23-02-2003 21:08									#61
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: The only ones I can remember right now is in that it's not possible to have a civilization sub-tag in <unit>, and several events can't be contained within <eventjoin>, <eventunion>, etc.

I fixed the eventunion and such so that all events can be contained in one another. The unit tag doesn't sport a civilization subtag, but the element does. I agree that it should probably be the other way around, or maybe both.

As a side note for planning demos, I won't be able to make big progress on the ai until probably april (it requires lots of focus, and I am a bit busy right now), so I'll mostly fix things until then (and maybe add a military panel).

	24-02-2003 02:18									#62
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Thanks Laurent, that'll make things a lot easier. And yes I think both units and elements should have the civ. subtag. (btw. what about making "civ" an abreviation of "civilization" for tags)

Thanks for the suggestions Mark, but until I get an updated version where the squares does not loose farms when I add pop to the map, I'll have to make the minor civs. start at 5-6000, or they won't grow at all, and I need the populated squares to work out the events.

	24-02-2003 04:17									#63
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Martin the Dane Thanks for the suggestions Mark, but until I get an updated version where the squares does not loose farms when I add pop to the map, I'll have to make the minor civs. start at 5-6000, or they won't grow at all, and I need the populated squares to work out the events.

Oh Crap, I hadn't ever put it together that the mechanism could Lower farm sites! I'll fix that right away.

All:

We now have numerous fixes and minor features done. I've finished most of the xml for econ and written up the documentation. As soon as I get everything compiled from all the sources I'll send out a new version of the code and testbed. Hopefully that'll be soon!

	24-02-2003 13:47									#64
	Remove this text

Thanks, Mark.
I'll just go ahead. I can work out most of it without the farms, and then finetune it when I get the fixed version.

	25-02-2003 00:07									#65
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Thanks Laurent, that'll make things a lot easier. And yes I think both units and elements should have the civ. subtag. (btw. what about making "civ" an abreviation of "civilization" for tags)

Actually, civ instead of civilization would be a bit painful. (If Gary surfaces, ask him why abbreviations are evil).
The way to go would be to provide a dedicated editor (Richard did an online one for the tech model - check it if you're interested), but we don't really have time to spend on that now.
Among the fixes Mark talked about, I added an addpopulationevent as requested.
I'll try to put the civilization tag in units too when I am not too lazy to do it.

	25-02-2003 13:55									#66
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I vote for getting rid of the automatic farm site adjustment, and reducing the populations in Attila and Delenda until they fit the standard terrain values. Balancing tech growth between the early scenarios and the roman scenarios has been a chronic headache, because there are simply too many people in the latter. The imbalance also shows up in the number of military units available. IMO the empires in those scenarios should be similar to what a player would get if they grew their civ from a standard start.

For a long-term fix, we can add a terrain scale value defined in the scenario file. This scale would represent the length of one side of a terrain square, and would adjust game values. So if the terrain scale was three, each square would have nine times as many farm sites and resource sites, roads would cost three times as much, and units would move one third as fast.

Similarly, a time scale value would also be helpful. The scenario designer should be able to switch the turn length to values other than one year. Setting the time scale to five would make units move five times as fast and multiply all economic activity, tech growth, and population growth by five. Allowing this time scale to be changed by events would be very useful.

	25-02-2003 14:00									#67
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

One more thing. How do I edit the credits? There are several artists that will have to be mentioned. And how much effort would it be to change the code so that both of the colors in the background of civ2 units are set to transparent?

	25-02-2003 15:29									#68
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Richards solution to the farms/ressource units seems fine to me. The same goes for the time scale factor idea. It would be nice to have a few aditional scaling units, that would override parts of the effects of the general scaling units. Ok now I'm starting to sound confusing, so I'll try with a list.

Overall-scaling factors:

• MapScale - sets the length of one side of a map square. Resources and movement is scaled acordingly as per Richards suggestion.
  
• TimeScale - Set the turn-length, and scales movement and production as per. Richards suggestion.
  

Spesific-scaling factors:

• MovementScale - Scale the movement-speed of all units.
  
• ResourceScale - Scale the number of resouce sites/terrain. (maybe one for each type)
  
• PopGrowthScale - Scale the population growth factor.
  
• TechGrowthScale - Scale the tech-growth.
  
• EconScale - Scale the economic activity factor.
  
• BuildCostFactor - Scale the cost of building units, roads etc.
  

There are probably a few more that would be relevant, but this is long-term (so programers don't panic ).

Except for the MapScale these scaling factors should be changable in events.

	25-02-2003 18:02									#69
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Richard Bruns I vote for getting rid of the automatic farm site adjustment, and reducing the populations in Attila and Delenda until they fit the standard terrain values. Balancing tech growth between the early scenarios and the roman scenarios has been a chronic headache, because there are simply too many people in the latter.

If we are going to unify the scales of these scenarios, I'd prefer to do it with the right values for population densities. If anything the dawn etc scenarios have population densities that are way too Low rather than the Rome ones being way too high. Population densities based on low-tech temperate agriculture are usually in the low tens per square mile. With squares about 60 mi on a side this gives populations per square of order 50k+.

The question then becomes is this the right time to make these changes to the scenarios, or should it wait until the release after this one.

quote: For a long-term fix, we can add a terrain scale value defined in the scenario file. This scale would represent the length of one side of a terrain square, and would adjust game values. So if the terrain scale was three, each square would have nine times as many farm sites and resource sites, roads would cost three times as much, and units would move one third as fast. Similarly, a time scale value would also be helpful. (snip)

I agree with you and Martin on this in general. Can one of you start a "Distance and Time Scale Settings for Scenarios" or some such thread? (And also put a link to it in this one?) There are some issues that have been discussed before that I need to bring up regarding time scales so that we can discuss them.

quote: One more thing. How do I edit the credits? There are several artists that will have to be mentioned.

That is hard-coded for now. Just send me the additions in the same format as the current credits blurb.

quote: And how much effort would it be to change the code so that both of the colors in the background of civ2 units are set to transparent?

I don't know on this one. You could post in the bug fix thread and see if someone who knows how to do it would be willing to take it on.

Hi Martin, why do we need the others beyond the inital two in your post? Anyway, if you can get together a complete wish list before we do the time and distance fixes (that will be a Big job, at least in Economy) we can try and write the code so that we get as many of your desired mod factors for free.

	25-02-2003 18:31									#70
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Hi Martin, why do we need the others beyond the inital two in your post?

It's to let the scenario editors finetune things, another thing is to allow radically different scenaioes. The final and most important reason is to allow for scenario events to influence these factors for a shorter or longer periode of time, simulating "black-death", golden age, etc.

quote: Can one of you start a "Distance and Time Scale Settings for Scenarios" or some such thread?

I can do that, but I might want a "Secenario tags and settings" thread as well or in stead.

	26-02-2003 02:52									#71
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: And how much effort would it be to change the code so that both of the colors in the background of civ2 units are set to transparent?

Considering that if you save as gif with f.e. irfanview (freeware) you can set one colour in the palette as transparent, it is quite trivial to edit the images by hand to get the good result. I don't know much about the way java handles images, but I for one don't know how to manage it code-wise.

	26-02-2003 13:09									#72
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I can make one background color for the images. The reason I asked is that the artists use the two background colors to sign their images, and changing it to one background color erases their signatures. I wanted to avoid that is possible, but it is not that important.

	27-02-2003 07:29									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Richard:

Just tried your 7.6 version of delenda. There's some pretty cool stuff in there! I think it will be much more of a challenge with the AI tweaks Laurent has put in that are in the 7.7 testbed. I'll try the others out as I have time, though I may wait for the 7.7 equivalents to come out first!

I am thinking about how to unify the farms scales between all the scenarios. At a crude level if we multiplied all farms and resources sites in the base terrain file by something like a factor of 3-4 (both farm and resource sites) it should work about right. That would still leave delenda with like twice the population density of the more ancient scenarios, but it wouldn't be nearly the difference there is now.

If you guys want to try that, its fine by me. If its not a huge headache balancing the tech, I'd leave it the way it is for now.

Cya,

Mark

	27-02-2003 13:53									#74
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Mark_Everson Just tried your 7.6 version of delenda. There's some pretty cool stuff in there! I think it will be much more of a challenge with the AI tweaks Laurent has put in that are in the 7.7 testbed. I'll try the others out as I have time, though I may wait for the 7.7 equivalents to come out first!

Thanks. Unfortunately, I will be away for some time next week, so the update could take a couple of weeks, especially if I start experimenting with the econ model.

Can we start putting my changes in the official testbed? Once Martin finishes converting Dawn to my new defaults, there will be no reason to keep the old stuff.

quote: I am thinking about how to unify the farms scales between all the scenarios. At a crude level if we multiplied all farms and resources sites in the base terrain file by something like a factor of 3-4 (both farm and resource sites) it should work about right. That would still leave delenda with like twice the population density of the more ancient scenarios, but it wouldn't be nearly the difference there is now.

Multiplying be 3 or 4 would not be enough. Default values are 8 to 12, and the populations in delenda need 80 to 120 sites to keep forn starving. I may just go through that scenario and reduce all the exponents in the population map by one. Or I could multiply the defaults by ten. I´ll try various things.

Ideally, increased populations would be handled by increased farming tech. But we need to make sure that the economy uses that tech on the first turn, so that no one starves.

	27-02-2003 17:15									#75
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Richard Bruns Thanks. Unfortunately, I will be away for some time next week, so the update could take a couple of weeks, especially if I start experimenting with the econ model.

Thanks for letting me know. I may convert the 7.6.1 ones to be compatible with the new econ stuff if I have time. (No changes, just make them work with the new code, which will only take about a half hour I think.)

quote: Can we start putting my changes in the official testbed? Once Martin finishes converting Dawn to my new defaults, there will be no reason to keep the old stuff.

We need Laurent's agreement on the army power specs. Since you agreed to use the older combined-arms approach as a defalt I think that's the only to be yet finalized. After that, I think its a good idea.

quote: I am thinking about how to unify the farms scales between all the scenarios. At a crude level if we multiplied all farms and resources sites in the base terrain file by something like a factor of 3-4 (both farm and resource sites) it should work about right. That would still leave delenda with like twice the population density of the more ancient scenarios, but it wouldn't be nearly the difference there is now.

quote: Multiplying be 3 or 4 would not be enough. Default values are 8 to 12, and the populations in delenda need 80 to 120 sites to keep forn starving.

I'd said "That would still leave delenda with like twice the population density of the more ancient scenarios, but it wouldn't be nearly the difference there is now." A factor of 2-3 difference doesn't seem like such a big deal. Differences much larger than this will occur naturally as we play the game. BTW Some of the really large numbers of sites may be meant to simulate imported grain in a crude fashion. Esp. for Rome and Carthage.

quote: I may just go through that scenario and reduce all the exponents in the population map by one. Or I could multiply the defaults by ten. I´ll try various things.[QUOTE] I don't like multiplying defaults by 10, that will make populations too big in the primitive settlements. I guess reducing the Rome and Attila ones by 10x wouldn't bother me that much as a temporary thing. But I do think we should change the site numbers to the more-realistic ones fairly soon anyway. [QUOTE]Ideally, increased populations would be handled by increased farming tech. But we need to make sure that the economy uses that tech on the first turn, so that no one starves.

Yep. Roman Agriculture should be probably 2-3x as effective as that in Dawn. Of course taxes will be higher too! I think getting all the tech turned on for turn 1 is very important. If Laurent doesn't have time to do it soon, I'll take a look at it. It should be fairly straightforward.

	27-02-2003 18:13									#76
	Inflate your Upload Space

Ok I'll fix the version of Dawn that uses the old units (and that will the last you'll ever se of that), and then do a full remake using the new unit-types, for the future releases. Fixing the last few things in my latest version of Dawn will not take long, so I hope to have it out very soon.

The remake has a lot of added elements so, apart from the name and map, it'll be a totaly new sceareo. My plan is to introduce all important aspects of the game, one at a time, while making it an enjoyable experience.

	27-02-2003 21:55									#77
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Sounds good.

Martin (or anyone else), feel free to add elements or units to the defaults, or alter them as you see fit. Changes in the AI and other things may mean that the values I playtested are out of date.

In any case, I was more concerned with getting a good, unified system. Hopefully you can build on that foundation easily, if you want to. The progression of units should be fairly clear.

I have gotten permission to use the unit images of the following artists:

The ANZAC
techumseh
Prometeus
fairline
Stefan Härtel
Hobbes

	28-02-2003 06:00									#78
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Hey Martin:

quote: Originally posted by Martin the Dane Ok I'll fix the version of Dawn that uses the old units (and that will the last you'll ever se of that), and then do a full remake using the new unit-types, for the future releases. Fixing the last few things in my latest version of Dawn will not take long, so I hope to have it out very soon.

I hope I'm misunderstaning. If so, just ignore the following paragraph. But it looks to me like you want to move over to Richard's mono-element units, which has not been agreed to by anyone but possibly you and Richard. AFAIK the old combined arms units are Still the standard. We haven't heard from Laurent yet on these important points. Anyone that wants to do New scenarios can do whatever they want. But if you want yours to replace the standard ones we need Laurent's agreement first. That goes for replacing the default military.xml too. As I said above, if I've misunderstood, please ignore the rant

quote: The remake has a lot of added elements so, apart from the name and map, it'll be a totaly new sceareo. My plan is to introduce all important aspects of the game, one at a time, while making it an enjoyable experience.

Sounds great! Looking forward to it

quote: I have gotten permission to use the unit images of the following artists: The ANZAC techumseh Prometeus fairline Stefan Härtel Hobbes

Richard, that's great! Thanks for your efforts in getting us more art BTW can you post that, and possibly where to find their art in the two main art threads? Thanks!

Great work on the new scenarios guys!

	28-02-2003 12:02									#79
	Put an end to popups!

Hi Mark

Well I was not aware that the mono-element units was the main disagreement between the two aproaches. IMO the default should be combined-arms units, but the mono-element units should be available to scenario-designers.

I have not descided for or against any of the models, with regard to Dawn, but I want Dawn to use the default units, wether those are combined or mono-element, as defined in military.txt.

	28-02-2003 16:49									#80
	Tired of ads?

Hi Martin, sounds good to me.

	01-03-2003 19:54									#81
	Tired of ads?

quote: We need Laurent's agreement on the army power specs. Since you agreed to use the older combined-arms approach as a defalt I think that's the only to be yet finalized. After that, I think its a good idea.

The only things that I think are important are the following:
Have some combined arms units including elements which can skirmish (and even scout if you want to, though there were none in the old file).
Make sure every capability present in the old military file is still in the new one, or, of not, explain why. This is very important because it ensures that the corresponding code is tested and, if the code is not tested, then maybe it is useless and so should be scrapped. It's okay to forgo that point if the point in question is tested in a scenario file, but since we're talking about unifying files...
The things I think of are mostly: image dependant string for siege weapons (Mark wanted to avoid having lots of units for siege with unfamiliar names - pierriere, ballista, catapult, trebuchet, mangonel, ram, assault tower, ladder, scorpion etc.), civilization - specific elements (for SiegeWars mostly), engineer 'build' order allowing in-field fortifications (I am not sure this has a big effect on the game by the way - it has one, but if the player can't see it, is it worth keeping it hte way it is?).
As for the rest, it's okay to change the files.

	02-03-2003 18:37									#82
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Thanks Laurent, sounds like a plan! Good to have this getting settled.

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare The things I think of are mostly: image dependant string for siege weapons (Mark wanted to avoid having lots of units for siege with unfamiliar names - pierriere, ballista, catapult, trebuchet, mangonel, ram, assault tower, ladder, scorpion etc.),

Yeah, most of the time I think the player just wants a mix of the latest and greatest, that's why I suggested a generic siege weapons unit. Of course when we get to the unit-workshop they will be able to mix and match the various components by themselves.

quote: engineer 'build' order allowing in-field fortifications (I am not sure this has a big effect on the game by the way - it has one, but if the player can't see it, is it worth keeping it hte way it is?).

Can we (by we I mean you ) put a line on effect of field fortification strength in the combat output? That way the scenario designers can tune the size of this effect so it is crudely balanced. Perhaps we also need a fortify order per civ also. Guess that's a topic for the mil thread. . .

	07-03-2003 00:11									#83
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Can we (by we I mean you ) put a line on effect of field fortification strength in the combat output?

Yes, I'll try. Note I don't know when I'll be able to send it, as I have big problems to reach the web (Ia m using an old ISP on an old computer right now because I can't get it to work with the new ones... I also have two places to try... )

	17-08-2003 02:04									#84
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I made a new scenario which is only a test case, but I thought it worth mentioning it here.

A few remarks about other points raised in this thread:
Field fortification effectivity modifier is now in (militaryconstants engineerdivider).

The current unit strengths in Delenda are not right at all from a historical standpoint. Chariots are the most powerful unit. The only ranged unit that Romans can build is catapults. They should be able to build skirmishers or archers from the start.

	07-09-2003 23:46									#85
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I finally got Java working on my computer, so now I can get back into things...

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare I made a new scenario which is only a test case, but I thought it worth mentioning it here.

Could you send me that scenario?

quote: The current unit strengths in Delenda are not right at all from a historical standpoint. Chariots are the most powerful unit. The only ranged unit that Romans can build is catapults. They should be able to build skirmishers or archers from the start.

Which version are you playing? In my files, Chargers are faster and cheaper than chariots, and just as good in melee. They lost their dustance attack, but they still should be a better unit. And Legionaries should also be better and cheaper than chariots.

Of course, I may have the battle equations confused. But by the numbers, that is how I set up the military.xml that comes with my scenarios.

	13-09-2003 12:56									#86
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Richard, you need the corresponding code to get the scenario to work, because it mostly requires the player to do nothing. It shows quite well what the ai does when I change the code or the xml files. It needs polishing, because there are a few things I have added recently that are still only in the code but I must make them editable through the xml files.

The equation I use is: attack / cost. The best unit for this criterion is the chariot. Criterion can be changed in the scenario file, in the ai section.
Gary raised the point that the military model is very complex and a bit hard to understand (what will it do for you if you enhance mobility of a unit for example).
Mostly, attack *defense * health is the most important value.

	20-09-2003 02:01									#87
	Testbed V7.8 is out Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Hi All:

I've just sent Testbed 7.8 to Richard. It has Laurent's code as of 9/13 in it.

Richard, just let us know what else you need!

	20-09-2003 04:50									#88
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

The legionary element I set up has an attack of 0.02 and my chariot has an attack of 0.008. The legionary costs about 2.8 times as much as the mobster in production and services, and has the same food cost. The chariot has double the food and services cost, and triple the production cost.

I suppose I should test them against each other as I write the files, though. Do you have any kind of program for quickly simulating battles?

So can we just switch to my system for good? It seems that the xml files are basically the same, so my old ones should work fine woth the new code.

	27-09-2003 01:22									#89
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I have a battle simulator, but it's been broken by diplomacy changes and I haven't fixed it. I should.
There is a possibility that chariots are chosen instead of phalanxes because the unit-chosing algorithm is bad. It uses Math.pow (exponents), so it's a bit fragile if any figure gets too big. Myabe the costs. I will check that, and the contetn of the files to make sure there hasn't been some wrong value that slipped in somewhere.

	27-09-2003 17:39									#90
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Richard, it looks like I simply overwrote your version with the old one (a pity since I had saved it under a different name just in case).