Tentative Project - Part Three

[Matte979]

This is progressing nicely.

This game will be a great game if we fix these issues. CTP 1 had "to many problems" and CTP 2 have problems.

I think the thing that would make CTP 2 really great is play balancing and thanks to the files this should be much easier than CTP-1.

I have incorporated your terrain fixes and seem to work well. I have disable specialist except entertainers and scientist. And the growth of cities is under control.

Some ideas/questions
If you change the value of water tiles wont we just have inland cities for the AI?

The Units file needs a complete overhaul. I realised another important factor thats the upkeep cost this cost need to be balanced. The middle game with musketeers and cannons seems to cost to much in upkeep so the AI can't have enough units. There need to be diffrences in the upkeep cost. Infantry needs to be realy cheap compared to tanks/fighters/ships. So defensive can be cheap. That way the AIs defensive side will not dominate there production.

Although offensive war needs to be expensive. We could have higher start cost because this can be lowered for the AI in diffdb. The AI needs more units.

One more idea. There is definetly hope for the AI they can attack just needs to do it more often. And seems they favor to attack other computer players we need to fix that.

Diplomacy somebody really needs to fix this area of the game. There are a system its not finished. They definetly got rushed by activison here.

There are now diffrent responses in the files when rejecting not used. There are slic code now commented to change advances and so on.

I really hope they fix this.

/Mathias

[This message has been edited by Matte979 (edited December 16, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Matte979 (edited December 16, 2000).]

[Harlan]

There are three new gigantic sized (140 by 140) maps to play on. They are now posted at OmniGod's website (http://pcouw.homestead.com/) in the Asia and Europe sections.

The China and India maps were made by me, the Europe map by Savant (with some assistance by me). All three were made using the Old World .bmp map I've made and then the BMP2CTP2 map converter. So the dimensions, coastlines and such are about as accurate as can be.

By the way, Markos I tried sending them to you, but a) my mail got bounced back and b) I don't have those little forms you like people to fill out first.

[lozina]

making goods give bonuses is something i was working on too. it should be pretty easy- simply use the GoodCountTotal() function or GoodCount() to get all the goods in a particular city and add bonuses according to what bonuses you would award.

[colorme]

quote: Originally posted by Daniel Frappier on 12-11-2000 10:16 PM Hi, Taken from DiffDB (Impossible) ---------------------------------------------------- AI_MIN_BEHIND_PERCENT 1.8 AI_MAX_BEHIND_PERCENT 0.8 AI_MIN_AHEAD_PERCENT 2.0 AI_MAX_AHEAD_PERCENT 3.0

Daniel (and Wes),

I think you're incorrect there. The way you've explained it, there is no need for 4 parameters; min-behind, max-behind, min-ahead and max-ahead. Two of these would suffice to create the effect you explain.

I believe on the impossible level, if AI is 1.8 times better than human, bonus applied is
AI_MIN_BEHIND_GOLD_ADJUSTMENT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
while if it is .8 times as good as human, bonus is
AI_MAX_BEHIND_GOLD_ADJUSTMENT 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.1

In between these two (0.8 and 1.8), there is (quote from DiffDB)
"scale values linearly between max-min when amount behind/ahead are between min-max"

Thus, there is plenty of bonus applied to the AI as it is without giving it even more bonus. Of course if we do give the AI more bonus, it WILL look better!

[Locutus]

quote: Originally posted by lozina on 12-16-2000 06:24 PM making goods give bonuses is something i was working on too. it should be pretty easy- simply use the GoodCountTotal() function or GoodCount() to get all the goods in a particular city and add bonuses according to what bonuses you would award.

Yeah, but how are you gonna award these bonusses? There's no way to increase food or production AFAIK and you can only give gold and science on a global level (though that's better than nothing of course).

[marc420]

One thing about FARMS that I've been thinking about changing.

Currently they improve the Food Production the same in any square they are allowed in. You get the same +10 or whatever.

I've been thinking about changing that to give a Farm in Grassland a bigger increase in Food over a Farm in Plains. And if you continue to allow Farms in Desert, they'd give an even smaller increase.

The game does this with Mines already, I'd like to give Farms the same treatment.

Something like

Farm, Grassland +15, Plains +10, Desert +5 food.

This would help the cities built on the good grasslands areas.

marc

[Alpha Wolf]

quote: Originally posted by marc420 on 12-16-2000 09:25 PM One thing about FARMS that I've been thinking about changing. Currently they improve the Food Production the same in any square they are allowed in. You get the same +10 or whatever. I've been thinking about changing that to give a Farm in Grassland a bigger increase in Food over a Farm in Plains. And if you continue to allow Farms in Desert, they'd give an even smaller increase. The game does this with Mines already, I'd like to give Farms the same treatment. Something like Farm, Grassland +15, Plains +10, Desert +5 food. This would help the cities built on the good grasslands areas. marc

Yep, you are very correct. I even went so far as to modify travel times using roads and railroads. If you are in mountains, there's no way you'll travel as fst as on flat terrain. Same thing for rivers. Rivers in grasslands altho beneficial, are no where near as beneficial as it is in a desert.

I made so many changes that I had to put together a spreadsheet to tell me what improvements had what effects on which terrains. And thus, I've now created more useable documentation on CtP2 than Activision has.



------------------
History is written by the victor.

[GAMEOVER]

Any way we could get a cannal build feature? I think this would add imensly to the strategy in the game. I also agree that the diplomacy and trade portions of the game need to be revamped. Trade is just too simple and insignificant. I can amass millions(exageration) without it so why even bother. Diplomacy seems to be flawed too, as so many have already pointed out so i woulndt go into it. Lastly, would it be possible to create a colony in a mod? Instead of completly destroy a civ, could we force them into submisson and thus a pact where we get all their science, trade, can take any citeies remaining, etc. LIke in Alpha centauri. I think this is adds a whole other dimension to the game. Thanks for the time.

1

[GAMEOVER]

Any way we could get a cannal build feature? I think this would add imensly to the strategy in the game. I also agree that the diplomacy and trade portions of the game need to be revamped. Trade is just too simple and insignificant. I can amass millions(exageration) without it so why even bother. Diplomacy seems to be flawed too, as so many have already pointed out so i woulndt go into it. Lastly, would it be possible to create a colony in a mod? Instead of completly destroy a civ, could we force them into submisson and thus a pact where we get all their science, trade, can take any citeies remaining, etc. LIke in Alpha centauri. I think this is adds a whole other dimension to the game. Thanks for the time.

1

[Alpha Wolf]

quote: Originally posted by GAMEOVER on 12-17-2000 01:29 AM Any way we could get a cannal build feature? I think this would add imensly to the strategy in the game. I also agree that the diplomacy and trade portions of the game need to be revamped. Trade is just too simple and insignificant. I can amass millions(exageration) without it so why even bother. Diplomacy seems to be flawed too, as so many have already pointed out so i woulndt go into it. Lastly, would it be possible to create a colony in a mod? Instead of completly destroy a civ, could we force them into submisson and thus a pact where we get all their science, trade, can take any citeies remaining, etc. LIke in Alpha centauri. I think this is adds a whole other dimension to the game. Thanks for the time. 1

It depends on your definition of canal. You can turn land in beach (http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum44/HTML/000167.html?10). Then i changed it so that roads (http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum44/HTML/000189.html?4) can be built over beaches. Not as clean cut as I'd like, but it works well, altho you have to wait for certain techs first.

------------------
History is written by the victor.

[MarkG]

quote: Originally posted by Savant on 12-17-2000 12:15 PM We need a separate forum for Wes' mod. Please.

feel free to start threads about the med mod with titles starting with "MedMOD: "
that will make them distinct...

[WesW]

I have made a couple of changes to the files. I decided to put the city bonus square's settings back to their original values until we can see how these other changes are going to affect growth.
I am glad to read about Matte's obseration that city growth seems under control with the previous proposed changes. I need more of these kinds of posts this week, while I am away from my computer, and can't play the game myself.

I have been scribbling some numbers on a notepad to try and figure out how the new improvement costs based on pop are going to affect the game. It's obvious that they are going to at least triple the current costs of improvements' maintenance, since the cost per pop has to be an integer, rather than a fraction as I initially intended.
I need someone to implement this new cost structure as I detailed it above, and play a quick game, and compare the percentage of income going to buildings with that in plain games.
If costs eat up too much commerce, then we may have to raise the effect of commerce improvements, which may neccessitate changes to science improvements and rush-buy rates.
If you could also note the percent going to wages, I would appreciate it. I am fairly certain that the wage rate will need to be reduced from my earlier 8 to about 6 on average, but I can only guess at this point.

I spent Friday night working on the new unit values for land units. I thought that having the Med mod 4 chart as a guide would help, but it didn't much since I changed the ratio that costs increase from half the stat increase to 2/3rd's of the stat increase. And when you factored in Armor in the last two eras, it complicated things even more.
All the units are pretty well balanced in relation to one another, we will have to see if the settings are right for cities' production capabilities. Generally speaking, costs are lower while upkeep is higher.

I am happy to hear Colorme's comments about the diffdb, though I am disheartened that these bonuses still don't seem to be enough for the AIs to give a decent game. I had them playing with almost no bonuses in the Med mod, and giving great competition. We can look at this after all the other proposed changes have been tested.

AW, if you could make a thread detailing what you changed in the TI area, I would be interested in seeing it.

Just a note on posting, since many here seem to be new to the forums:
If you want to mention something you would like to see implemented in the Med mod, or to comment on something proposed to be in it, then that is fine.
If you are asking a question about whether something can be done or not, or posting about independent changes you have made to the game, then you need to start your own thread, where these new subjects can be discussed by themselves. Most of us regulars here try adn check out all interesting threads, so you should not be ignored if you start your own "comversation".
I am not trying to be smug, just trying to keep the thread on topic.

[Savant]

We need a separate forum for Wes' mod. Please.

------------------
'Blood will run'

[Diodorus Sicilus]

Another Report from the Boondocks...
I've just played a game at Medium difficulty through to 180 turns. Modifications used:
My terrain values posted earlier, which reduced most of the Food values to 5 or less, and additionally reduced glacier and tundra tile food values to -5.
Reduced City tile bonus for Food to 5, remaining bonus stayed the same.
Doubled the Support costs for all units.
Used my modified Tech Tree, with doubled Advance costs and 12 additional Advances to provide for Spearman, Light Cavalry, Heavy Cavalry, Trireme units, Cattle PW and City State government.
CDs Risk.txt from the CtPI Mod.
Results:
After 180 turns the largest city on the map is a 12, there are about 6 - 7 10 or better in 5 civilizations, and the average city seems to be size 4 to 8.
Doubling the support costs doesn't seem to have made any appreciable difference to my civilization, at least: I still have plenty of cash on hand to accelerate builds (have had as much as 8000, average about 4000) and have PW set at 30%. I only have one trade route, so that income has not been significant.
At near 1AD date the first Knights have been in service for about 10 turns, the bulk of my army consists of Hoplites (Prereq: Tactics), Spearmen (Bronze Working), Archers (Tool Making), and a few Legions (Ironworking). One other civilization is building Dromons (Fire Triremes renamed) but no one has Long Ships yet (Prereq: Joinery + Navigation/Astronomy).
Two civilizations that started the game were wiped out by Barbarians, who now infest an entire continent: I counted 26 Warriors in five stacks at one time, plus 5 'barbarian' cities captured from the destroyed civs.
Tentative Conclusions:
The revised tech tree and costs are very close to where I, at least, want to be. There is room for all the proposed new units, depending on how Wonders or other triggers are arranged. I'll try to get the new Advances, costs, and prerequisites posted later this week. At the hardest difficulty levels you should have a real struggle to get tech at the 'historical' rate, while an 'average' difficulty game gives, I think, a good chance of completing the tech tree by the end of a complete game.
Oversize city problem is controllable. I think I'm close to it, in that cities in swamps, complete forests and other non-agricultural territory are stifled - I got Famine messages on two cities that had no plains or grassland tiles available, and they did not progress beyond size 2 pop until I PW netted some shallow water in their radius. On the other hand, I have not played to Railroad, where I increased the effect of Silo to +25% Food. This should cause a Modern 'bloom' in city size, but I haven't tested it for its exact effects.
Possibly, the increased unit support, slower advance to better defense units, and CD's Barbarian risks caused the two civs in my one test game to go under. On the other hand, it might just be an ai strategy problem, because I didn't have any excessive barbarian threat: a spearman or warrior with Archer support was perfectly capable of defending any city against attack, and until I expanded onto the Barbarian Continent I didn't need any stronger garrisons. I'm going to take another look in the strategies files just in case.
Anyway, the combination of changes that I used seems to be having the effects I wanted: slower tech and military development in the ancient period, slower city growth but steady, and no excessive armies. On the other hand, money still seems to be awfully easy to come by without any extra effort. I built a few trading posts and bazaars, but have no banks, ports, and little trade, yet my civ has no problem supporting a pretty large military force at 100% readiness all the time, and still has enough money to bribe other civs and throw lavish receptions in their cities. Cash flow in the game needs some tweaking.
Now I'd love to see the Wonder triggers and other goodies and see how they integrate into all this...

[Peter Triggs]

I think that Daniel and Colorme are to some extent talking at cross purposes about those settings in DiffDB. For what it's worth here's my take on them. It's easiest to start with a specific example so consider gold adjustment on impossible level, but restricted to the ancient age:

Taken from DiffDB (Impossible)
----------------------------------------------------
AI_MIN_BEHIND_PERCENT 1.8
AI_MAX_BEHIND_PERCENT 0.8
AI_MIN_AHEAD_PERCENT 2.0
AI_MAX_AHEAD_PERCENT 3.0
AI_MIN_BEHIND_GOLD_ADJUSTMENT 1.0
AI_MAX_BEHIND_GOLD_ADJUSTMENT 1.5
AI_MIN_AHEAD_GOLD_ADJUSTMENT 1.0
AI_MAX_AHEAD_GOLD_ADJUSTMENT 0.9
----------------------------------------------------

If you graph this data I believe you get:


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


max behind adj 1.5 I x0
I *
I *
I *
min behind adj 1 I x 1 - - - - - - - - x2
=min ahead adj I *
I *
max ahead adj .9 I x3 - - - - - - - -
I
Gold Adjustment I
Ancient Age I __________________________________________________ ____________
.8 1 .8 2 3
Factory Settings max_behind min_behind min_ahead max_ahead



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

The programmer's comment is not exactly translucent:


# note: scale values linearly between max-min when amount
# behind/ahead are between min-max


but I tend to aggree with Colorme that it means "Put the stars in where I just did". So Colorme is right in maintaining that in this example when the AI is less than 1.8 times as strong as the human it gets helped. Note though that when it is more than twice as strong as the human it gets penalized and bear in mind that this is Impossible level. On easier settings the above line is, roughly speaking, shifted upwards and to the left.

However, I believe that Daniel's original point concerned the situation in which the AI is treated as equal to the human: the horizontal line joining x1 and x2 above. It's true that in this example there's not a lot in it; but surely Daniel's point is valid: no civ-type AI can compete with a really determined human player. So consider his settings:


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

max behind adj 1.5 I x
I *
I *
I *
min behind adj 1.1 I x
I *
I *
max ahead adj 1 I x - - - - - - - -
=min ahead adj I
Gold Adjustment I
Ancient Age I __________________________________________________ _
.8 1 .8 2 3
Daniel's max_behind min_behind min_ahead max_ahead

AI to Human ranking



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

Here, unless the AI is more than twice as strong as the human it gets helped; and the further (relatively) "behind" it is the more help it gets. It's not treated as being equal to the human until it's at least twice as strong as the human. This is surely a better way of doing it and may go a little way to solving Harlan's problem:


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

The problem with CTP1 was if you could survive long enough, the game eventually became a cakewalk. Whereas the game should be the other way: not too hard to survive initially, but the longer the game goes on, the greater the challenges.

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


Of course you can argue that the existing settings do more or less the same thing but Daniel is right in maintaining that they don't do it enough. Clearly, there's a lot of room for experimentation here.