10-06-2002 17:19									#91
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: For D7, I propose that we put the relevant parts of military and technology files into the scenario files (the civilizations are already done that way).

I will try it. I agree that the files should be per scenario. The way civ2 handles things, with an event.txt, a rules.txt, etc. is quite good, although rules contains too many things. It allows for easier modding and scenario installation. I would like to point out that the images xml file may need some scenario-specifics too. Just think what does a modder do? Mainly draw a map, fill it, add images (sounds, movies...), military units, modify techs, set up events. This requires a separate, scenario-specific file for the map, its content (can be a save game), images, military, tech. All these it must be possible to add to without editing a reference file.
Putting everything in a single file is OK considering xml is easy to browse, but I don't like it. Scenarios will often need images, so it will be a zip anyway. I think I'd like a folder for scenario files better.

About population: Considering it is a win condition, I'd like to see it on top. It is really not intuitive to search for it in econ frames. Actually, I think a report of all victory conditions, where it makes sense, should be available every time one wants them. For instance, you could know your population, the number of objective cities you control, your treasury, ... at a glance. In civ2, there is a panel for that (civ score), though you have to save/quit/reload to see the power graph.

	11-06-2002 16:22									#92
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare About population: Considering it is a win condition, I'd like to see it on top. It is really not intuitive to search for it in econ frames. Actually, I think a report of all victory conditions, where it makes sense, should be available every time one wants them. For instance, you could know your population, the number of objective cities you control, your treasury, ... at a glance. In civ2, there is a panel for that (civ score), though you have to save/quit/reload to see the power graph.

Hi Laurent:

I agree longer-term with doing a good job on this area. Do you have a proposal for what to do for D7? We could for example use the events box as Gary suggested, and just have the info you describe come up in the detailed version. One other idea I had is to show total population in the Details box at the lower left of the screen in the blank space beneath the tile image. The balance of victory conditions plus population could be shown in a Victory Condition item in the event box. It could say "Victory Conditions: 0 of 3" meaning that you have achieved 0 of the three conditions.

	11-06-2002 17:22									#93
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

have you considered making the demo fullscreen?
it would give you more space to show all the info..

	11-06-2002 18:47									#94
	Support Apolyton

I think that I had always sort of assumed that each scenario would have its own individual tech tree. I fully support making a seperate tree for each scenario. This will be the best way to eliminate the difficulty we've had with the differences in tech growth in the two scenarios. If each scenario has its own individual tech tree, all we have to do is change the global growth rate and upkeep so that the big Roman civ grows as fast as the small Dawn civ.

	12-06-2002 05:54									#95
	Suffering from ads?

Another portmanteau response.

Mark:

quote: "Difficulty levels" as in the sort of nonsense in civilization are in fact a long-term goal of mine. I want to be able to play a whole-history game, and be able to give any arbitrary advantages to the computer players that I deem necessary. If I spend a good chunk of a decade working on Clash, and can beat it every time, I will consider it an utter waste of my time.

If that happens, then the scenario is badly designed - correct the faults in the scenario and try again.

quote: On your third post, covering global data files vs. scenario-specific ones, I still, as in the past, prefer the global ones.

I would point out that you are the ONLY one with this view, and have NEVER advanced any reasons in favour of it. Are there any?

quote: However, if you are willing to code this central warehouse in which a catalog of items can be kept and drawn upon for scenarios, my objections are a lot less severe.

I understood that some of the new coders were approaching the matter of a scenario editor. I am prepared to arrange a design, but not, at present, code an editor. The same effect can be achieved by copying the appropriate code into each scenario (there are only two).

quote: Laurent and Richard (if he cares) are the major stakeholders in the current approach. I guess if they go along I've got no big problem with it.

I understand that both of them agree with my approach.

quote: I frankly think your arguments by-hyperbole about 10,000 types of units are stretched extremely thin.

Do you want me to list them?

quote: I have to be honest in that there are a lot of things I would prefer to see before save and restore games. Getting the tech and government models, which are very far along, actually working in the game and with interfaces come to mind. I have never yet had a desire to save the game of Clash because simply not very much happens so far. Until we get to the point where a single game can hold someone's interest for more than a half hour, I maintain there is little point in save games. The only exception I can think of is if those save games are supposed to serve as scenarios for others. Axi is also hot on getting save games, and it's still eludes me why the two of you want them at this point.

I don't want it - I dread it. But the longer it is put off, the worse the resulting chaos will be. I direct your attention to the difficulties we had in adapting existing and simple code in the economic model to be able to be read in from an xml file. By casually dismissing critical infrastructure considerations, unless you are prepared to accept that games will never be saved or restored you are gratuitously adding a substantial amount of work for some poor coder (probably me) to have to cope with in the future. On the other hand, if you are prepared to accept that games will never be saved or restored, I will not mention the matter again.

quote: As to the specifics of your save game plan, I've expressed my reservations with various parts of it when it was discussed earlier this year. It seems to me that keeping track of "what has changed" will require an enormous amount of code infrastructure that is much more likely to generate huge amounts of bugs and code confusion than anything a difficulty levels system could.

I suggest that I am the expert in this area, and that your estimate of likelihood is incorrect. The complexity is in saving/restoring at all, not in how it is done. I do agree that saving/restoring is more complex than implementing difficulty levels. Which, however, do you think is more important? It seems to me that your estimate of huge amounts of bugs and code is a demonstration that you have not considered the matter in any but the most superficial manner.

quote: I have to admit that the concept is intriguing. Frequently however there are very good reasons why nobody else does it a particular way...

For example:

*They haven't thought of it
*They don't know how to implement it
*The money people say "stick to the tried and true - anything that isn't a close clone of Civilization 1 is unsafe"

	12-06-2002 06:38									#96
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Gary Thomas Another portmanteau response.

For this culturally challenged Yank, what does that mean? Sorry, but I will have to defer my responses to your various questions and demands that I state my point of view until later...


I've only got a little bit of time, and want to get my revised to-do lists up for debate, and four people to pick their own assignments. This should explicitly not include Gary, since he already has an entirely too large list of things he needs to do. I'm going to put the latest versions of the full bugs and features lists up in the demo seven testbed for now, although I may not get to it tonight. The updated demo 7 to do lists will go after this post. Man, my dictation programs really doing lousy today, and I don't have time to fix all the errors, so please bear with me.

quote: I understood that some of the new coders were approaching the matter of a scenario editor. I am prepared to arrange a design, but not, at present, code an editor. The same effect can be achieved by copying the appropriate code into each scenario (there are only two).

I hadn't meant to give the impression that I expected the "scenario generation warehouse" anytime soon. As you say, we'll be limited to a handful of scenarios for the near future, so it would not really be needed. None of the new coders are trying to scenario editor, AFAIK I just put that up as an example for something someone might care to do. It's in the "small projects" area of the to do list. There is a new guy named Richard coming online, but he expressed interest in bugs fixing, and since we have in excess of need of those particular activities right now, I thought bug fixes would be a good thing for him to start out on.

	12-06-2002 06:43									#97
	Updated D7 todo list -- Bug-hunters wanted! Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

D7 todo list v5 - June 11

The list is not in priority order. A preponderance of the items are discussed in posts in the D7&8 thread if the short version doesn't make it clear what needs to be done. X = done. I have eliminated most of the old ones that have been taken care of, and only leave Xs if some small part remains to be done.

Numbering scheme changes after 18 to that in bugs and features lists, any further D7 todos will go in either the bugs (- prefix on number) or feature list (f prefix) and be handled with those numbering schemes.

If anyone wants to sign up for particular bugs, just list the number(s) you want to go after. Some of you new coders could help with this when you finish or want a break from your starting projects.

Comments, criticisms, and suggestions for additions and deletions welcome!

2. Ship boarding GUI (Gary)

3. Small AI improvements per my suggestions in the D7&8 thread (I'll do this if nobody else takes it)
Plus AI takes over just plain squares once cities taken (Mark)
More AI stuff detailed below.

6. As far as indicating that units have settlers, I have tracked down a wagon picture and will arrange it as a small overlay on a settler carrying unit. Done on map, needs to be done in Units Box (Gary)

7. Dawn tutorial (Dale)
(some requests for manual description in feature doc at bottom, prefixed with 'M' for manual/tutorial)

8. Use events to put barb incursions into Dawn1 (Gary)

9. use discovery of the horses tile plus generation of horse technology research points (say once you settle the horse square, or given as a big blob of RPs upon discovery (Gary)

10. specify technology levels for civs at the start of the scenario. The Dawn scenario is pretty much ok starting at minimum tech levels, but levels for many techs in delenda should start near a value of 10 or so. (Gary)

11. Victory Conditions Dawn1 - add achieving building of a chariot unit (Gary)

12. Give civs default economic orders that will use their production capacity effectively. (Gary for xml, Mark for specific orders )
Gary said: Mark, if you would write out for me the GovtEconOrdersInfo calls needed to achieve this (with a single float parameter where needed) I will add them to BuildingOrders. This seems to me to be the only way this can be achieved for D7.

13. Difficulty levels as separate scenarios for now. FE Dawn1 and "Dawn1 Hard". There may need to be two versions of the Hard one in Delenda, since there could be a "hard playing Romans", and similarly for the other side. (Mark)

14. Even though Hannibal is a large task force/command with phalanx and light horse components, the light horse always outruns the phalanx, giving Hannibal much less odds than would be the case if the TF moved together. I think that's a bug it's important to change to give the AI some punch. Another confusing feature of this behavior is that when you click on a square with any component of the Hannibal force, you see the whole thing. (Mark or Gary if I can't figure it out!)
Gary said: Make sure that they are put in the same task force. If they still outrun, it is a bug which I will attack.

15. Another AI problem was that sometimes AI forces just sat there even when there were plenty of city targets available. (Mark or Gary)

-----------------------------------

Numbering scheme changes here to that in bugs and features lists, any further D7 todos will go in either the bugs (- prefix on number) or feature list (f prefix). Name in parentheses at beginning is person who identified/requested the bug or feature. Name in brackets at end is person who has taken on fixing it. Volunteers needed!

-125 Next TF button doesn’t work if no TF is selected. Should go to some TF to start if none selected. Perhaps TF closest to current selected square? [medium priority, D7] *** [Mark]

X -129 Got message that roads were planned but none set aside even though I did have an order for road building, and was part way through building one. I had other orders that preempted it. [med D7] ***[Mark]

X -138 Pop-up box that says roads were planned but none set aside is really annoying, and for unknown reasons I sometimes get it nearly every turn even when funds are allocated and not all roads are built. Please change this message to an Econ Event [medium priority, D7] ***[Mark]

-141. (Axi) Pathfinding doesn't seem to take advantage of roads. [high, D7] ***

-144 (Richard) The "Move to nearest enemy" should be recalculated every turn. Now they just go to where the unit was when tne order was given.[medium, D7] ***

-150 make education do something in terms of generating RPs [medium, D7] ***[Mark]

-151 remove Econ Options item on toolbar, since it does nothing. [medium, D7] ***

-152 either eliminate Ruler button or mark gui as "Don't Touch, for Display Only" or some such [high D7] ***

f72 Economic consequences of battle -- The two armies share the square, fighting every turn. But there seem to be no economic consequences to this raging battle. [medium D7 feature, mark will try to implement] ***[Mark]

f127 Minimum power circle size is a bit too large. I can’t tell from PC if there are one or two full-strength legions in a square. Suggest minimum be shrunk to about 2/3 of current minimum. [high priority, Mark is happy to do if you tell me where it is..] ***[Mark]

f149 (Richard) There should be some kind of home field advantage. Cities fall over way too easily. Maybe in city battles we should generate free horde units to represent militia. When the city is attacked, the units join the defending TF. Then they return to civilian life when the battle is over. [medium priority d7, we have talked recently about an auto-mustered militia]. ***[Mark]

F150 (Richard) The "Move to nearest enemy" should be recalculated every turn. Now they just go to where the unit was when tne order was given. [med D7] ***

F151 Road building delay needed, so roads can't be flash-built. Also way to figure out how much resources to use... Too long to duplicate here, see feature list.

f159 (stickdude) I don't know how far along the economic model is, but it would be nice to see some highlights in the "Information frame" at the end of each turn, like income, spending, and current cash balance, units to be produced next turn, etc. [med d7] ***[Mark]

-----------------------------------


Small coding projects

map editor

xml editor

	12-06-2002 16:58									#98
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

One of many responses to Gary's issues. I propose that if we go any further on the topic we dig up or create a thread on scenarios so this discussion doesn't get lost later on...

I said:
On your third post, covering global data files vs. scenario-specific ones, I still, as in the past, prefer the global ones.

Gary said:
I would point out that you are the ONLY one with this view, and have NEVER advanced any reasons in favour of it. Are there any?

Gary:

While I never did IIRC explicitly advance reasons in favor of my approach, I have, in fact, expressed my reasons why your preferred way wasn't necessary. That's in an email exchange with you that is at the bottom of this post.

I think the main difference between us on this is that you believe that if there is a core global file that Everything in the whole game that ever could happen in any scenario must be in it. That is where what I interpreted as argument by hyperbole with the 10,000 units and all came in. It might be that your interpretation of the global is the only possible way to do it with the existing code... But generally my view was that the "global" data is what is needed for a core whole-history game a la civ. Only the core tech tree, units (maybe 500), economic info, etc. would go in that.

Individual scenarios would then have two paths in my view:
1. use the core file but tweak it by adding something, or defining something doesn't exist. 2. start from scratch in the scenario file and ignore the core global data.

This approach would make it easy IMO for those who just want to tweak the core whole-history game with a compact scenario file. It seems based on our discussion of regimes in the quoted email below that one can do it this way with the existing parser at least for regimes, and my thought was it could be generalized. FE for the Dawn scenario Richard's point about making a given tech change come from a lesser amount of RPs than in Delenda could be accomplished by having the Dawn scenario file overwrite the global that defines tech growth from RPs.

It seems that the scenario genration warehouse would satisfy most of my concerns about what I thought was your approach. And I admit it does have the advantage of encapsulating the xml. Since everyone else has agreed on it, I'll shut up on the topic.

Email conversation c. Feb 8 2002
Gary said:

My dislike of the regimes being globally specified, as opposed to
specified
per scenario, is logistical. Suppose Jack invents a neat new
scenario that
requires a Martian Madness regime, He modifies the global file to add
>it. Then John makes a scenario which requires a Freds Fantasy regime. So he adds
that to his file. Then Philbert expresses an interest in both these
scenarios, and asks for them. Jack's files arrive first and Philbert duly
installs them. Then John's files arrive and he installs them. Whoops, Freds
Fantasy has over-written Martian Madness, but done so in an unannounced and
generally invisible way. What happens is that when he tries to run Jack's
scenario, it cocks up in an unpredicatable manner.

Mark:
>
>I already said that scenario-specific regimes should be read
>in from the Scenario file!!! You may have missed it amongst the pages of
>prose that have passed between us recently... IMO Standard regimes go in
>the social xml file (or government or whatever) and scenario-specific ones
>go in the scenario. If the names are the same the scenario one should win,
>allowing designers to alter the standard ones in their scenario only.

G:
But aren't ALL regimes scenario specific? If you have an ancient scenario,
why do you need Italian Fascism or whatever?

M:
>So what? Italian Fascism will never be known to the people, never become
>active in the scenario... I think its simpler that way rather than always
>having to add standard regimes to Every scenario. But if you're so sure
>you're right, go ahead. Its not a vital issue, and can be easily fixed
>later when you see the error of your ways! ;-)

G:
My problem has been that I either have the xml read in a regime, or a regime
name. We can't have both because of the way the parser works. However, it
has occurred to me the if the tag was if it was a reference to
a standard regime, and if it was followed by an actual regime
specification. Since the regime readin already works. Though I notice that
in the SocialModel.xml, most of the regimes are just copies of the merchant
prince one. Would that differing tag system be OK?

M:
>OK, if the flexibility is still there, then I have no objections to doing
>it your way!

G:
Actually, I am doing it your way! I might change it one day...

[back to the present] And that day seems to have arrived

	12-06-2002 18:40									#99
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Mark,

quote: 1. use the core file but tweak it by adding something, or defining something doesn't exist.

Doesn't work as it doesn't allow you to remove stuff.

quote: 2. start from scratch in the scenario file and ignore the core global data.

Yes, but how do you specifically ignore it? You have to say that instead of using file ZZZ.xml you use either nothing (i.e. everything is in the scenario file) or a new file. This effectively makes the ZZZ.xml file "optional", as you could say: <militaryResoure>military.xml</militaryResoure> to say you do want the default file. But then, it is as easy to replace that in the scenario by <militaryResoure>myMilitary.xml</militaryResoure>.

If I understand well, Mark wants a ZZZ.xml file with all the standard stuff in it. Gary says this is actually a particular scenario file, and shouldn't be imposed onto other scenarios. I am not clear whether Gary wants the file to disappear and be included in the scenario file instead. I would like the "default" files to remain, but the scenario would have the option of pointing to it. Just precise somewhere in the scenario file which other files you want to read. Since we'd have to make the scenario a zip because of the images, I'd rather have several files if I could because I could reuse some from one scenario to another (typical case being enriching an existing scenario, like just adding three units in the civ2 rules.txt).

	13-06-2002 01:40									#100
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: If I understand well, Mark wants a ZZZ.xml file with all the standard stuff in it. Gary says this is actually a particular scenario file, and shouldn't be imposed onto other scenarios. I am not clear whether Gary wants the file to disappear and be included in the scenario file instead. I would like the "default" files to remain, but the scenario would have the option of pointing to it. Just precise somewhere in the scenario file which other files you want to read. Since we'd have to make the scenario a zip because of the images, I'd rather have several files if I could because I could reuse some from one scenario to another (typical case being enriching an existing scenario, like just adding three units in the civ2 rules.txt).

Well, as I understand it, Mark wants some one scenario to have special status, and to be read in every time, then ignored or modified in almost every case. This seems to be based on the notion that it is easier to a have small modification file to produce another scenario, rather than merely copying and modifying the base scenario.

He is wrong. Merging 2 files is always going to be more complex than operating from a single file. This complexity is not just in the code, but in the difficulties of the scenario designer keeping everything in hand.

My perception of the ultimate goal for scenario design has a scenario editor which has a series of available base scenarios (perhaps twenty) covering a number of interesting possibilities: random map or earth map, actual historical civilizations (Americans in 4000BC anyone?) or possible ones based on culture, various levels of events and so forth. The notion that there is a single whole history scenario is wrong. It cannot even be considered until we have some idea of how new civilizations appear. A whole history scenario becomes another Civilization clone - you are the French in 4000BC, led by Joan of Arc, for heavens sake, and you have to survive to 2050AD.

Careful thought leads me to the conclusion that the only civilization that existed in 4000BC and which still exists is the Laplanders. They win! Even without spaceships.

I still believe very strongly that every scenario file should be self-contained, "Hey, Fred, here's my new Tierra del Fuego takes over the World scenario", a single file, not dependent on modifications to somebody else's core files, and not corrupted by them

I like, rightly or wrongly, to think that most of the things I advocate are based on simplicity, maintainability and a minimum of code breaking dependencies. Not on some vaguely expressed notion that a substantial number of modified files is better than a single file, because it might save somebody some time somewhere somehow. Maybe.

Cheers

	13-06-2002 02:21									#101
	Increase the size of your Attachments

D7 todo list v5 - June 11, my comments on my chores. Done a few more things since I wrote this, so edited.

quote: 2. Ship boarding GUI (Gary)

Still meditating on the A* algoritm. Probably, as Mark suggested somewhere, D7.1.

quote: 6. As far as indicating that units have settlers, I have tracked down a wagon picture and will arrange it as a small overlay on a settler carrying unit. Done on map, needs to be done in Units Box (Gary)

Done in my code.

quote: 8. Use events to put barb incursions into Dawn1 (Gary)

Done in my code.

quote: 9. use discovery of the horses tile plus generation of horse technology research points (say once you settle the horse square, or given as a big blob of RPs upon discovery (Gary)

Done, both activate the technology and add research points - two different possible actions.

quote: 10. specify technology levels for civs at the start of the scenario. The Dawn scenario is pretty much ok starting at minimum tech levels, but levels for many techs in delenda should start near a value of 10 or so. (Gary)

This is done in the sense that the technology file has this option. I am not at all happy about writing a lot of code so an existing technology is modified. In effect, if we move to per scenario files, this will be done, otherwise not.

quote: 11. Victory Conditions Dawn1 - add achieving building of a chariot unit (Gary)

Next job.

quote: 12. Give civs default economic orders that will use their production capacity effectively. (Gary for xml, Mark for specific orders ) Gary said: Mark, if you would write out for me the GovtEconOrdersInfo calls needed to achieve this (with a single float parameter where needed) I will add them to BuildingOrders. This seems to me to be the only way this can be achieved for D7.

Waiting on Mark.

quote: 14. Even though Hannibal is a large task force/command with phalanx and light horse components, the light horse always outruns the phalanx, giving Hannibal much less odds than would be the case if the TF moved together. I think that's a bug it's important to change to give the AI some punch. Another confusing feature of this behavior is that when you click on a square with any component of the Hannibal force, you see the whole thing. (Mark or Gary if I can't figure it out!) Gary said: Make sure that they are put in the same task force. If they still outrun, it is a bug which I will attack.

Will check this.

quote: 15. Another AI problem was that sometimes AI forces just sat there even when there were plenty of city targets available. (Mark or Gary)

Will think about this on alternate Tuesdays if the wind is from the West.

quote: -125 Next TF button doesn’t work if no TF is selected. Should go to some TF to start if none selected. Perhaps TF closest to current selected square? [medium priority, D7] *** [Mark]

There was a bug in the code which is now fixed. The program now selects the largest task force if none is selected.

quote: X -138 Pop-up box that says roads were planned but none set aside is really annoying, and for unknown reasons I sometimes get it nearly every turn even when funds are allocated and not all roads are built. Please change this message to an Econ Event [medium priority, D7] ***[Mark]

The bug should be fixed, but I always forget to set aside money for roads, so I need it. I suspect that most people are like me.

quote: -141. (Axi) Pathfinding doesn't seem to take advantage of roads. [high, D7] ***

Will need to check this.

quote: -144 (Richard) The "Move to nearest enemy" should be recalculated every turn. Now they just go to where the unit was when tne order was given.[medium, D7] ***

As I explained long ago the reason for this is to stop the following tactic:

*Put a single light cavalry unit nearest to the enemy.
*Wait until they start following it.
*Lead them off into the blue yonder somewhere.
*Clobber their cities.

	13-06-2002 03:22									#102
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

What about getting rid of the confusing map square economy gui for D7?

Cheers

	13-06-2002 04:28									#103
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I fixed the settler wagon bug, and put the wagon behind the figure where it annoys me less.

Cheers

	13-06-2002 05:06									#104
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: quote: 11. Victory Conditions Dawn1 - add achieving building of a chariot unit (Gary) Next job.

Done as an event (not a Victory condition). We might not want to end the scenario at that point - what about using the chariot to wipe out the barabarians?

To make it a victory condition:

code:

<buildunitevent>
  <unit>
    chariot
  </unit>
  <savecondition>
    <condition>
      builtchariot
    </condition>
  </savecondition>
</buildunitevent>
<victory>
  <win>
    <conditionending>
      builtchariot
    </conditionending>
  </win>
</victory>

	13-06-2002 05:17									#105
	Increase Your PM Length

Yet another post!

This is a quote from an email from me to the coders:

quote: Also will add a Bulletin class like the display, but using HTML code, so Dale's pretty messages will appear properly

I forgot to add this to the list. It is quite important, and the next job for me.

Cheers

	13-06-2002 07:22									#106
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Quite a set of bug fixes and other accomplishments there Gary!

I'll respond as tersely as possible to things I need to say something about...

On the ship boarding, if you would really like to do it for demo 7,I can certainly wait an extra week.

Me:

quote: 10. specify technology levels for civs at the start of the scenario. The Dawn scenario is pretty much ok starting at minimum tech levels, but levels for many techs in delenda should start near a value of 10 or so. (Gary)

Gary:

quote: This is done in the sense that the technology file has this option. I am not at all happy about writing a lot of code so an existing technology is modified. In effect, if we move to per scenario files, this will be done, otherwise not.

I thought you were already going ahead with scenario files... I said I had no objections to doing it that way if the other stakeholders didn't mind, and they didn't so I thought that one was set in stone! If you would like an official concession I surrender to both your logic, and to the fact that I was seriously outvoted . If you can do this for demo 7 I think it would help a lot in the areas Laurent and Richard have mentioned.

quote: 12. Give civs default economic orders that will use their production capacity effectively. (Gary for xml, Mark for specific orders ) Gary said: Mark, if you would write out for me the GovtEconOrdersInfo calls needed to achieve this (with a single float parameter where needed) I will add them to BuildingOrders. This seems to me to be the only way this can be achieved for D7. Waiting on Mark.

Sorry, managed to forget about this one. Please use code like:

GovtEconOrder o = new GovtEconOrder("Legion", 0, 40);// 40% of production to Legion
civ.getCivEconomy().addGovtEconOrder(o);

We haven't completely decided what the level of the orders should be. At a guess I would make the Romans have an order like 90% Legion, and for the Carthaginian a mix of light horse, phalanx, and elephants perhaps, may be 40%, 40%, and 10% respectively for now. We can test out what works better ones the orders are implemented.

quote: quote: -144 (Richard) The "Move to nearest enemy" should be recalculated every turn. Now they just go to where the unit was when tne order was given.[medium, D7] *** As I explained long ago the reason for this is to stop the following tactic: *Put a single light cavalry unit nearest to the enemy. *Wait until they start following it. *Lead them off into the blue yonder somewhere. *Clobber their cities.

My suggestion for the moment is to go ahead and implement it, letting the player use the order at their discretion. We can simply prohibit the AI from using the order. If that is not agreeable then I suggest completely removing the order from the interface, since it only annoys the players.

quote: quote: -152 either eliminate Ruler button or mark gui as "Don't Touch, for Display Only" or some such [high D7] *** Why?

Based on the limited testing that Twinge did, I got the impression that changing the sliders caused crashes. I can look into this in more detail if you'd like. Volunteers?

quote: quote: f149 (Richard) There should be some kind of home field advantage. Cities fall over way too easily. Maybe in city battles we should generate free horde units to represent militia. When the city is attacked, the units join the defending TF. Then they return to civilian life when the battle is over. [medium priority d7, we have talked recently about an auto-mustered militia]. ***[Mark] I am really keen on this.

This one should probably be discussed in the military thread. I believe Laurent and I just talked about it recently there. As a simple step in this direction we could allow some small percentage of the population to turn into WarriorBands or something. The problem is to have infrastructure enough to make them turn back! Obviously it should be more sophisticated in the future...

quote: quote: F151 Road building delay needed, so roads can't be flash-built. Also way to figure out how much resources to use... Too long to duplicate here, see feature list. I always wanted this. There should be a labour resource too.

Yeah, I remember us discussing this ages ago, before demo 6, and you were always in favor of a lag. I can't think of a good algorithm for how long it should take though. Maybe just a constant lag of 2 turns or something from when the order is created? I don't think any additional Labour resource is needed, since Labour goes into generating the Road Building points. Do you mean local Labour like an engineer? Amusing, whenever I say Labour my dictation software thinks I'm talking about the party!

quote: To this list I will add something that I intend to do anyway - upgrade the Attila scenario and release that with D7. I have to get some fun out of this.

Yes you Definitely deserve some fun . I always liked the old Dawn scenario from demo 6 too, where you are fighting for your life against numerous assailants from like turn two. If that one would also be fun, I put in a strong vote for reproducing that. I was thinking of trying to talk Dale into doing it anyway if he got to the point where he was good enough at slinging together scenarios.

quote: What about getting rid of the confusing map square economy gui for D7?

Agreed. But please make it so that the -econ switch can make it available for testing purposes.

quote: what about using the chariot to wipe out the barabarians?

Yeah, if the player doesn't get to use it it's not nearly as much fun! I had been thinking something like this:
the big bad final barbarian invasion comes on turn X. The player, if they haven't been asleep, should be able to just crank out a bunch of chariots by then. We make as added victory conditions that the player can only win after turn X plus 10 or something, and there can be no populated squares controlled by barbarians. The player would not need to eliminate all barbarian units. That will ensure that things end with a fight, which I think most players will like.

A definite thumbs up on enabling HTML for the tutorial!

	13-06-2002 20:48									#107
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Gary Thomas quote: 15. Another AI problem was that sometimes AI forces just sat there even when there were plenty of city targets available. (Mark or Gary) Will think about this on alternate Tuesdays if the wind is from the West.

Well, on the chance that the atmospheric patterns are appropriate, I'd like to put in for next Tuesday. The bug can be reproduced in the following way:

Run Delenda with -seed playing Romans. Crank nine turns. Naples is left in Roman hands although there are Carthaginian forces enough to take it.

quote: -152 either eliminate Ruler button or mark gui as "Don't Touch, for Display Only" or some such [high D7] *** Why?

I said in the post above, I thought there were crashed caused by using this... I've checked this out briefly , and couldn't find any crashes. The Ruler Gui is quite nice btw. But since it has no connection to the current game, it should at least be labeled as such IMO. Maybe just change the title bar?

	14-06-2002 09:51									#108
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I want to complete the new code for this iteration before getting seriously into fixing old bugs. here are some comments:

quote: On the ship boarding, if you would really like to do it for demo 7,I can certainly wait an extra week.

It is gestating.

quote: I thought you were already going ahead with scenario files... I said I had no objections to doing it that way if the other stakeholders didn't mind, and they didn't so I thought that one was set in stone! If you would like an official concession I surrender to both your logic, and to the fact that I was seriously outvoted . If you can do this for demo 7 I think it would help a lot in the areas Laurent and Richard have mentioned.

This is now next on the list. Should be done by tomorrow night.

quote: Waiting on Mark. Sorry, managed to forget about this one. Please use code like: GovtEconOrder o = new GovtEconOrder("Legion", 0, 40);// 40% of production to Legion civ.getCivEconomy().addGovtEconOrder(o);

Done, new Government.java sent to Mark.

quote: quote: -144 (Richard) The "Move to nearest enemy" should be recalculated every turn. Now they just go to where the unit was when tne order was given.[medium, D7] *** My suggestion for the moment is to go ahead and implement it, letting the player use the order at their discretion. We can simply prohibit the AI from using the order. If that is not agreeable then I suggest completely removing the order from the interface, since it only annoys the players.

It was written for the primitive AI anyway. I will remove it from the menu.

quote: quote: -152 either eliminate Ruler button or mark gui as "Don't Touch, for Display Only" or some such [high D7] *** Why? Based on the limited testing that Twinge did, I got the impression that changing the sliders caused crashes. I can look into this in more detail if you'd like. Volunteers?

It is too pretty to take out, and will be functional fairly soon. I have some other reasons for leaving it in, that I hope will become obvious by D7, but I am not letting on yet.

quote: This one (militia) should probably be discussed in the military thread. I believe Laurent and I just talked about it recently there. As a simple step in this direction we could allow some small percentage of the population to turn into WarriorBands or something. The problem is to have infrastructure enough to make them turn back! Obviously it should be more sophisticated in the future...

I saw some posts in the military thread. This is not essential for D7 which is now the over-riding consideration.

quote: Yeah, I remember us discussing this ages ago, before demo 6, and you were always in favor of a lag. I can't think of a good algorithm for how long it should take though. Maybe just a constant lag of 2 turns or something from when the order is created? I don't think any additional Labour resource is needed, since Labour goes into generating the Road Building points. Do you mean local Labour like an engineer? Amusing, whenever I say Labour my dictation software thinks I'm talking about the party!

D8. Can't your dictation software talk American?

quote: Yes you Definitely deserve some fun . I always liked the old Dawn scenario from demo 6 too, where you are fighting for your life against numerous assailants from like turn two. If that one would also be fun, I put in a strong vote for reproducing that. I was thinking of trying to talk Dale into doing it anyway if he got to the point where he was good enough at slinging together scenarios.

Maybe. There is a HUGE amount of work to do in putting all Dale's messages into the Dawn1.xml file.

quote: quote: What about getting rid of the confusing map square economy gui for D7? Agreed. But please make it so that the -econ switch can make it available for testing purposes.

I sort of thought of you doing this.

quote: quote: what about using the chariot to wipe out the barabarians? Yeah, if the player doesn't get to use it it's not nearly as much fun! I had been thinking something like this: the big bad final barbarian invasion comes on turn X. The player, if they haven't been asleep, should be able to just crank out a bunch of chariots by then. We make as added victory conditions that the player can only win after turn X plus 10 or something, and there can be no populated squares controlled by barbarians. The player would not need to eliminate all barbarian units. That will ensure that things end with a fight, which I think most players will like.

We could add a new (wipe everybody out) victory condition at that point.

quote: A definite thumbs up on enabling HTML for the tutorial!

Done in the code I just sent you. Sort of...

Cheers

	14-06-2002 09:54									#109
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: quote: Originally posted by Gary Thomas quote: 15. Another AI problem was that sometimes AI forces just sat there even when there were plenty of city targets available. (Mark or Gary) Will think about this on alternate Tuesdays if the wind is from the West. Well, on the chance that the atmospheric patterns are appropriate, I'd like to put in for next Tuesday. The bug can be reproduced in the following way: Run Delenda with -seed playing Romans. Crank nine turns. Naples is left in Roman hands although there are Carthaginian forces enough to take it.

Sometimes the AI tells units to do nothing. Better to do a good AI than patch this sort of thing.

quote: I said in the post above, I thought there were crashed caused by using this... I've checked this out briefly , and couldn't find any crashes. The Ruler Gui is quite nice btw. But since it has no connection to the current game, it should at least be labeled as such IMO. Maybe just change the title bar?

Volunteering are you?

Cheers

	14-06-2002 18:35									#110
	Put an end to popups!

My email (all net access) was down at home this morning so I haven't seen anything that was sent less than about 12 hours ago.

Hey Gary:

quote: quote: What about getting rid of the confusing map square economy gui for D7? Agreed. But please make it so that the -econ switch can make it available for testing purposes. I sort of thought of you doing this.

Now I need to back up and make sure we are talking about the same thing. I thought you we just talking about taking out the map square orders setting that accesses the existing econ gui. Therefore the change I was talking about is a 3-min thing that I'd be happy to do if you like.

But I am now getting the impression you are talking about a completely redone econ gui for D7. Please confirm which option you are talking about. If its the easy one, no problem.

quote: Sometimes the AI tells units to do nothing. Better to do a good AI than patch this sort of thing.

1. we will lose the interest of players if the enemy doesn't even win when all you do is end the turn ad infinitum.

2. you'd prefer to do it right, which is laudable, but you also maintain that save games are important to do right away. Can't do them both at the same time. And my fear is the save games will take many months. Then there's getting tech and govt stuff fully into the game, which is what I rate highest given limited resources, and the fact that they are both far along. Therefore I am concerned that we may have this AI for a bit... YMMV

For those reasons I think its worth investing a little time in. I will do it, or maybe one of the new coders, if improvements can be made in a modest amount of time. However, if the Carthaginians are able to win fine once we put in the new econ orders then I agree this isn't something that needs to be fixed. Will see when I get a chance to play with the orders for each side added.

quote: I have some other reasons for leaving it in, that I hope will become obvious by D7, but I am not letting on yet.

Sounds Really intriguing
How about sharing your plans soon? Like now!

quote: Can't your dictation software talk American?

I think its being subverted by some sinister foreign force...

[edit] fix a Really confusing mis-wording.

	15-06-2002 02:58									#111
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: But I am now getting the impression you are talking about a completely redone econ gui for D7. Please confirm which option you are talking about. If its the easy one, no problem.

Its the easy one.

quote: quote: Sometimes the AI tells units to do nothing. Better to do a good AI than patch this sort of thing. 1. we will lose the interest of players if the enemy doesn't even win when all you do is end the turn ad infinitum.

Still low on my list.

quote: 2. you'd prefer to do it right, which is laudable, but you also maintain that save games are important to do right away. Can't do them both at the same time. And my fear is the save games will take many months.

My current estimate is about two weeks.

quote: Then there's getting tech and govt stuff fully into the game, which is what I rate highest given limited resources, and the fact that they are both far along. Therefore I am concerned that we may have this AI for a bit... YMMV

You may be right. However the tech stuff should not be a big deal.

quote: For those reasons I think its worth investing a little time in. I will do it, or maybe one of the new coders, if improvements can be made in a modest amount of time.

Now that warms the cockles of my heart.

quote: However, if the Carthaginians are able to win fine once we put in the new econ orders then I agree this isn't something that needs to be fixed. Will see when I get a chance to play with the orders for each side added.

The problem is that the Carthaginians cannot cross the sea, and fixing that is a much greater problem.

quote: quote: I have some other reasons for leaving it in, that I hope will become obvious by D7, but I am not letting on yet. Sounds Really intriguing How about sharing your plans soon? Like now!

It is intriguing. Actually all the code I need is done, I just need half an hour to adjust some infrastructure.

quote: quote: Can't your dictation software talk American? I think its being subverted by some sinister foreign force...

Heh, heh, heh...

The file input stuff is now done and will be sent soon. I made it optional, but set by the scenario. A sequence like:

<files> <all/> </files>

at the start of a scenario file makes it work the old way. Instead of "all", you can have individual files (any combination of technology, military, regimes, religions, at present). The settings, image list and terrain are all still global, that is, read in anyway.

In addition to this, a scenario file can have any of the following tags:

• element
  
• unit
  
• technology
  
• activity
  
• regime
  
• religion
  

	15-06-2002 07:08									#112
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I struck a minor but irritating setback in the parser. The way the parser works, it has no knowledge of an enclosing class. For example, if an army is declared (in the scenario file) inside a civilization, it does not know about the civilization.

This is unsatisfactory, so I have extended the parser in such a way that if there is an appropriate method, the enclosing class is passed to the inner class. This has, to my surprise, enormously enhanced the power of the xml input routines. It leads the way, for example, to defining, in the scenario file, units which are specific to a single civilization.

We are homing in!

Now to test it...

Cheers

	15-06-2002 12:07									#113
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: It leads the way, for example, to defining, in the scenario file, units which are specific to a single civilization.

This means, in this example, you call setCivilization if available when you put the unit inside the civilization tag? That sounds great.

	16-06-2002 01:48									#114
	Updated D7 todo list Get a bigger avatar today!

D7 todo list v9 - June 15

The list is not in priority order. A preponderance of the items are discussed in posts in the D7&8 thread if the short version doesn't make it clear what needs to be done. X = done. I have eliminated most of the old ones that have been taken care of, and only leave Xs if some small part remains to be done. FE the code may be there to do it, but the scenario file doesn't have it implemented.

Numbering scheme changes after 15 to that in bugs and features lists, any further D7 todos will go in either the bugs (- prefix on number) or feature list (f prefix) and be handled with those numbering schemes.

If anyone wants to sign up for particular bugs, just list the number(s) you want to go after. Some of you new coders could help with this when you finish or want a break from your starting projects.

Comments, criticisms, and suggestions for additions and deletions welcome!


X 2. Ship boarding GUI (Gary) [tentatively leave for D7.1]

3. Small AI improvements per my suggestions in the D7&8 thread (I'll do this if nobody else takes it)
Plus AI takes over just plain squares once cities taken (Mark)
More AI stuff detailed below.

7. Dawn tutorial (Mark, don't know what happened to Dale...)

8. Use events to put barb incursions into Dawn1 (Gary)
Code done, waiting for xml example

X 9. use discovery of the horses tile plus generation of horse technology research points (say once you settle the horse square, or given as a big blob of RPs upon discovery (Gary)

10. specify technology levels for civs at the start of the scenario. The Dawn scenario is pretty much ok starting at minimum tech levels, but levels for many techs in delenda should start near a value of 10 or so. (Gary, Laurent for xml?)

X 11. Victory Conditions Dawn1 - add achieving building of a chariot unit (Gary)
Done in code (xml?) but not tested

X 12. Give civs default economic orders that will use their production capacity effectively. (Gary for xml, Mark for specific orders )
Mark has yet to make xml work for this, coding done.

13. Difficulty levels as separate scenarios for now. FE Dawn1 and "Dawn1 Hard". There may need to be two versions of the Hard one in Delenda, since there could be a "hard playing Romans", and similarly for the other side. (Mark)

14. Even though Hannibal is a large task force/command with phalanx and light horse components, the light horse always outruns the phalanx, giving Hannibal much less odds than would be the case if the TF moved together. I think that's a bug it's important to change to give the AI some punch. Another confusing feature of this behavior is that when you click on a square with any component of the Hannibal force, you see the whole thing. (Mark or Gary if I can't figure it out!)
Gary said: Make sure that they are put in the same task force. If they still outrun, it is a bug which I will attack.

15. Another AI problem was that sometimes AI forces just sat there even when there were plenty of city targets available. (Mark will fix if can be done in a few hours)

-----------------------------------

Numbering scheme changes here to that in bugs and features lists, any further D7 todos will go in either the bugs (- prefix on number) or feature list (f prefix). Name in parentheses at beginning is person who identified/requested the bug or feature. Name in brackets at end is person who has taken on fixing it. Volunteers needed!

-125 Next TF button doesn’t work if no TF is selected. Should go to some TF to start if none selected. Perhaps TF closest to current selected square? [medium priority, D7] *** [Mark]

Gary, you said you'd fixed this, but in Dawn, it didn't work. I moved my single unit a few squares from the one-square settlement, selcted the settlement and hit "next TF" and the selection didn't change.

-129 Got message that roads were planned but none set aside even though I did have an order for road building, and was part way through building one. I had other orders that preempted it. [low D7] ***[Mark]

-141. (Axi) Pathfinding doesn't seem to take advantage of roads. [high, D7] ***

X -144 (Richard) The "Move to nearest enemy" should be recalculated every turn. Now they just go to where the unit was when tne order was given.[Move to Nearest Enemy eliminated pending real AI medium, D7] ***

X -150 make education do something in terms of generating RPs [medium, D7] ***[Mark]

X -151 remove Econ Options item on toolbar, since it does nothing. [medium, D7] ***

-152 either eliminate Ruler button or mark gui as "Don't Touch, for Display Only" or some such [high D7, Gary is working on a surprise involving this] ***

f72 Economic consequences of battle -- The two armies share the square, fighting every turn. But there seem to be no economic consequences to this raging battle. [medium D7 feature, mark will try to implement] ***[Mark]

X f127 Minimum power circle size is a bit too large. I can’t tell from PC if there are one or two full-strength legions in a square. Suggest minimum be shrunk to about 2/3 of current minimum. [high priority, Mark is happy to do if you tell me where it is..] ***[Mark]

f149 (Richard) There should be some kind of home field advantage. Cities fall over way too easily. Maybe in city battles we should generate free horde units to represent militia. When the city is attacked, the units join the defending TF. Then they return to civilian life when the battle is over. [medium priority d7, we have talked recently about an auto-mustered militia]. ***[Mark]

X F151 Road building delay needed, so roads can't be flash-built. Also way to figure out how much resources to use... Too long to duplicate here, see feature list. [delayed per Gary suggestion till D7.1]

f159 (stickdude) I don't know how far along the economic model is, but it would be nice to see some highlights in the "Information frame" at the end of each turn, like income, spending, and current cash balance, units to be produced next turn, etc. [med d7] ***[Mark]

-----------------------------------


Small coding projects, if any of our prospective coders actually does one

map editor

xml editor

Gary said: At present there is a hack. Each bulletin [for tutorials] should show up,
with the next being displayed when the previous one is closed. For lack of
time I just stacked them in reverse order, offset up the screen. So you see
them in the right order, but it is not ideal. While I could fix it it will
probably take a couple of days.

Last edited by Mark_Everson on 16-06-2002 at 01:58

	17-06-2002 09:04									#115
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: This means, in this example, you call setCivilization if available when you put the unit inside the civilization tag? That sounds great.

Essentially that is right. When the parser hits an inner tag, if the inner class has a method called setParent(Object object), it calls this method, passing the enclosing instance as the parameter. It is now used by Army.java, so an army can be defined inside a civilization tag, rather than it having to be outside the civilization, with a civilization identification inside it.

Cheers

	17-06-2002 09:29									#116
	Support Apolyton

quote: X 2. Ship boarding GUI (Gary) [tentatively leave for D7.1]

Might give it some thought now.

quote: 8. Use events to put barb incursions into Dawn1 (Gary) Code done, waiting for xml example

Writing code to delay events, so we can have the barabarians show up a couple of turns later.

quote: X 9. use discovery of the horses tile plus generation of horse technology research points (say once you settle the horse square, or given as a big blob of RPs upon discovery (Gary)

Done

quote: 10. specify technology levels for civs at the start of the scenario. The Dawn scenario is pretty much ok starting at minimum tech levels, but levels for many techs in delenda should start near a value of 10 or so. (Gary, Laurent for xml?)

Technology can now be specified inside the scenario file, so the coding is done.

quote: X 11. Victory Conditions Dawn1 - add achieving building of a chariot unit (Gary) Done in code (xml?) but not tested

Code done.

The rest require a working version of the program to check, and we haven't got one just now.

Cheers

	17-06-2002 14:21									#117
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: It is now used by Army.java, so an army can be defined inside a civilization tag, rather than it having to be outside the civilization, with a civilization identification inside it.

Gary, there is no longer any Army.java. Did you mean it a generic for ElementArchetype and UnitArchetype? Anyway, I'll check it and try to use it. I will try to change the military.xml file and remove scenario specifics from it (if we can get the program running).

	18-06-2002 04:04									#118
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Gary, there is no longer any Army.java. Did you mean it a generic for ElementArchetype and UnitArchetype? Anyway, I'll check it and try to use it. I will try to change the military.xml file and remove scenario specifics from it (if we can get the program running).

Yes there is, it is in game.scenarios and is used to read in task force specifications from the scenario xml file. Since the tag <unit> is used for UnitArchetype I needed another tag for a real (instantiated) unit, so I used <army>. It makes the scenario file read a bit better.

Cheers

	21-06-2002 04:38									#119
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: X 2. Ship boarding GUI (Gary) [tentatively leave for D7.1]

Moving closer, but still gestating.

quote: 8. Use events to put barb incursions into Dawn1 (Gary) Code done, waiting for xml example

Will do this today

quote: 10. specify technology levels for civs at the start of the scenario. The Dawn scenario is pretty much ok starting at minimum tech levels, but levels for many techs in delenda should start near a value of 10 or so. (Gary, Laurent for xml?)

Easy to do now that the technologies can be specified in the scenario files.

quote: X 11. Victory Conditions Dawn1 - add achieving building of a chariot unit (Gary) Done in code (xml?) but not tested

Will also do this (provide an example) today.

quote: 14. Even though Hannibal is a large task force/command with phalanx and light horse components, the light horse always outruns the phalanx, giving Hannibal much less odds than would be the case if the TF moved together. I think that's a bug it's important to change to give the AI some punch. Another confusing feature of this behavior is that when you click on a square with any component of the Hannibal force, you see the whole thing. (Mark or Gary if I can't figure it out!) Gary said: Make sure that they are put in the same task force. If they still outrun, it is a bug which I will attack.

Got a working version now, so I will check.

quote: -125 Next TF button doesn’t work if no TF is selected. Should go to some TF to start if none selected. Perhaps TF closest to current selected square? [medium priority, D7] *** [Mark] Gary, you said you'd fixed this, but in Dawn, it didn't work. I moved my single unit a few squares from the one-square settlement, selcted the settlement and hit "next TF" and the selection didn't change.

What I fixed was the situation at the start of the turn. If you deliberatly unselect a TF it won't work. I will fix it.

quote: -141. (Axi) Pathfinding doesn't seem to take advantage of roads. [high, D7] ***

That is really odd. Again I will check.

quote: X -144 (Richard) The "Move to nearest enemy" should be recalculated every turn. Now they just go to where the unit was when tne order was given.[Move to Nearest Enemy eliminated pending real AI medium, D7] ***

Removed from the option menu. Hah!

quote: -152 either eliminate Ruler button or mark gui as "Don't Touch, for Display Only" or some such [high D7, Gary is working on a surprise involving this] ***

This is done and is too pretty to suppress.

Cheers

	21-06-2002 05:58									#120
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Sounds great Gary! Unfortunately I haven't time to do much tonight, but I'm think I can get the tutorial more-or-less finished on the weekend if at least most of the support stuff is there.

quote: Originally posted by Gary Thomas Removed from the option menu. Hah!

That'll show 'em!

quote: This is done and is too pretty to suppress.

Agreed!