 |
| |
|
|
Panda
|
|
Europe
Jan 1970
time: 05:37
|
|
Gatekeeper:
you can use the method you describe to alter the colour group of the civ. In fact my standard game set-up uses these colours:
quote:
Julius Caesar,___Livia Augusta,____0, 1, 1, Romans
Hammurabi,____Ishtari,__________0, 2, 0, Babylonians
Frederick,______Maria Theresa,____0, 3, 3, Germans
Ramesses,_____Cleopatra,_______1, 4, 0, Egyptians
Abe Lincoln,____E. Roosevelt,_____0, 5, 1, Americans
Alexander,_____Hippolyta,________1, 7, 1, Greeks
Mohandas Gandhi,Indira Gandhi,____0, 7, 2, Indians
Lenin,________Catherine the Great,_1, 1, 3, Russians
Shaka,________Shakala,__________0, 1, 0, Zulus
Louis XIV,______Joan of Arc,_______0, 2, 3, French
Montezuma,____Nazca,___________0, 4, 0, Aztecs
Mao Tse Tung,__Wu Zhao,_________0, 5, 2, Chinese
Henry VIII,_____Elizabeth I,_______1, 6, 3, English
Genghis Khan,__Bortei,___________0, 3, 0, Mongols
Cunobelin,_____Boadicea,________1, 3, 0, Celts
Tokugawa,_____Amaterasu,______0, 2, 2, Japanese
Canute,_______Gunnhild,________1, 7, 3, Vikings
Philip II,____Isabella,____________1, 4, 3, Spanish
Xerxes,_______Scheherezade,_____0, 5, 0, Persians
Hannibal,_____Dido,_____________0, 6, 1, Carthaginians
Sitting Bull,_Sacajawea,__________0, 6, 0, Sioux |
Exile means you can then change the graphical colours used by the tribe in the cities.gif file, say from white to blood red.
P.S. any modifications to the rules.txt that alter AI behaviour would be well received here, as there is a lack of empirical research in that department.
Last edited by Panda on 05-08-2005 at 02:08
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
 |
United States of America
Feb 2000
time: 23:37
|
|
Panda:
The second number is representative of the color group, correct? (I haven't done much with the RULES.TXT file for the past year or so, hence the trip down memory lane.)
WRT AI-behavior changing alterations to that file, I can post what I did with the cruise missile entry if anyone would be interested. I also created a custom unit using one of the "extra" units (the shogun-looking figure); it became an elite shock trooper. Same with the boat-like extra unit ... it became a "stealth" transport, capable of carrying up to four units. The balloon-like extra unit became a dirigible, usable from mathematics up until gunpowder. It's an offensive weapon, with roughly the same power of a crusader, but a low defense (but also has the "chopper" ability ... i.e., it never has to land).
Insofar as I can tell, none of those changes have made the game unbalanced, but that just might be my perspective.
Gatekeeper
P.S. Oh, one more thing: The AI also uses cruise missiles against the shock trooops I made, as well as spies.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Panda
|
|
Europe
Jan 1970
time: 05:37
|
|
I've edited the above post to make the groupings slightly easier to read. Yes, I was unhappy with the original groups and did this so that the ancient world civs could all be in play at once, and so could the European civs. The second value in the Rules.txt is for tribe colour.
As far as I can remember, the set-up screen is in the same order as the civs in the rules.txt, so if you swapped the Romans and Mongolians lines over then the Mongolians would be in the top-left. This would still mean that the Mongolians would use the Roman leader portraits, and vice versa.
Choosing the AI opponents is taken by presenting only the first non-human tribe colour, e.g. Green, and only presenting civs of that tribe colour. This means that you could force your opponents in each game by only having one civ for a given tribe colour.
Hope that's what you wanted.
edit: just to make that more explicit for your original question, do not swap the lines over, just give the Romans the value 0, 7, 1. You don't need to replace them in the white group.
AFAIK the AI will use missile unit differently depending on the cost of the missiles and the cost of the defending unit, and I *think* that a/d/m values are pretty much ignored. Just from observation of some scenarios to have used them.
Last edited by Panda on 05-08-2005 at 02:30
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
|
United States of America
Feb 2000
time: 23:37
|
|
Panda, et al.:
OK, I think I get what you're saying; let me summarize:
1. If I switch the tribe colors (i.e. white Romans to purple Romans, purple Mongols to white Mongols), the tribe will assume its new color, but will retain its original leader portraits (i.e. Caesar isn't going to suddenly morph into Bortei).
2. Unless I switch the *lines* of the tribes in question, they'll remain in their original position on the tribe selection screen(s) even if they're no longer in that particular color group (i.e. purple Romans will still be in the upper lefthand corner of the selection box).
On a related note, here is what I've done with the "extra" units (note: they have no sound effects ... don't have the right software to properly sample audio files for them):
quote:
Shock Troops, nil, 0, 1.,0, 14a,3d, 4h,2f, 8,0, 0, Pla, 000001000000111
Stingray, nil, 2, 7.,0, 0a,6d, 3h,1f, 7,4, 4, Pla, 100000000001001
Dirigible, Fli, 1, 4.,0, 8a,1d, 1h,1f, 5,0, 0, Inv, 000000000000001 |
The following is the modified missile code:
quote:
Cruise Msl., nil, 1, 12.,1, 18a,0d, 1h,3f, 4,0, 0, Roc, 001000000000000 |
I'm sure it's pretty low-level stuff by SL standards but, hey, a person's gotta start somewhere! 
Gatekeeper
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boco
|
 |
who was once King for a week.
Jan 2001
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gatekeeper
On a related note, here is what I've done with the "extra" units
.
.
.
I'm sure it's pretty low-level stuff by SL standards but, hey, a person's gotta start somewhere! |
There's nothing low level about creating a good unit mix! Developing a varied balance of unit stats is one of the most vital parts of a scenario. I can't think of a better way to learn the ropes than what you're doing here.  It's an iterative process.
Your shock troops, for example, address gaps in the vanilla Civ2 unit mix: Marines aren't particularly cost-effective, Alpines can't infiltrate, and partisans are weak. I'm going on dim memory, but these ST's seem like an excellent buy for the money. If, however, they end up being the only unit an advanced civ buys, then perhaps the cost is too low.
Dirigible is an excellent idea, too. A vulnerable attack/recon unit available with Fli. The iterative balancing comes with comparing 8a/1h/1f at 5 gold vs 4a/2h/2f at 6 gold. Will a player opt for both or just pick one 99% of the time?
Keep posting your ideas. Maybe they won't all be masterpieces, but they will stimulate some thought that'll help us all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
|
United States of America
Feb 2000
time: 23:37
|
|
Boco:
Why, thanks for the praise! I've also added a bit to the tech tree, so that it takes longer, for instance, for a nation to acquire nuclear weapons and, coincidentally, SDI improvements.
Insofar as I can tell, each AI nation typically has no more than six to 10 shock troop units at any one time ... but, boy, does it ever splurge on cruise missiles and bombers/stealth bombers (which haven't been modified by me). At least with the missiles, it's *using* them instead of stockpiling them, which is what it did before I cheapened them by 10 shields or so. Before the change, I'd encounter AI cities with up to 10 missiles in them ... nowadays, usually not more than two or three, the rest having been expended against my invading/defending armies!
Gatekeeper
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Panda
|
|
Europe
Jan 1970
time: 05:37
|
|
WTF is WRT??
edit: oh, "with regards to" would make sense.
Ahem. No, it's not dynamic, so you'd need to start your base game using the modified rules.txt. Not a problem if you modify the start directory for the civ2.exe file to that of the scenario directory.
Last edited by Panda on 06-08-2005 at 20:45
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boco
|
|
who was once King for a week.
Jan 2001
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Insofar as I can tell, each AI nation typically has no more than six to 10 shock troop units at any one time ... but, boy, does it ever splurge on cruise missiles and bombers/stealth bombers (which haven't been modified by me). At least with the missiles, it's *using* them instead of stockpiling them, which is what it did before I cheapened them by 10 shields or so. Before the change, I'd encounter AI cities with up to 10 missiles in them ... nowadays, usually not more than two or three, the rest having been expended against my invading/defending armies! |
This is definitely not low-level stuff. A major, yet poorly understood, area in scenario design is understanding AI behavior. We don't know the specific 'decision points' that influence whether the AI will build, expend, or hoard missiles. IIRC in vanilla Civ2, its common knowledge that the AI will hoard CM's unless CV's and BB's are remotely in range. By cheapening CM's, you're confirming a trend we've seen, too: the AI's willingness to use units depends on the costs of both defender and attacker (as well as the chance of success). If you show specific examples (screen dumps?) of how the cost and/or combat stats influence AI behavior, then you'll be raising the bar a bit — e.g. this is what the AI does with 'conventional' CM's if you load a specific SAV file vs. what the AI does with tweaked CM's.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
|
United States of America
Feb 2000
time: 23:37
|
|
Hey, glad to see I helped contribute a wee bit to SL discussions WRT cruise missile usage, shock troops and whatnot.
I can't provide screen shots comparing CCC and MCC, though, since once I was sure my alterations wouldn't screw up the game, I went into the original RULES.TXT file and changed it. I suppose I could reinstall Civ II, but ...
BTW, and this is likely common knowledge here, but it seems that no matter what is done with the carrier unit, the AI *cannot* use it effectively. It's almost like it's hard-coded into the program to ignore that entire line. What's odd about that is it uses every other naval unit effectively, including my customized "stealth transports," i.e., the Stingrays.
Gatekeeper
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Panda
|
|
Europe
Jan 1970
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gatekeeper
BTW, and this is likely common knowledge here, but it seems that no matter what is done with the carrier unit, the AI *cannot* use it effectively. It's almost like it's hard-coded into the program to ignore that entire line. What's odd about that is it uses every other naval unit effectively, including my customized "stealth transports," i.e., the Stingrays.
|
Actually that's kind of a common assumption, but in fact this is again a result of AI cost perceptions. Lowering the build cost of the carrier, in fact halving the cost, will see the AI actually recover air units (especially damaged) and re-launch costal strikes.
Yes, this does change the nature of the unit itself, which *we* see as being the equivalent of a massive Nimitz class carrier that should be able to take care of itself. In Civ2 Carriers do not use on-board fighters as interceptors, so we not only need to modify the unit stats so the AI will use it, we also need to modify our perception of what the unit should be to fit the stats.
Screenshot is from a recent game using modified rules.txt. Greeks are AI controlled, my Russian cities above and right.
 Attachment: image2.gif
This has been downloaded 40 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Panda
|
|
Europe
Jan 1970
time: 05:37
|
|
Carrier, nil, 2, 7.,0, 0a,9d, 4h,2f, 8,0, 2, X1, 010000010000000
Cost, and removed the attack value that should never have been in there. Ignore the tech pre-req.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Panda
|
|
Europe
Jan 1970
time: 05:37
|
|
I'm sure Gatekeeper won't mind a little thread-reorientation in the name of wider knowlegde sharing, especially when I know he does favour self-imposed restrictions. To that end I'm re-posting the modified rules.txt variant I use in my games that was posted over at CivFan. Gamekeeper, you should find this interesting:
quote:
I've attached the modified rules.txt I'm currently using for my games. You'll see that the extra techs are mainly to delay the industrial age, especially RR, and that many of the modern units are pushed to the far end of the tech tree. Units were also re-organised for efficient use of sound associations (just something I've always seen as good practice).
|
Thanks for the praise, Boco.
To be honest I never play vanilla games, or specifically early-landing or early-conquest games that are so popular with the Strategists, though I am of course extremely grateful for their tips and empirical research. I do use the Super Science City and Super Production City strategy, of course, because I think that once you've incorporated it you can't really go back. Well, you could, I'm just not that self-disciplined. So most of the few regular games I play are simply play-testing rules.txt variants.
One idea does occur of reducing the cost of Caravan units to see if the AI produces more of them.
 Attachment: rules.txt
This has been downloaded 1 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
|
United States of America
Feb 2000
time: 23:37
|
|
Heh. Yes, I'm very much into self-restraint when it comes to playing a Civ game.
Now, onto business: So far, the AI isn't taking the bait WRT carriers. I've lowered the cost to 60 shields, given it two-square visibility, AEGIS-like defenses, even gave it a slight attack value (only after the AI didn't use it with a zero attack value), yet nothing seems to work.
Seems like I remember reading somewhere years ago that the programmers deliberately made it so the AI wouldn't use carriers. Obviously, that's not true for all versions of Civ II, but it must be for some, like Civ II Mac.
Oh, well. I'll keep trying on and off. Who knows? Maybe once it costs only 10 shields and has a defense factor of 99 the AI will use it.
Gatekeeper
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Panda
|
|
Europe
Jan 1970
time: 05:37
|
|
I'll repeat that this is consistent for FW and the carrier unit is not tied to slot no. 43.
edit: I'm trying to find the original tip for lowering the costs on my HDD, but I can only find one discussion about this that indicates the carrier won't be used in slot no.43. Is this where yours is? If so, try swapping it for another.
The above screenshot was taken using rules.txt variant where the carrier was in slot no.55. I've also gotten this to work in two scenarios, and I'll post the rules.txt entries here to demonstrate:
From 1941:
Aircraft Carrier,FP,2, 8.,0, 0a,8d, 10h,1f, 8,0, 2, Exp, 000000010000001
From Atomic Age:
Aircraft Carrier, Cmp, 2, 7.,0, 0a,6d, 4h,3f, 7,0, 2, Csc, 000000010000000
Gatekeeper, I really think you'd be better served trying to replicate the results I had using the same stats, rather than trying to make the unit more attractive, even if this means playing a few more games. I should have mentioned that there is a contextual factor as well in that there must be an ocean between the two of you for the AI to consider launching costal strikes. I have also observed the AI transporting multiple fighter units to overseas cities on Carriers and then flying them off. I won't believe I'm the only one to have seen this.
Last edited by Panda on 08-08-2005 at 07:40
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
|
United States of America
Feb 2000
time: 23:37
|
|
Hmm. How does the numbering system work on these slots? Is No. 1 the very first unit in the list? Anyway, it does seem like I remember reading about how the slot itself might have been why the AI didn't use carriers.
Can one merely cut and paste entire lines of code? I've never done that, partially because I know the program is sensitive to placement of coding.
As for my own playtesting efforts, well, I always play on an Earth map, and make sure seafaring nations are among the mix of nations. Lately, I've simply put my settler to sleep and "fast-forwarded" the game to see if the AI ever uses carriers once it has the tech. So far, no luck. A few times I've given the AI all technologies ... still no luck ... not even with major seafaring nations. Battleships, cruisers, destroyers, Stingrays, subs ... you name it, the AI uses it ... except for the carrier.
Gatekeeper
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-08-2005 13:58
I haven't actually changed this.
I'll bet that the ToT AI isn't significantly different in combat tactics and strategy between versions, except in diplomacy. [Boco ducks out as others point out his obvious lack of research. 
]
(well-l-l-l we are talking in more general terms about Rules.txt 
)
|
