v10 feedback

[Maniac]

Do you still get random crashes?

How aggressive is the AI?

 

[orlanth]

I'm now getting a reproducible crash on loading the mod - while the loading screen is showing "Init Engine", a popup window says "GFC Error: Failed to initialize the primary control theme" and exits to desktop, I've attached the dump file. I'm running WinXP Home Edition, previous versions worked fine for me.

 

[Lord Tirian]

I'm now getting a reproducible crash on loading the mod - while the loading screen is showing "Init Engine", a popup window says "GFC Error: Failed to initialize the primary control theme" and exits to desktop, I've attached the dump file. I'm running WinXP Home Edition, previous versions worked fine for me.

It's due to not loading the theme properly - a quick look into the Civ4.thm (in the folder ...Mods\Planetfall v10\Resource\ ) reveals that the paths in the file refer to "MODS/Planetfall v9/Resource".

Just open the file with a simple text editor and change "v9" to "v10" and you should be able to play the mod without waiting for the next patch.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Maniac]

Patch a.

Wow. Made the same mistake twice in two days...

 

[orlanth]

Patch a.
Wow. Made the same mistake twice in two days...

All better! Don't worry, frequent mistakes are a good sign of a frequently updated mod

 

[self biased]

i'll give this a whirl later today.

 

[Milaga]

I played about 200 turns last night and two things stood out.

The AI does seem much more aggressive. They seem to be demanding tribute a lot more. In fact I met Lal and Miriam around the same turn. Having built the unity observation bay they both demanded I share my world map with them. Not a chance. Later on they both DoW'd me on the exact same turn.

As of turn 200 the first four religions had been founded and there hasn't been a single passive spread. It wasn't until I signed open border agreement with my neighbor that the first non-founder had a religion. Does religion not spread without an open border agreement? Is that part of the new traderoute rules?

Love the new fungal tower model!

 

[Maniac]

The AI does seem much more aggressive. They seem to be demanding tribute a lot more. In fact I met Lal and Miriam around the same turn. Having built the unity observation bay they both demanded I share my world map with them. Not a chance. Later on they both DoW'd me on the exact same turn.

I have mentioned this to Pfeffersack. Hopefully he'll be able to place this behaviour.

As of turn 200 the first four religions had been founded and there hasn't been a single passive spread. It wasn't until I signed open border agreement with my neighbor that the first non-founder had a religion. Does religion not spread without an open border agreement? Is that part of the new traderoute rules?

An unintended side-effect. Hmm, I assume you preferred the old spread behaviour?

 

[Milaga]

An unintended side-effect. Hmm, I assume you preferred the old spread behaviour?

I'm going to reserve judgment on that. There are some side effects to this. Since opening borders doesn't happen all that early civs seemed to have beelined for founding religions of their own. For the most part the civs that have religions are at odds with each other and there have been some delightful early wars. It is nice to see that not everyone adopts the first religion founded in the game and then gets all buddy buddy.

 

[Elliot]

The free market civic doesn't appear under the Superconductor tech, even though the tooltip says it unlocks free market.

The AI doesn't like trading techs with you. If you don't have any +relations bonuses besides open borders you'll be stuck in "we don't like you enough to trade with you territory". I got friendly enough with lal by switching to democracy for him to trade techs though. Also, the AI will trade their money for your techs. Once I got tech trading unlocked, the AI immediately offered me deals to buy my techs. I personally don't like this. It makes the game feel very empty because there's little interaction going on.

 

[Maniac]

The free market civic doesn't appear under the Superconductor tech, even though the tooltip says it unlocks free market.

You're no doubt playing with the Gaians. The Gaians can't run Free Market. I'll see if it's possible to remove Free Market from that tooltip.

Also, the AI will trade their money for your techs. Once I got tech trading unlocked, the AI immediately offered me deals to buy my techs. I personally don't like this.

I'll try to ensure the AI will neither pay gold or techs to you if they don't like you.

 

[Pfeffersack]

The AI does seem much more aggressive. They seem to be demanding tribute a lot more. In fact I met Lal and Miriam around the same turn. Having built the unity observation bay they both demanded I share my world map with them. Not a chance. Later on they both DoW'd me on the exact same turn.

Did Lal and Miriam really demanded your Worldmap in the same turn? Even if, I'm convinced that it would be pure coincidence, as that never happened to me so far and the parameter is a random per turn chance (of course it is possible that other factors - e.g. compared military power or you suddenly became a juicy target for expansion by gaining the entire map - might influence chances or that they cannot extort you, if there is a nothing to extort). I have made the AI more aggressive which includes higher likelihood of extortion for some leaders.

I choosed values I thought they would fit with personality (and which played out decent in my games), but of course they don't have to be the final wisdom. I just need direction how to tweak things... Just less extortions? From all or certain leaders? Or should you be save from extortions with "cautious or better attitude" instead of "pleased or better"?

For the double war declaration - that sometimes happens in BtS as well and it does not necessarily mean that their is no variance from the parameters. One leader could have bribed the other in the war or you just have become "weaker" after the first DoW in relation to the second declaring faction.
But I think you might have a point her, I supect that the chance for declaring war after a refused tribute has caused this - it is just a one-time dice-roll and both Lal and Miriam have a 50% chance to do so. And you draw the 25% chance of both going to war... Of course this chance could be reduced or set to 0 - this means that a refused tribute will cause a war less often or never. Same for the double-war-phenomen.The question if and to what extend tribute requests should be bluffs or be backed by intentions to go to war (and if, when - though that is a troublesome field, as the parameter does not seem to work at all)

BTS, if you have still any save around of that game, I would be interested - just because you said that AIs are more aggressive. The problem is that I just cannot reproduce that in my games...maybe I can spot a difference this way.

The AI doesn't like trading techs with you. If you don't have any +relations bonuses besides open borders you'll be stuck in "we don't like you enough to trade with you territory". I got friendly enough with lal by switching to democracy for him to trade techs though. Also, the AI will trade their money for your techs. Once I got tech trading unlocked, the AI immediately offered me deals to buy my techs. I personally don't like this. It makes the game feel very empty because there's little
interaction going on.

I'll try to ensure the AI will neither pay gold or techs to you if they don't like you.

Yes, the tresholds are generally upped compared to BtS - no tech trading until pleased relations are reached. It is the same for all leaders (so that no AI brings itself into a disadvantage) - of course from the view of flavour and atmosphere, a "Mansa-like" Morgan and a "Toku-Yang" would fit better... The reason for this chance is to reduce the tech-trade-frequence and to make good relations matter more. BTW, that rules apply inter-AI-wise as well.

For the AIs offering Credits for tech - that was in forever, I haven't changed any direct parameter here, just because there is none What I have done though (and what causes this "new behaviour"), is allowing the AIs to trade more of their cash - before my changes they just had not enough free cash to do such offers. I personally don't see a problem with this - the prices they offer are at best mediocre (at Emperor difficulty at least) and generally, technological progress is seen as more important then a full treasury (so I view it as realistic that AI try to buy tech from you, even if they don't like you...they can still attack you later with their new weapons )
As said, there is no parameter to limit gold for tech offers to certain tresholds, the AIs will never offer you any tech unless the are at least pleased towards you...and if we further reduce trade (regardless if gold-tech or tech-tech), we would make diplomacy even more empty and have even less interaction, IMO...? I don't claim that my values are perfect -I'm pretty sure things can be improved-, but here I currently don't see in which direction we should head

 

[Maniac]

I personally don't see a problem with this - the prices they offer are at best mediocre (at Emperor difficulty at least) and generally, technological progress is seen as more important then a full treasury (so I view it as realistic that AI try to buy tech from you, even if they don't like you...they can still attack you later with their new weapons )

The thing is, in a tech-for-tech trade no one loses anything. In a tech-for-gold trade one side loses gold and the other one gains. It's zero sum. As a consequence a credit is much more valuable than a beaker, and it's actually a bad move to give away credits.

As said, there is no parameter to limit gold for tech offers to certain tresholds

I was thinking there might be something in the SDK.

 

[Pfeffersack]

Not v10 specific, but now I was able to track down the issue and take a save...

I always wondered why my new build bunkers sometimes get out of order immediately (means the bunker improvement is still there, but not the shooting immobile unit on top - like when a working but damaged bunker gets destroyed because e.g. a fungal tower counters your fire) - this seems to happen if you build it outside your faction borders.
I also remember that this happened to me when building it in a blockaded area, but I'm not sure on this (at least not if it was not both blockaded and outside my borders).

My question is if that is intended for:
a) outside-faction territory?
b) blockaded territory?

Below is a save which shows the issue for building outside your borders - the bunker 3 tiles S of U.N. Humanity base gets build and disabled when ending the turn.

 

[Maniac]

I added Bunkers in my pre-SDK days. Back then I could in Python only look at the plot the Bunker was built on, and give a bunker to the owner of the plot. So if the plot is unowned, you never get a bunker.

I had a look again now, and in the SDK I can know who's the owner of the former building the bunker. So I could change the current behaviour.

I'm wondering though... is it a good idea to allow building bunkers in unowned territory. I feel rather inclined to make them only buildable in your territory. What say you?

 

[CarnivalBizarre]

I added Bunkers in my pre-SDK days. Back then I could in Python only look at the plot the Bunker was built on, and give a bunker to the owner of the plot. So if the plot is unowned, you never get a bunker.

I had a look again now, and in the SDK I can know who's the owner of the former building the bunker. So I could change the current behaviour.

I'm wondering though... is it a good idea to allow building bunkers in unowned territory. I feel rather inclined to make them only buildable in your territory. What say you?

That is ok, but make the site where a bunker has been build part of the owners territory, if that is possible? Then you must attack to destroy bunkers and free that tile...

 

[Pfeffersack]

I added Bunkers in my pre-SDK days. Back then I could in Python only look at the plot the Bunker was built on, and give a bunker to the owner of the plot. So if the plot is unowned, you never get a bunker.

I had a look again now, and in the SDK I can know who's the owner of the former building the bunker. So I could change the current behaviour.

I'm wondering though... is it a good idea to allow building bunkers in unowned territory. I feel rather inclined to make them only buildable in your territory. What say you?

I could live with bunkers being only buildable in your territory - the current implementation is just a bit annoying, because it allows you building a bunker outside, expecting it to work and then getting disappointed. Bunkers on neutral land would be probably to powerful anyway.
Then there is only one case to solve (beside having an eye on what happens with bunkers on your own blockaded territory) - what happens if you lose control over the plot you have build a bunker on? Following the logic about, it would be destroyed - but shouldn't it be a complete destruction then (because the improvement currently stays forever and even hinders you to build a new bunker again, as longer as you don't destroy it seperately)...another possibilty would be that it is captured automatically by the new plot owner, but that might be to powerful as well and would go against the philosophy of making the temporate loss of a base a not-so-big-thing.

 

[Keeper_GFA]

1. The Irregular (and probably Wild) promotion isn't working for me. I cannot use an irregular sub to attack without a DoW. It might be working for the AI as I have seen an AI sub with the irregular promotion and a barbarian flag.
2. I know it doesn't benefit from it, but I think the dropship should be given the flying promotion just for consistency. A free special ability for them would be good too, since right now the way to get the best dropships is to make transports (who can have 2 abilities) and then upgrade them.
3. Can a bunker give a point of culture (per turn?) for the tile it's on? Then placing them in neutral territory could still be beneficial and make sense. Especially since bunkers can be used to collect resources.

 

[Pfeffersack]

An unintended side-effect. Hmm, I assume you preferred the old spread behaviour?

As Milaga said, it really changes how the game plays out. Religion spread is now very dependant on OBs, so there is more diversity, leading to different blocks instead of the usual one religon dominating the planet, on the other hand you have less option to adopt certain religion for strategic purposes. Maybe the founder AIs should try to spread there religions more aggressively? Because even with an ongoing OB, the passive spread can take a long time to happen, if at all...
I haven't made my opinion if it is better or worse this way, but it is at least different enough to leave it in for a while for the sake of testing and observing to decide then.

---

Not v10 specific again, but anyway...

In the last couple of games I played, there was at least always one AI which drowned in native live and I somehow managed always to be a neighbour of them. And unless you go planet-hugging (in this case it might be the best what can happen to you - first you can tame the wildlife, then overrun your weak neighbour), it becomes a serious problem for you as well. Signing a OB if possible is a must, because fungus at the other side of the border will constantly try to enter your land. I don't know exactly what's the AIs problem is...but I noticed one strange thing...they don't seem to use their bunkers to barrage native life. Here is a save of my current game...I don't understand why Santiago does not seem to use her bunker N of Commanders Keep vs. the Fungal Tower adjacent to it (just enter turn). Or is the AI to afraid to lose its bunkers vs. the tower? I take that risk always, as bunkers are cheap to replace (at least in terms of minerals compared to units)...and well, they seem to be the only chance vs. native life anyway. Miriam is an even worse example of not being able to cope with native life, but she might be already too deep introuble at that point.

 

[slugwalk]

Is there another way to program the stockpile energy limit? As I understand it, if a city will produce more energy through stockpile than your maintenance, then the stockpile button doesn't appear and you need to use a different city. The only problem is, often I want to use a city with more infrastructure to stockpile energy, but I can't because it will produce too much. Would it be possible instead to have it available for every city, but make it just cut off at the limit?