 |
| |
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:22
|
|
Started my first game of Cradle (huge map, 8 civs, max barbs, "hard" difficulty)....as the Celts, of course! (being a strapping Celtic lad myself, what can I say? 
Anyway, I wound up near the Han and the Babs. Not long after the founding of my fifth city, the sound of a weighted net began bein' heard over my turf....a bit of investigating turned up a Bab slaver. Poof, two dead Bab slavers and war with that nation.
No problemo....'cept that when I took their last city and enslaved (conquered the civ) and opted to enslave it (only three tiles distant, too close for my liking), the game froze. No error message, it just stopped responding.
Anybody else seen that one?
Anyway, early impressions of Cradle are that IT ROCKETH!!!  In fact, for my next test game--as I'm feelin' in the mood for a little kicka$$--will be last month's tourney game.....here goes! 
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Hermann the Lombard
|
|
Hoboken, NJ, USA
Jun 1999
time: 00:22
|
|
Vel: If you saved, exited, and relaunched Cradle were you able to continue? I haven't experienced that bug but maybe I've never enslaved the last city of a given civ.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Martin Gühmann
|
 |
Berlin, Germany
Mar 2001
time: 06:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Anyway, I wound up near the Han and the Babs. Not long after the founding of my fifth city, the sound of a weighted net began bein' heard over my turf....a bit of investigating turned up a Bab slaver. Poof, two dead Bab slavers and war with that nation.
No problemo....'cept that when I took their last city and enslaved (conquered the civ) and opted to enslave it (only three tiles distant, too close for my liking), the game froze. No error message, it just stopped responding.
Anybody else seen that one? |
Well I never saw this but I have to admit that I never tested it to enslave the last city, because I wanted to be able to replace the city of that civ, unfortunatly I am not able to place a settler or city of this civ on the map afterwards it was killed, maybe here lies the problem, I should do a player is valid check before the city is enslaved.
-Martin
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Martin Gühmann
|
|
Berlin, Germany
Mar 2001
time: 06:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by hexagonian
Martin,
Could you also take a look at the PW bonus that a player gets (not the 75 per pop bonus, but the chunk of PW from the AI civ fund) Vel got over 10,000 on approx. turn 150 from a city capture, and the city was size 3. |
I could make it so that the number of PW you steals is depending on the city size, and wheather it is the capital, but the problem that the AI has to much PW will still be there.
quote:
Originally posted by hexagonian
Needless to say, this is a little too much to be getting, especially so early in the game. Could you scale this down to 1/10 of that, or disable this part of the code.
Thanks |
Disabling is always the last thing you should do, the real sollution of this problem would be to make the AI to use the PW and maybe give them less of them, so you could disable player1's PW cheat. Obviously the AI doesn't need the additional PW.
-Martin
|
|
| |
|
|
|
hexagonian
|
 |
Gnawing on your mind...
Jun 1999
time: 23:22
|
|
The setting in DiffDB.txt was one that had been in place before you sent me the code. For the current SP game, the bonus is at 4,000PW, so my guess is that the main culprit for the early game AI PW surplus is in Player1's code. Taking away the 4,000 that the AI starts with will not put too much of a dent in that surplus though, especially with Vel ending up with 75,000 PW...
I am actually very happy with the way the AI has been using it's PW funds, and have gone into the cheat mode (later in the game) and the surplus AI PW fund has been very reasonable, so I do not want to touch the ongoing bonus.
The thing is, I want to keep in your code, because it provides a way for a player to carry on a war and bypass the caps, but at the same time, a player can choose to make the game more challenging for himself by choosing not to use that option.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:22
|
|
Hmmm....I dunno, guys. The more I think it over, the more I'm wondering if there should BE a PW reward for taking an enemy city. The basic reward for capturing or enslaving a rival city is already pretty sweet (that being, I get stronger while my rival gets weaker). If I enslave the city, that's even better....I get stronger, my rival gets weaker, andI get the pop points added into my (more easily defended) cities, making them more productive on the whole.
If we further add a PW bonus for each town captured, then what's the incentive for NOT attacking? At this point, with three big benefits to attacking, there's no disincentive present that I can see. No downside, and in fact, attacking becomes an alternative form of generating a steady stream of PW, especially in the very early game, when even the toned down 200 pts is far, far more than I could generate on my own.
Thoughts?
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maquiladora
|
|
I still think its still a good feature, no matter if it helps the human build a few more roads or whatever.
The biggest incentive for attacking is still the option to "enslave" or "disband and road" trick, and not the PW bonus alone.
Getting rid of it altogether wont make enough difference if you dont get rid of enslaving the whole city too. Which i woukdnt like either.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
hexagonian
|
|
Gnawing on your mind...
Jun 1999
time: 23:22
|
|
Thanks Maquiladora
It'll be interesting to see what other players have to say
Here's my opinion...
I think that the city disbander/enslave option is the most powerful feature of the code, because it enables a player to continue to pursue an aggressive war. It nullifies the city cap. I generally play Huge/Gigantic maps, so this is a feature that would seem taylor-made to global conquest. There is a loss of regard if you raze a city, but this is peanuts, because the AI in Cradle will attack you, so what is a loss of regard in light of that.
But when I play, I do not use this feature - I have razed one city, and it was only to see what happens. I play this way because this is a carryover from my CTP1 days, when this code wasn't available. It makes the game harder, that much is for sure. What it means is that I have to have a long-term plan in place. How many cities do I build and how many do I conquer?
Having this feature in does allow a player a choice, and having the option to set up house rules makes the game fun. Players can choose not to raze cities until 1400AD, for example... And I play for enjoyment, not high score or quickest victory. So I lean toward keeping in the raze/disband feature, only because it is flexible.
In playtesting, I was getting a stallout when I chose 'Enslave' - any way to fix this???
SIDENOTE
I never was too crazy about the raze feature in civ3 because of the way it was implimented. You were most often better off razing a city because of the many negatives if you kept the city - culture and revolt flips and piss-poor production due to corruption were the most glaring. Both could be killers too - if you were in a war and wanted to push onward, you were better off razing because cities would flip on you if not adequetely garrisonned - and the question was - how long do you need to garrison before the city was safe? And the huge corruption hit made big cities practically worthless.
At least in CTP2, you could take those cities and make something worthwhile out of them.
REGARDING PW
Vel is right regarding incentives - but the first 2 are a given - there is no way to change that (unless you choose not to use the disbander/raze code) And couple the fact that the building destroyer code will wreck a good town with a choice not to raze cities, and you have an uphill battle. (You still are weakeneing the AI though...)
This discussion came up when the code was first put out. The code came out at the same time as the AI PW booster, so the feeling was that this was a means to help the human player. I lean towards Vel on this - but I would like to see some kind of boost (maybe no more than 100/200 per capture). A small boost is nice, but it will not be something to hinge an entire strategy on - rather it will be an accent.
In looking at the code, it seems that this can be easily addressed too. I can almost nullify the raid to the AI fund, and adjust the amount based on city pop.
In my playtest, it is the small civs that have this surplus too. I ran a 100 turn test with two civs - One had 3 cities, the other one had about 8 cities. Guess which one had 51,000 PW and which one had 4,500 PW in its fund at turn 100???
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:22
|
|
::nodding:: yeah, I'm feeling rather poor where PW is concerned. Actually gave myself a 10% PW tax (which is generating all of 52 pts a turn), so I can start providing a bit of a boost myself. After a massive round of road building, fort-and-watch-tower building, and general repairs, I have slightly less than 20k, which should still be enough to lay down a pretty massive stream of those romancollectivefarmingthingys when I get the tech for it (which, gods willing, will be soon....I don't know that I can hold out much longer ignoring the military side of the tree....my warrior/slinger groups are getting hammered now, but increasingly effective enemy troopers....MW's, swordsmen, and archers are all over the place, but my old guard is still hanging tough.....for how much longer? I dunno, but hopefully till we can get the juicy terraforming in place, and then play some rapid military catchup, make a dash for Monarchy and a higher city cap, and finally put the southern reaches of the continent (which is a seething mass of chaos....no less than 8 new civs have been born in that area as cities revolt and such....many cities are stacked 3 tiles apart, too, as the civs compete with each other for space. I'll happily relieve them of their burdens, just as soon as I get an increased city cap. Already one over it, and since I got beat to the temple of Zeus, my happiness won't stand much more of an increase.
So....we're in a holding pattern, scrambling to keep our armies alive, and scrambling to research those terraforming techs!
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hermann the Lombard
|
|
Hoboken, NJ, USA
Jun 1999
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
In my playtest, it is the small civs that have this surplus too. I ran a 100 turn test with two civs - One had 3 cities, the other one had about 8 cities. Guess which one had 51,000 PW and which one had 4,500 PW in its fund at turn 100??? |
That 51,000 (like Vel's result) sounds like a bug. It seems the AI usually does NOT have a massive surplus in the early game. Personally, I like a moderate PW bonus in conquest, and I don't think it should be tied to the conqueror's own PW output. After all, the Huns and the Mongols didn't produce much of their own, but they gained a lot by conquest. That was part of the point. For that matter, look at Rome after the conquest of Dacia. Basically they took everything that wasn't nailed down, and pried loose what WAS...and some of the booty could be seen as PW rather than gold.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Martin Gühmann
|
|
Berlin, Germany
Mar 2001
time: 06:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hermann the Lombard
That 51,000 (like Vel's result) sounds like a bug. It seems the AI usually does NOT have a massive surplus in the early game. Personally, I like a moderate PW bonus in conquest, and I don't think it should be tied to the conqueror's own PW output. After all, the Huns and the Mongols didn't produce much of their own, but they gained a lot by conquest. That was part of the point. For that matter, look at Rome after the conquest of Dacia. Basically they took everything that wasn't nailed down, and pried loose what WAS...and some of the booty could be seen as PW rather than gold. |
That is the basic concept of getting PW due to conquest. You simply steal it when you conquer it. Maybe some of it could be used for healing units, and maybe some of it could be lost in the battle. So the more you have the more can be wasted. The gain of PW must be related to amount of PW that could be stolen.
I think that player1's PW cheat causes a part of the problem, I used by accident the first version of the cheat that gave less PW then the second version, I saw that this was enough, I came to the conclusion that settings in the diffDB are enough.
-Martin
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-10-2002 06:17
Never experienced this problem....so it must be bad luck on your part. 
May i suggest some trading posts and latifundas? That tech gap is a killer, unless you already have all those, you must be well placed with tile imps now.
:
). When you capture a city and you gain PW, you’re effectively gaining workers. So, what if there’s a random chance (say 50%) that these workers decide to run for the hills and you get nothing 
?
|