their current attributes). Currently I am spending my time going through each civilization and seeing what their gameplay is like. Does the starting situation work, are there any suboptimal or superoptimal city sites, are their modifiers too strong/weak, how do they compare to neighbouring civilizations, and so on.
Most importantly it is about the UHV goals. I am not aiming for any sort of complete balance or final state, but I do want to make sure that when it is time to share the branch that people can play their UHV and I get meaningful feedback beyond "this is obviously off". When discussing the new map we often brought up adjusting existing UHV goals to the new map, this is what happens during this process. Sometimes I also decide to replace or rearrange goals entirely. Of course, for new civilizations, there is no UHV at all and it has to be designed from scratch. That is usually what takes up most of the time because there is no past experience of what works to fall back on - instead I have to experiment and see what is fun and feasible.
So implementation wise it is either nothing (when I can just reuse existing goals or just tweak their parameters - the current implementation of victory goals makes that extremely easy), or small bits all around the code depending on what needs to be adjusted (e.g. modifiers). The most effort is probably implementing an entirely new type of UHV goal that previously did not exist for any civilization in the game. But that is still not that much time compared to actually playing the game.
If you are asking how much work it is right now to add a new civilization - I think at this point most of the effort is getting the right art assets together and defining it all in XML. On the Python side, you just have to adjust the basic definition modules: Consts, Areas, Civilizations, Modifiers. There is nothing magical to do in the DLL besides adjusting its constants to match Consts.py and recompiling. The effort is more in the details of what you want to put in instead of the busywork of adding the boilerplate code.
Most importantly it is about the UHV goals. I am not aiming for any sort of complete balance or final state, but I do want to make sure that when it is time to share the branch that people can play their UHV and I get meaningful feedback beyond "this is obviously off". When discussing the new map we often brought up adjusting existing UHV goals to the new map, this is what happens during this process. Sometimes I also decide to replace or rearrange goals entirely. Of course, for new civilizations, there is no UHV at all and it has to be designed from scratch. That is usually what takes up most of the time because there is no past experience of what works to fall back on - instead I have to experiment and see what is fun and feasible.
So implementation wise it is either nothing (when I can just reuse existing goals or just tweak their parameters - the current implementation of victory goals makes that extremely easy), or small bits all around the code depending on what needs to be adjusted (e.g. modifiers). The most effort is probably implementing an entirely new type of UHV goal that previously did not exist for any civilization in the game. But that is still not that much time compared to actually playing the game.
If you are asking how much work it is right now to add a new civilization - I think at this point most of the effort is getting the right art assets together and defining it all in XML. On the Python side, you just have to adjust the basic definition modules: Consts, Areas, Civilizations, Modifiers. There is nothing magical to do in the DLL besides adjusting its constants to match Consts.py and recompiling. The effort is more in the details of what you want to put in instead of the busywork of adding the boilerplate code.
Genghis Khaiser
King
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2012
- Messages
- 701
Good.
I have no idea how much more but if I had to guess I'd suppose maybe two months tops if playing daily.
Thank you very much, I have played this mod for more time than I can admit.
I have no idea how much more but if I had to guess I'd suppose maybe two months tops if playing daily.
Thank you very much, I have played this mod for more time than I can admit.
freethink
Prince
Its been my favorite game for over 12 years. I grew up with it.
1SDANi
Sister Lady
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2014
- Messages
- 2,932
Over 7 years for me, and I don't think I would have had my Birth By Sleep without it. I exist because of it.
The map branch is only shared to enable looking at the current state of the map and the civilizations for suggestion purposes.
It is explicitly encouraged NOT to test it - feedback on the current state just isn't helpful. Once I want feedback, I want everyone's feedback, and will make it available on the develop branch. Until then I am doing this on my own.
Oops... well, I played a game. I won't give any feedback, except that it was enjoyable seeing the new map in action and boy was I not fully grasping the size difference on the map until I walked some units across it. Wow!.. I'll leave you to it.
Adjust AI start conditions and settler behaviourAdjust number of available slotsRebase the map branch on the develop branchBalance tech speed- Implement / adjust, playtest, and balance UHVs for new and existing civilizations + restore 600 AD and 1700 AD scenarios
- Merge the map branch into the develop branch - balancing and bug fixes continue from here based on community feedback
- Civics rebalancing
- Baseline city name mechanics
- Indian city art
- Immersion: great people names, city names, dynamic civ names
- Documentation
The only genuine new addition is civics rebalancing. I have been following the civics feedback/guide thread and tried to get a better picture of what people consider strong and useful and which civics are weak and underused. Because I am playing a lot right now anyway, I was keeping that feedback in mind and paid more attention to which choices I was gravitating to and what is often a no brainer. Based on that I came up with fairly concrete plans on what to change. I want to implement that as soon as possible so it also informs people's playing experience and I can get fully formed feedback. At the same time, I do not want to further delay the develop merge because I think that would drive everyone here crazy, including myself.
The idea here is to tweak some civic effects combined with a few more radical changes. More on that when I start working on it.
The other important bit is city names: I still consider this to be of secondary importance because it is merely aesthetic and does not impact anything else. However, I think we have multiple people waiting in the wings now looking to contribute to it. So even if I still need to focus on other parts of the mod first, I would like to unblock contributors so they can already start working on it. This includes things like handling city name changes (outside of mere translations) and multiple different cities sharing the same tile, but I also want to add some more tooling to help checking the existing city name lists for correctness and completeness.
That's it. In my ongoing process of playing and adjusting every civilization, I just got done with England.
Logoncal
King
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2016
- Messages
- 655
I feel like you just basically said i have very high optimistic expectations.
Which you wouldnt be wrong.
AOS9001
Slightly over 9000.
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2009
- Messages
- 784
I think he means that, given the history of DOC's development cycles, 8+ more months of playtesting before 1.18 goes public is entirely within the realm of possibility.
I'd like to believe that 1.18 is coming out sooner than later, but it'll be ready when it's ready. I am beyond excited for the possibilities the big map will open up.
Similar threads
