trexeric
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,616
What you HATE in DOC?
- Thread starter calad
- Start date
VGL
Deity
You know, this explains so much.
What does it explain?
Has to remain head canon for a while hahaThen what do you think of my cannon complaint?
mrrandomplayer
Hopeless Situation Warrior
This was me when I started trying to mod DoC. Now I'm significantly older and know Python, so that helps.
For the stuff about programming, some of the stuff that you want to do can be done without much knowledge of the programming language. Try copy/pasting and then editing. Additionally, you can take a lot of programming courses online. Ironically enough, the only stuff from Python that you'll learn from a year-long course that will help with DoC is basic syntax and a sense of how massive and how much work the mod takes.
Yeah, 80% in this mod can be changed with 20% of the content of a typical beginner's course even. The hardest part to overcome is getting a compiler running for the DLL, and to figure out how everything fits together and where to go to make a specific change.
yurisusuki
Hope, Faith and love
The map
THe damned Map
The Little Damned Map
THe damned Map
The Little Damned Map
merijn_v1
Black Belt
The best way to learn modding is by doing it. I think 95% of what I know about modding Civ 4 is autodidact.
As Leoreth said, setting up the decompiler was for me the most difficult thing. I completely coded the Swedish UP without any tutorials or whatever. Just by looking at already existing code and using my common sense was enough.
As Leoreth said, setting up the decompiler was for me the most difficult thing. I completely coded the Swedish UP without any tutorials or whatever. Just by looking at already existing code and using my common sense was enough.
Theodorick
King
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2006
- Messages
- 624
I got something to say that's on topic!
I've never liked how allowing settling on resources and keeping the extra production and commerce, allows for some absolutely overpowered, unhistorical strategies to form. I initially refused to take advantage of this because it felt wrong and even like cheating, but once I realized how easy it makes some civs, I have started doing it. Like come on, Rome settling it's second and third city in POLAND? China settling it's early cities in JAPAN? It's all so immersive ruining, but it's so overpowered it's slowly creeped into my main playstyle! Blame my lack of control if you want.
Frankly this has cheapened my own play style and strategies, and others on this board have also fallen victim to this.
I've never liked how allowing settling on resources and keeping the extra production and commerce, allows for some absolutely overpowered, unhistorical strategies to form. I initially refused to take advantage of this because it felt wrong and even like cheating, but once I realized how easy it makes some civs, I have started doing it. Like come on, Rome settling it's second and third city in POLAND? China settling it's early cities in JAPAN? It's all so immersive ruining, but it's so overpowered it's slowly creeped into my main playstyle! Blame my lack of control if you want.
Frankly this has cheapened my own play style and strategies, and others on this board have also fallen victim to this.
Fresol
Angry Halfling in Green
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2011
- Messages
- 2,276
Settling on resources is not the main cause for this kind of unhistorical play. The game encourages it, because more resources and more cities means a more powerful empire. When I was only a beginner to DoC(and CIV4) I used to turtle up and settle cities exclusively in historical area. But that was just inferior gameplay.
mrrandomplayer
Hopeless Situation Warrior
Yeah, the game encourages you to get some un historical cities as long as you have enough populous historical cities to back them up or you are able to get a ridiculously good economy like Tomorrow's Dawn.
But that makes game boring. I guess I am those players who prefer inferior tactics for sake of history
Fresol
Angry Halfling in Green
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2011
- Messages
- 2,276
But that makes game boring. I guess I am those players who prefer inferior tactics for sake of history
There's more than one way to play this game.
Tomorrow's Dawn
Heroes Never Die
But that makes game boring. I guess I am those players who prefer inferior tactics for sake of history
RL civs didn't settle on resources, on chokes, riverside, the coast or on Plains Hills for the extra base Hammer. That's why they're history. /sarcasm
Saying that settling optimal cities was not something people and civilizations actively did is kind of far-fetched.
Tons of cities IRL were founded by sources of fresh water (Four River Valley Civilizations), in defensible positions (Constantinople, Rome, Florence, Boston)
or sprung up/boomed because of resources/demand (San Francisco, Johannesburg) and tons more examples I can't even begin to list.
Urban planning has been around since civilization started; there is historical and now GAMEPLAY precedent for it, as there always should have been.
Inferior tactics are just that. Inferior tactics.
Imperator Knoedel
Currently obsessed with The Owl House
But wouldn't it be nice if optimal cities on the map coincide with optimal cities in RL?
The Southerner
Warlord
That wouldn't work as there's no mechanic for distributing food/"production"/commerce throughout the civilization as a whole as you see fit (as in sending bananas from Bogota to feed people in Quito) - it's restricted to the big cross. This is one of my "hates".
The other "hate" is the amount of food produced from ocean tiles (way too much). Freakin' massive coastal cities.
Imperator Knoedel
Currently obsessed with The Owl House
Hate to break it to you, but most big cities in real life are coastal.
There's more than one way to play this game.
Thats why I never win UHV on monarch level
Visard
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2009
- Messages
- 214
That would be fantastic.
And it could be easily done by moving resources to match with current mechanics.
If we would want encourage players to found city in specific on spot, but there a production or commerce resource.
And to discourage, but there a food resource.
Of course civilizations stability maps and the victory type going for matters too.
Some of examples:
-Dye should be under Sur, because that is what they were famous of.
-Egypt could have horses under their starting spot so they have earlier access to War Chariots.
-Athens could be made better than Corinth by moving marble under it and removing or moving(1S) those clams that can be reached from Corinth but not from Athens.
-Rome could have marble under it (Urbem latericium invenit, marmoream reliquit).
-Carthago could have stone under it making it better spot than 1 south.
-Bordeaux could have wine under it (Bordeaux Wines).
-Aksum could have coffee under it.
-Sana'a could have incense under it.
-Yax Mutal could silver under it.
-Oslo could have silver under it.
-London could have horses or stone under it to make it better than capital on south coast.
...
If Leoreths thinks that settling on resource is too strong, maybe it could only give half of fields rounded up.
I don't want to add more resources, only move them. In my games I count long time (I am a mathematician) what would be perfect city combination of current civ.
And it's annoying to notice that optimal combination is very ahistorical. Like in my last Paragon Roman game, I made Pisa my capital instead Roma to get better start and more stability.
For same reason I think that more resources should be dynamic, like for example gold and silver in Japan could appear when Japan spawns, to discourage Chinese colonialism.
And since this is hate thread, I hate that Japan AI never founds city on top of gold to reach whale.
Similar threads
