 |
| |
|
|
primemover
|
 |
Houston, TX, USA
Nov 2001
time: 23:36
|
|
sorry if this is a repeated discussion... but though I found comments, I did not see a thread addressing this issue specifically.
i have been play testing the beta release of the apolyton update and i have noticed one really annoying thing.
maybe i have been spoiled too long by the fine additions of cradle mod and medieval mod ii... but the original units in the original tech tree are really lousy and unbalanced.
for example: once one discovers infantryman... (and some time before) there is only this unit (and the cavalry a short time later) that fits with the current abilities of the tech tree (which is predominantly a defensive unit). As the matter of fact, there are several battle roles that have been neglected for quite some time in the tech tree. The only "offensive" unit still available (which was superceded at some point i believe) is the "samurai." And what about bombardment? The only bombard/seige unit is still the catapult. WHen infantryman had been put into use, cannons had been around a while anyway (hadn't it?) and still we don't see the cannon replacing the catapult for couple more techs.
For the first several thousand years, the tech tree seems to follow history quite well... but when we hit the renassaince we seem to jump foreward to guns etc... because the tech tree does not seem to follow a good progression and we get WAY ahead of ourselves (hence why its only 1520 AD in my current game and I already have a machine gunner). This is probably why wes developed the "medieval mod") Anyway, I think we should really work out a better tech tree for the patch (or maybe a later patch). It doesn't have to be anything really fancy (that is what mods are for) but it should have a slower, more complete line of improvement for the various types of units that have been available for a good part of history.
(and I REALLY MISS the unit updater... something else that I really think should be part of the basic game code instead of a mod. It just seams so silly to be in the modern times with a silly "warrior" or pikeman in my cities that should have naturally been refitted and retrained with the latest equipment. Maybe we could include as part of the unit DB, a field that specifies what tech/unit the current unit gets replaced with and write code to impliment that new tech when it is available... at a cost if necessary.)
Last edited by primemover on 23-06-2004 at 08:37
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Peter Triggs
|
|
Gone Fishin, Canada
Jan 2000
time: 05:36
|
|
I agree with primemover. When the source code was released, MrOgre said "The sky's the limit." I don't think we should restrict ourselves to using the data, units, etc. that came with the game almost 4 years ago.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Martin Gühmann
|
 |
Berlin, Germany
Mar 2001
time: 06:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Solver
Yes, but Peter, the amount of people who can code is less than the amount of people who can mod. So it's better to enhance SLIC, UI and such stuff instead of adding new units. Just remove the sprite limit and make it more friendly for modmakers, stuff like that. |
I disagree about the part of not touching the units, I agree that they need to be balanced, I think we don't need to add new units, but the existing ones needs to be improved, for instance you are in the modern age and have tanks. Build 12 tanks and you have:
12 tanks = super weapon
That needs definatly to be fixed. And also the science costs need to be adaped. Actual I prefer here external multiplyers then to change the costs in Advance.txt. The difficuilty should play a rhole and also the map size, because on a bigger map you can place more cities and the more cities you place the more science you get and the faster you get advances. However as we are reinventing history and not replaying history you cannot time it exactly so that you discover flight at the beginning of the 20th century.
And for city styles I think we should add the various fan made styles to the game, one original complaint about the game was the lack of different city styles.
quote:
Originally posted by Solver
Though once all the bugs seem to be fixed, more interesting stuff can start, like maybe implementation of new gameplay concepts... |
I think we should start to add new thinks before we fixed everything otherwise we would never start or very late.
-Martin
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Solver
|
|
Apolyton Duke Of Something
|
 |
Latvia, Riga
Sep 2000
time: 07:36
|
|
Well, I agree with some things in game balance. Advance costs, I believe should be left to mods - another thing is, we can implement other possibilities in code, like indeed cost modifiers.
As for the combat system, I believe that units htat defend in a battle must use the defense value through the entire combat. Otherwise they do very little on their counterattack round. What I see as one of biggest gameplay problems is the inability to properly defend cities. Against a good 12-stack, like Cannons+Infantrymen+Cavalry, nothing is going to help, unless you have another 12 stack in the city, which is highly impractical. The problem is, whether you defend against such a 12-stack with 1,2 or 6 units, you are still going to lose and the attacker probably won't lose a unit.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maquiladora
|
|
If you can stand to make some very tiny changes, flanking units need to be weakened in ranged ability, mostly Tanks and Cavalry.
As Solver said though, defenders using their defence value all the time would solve (no pun intended) a lot of balancing issues. I would prefer to see this before theres any attempt at balancing of unit values.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
primemover
|
|
Houston, TX, USA
Nov 2001
time: 23:36
|
|
Wow... looks like i got something started!
I have some (important?) things to say and respond to in this discussion. It is good to know that I can reinstall the mods, but that does not change how I feel about this issue (at least to a basic degree).
First: to repeat my request:
I am not talking about anything fancy such as the medieval mod or anything extensive. Just the addition of a few basic battle units that make use of medieval and industrial technologies in a balanced and encompassing way.
Second: about "coders" versus modders.
quote:
Yes, but Peter, the amount of people who can code is less than the amount of people who can mod |
I have two things to say about this:
1. I signed up for coding a LONG time ago and never got any response. I can code, i am interested in working on the mapping section of the program or putting finishing touches on things that matches my ability; and as I am a teacher I have some time this summer to do some coding (during the school year I have very little which is why I didn't try signing up again after the first time which was during christmas break I believe.). My only disadvantage (right now) is that I have Visual C++ (Studio) 5, not 6 and so I am not sure about compatibility.
2. The people who can code should continue to code as has been said/suggested. However, people who can mod but not code should be used (if they desire to be) to help as well. There are still the basic text files that can be edited and changed to make to encourage a well balanced, completed, basic update to the original game. I think a small "modding only" team should be developed to addess the basic unit, tech, and governmental needs of the game. They could help the project along by coming up with and/or improving the BASIC (nothing fancy mind you) units, tech tree, and governmental needs of the game, making sure they are consistent, balanced, and provide for all niches (jobs, positions, attack types... etc) that are appropriate for the tech level.
Lastly: A unit updater
Personally, I feel the unit update should be a basic part of the game and thus should be part of the code. Any game that encompases units from the entirety of history (and then some) should make sure that existing units are equipped and trained for the time and tech level of the host country (as long as such an update is a matter of reequipping and training. The unit updater that was implemented by a mod also allowed one to update ships and airplanes which IMO does not make any sense at all since we are talking about rebuilding from the ground up--a interceptor or a bomber cannot be refit into a spy plane!).. I do not think that updating units should be taken care of by a mod for two reasons:
1. The slic code for a mod must be compiled and interpreted during runtime. The fewer cycles to complete a task, the better.
2. Allowing updating as part of the game's processes may introduce new capablities and facets for modders in the way of unit control and the tech tree. It will add some fields to the unit database that will have to be put into all the text files that define each of these units (probably units.txt is most important). This is another thing that can be done by the modders, especially since they will be designing/tweaking the tech tree anyway.
Just some strong suggestions
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Solver
|
|
Apolyton Duke Of Something
|
|
Latvia, Riga
Sep 2000
time: 07:36
|
|
Remember, the source effort is not particularly organized in any sort of a way. So while your signing up lets everyone know that you're interested and want to be involved, it's up to you to make code modifications later.
I would agree completely that the basic CtP2:AE needs not only the bugfixes, but also better balance. My general idea would be here that a non-radical mod such as SuperApolytonPack2 or GoodMod 1.1 for SAP2 is included with CtP2:AE. GM1.1 for SAP2 makes many in-game values much more sensible than in the default game, improves the AI and adds some good scripts. So it's my belief that the 'core' CtP2:AE would be the modified executable and data files from SAP2 and GM1.1. Then, depending on player's preferences, he can install mods such as MedMod, Cradle, or the others. The good part here would be, no need for Modswapper or anything like it. The way it was supposed to be, you should be able to select mods from the game - which will be implemented.
The reason I don't think that MedMod or Cradle should be a part of the 'core' CtP2:AE? That's because these two mods are pretty radical in changing the original game design and gameflow. Cradle, for instance, puts a much larger emphasis on the early stages of the game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Martin Gühmann
|
|
Berlin, Germany
Mar 2001
time: 06:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by primemover
1. I signed up for coding a LONG time ago and never got any response. I can code, i am interested in working on the mapping section of the program or putting finishing touches on things that matches my ability; and as I am a teacher I have some time this summer to do some coding (during the school year I have very little which is why I didn't try signing up again after the first time which was during christmas break I believe.). My only disadvantage (right now) is that I have Visual C++ (Studio) 5, not 6 and so I am not sure about compatibility.
|
And why don't you explore the code and start working on the part you are interesing in. I didn't look onto the mapping section and I won't hand out task, that are espeacilly designed for you. 
quote:
Originally posted by primemover
I would agree completely that the basic CtP2:AE needs not only the bugfixes, but also better balance. My general idea would be here that a non-radical mod such as SuperApolytonPack2 or GoodMod 1.1 for SAP2 is included with CtP2:AE. GM1.1 for SAP2 makes many in-game values much more sensible than in the default game, improves the AI and adds some good scripts. So it's my belief that the 'core' CtP2:AE would be the modified executable and data files from SAP2 and GM1.1. Then, depending on player's preferences, he can install mods such as MedMod, Cradle, or the others. The good part here would be, no need for Modswapper or anything like it. The way it was supposed to be, you should be able to select mods from the game - which will be implemented. |
Basicly just the graphics should be added, and of course some text file modifications. As we should also replace the DiploManager, all the parchments from Apolyton Pack will be obsolete. The basic slics belong into the source code, so only CityMod and GoodMod are then left.
-Martin
|
|
| |
|
|
|
primemover
|
|
Houston, TX, USA
Nov 2001
time: 23:36
|
|
quote:
So would you like to help with a project I am running to try to make thee see terrain a bit more varied |
yes... this is one thing I would like to accomplish. but what would help that is something that i am not sure you guys are ready to do... especially since the tiles are not designed the way they should be to accomplish this: and that is to separate the concepts of terrain and vegetation. "forest" can exist on plains, croplands, hills, mountains, and even polar mountains to some extent. this is the main thing i would like done to make the terrain more varied, but how this should be done, especially with the tiles the way they are is difficult to do without collaboration, and I don't think this is a task the first update has in mind.
quote:
Remember, the source effort is not particularly organized in any sort of a way. So while your signing up lets everyone know that you're interested and want to be involved, it's up to you to make code modifications later. |
this may be but i didn't get a single response... not even a mention that i had been added to the team. and of course no direction on what was being done. i mean i suppose we can always work on whatever we like, but doesn't the team have specific goals (such as the apolyton edition) and specific things they want done for it? If not a mandate on what to do, i was at least expecting something or a link to something that gave a list of things they wanted to accomplish for their current goals so i could pick something from that list to do.
quote:
And why don't you explore the code and start working on the part you are interesing in. I didn't look onto the mapping section and I won't hand out task, that are espeacilly designed for you. |
I've already done this... to tell you the truth, the coding is so conveluded (without the comments), i am having a real hard time determining the object structure and hence what the code is trying to do (particularly stuff that is contained in header files of unknown position).
Does anyone know the basic object structure? and where such basic objects are defined?
by "basic" i mean a sort of flow chart/concept map that shows where basic game objects are hooked up? That way I could find where the map generator is hooked in and how it relates to everything else that is already there.
anyway... the task is daunting with no idea how its all put together. once i get oriented, it will be much easier to figure out. if there is no way to get oriented, then i will have to start from the ground up. could anyone tell me at least, which file to start with (if I have to go from the ground up?)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
E
|
 |
July 24,2005 Ctp2 Tiles in sig!
May 1999
time: 21:36
|
|
quote:
"yes... this is one thing I would like to accomplish. but what would help that is something that i am not sure you guys are ready to do... especially since the tiles are not designed the way they should be to accomplish this: and that is to separate the concepts of terrain and vegetation. "forest" can exist on plains, croplands, hills, mountains, and even polar mountains to some extent. this is the main thing i would like done to make the terrain more varied, but how this should be done, especially with the tiles... "
Any increase in capability of the tile file, like adding new terrains or even allowing more terrains of a type (i.e. plains only have five tiles, if it had 10 or more I would have made a bunch of varied plans with little brush and hills etc to make it more varied on the map)
If you are looking for suggestions for the tile file I'd say:
1) adding more tiles for different types of terrain with map generation knowing it. This meaning more plains types and grasslands and the Variation Rule being less clumsy using it (right now it uses 1 varied tile as the center of a 3x3 of the standard/base tile, not necessary and too blocky I think)
2) FIXING the limits on borders, right now the tilefile prelimits its to square shapes. If you could edit the shapes to be round and invisible in parts and use parts of tiles instead of separate border-tiles that would make earth shapes better.
3) I like your forests to hills, mountains etc suggestion (Civ3 does that) if you crack this one I'll be all over adding new terrains. You might find a solution for this by seeing how rivers are done...
4) X,Y limits. If you could some how code it so that certain tiles only appear within certain parameters it would make things more like earth (I think bigMc has a SLIC for this). ALSO, if you could code something like this for goods (and allow more goods) and improvements I'd love to have things like Cotton plantations only grow in certain climates (X,Y range) and on certain terrain types.
Sorry primemover if I blasted you with this but you were looking for work  if you are thinking about taking this on you might want to start a new thread called DESIGN: Map Generation/Tilesets or something...
A some tip I think if you contact Steph at Civfanatics, he has his own civ demo that actually uses Civ3 files but it may have hints how to code the terrains like you are talking about... If somethings I said don't make sense I think BigMC can explain or help more. BigMC and the martins know a lot about the tilefile and helped me a lot.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-06-2004 08:24
|
|