09-08-2005 06:22									#1
	A wishlist Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

AC is a great game who needs a mod or two to improve some bad flaws. Plus other general fun mods. I mean civ3 has lots of mods, why not AC? Aside from the in work mods mentioned in this forum and a few faction mods, I can't find crap for mods for AC.

Here are the two flaws that need mod fixing the most, consider this a request with a please for anyone who has such capabilities.


City size based growth
I hate civs food to people growth system, but even worse (then civ3's system) is AC's growth system where the smaller the city, the faster it grows. Which makes no sense at all (I guess large city has a negative effect on peoples libidoes) and makes the game too much about rabid expansion.

I would totally appreciate it if city growth was totally independent of city size. Maybe all cities could grow as if they were size 8, regardless of their actual size.

The helicopter advantage
They are just too powerful in AC. Why bother with gravships/locusts of chiron when helicopters can attack many many times in a single turn. Even though gravships are suppose to be the more advanced tech! No reason to build em except maybe as scouts. (or as part of a exploit, different topic)

Two suggestions to fix this
Please make it so both helicopters and gravships/locusts use up 5 moves per attack (perhaps 4 or 3 with the gravship/locusts) Alternatively if thats too difficult, to make helicopters like airplanes in the way they attack.

Please make the air type frames more expensive. Thing about fliers is they have the same defense as their attack. They don't need the expensive armor that ground vehichles do. If they're going to have the best of all worlds (fast, with great offense and free defense) then they should be more expensive. As it is they are very cheap frames all considering (due to the the lack of armor)

I got more.. but those two are my biggest, dragging the game down pretty bad. Plus they seem pretty simple to implement, in principle. Anyone here capable of making such changes in a mod or could point me in the right direction?

Another one, could someone make a AC version of civassist2? Thats a great program for civ3 that allows you to plan cities, warns you when they are about to riot etc. Not necessarily as fancy and great as civassist but even just a riot warner would be really nice.

Last edited by truepurple on 09-08-2005 at 06:28

	09-08-2005 14:37									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

The first 2 questions can't be done. Hardcoded I'm afraid. The only thing possible is to decrease the number of movements choppers have and in that way decreasing their attack numbers.

As for drone warnings, those come in two main categories: when your city grows, and when something happens during a turn that will make it riot next turn.

The first can only be 'counted' in the F4 screen to see how much happiness is in store in a particular base (facilities, secret projects, police quelling,...) and you can more or less be sure that no riot will happen if things are still covered.
For the second, it's easier to check. Just look in the city screen (under F4) if there's a drone surplus over talents. If so, this city WILL riot next turn if not a police unit or happymaking facility is finishd that turn (or changing a worker to a specialist of course).

	09-08-2005 23:48									#3
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Besides reducing the chopper movement points, another way to reduce chopper power that doesn't require file editing is a houserule that forbids choppers to attack bases.

Regarding the base growth system, it sucks indeed. A possible way to counter the ICS geared growth system, would be to:

• reduce the base tile production from 2-1-1 to 1-1-1.
  
• give each faction a whole bunch of sky hydroponics labs from the start.

	10-08-2005 01:12									#4
	Got spare money?

*glances through his AC strategy guide*

So if you gave every faction 30 sky hydroponics labs, they would get a 1/2 a nutrient for every pop and 1 nutrient per pop with air complexes since the effect is limited to the pop size?

Very interesting idea.

But wouldn't you have to give everyone a free aerospace complex? Or could you edit things so it gives 1 per person without one?

Also, the base space should give 0 nutrient. Since theoretically someone should be working the base tile and would need to eat as well. Plus it would further limit the growth benefit from more cities and hyper expansion. Base squares would still get some food if placed on a food bonus square. Plus with all these free SHL's pops should be growing fast enough anyways.

Likewise, can you make colony pods use two pop heads instead of just 1?

	10-08-2005 01:13									#5
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

A cleaner way than sky hydroponics satellites is to reduce nutrient requirements from 2 to 1, though of course building hydroponics satellites when the tech comes would allow for rampant growth.

	10-08-2005 02:48									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Well if we reduced the nutrient requirements from 2 to 1 that would have big game implications. It would make land food have a bigger impact on pop growth(A bad thing), Would cause the growth society factor to have an even bigger impact. Both would cause pop to grow too fast, but I think the impact would be more with a 1 nutrient per civ requirement. No food on base square will help with that as well.

Maniacs idea I think would work better, if we can get around the issue of aerospace complexes effects.

BTW, did I describe how SHL's work correctly?

Last edited by truepurple on 10-08-2005 at 03:20

	10-08-2005 02:53									#7
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

My suggestion, apart from the ability to build food satellites in addition, is just a version of Maniac's. It turns out that to calculate how many resources a city can receive from satellites, first count the number, then divide by two if no aerospace complex (round up), then cap at the city size. Thus, with 30 food satellites, every size 15 city receives 15 nutrients. This is the same as if each citizen in those cities consumed one less nutrient.

	10-08-2005 03:40									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Sorry, your right chaos, I think. They are the same, just yours is easier. Its making me a little confused.

Ok, if extra food per turn grew at the same rate as the total size of the nutrient tank, then pop growth would be roughly the same, even as the nutrient tank got bigger with the town.

The idea is that each square would on average produce 2 nutrient, so each square worker would produce a bonus of 1, cumulative.

Which rather falls apart if squares produce more or less., especially less (then 2) but the game is set to average out at 2 per square so it theoretically should help. Though would cause cities to grow too fast. We would need to reduce the nutrient resource bonus from 2 to 1. Also to disable SHL. Both are doable, right?

Two things that would really help with the rapid expansion thing is, removing any food production from the base square(unless on bonus food) and using two pop heads for colony pods. Are you guys able to make colony pods use two pop?

	10-08-2005 03:46									#9
	Increase the size of your Attachments

All of what you suggest just now can be done except for the extra population unit per colony pod.

Disabling hydro sats could change the game substantially, possibly for the better, by reducing the value of Orbital Spaceflight somewhat.

	10-08-2005 04:37									#10
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Well if we really can't make colony pods take two pop heads (*sigh* Noone could hex edit something like that?) then towns shouldn't produce anything from their base squares.

Another thing to consider, if we change pop to eat only 1, suddenly the growth social factor is doubled in effectiveness (positive or negative) as far as I can figure. Because more bonus food per turn will be being produced. Which would need to be figured into things that effect growth, well if I got this figured right. Feel free to correct me.

P.S. Doesn't placing towns on rivers give you some kind of bonus? Can't find anything in the manual or in game resources.

Last edited by truepurple on 10-08-2005 at 04:48

	10-08-2005 04:55									#11
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by truepurple But wouldn't you have to give everyone a free aerospace complex? Or could you edit things so it gives 1 per person without one?

Chaos Theory answered that one. Just give 32 satellites for size 16 bases (and 36 satellites for Lal with Ascetic Virtues).

(Though free aerospace complexes definitely would solve the problem of overpowered air power. )

Btw, better put sky hydroponics labs high in the tree with Threshold to Transcendence or something, so no additional ones can be built. Otherwise it's endless popbooming after habitation domes become available.

quote: Also, the base space should give 0 nutrient. Since theoretically someone should be working the base tile and would need to eat as well. Plus it would further limit the growth benefit from more cities and hyper expansion. Base squares would still get some food if placed on a food bonus square. Plus with all these free SHL's pops should be growing fast enough anyways.

Yeah I like the idea. Base placement would be more strategic, centered around bonuses, at least until gene splicing and condensers become available.

quote: Plus with all these free SHL's pops should be growing fast enough anyways.

You could decrease the general growth rate by increasing the # of nutrients in one row.

quote: Likewise, can you make colony pods use two pop heads instead of just 1?

As CT said, nope. However you could of course make base tiles produce absolutely nothing. That would also get rid of the "free second worker", and remove that reason for ICSing.

	10-08-2005 05:03									#12
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Chaos Theory A cleaner way than sky hydroponics satellites is to reduce nutrient requirements from 2 to 1, though of course building hydroponics satellites when the tech comes would allow for rampant growth.

That would work too.

I see a possible problem though. While with free SHLs 3+ nutrient-producing tiles would become less effective as the base size increases, if I understand things correctly it would be the opposite with you. Working 3+ nutrient tiles would make the base grow faster and FASTER as it increases in size. Creating the opposite problem of ICS. Why still found new bases after a while?

Also as truepurple says, the game is more or less geared towards 2 nutrients being the standard tile production. Cutting in half the citizen nutrient needs would completely upset all previous balances with terraformations, tree farms, hybrid forests, kelp farms, aquafarms... Allowing less fine tuning etc. Personally I still prefer my idea. It seems simpler to me, keeping things more familiar, and doesn't require all kinds of other modifications to make the game balanced again.

	10-08-2005 05:07									#13
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by truepurple P.S. Doesn't placing towns on rivers give you some kind of bonus? Can't find anything in the manual or in game resources.

+1 energy

	10-08-2005 05:20									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Just give 32 satellites for size 16 bases.

I don't think so, near as I can tell (and from what chaos says, plus my strategy guide) a size 16 base would not benefit from more then 16 satellites.

quote: Maniac I see a possible problem though. While with free SHLs 3+ nutrient-producing tiles would become less effective as the base size increases,

quote: Maniac if I understand things correctly it would be the opposite with you. Working 3+ nutrient tiles would make the base grow faster and FASTER as it increases in size. Creating the opposite problem of ICS. Why still found new bases after a while?

The problems you mention near as I can tell would exist in both methods, the end result would be the same (assuming all cities had aero complex's) but much easier to implement chaos's version. Both would have the same effect on balance.

Also as far as larger cities growing faster.. naturally. More people means more... breeding. But your total population growth wouldn't be any faster in the larger cities at all, still larger pop growth overall with smaller towns, just less drastically so.

Still plenty of reason to expand. Problem I see with both approaches (which are identical except for the aero part) is really fast pop growth. No city base production will help. But its worth it.

For sure no city base production would be a easy and clear improvement.(food, "shields" or energy) How would I do so?

	10-08-2005 08:02									#15
	Got spare money?

truepurple:

quote: originally posted by Chaos Theory It turns out that to calculate how many resources a city can receive from satellites, first count the number, then divide by two if no aerospace complex (round up), then cap at the city size. Thus, with 30 food satellites, every size 15 city receives 15 nutrients. This is the same as if each citizen in those cities consumed one less nutrient.

To fiddle with base square production, open up alphax.txt and find the section. It's pretty early in the file.

Maniac:
Having each citizen consume one less nutrient has exactly the same effect as having each citizen produce one more nutrient (via satellite).

	10-08-2005 10:02									#16
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Some ideas,
to decrease population production speed. We could increase the nutrient multiplier, maybe to 20 instead of 10, which would halve growth rate right?

We could make recycling tanks give 2 mineral 1 energy instead of 1 of each.

Is it possible to make recycling center give more back for disbanded units?

	10-08-2005 15:57									#17
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

All of that can be done but the last. In general, numbers can be changed, but new effects cannot be added.

	11-08-2005 01:04									#18
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I knew the first two could be done, thats why they weren't questions. Would the first idea effectively halve growth rate and help nicely balance a 1 pop nut setting from what you can tell?

What do you think of my recycling center idea?

	11-08-2005 01:33									#19
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Doubling the nutrients required per row would very nearly halve non-boom growth rates. Pop booms, on the other hand, become even more appealing, especially with the vast surplus of nutrients.

It's hard to tell how lowering nutrient usage and tweaking the rec tanks might affect the game, but 2 minerals and 1 energy for 4 rows looks very appealing.

	11-08-2005 03:17									#20
	Tired of ads?

4 rows? Reading the SMAniaC thread, you can disable pop booms? Would that be a good idea for this to disable pop booms? (I'm aware certain wonders would need to be changed) Might a higher nut muliplier and disabled pop boom make the growth social factor more worthless or balance out against the 1 nut a pop factor?

Do you guys think these ideas are good enough to be included in future mods? I suppose we could just test it out and see how it works out.

Last edited by truepurple on 11-08-2005 at 03:29

	11-08-2005 03:50									#21
	Increase the size of your Attachments

If nutrient rows are 20 wide by default, +1 growth will make them 18 wide, so the effects of growth scale with nutrient width.

4 rows is the cost of a recycling tank.

You can inhibit pop booms by forcing negative growth mods on factions, either by editing the faction files or by appending -1 growth to each SE choice on some row. Even so, GA booms are still possible for most factions.

	11-08-2005 03:55									#22
	Inflate your Upload Space

What if they are 15 or some other odd number? What would the effect of growth be?

I suppose we could give all factions minus growth, with factions who specialize in growth, less minus.

GA?

Last edited by truepurple on 11-08-2005 at 04:11

	11-08-2005 04:51									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Chaos Theory Maniac: Having each citizen consume one less nutrient has exactly the same effect as having each citizen produce one more nutrient (via satellite).

Yep, some further thinking led me to the same conclusion.

	11-08-2005 07:42									#24
	Support Apolyton

I did some extensive research on the effects of altering nutrient and mineral row width in alphax.txt. The gist of it is that your actual row width equals ceil(base * (1-.1*(growth or industry)). For row widths of 15, +1 growth yields 14-wide rows, and +2 growth yields 12-wide rows, etc.

	11-08-2005 12:15									#25
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: equals ceil(base * (1-.1*(growth or industry)

No comprehende compadro, Please explain.

	11-08-2005 15:53									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...threadid=115504

	12-08-2005 05:02									#27
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

So what do you guys think of these ideas and the possibility of including them in future mods?

What do you guys think would be the best settings for creating the best effect?

	12-08-2005 05:11									#28
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by truepurple So what do you guys think of these ideas and the possibility of including them in future mods?

I agree (and I think a lot of the community does as well) that something should be done about chopper movement. As far as your other initial comment about city growth, why see my reply below.

quote: Originally posted by truepurple What do you guys think would be the best settings for creating the best effect?

I am hoping that cIV, what with its promised mod'ing capabilities, will give us the opportunity to build many different worlds on which to play SMAC(X). If it is as modable as promised, then it should be easy enough to incorporate the changes that any player wants (including your wishes).


D

	12-08-2005 06:56									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I've been coming up with a lot of neat things that could possibly be implemented in Civ 4:

Specialists can be drones and talents, just like workers.
Cassus belli - your population becomes unruly if you fight ideological allies or ally with ideological foes. You can suffer riots for forgiving or committing atrocities. Having a bad reputation causes drones. A high police rating would suppress this. Contrarily, attacking an ideologically opposed faction or befriending an ideologically allied faction could generate extra talents.
Pacifism doesn't generate many drones as a result of units outside borders, but generates drones in response to casualties outside borders. Wars without cassus belli and atrocities cause extreme drone problems.
Riots aren't a binary proposition. The more drones, the higher the chance of problems. Talents offset this to some extent, or perhaps completely.
Industry for building units (maybe just military units) is distinct from industry for building facilities/secret projects. The -2 Industry of Power would be much less punishing if it didn't impair military production, and the +1 Industry of Wealth wouldn't offset its morale penalty by directly allowing larger armies.
SE ratings don't hit bounds, or if they do, the lower bound yields intolerable problems and the upper bound offers all that could be expected in that category. Growth would be an example of bounds implemented properly, even though pop booming is too good for how easy it is to reach.
Missiles shouldn't be able to land!
Fewer integers, more decimals!

	12-08-2005 08:30									#30
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

On the more immediate arena rather then getting into the details of civ4 (which I'm told [by fellow posters] is too advanced in development to take more then minor suggestions)

What do you guys think of the SMAC settings suggested here? About the precise growth multiples one should use to get the desired effect, about setting all factions growth settings back so much growth. About setting nutritional requirements to 1. About the basic (what I see as no brainers) of no production from city square and no food from recycling. About using these ideas in current and future mods of smac?