 |
|
Maquiladora
|
|
Well thats the only thing im worried about, any SAP2 SLIC that doesnt work with the playtest. I thought Tamerlin was playing SAP2 with the playtest?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Maquiladora
|
|
quote:
I really like the original gameplay and I would have prefered the coders to correct all the bugs and work on a good AI before implementing changes to the gameplay. It is far more important, IMO, to teach the AI how to use sea transports and aerial units, how to manage its cities and how to place the good terrain improvements at the right place. |
Come on Tamerlin theyre doing it in their own free time, so they can choose what they want to fix or add. The sea transport is gonna be a big job so its not gonna be a weekend job, but things like the specialist and unit tabs in the national manager are really useful additions that were (relatively) quick to do. In the end everything needs doing at one time or another, so it will be complete in the same amount of time.
If i had my way id have everyone working to fix MP and PBEM, in fact MP is in worse condition than it was in 1.0 but i dont kick up a stink or abandon hope in the project, i just find a way i can help.
quote:
wait so we think we've already lost?
anyway, i won't be able to finish/post my turn until my monday |
Well its certainly looking like we have lost but dont finish playing, anything could happen.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Martin Gühmann
|
 |
Berlin, Germany
Mar 2001
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tamerlin
What I don't like in the way the coders are working is that there are some major changes that have been encoded (like the way trade is working) where I would have liked the changes to be optional so that a player can choose at the beginning of the game which part he wants and which part he does not want. |
Oh yeah, let's add a very big screen to the SPnewGameWindow, from were you can choose whether you use, trade route pathing as it should be, or as it was bugged in CTP2 out of the box. If a feature is missing in CTP2 that was present in CTP1, and noone annouced it explicitely that it was stripped, then it is a bug. In CTP1 you may get an advance when you capture a city, but that was missing in CTP2. And of course for each thing we add we should add another entry on that big huge list, use original AI instead of new better AI, just another entry as suggestion. 
In fact trade should be now fixed at least the Caravan requirements should be ok now thanks to Flinx. The only thing I could do for mod compartibilty is to move the one tenth factor from const.txt to the source code. But don't ask for removing the improved trade route pathing engine.
And another thing I don't do is updating any mods, that are up to the creators of the mods. And especially in the case of ApolytonPack I think this is superflous. What is the suptitle of ApolytonPack? Yes, CTP2 the way it should be. Well this might be right for the means we had in those days when ApolytonPack was created. But with the source code, we can say ApolytonPack is neither super nor the way CTP2 should be. But it was a trial to come close to the way it should be part. So this means in the end, everything that was intended as fixes and workaround goes into the source code for sure. And what are additions might find there way into the source code project, or are kept as mod. Well and another thing is the capture city advance all I did was to fill a gap in the code, I am not responsible that someone screwed up the const.txt of ApolytonPack, that turns the advance gain on city capture into a 100% chance. The default game, Cradle and CTC don't have this problem, so which mod shall I break Cradle and Call to Conquest or MedPack and World of War? Well I go for the way it was supposed to and that means not breaking Cradle and Call to Conquest.
What changes to the gameplay did we? Well of course we cannot exclude to add bugs of our own. That was true for trade, by the way it was necessary to fix this as the AI suffers from the problem more than the human player. And the other problem is the unplayability on maps with more then one continent.
quote:
Originally posted by Tamerlin
I really like the original gameplay and I would have prefered the coders to correct all the bugs and work on a good AI before implementing changes to the gameplay. It is far more important, IMO, to teach the AI how to use sea transports and aerial units, how to manage its cities and how to place the good terrain improvements at the right place.
I know that this is the most difficult part of the project and that the work of the coders is also very important for the future of CtP2 but I would have liked the playtest to be as close as possible to the original game or the SAP2. |
As Maq stated, coding is done in our free time, and that the little bugs and little add ons can be done on a weekend. But as you stated the heavy AI stuff is more difficuilt and need more time and it is more boring to test.
Here some piece of code concerning AI terrain improvements:
code:
//----------------------------------------------------------------------------
//
// Name : CityData::NeedMoreFood
//
// Description: Checks whether a new food terrain improvement should be
// built in the area of the according city.
//
// Parameters : -
//
// Globals : g_player: List of players
// g_thePopDB: The pop database
// g_theCitySizeDB The city size database
//
//
// Returns : Whether a new food terrain improvement should be built
// in the area of the city.
//
// Remark(s) : -
//
//----------------------------------------------------------------------------
bool CityData::NeedMoreFood(sint32 bonusFood, bool considerFoodOnlyFromTerrain){
sint32 turnsForOnePop;
if(GetGrowthRate() != 0){
turnsForOnePop = k_PEOPLE_PER_POPULATION/GetGrowthRate();
}
else{
turnsForOnePop = k_PEOPLE_PER_POPULATION;
}
sint32 maxFoodFromTerrain = GetMaxFoodFromTerrain() + bonusFood;
sint32 currentFood = (sint32)(GetProducedFood() + bonusFood);
double foodBonus;
buildingutil_GetFoodPercent(GetEffectiveBuildings
(), foodBonus);
maxFoodFromTerrain += (sint32)(maxFoodFromTerrain * foodBonus);
currentFood += (sint32)(bonusFood * foodBonus);
maxFoodFromTerrain += sint32(ceil(((double)maxFoodFromTerrain *
double(double(wonderutil_GetIncreaseFoodAllCitie
s(
g_player[m_owner]->m_builtWonders)) / 100.0))));
currentFood += sint32(ceil(((double)bonusFood *
double(double(wonderutil_GetIncreaseFoodAllCitie
s(
g_player[m_owner]->m_builtWonders)) / 100.0))));
if(!considerFoodOnlyFromTerrain && m_specialistDBIndex[POP_FARMER] >= 0) {
maxFoodFromTerrain += FarmerCount() *
g_thePopDB->Get(m_specialistDBIndex[POP_FARMER])->GetFood();
}
const CitySizeRecord *nextRec = NULL;
if(m_workerPartialUtilizationIndex >= 0
&& m_workerPartialUtilizationIndex < g_theCitySizeDB->NumRecords()){
nextRec = g_theCitySizeDB->Get(m_workerPartialUtilizationIndex);
}
else{
nextRec = g_theCitySizeDB->Get(g_theCitySizeDB->NumRecords()-1);
}
sint32 foodForNextRing;
if(nextRec){
foodForNextRing = (sint32)((nextRec->GetPopulation() - SlaveCount()) * GetFoodRequiredPerCitizen());
}
else{
foodForNextRing = (sint32)((PopCount() - SlaveCount()) * GetFoodRequiredPerCitizen());
}
sint32 foodForNextPop = (sint32)((PopCount() + 1 - SlaveCount()) * GetFoodRequiredPerCitizen());
const CitySizeRecord *rec = g_theCitySizeDB->Get(m_sizeIndex);
sint32 maxPop = rec->GetBaseMaxPop() + GetBuildingMaxPopIncrease();
const StrategyRecord & strategy = Diplomat::GetDiplomat(m_owner).GetCurrentStrategy();
sint32 popDistance;
strategy.GetStopBuildingFoodBeforePopMax(popDistance);
sint32 timePerPop;
strategy.GetTurnsAcceptedForOnePop(timePerPop);
return((turnsForOnePop/GetOvercrowdingCoefficient() > timePerPop
&& PopCount() < maxPop - popDistance
&& !GetIsRioting())
|| (maxFoodFromTerrain < foodForNextRing)
|| (currentFood < foodForNextPop));
}
The whole code just determines wheather the AI should consider to build a food tile improvement or another type of improvement. And from the complexity of the code you cannot be sure whether it does what it should do. And another thing is that such a function for the decision whether, a production tile improvement or a commerce tile improvement should be built is still missing.
-Martin
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HuangShang
|
 |
USA, SoCal, L.A.
Jul 2002
time: 21:23
|
|
so i was at the end of my turn and out of no where these 4 modern inf and 4 calv attack Taung and take it over from our 7strong defense w/o losing anyone, so we're down to 3
good news, the spy got oil tech from egyptians, but even w/ 80% sci and 4 cities, it would take 88 turns for mass production so i left the sci tax at 0
and remember wut i said about riots and plague?
the spy's in the west now, will have screen in next post, i think thats where we need the defense
this last turn leave 2 cities' build queries to be chosen by Shadow:
in Giza, we survived a 2 modern inf and 2 calv attack w/ no dead, but one red zone inf, i lost a light arty in bombing some moving egyptian armies, BTW they been there most of my turn
in Ulundi, im gonna go w/ what i hope we can pull a 4 ship, 4 calv, 4 light arty (in light that next gen and on the light pieces will become stronger than the heavy ones) so that we at least have one safe haven
i hope our next goal can be Swazi, lets leave just defend on the west
 Attachment: 1758ad.zip
This has been downloaded 5 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maquiladora
|
|
quote:
good news, the spy got oil tech from egyptians, but even w/ 80% sci and 4 cities, it would take 88 turns for mass production so i left the sci tax at 0 |
As I suggested just turn science off (unless you think we're gonna live for another 88 turns!) and use the extra gold for the spy to steal techs but more importantly now incite revolutions, as soon as they revolt get a unit in the city.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HuangShang
|
|
USA, SoCal, L.A.
Jul 2002
time: 21:23
|
|
but a 7stack defended Taung fell to a balanced, modern phoneacian 6stack, and at this rate even if we get the tech where is the money for upgrading, which still seems the best option to catch or keep up, however one may see it
causing enemy revolts is an idea i take with more than just a grain of salt, but is there any chance we can get a fast diplomatic deal from a new, helpless civ?
we need a balanced expeditionary army fast, but our outmoded garrisons still need the 12 numbers
also, i noticed we still a modern democracy, is this wut we need?
i think pumping out units, including spies, can be done better in other goverments, do we have communism?
what do you guys think able my navy-as-front-line-defense idea?
it seems the bigger we are, the harder we fall, last time we had somewut of a chase going on, but this time, even if we lasted longer, we end up turtling in separated pockets, obviously unable to reinforce Taung (at least i was unable to)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maquiladora
|
|
quote:
but a 7stack defended Taung fell to a balanced, modern phoneacian 6stack, and at this rate even if we get the tech where is the money for upgrading, which still seems the best option to catch or keep up, however one may see it |
Well we cant upgrade or even build the unit if we dont have the advance to start with. Perhaps we can make a revolt then make a peace deal and try and get advances from that little civ, then take its one city.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maquiladora
|
|
Well we dont have many options we have to take risks now, but you can choose which way to do it and the next player can follow it on.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maquiladora
|
|
As far as I know hes still interested but he said he wasnt receiving updates to the thread so ill PM him to check and give him a day or two to answer.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maquiladora
|
|
I doubt it, or we'd be gone by now.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-02-2005 10:14
it was so late night
Yeah it sounds right to me though.
Attachment: 
|
