Planning for Demos 7 & 8

[Mark_Everson]

Hi Laurent, glad the idea sounded reasonable to you.

On your question, I've thought about it a bit, and don't have what I consider to be a good answer... I don't like either of your options. I would prefer notification when the orders are entered, but then if the route is long something that was safe when the move was entered could be settled by someone else by the time you get there. And notification upon entry can interrupt the game flow if for instance it happens on tick 5 halfway through a turn.

How about this -- The default behavior is that troops will never knowingly start a war. However, there is a screen that will be part of the diplomacy interface eventually, where the player can override the default either on an individual civ basis, or for all civs. It's still not great, but it gets around the problems with the other two. Hopefully someone else can come up with something better!

[Mark_Everson]

I was just talking with Gary by email about D7, but thought I should put the discussion up here so everyone can see. What else do we need for D7 ?

1. Gary has pretty much finished the Event model at least up to the D7 requirements.

2. The events will allow me to write an in-game tutorial covering settlement, econ, and military issues.

3. I have finished some simple mods to the econ GUI code that will allow some simplification of the econ interface for playtesters learning the ropes. (Looks like no new high-level econ interface for D7 ) The tutorial will start with a Very stripped-down version of the D6 econ interface.

4. I finished the info needed to drive population diffusion a while ago. It would be nice to have population diffuse in both Delenda and the Dawn Scenario.

5. We talked a bit ago about settling sites with several different types of resources in Dawn. Can we build Settlers for when the player needs to settle something far away? Seems the simplest way to do it to me. Although a simple inteface allowing colonization by teleportation would also work. Thoughts?

6. What else?

Cya,

Mark

[Gary Thomas]

The event model hasn't been tested yet because I ran into all that trouble with the victory conditions. That is getting straightened out and is much cleaner (I took it out of the event model completely).

However, there are still issues, for example, if there is a complicated set of things to achieve, how is the victory (or defeat) annoncement to be handled?

Suppose we say that to win the Dawn 1 scenario you have to reach a population of 10,000 and domesticate goats. The victory announcement has to know about both of these, and mention them. But they may have happened far apart in time. I do have a system in mind to handle this and hope to have it working today.

4. I finished the info needed to drive population diffusion a while ago. It would be nice to have population diffuse in both Delenda and the Dawn Scenario.

The Delenda scenario is (apart from a few unused squares in Dacia) wholly populated already.

5. We talked a bit ago about settling sites with several different types of resources in Dawn. Can we build Settlers for when the player needs to settle something far away? Seems the simplest way to do it to me. Although a simple inteface allowing colonization by teleportation would also work. Thoughts?

This is already implemented and working. You take a military unit (any military unit) and add settlers to it, then move somewhere and drop the settlers off. There are no settler units as such. Believe me there were good reasons for this approach - these were discussed at length somewhere in the forum.

6. What else?

One thing we will need soon (for Delenda) is the ability to load and unload ships (I am working on a transport, as opposed to trireme, ship image).

Other things we need:

As I have said, ad nauseum, a proper technology tree. One of the things events can do (via Actions) is enable a named technology.

Technology GUI.

Some simple images (like resources) of wheat, goats, horses, for Dawn 1, so players have something to do.

Wandering baddies (for Dawn 2).

Cheers

[Mark_Everson]

Hi Gary:

I have two remaining issues on settlers. There must be a way of telling graphically whether an army unit has settlers piggybacking on it or not. Otherwise things will get hopelessly confusing once the player has more than a few military units and tries to do some settling. Since you seem to be are only artist at the moment, you have any ideas for a graphical way to indicate that a unit has settlers onboard? The other issue is determining how much stuff the settlers have with them for setting up an economy wherever they go. For Dawn 1 we can have the amount of capital they take with them handled automatically. The easiest thing to do is to have any individuals that pick up and move take "their share" of the capital. This will get more complicated later on, but I think we can keep it simple for now.

As I have said, ad nauseum, a proper technology tree. One of the things events can do (via Actions) is enable a named technology.

I have e-mailed Richard again, asking him if he can do this. If we get the technology model to the point where it is ready for Dawn 2, and he still hasn't come up with anything, I'll do it.

Technology GUI.

I had been just asking about Dawn 1 issues, to the best of my knowledge all technology is planned for Dawn 2. But I agree that once Dawn 1 is out of the way technology and its interface should get high priority.

Some simple images (like resources) of wheat, goats, horses, for Dawn 1, so players have something to do.

I thought we were going to use the things Gar was working on... the mines etc. But if you want more variety of resources most of the work is in the graphics, so its fine by me. But since we are trying to keep the econ GUI uncluttered we shouldn't have more than two or three types of resources unless the player can't give orders to build them up. Otherwise the econ gui will be as confusing as before.

Wandering baddies (for Dawn 2).

IMO it would be nice to have a few even in Dawn 1! Not much, but an occasional one. What do you think?

Glad we're starting to close in on this!

Cya,

Mark

[Gary Thomas]

I will try and do something about the visible settllers situation. In the longer term the settlers issue will have to be considered further. For example, how much space do settlers take on a ship? Can settlers travel at cavalry speed if the escorting unit is cavalry?

At the moment I have been somewhat immersed in problems with victory conditions. Every time I feel it is under control, another issue erupts. The current one is that victory conditions, up to now, have been global. Unfortunately, for realistic victory conditions, they need to be civilization specific. For example a victory condition like "Occupy Rome" is a bit silly if the player's civilization is Rome. In that case "Occupy Carthage" might be more appropriate.

Accordingly, I have reached the conclusion that victory conditions must be civilization specific. Only the player's civilization victory conditions will be used. So, for example, the Roman condition is: "Win: occupy Carthage", and "Lose: lose Rome".

I am currently coding this.

On a different point, there is no easy way to find out what the specifications are for the various data files. So I am preparing a manual (in HTML format) for the preparation or modification of the basic data files and scenario files. This is in a basic form at present - I am also working on that.

Cheers

[Mark_Everson]

Hey Gary:

Originally posted by Gary Thomas
I will try and do something about the visible settllers situation. In the longer term the settlers issue will have to be considered further. For example, how much space do settlers take on a ship? Can settlers travel at cavalry speed if the escorting unit is cavalry?

I see what you mean, there are a whole bunch of issues. I'll just throw out one idea for the heck of it. How about having a military unit called a settler? That would automatically be visibly recognizable as containing colonists, and move at an appropriate speed for colonists. When it is not loaded with colonists it would have negligible combat strength and transport size. When loaded with colonists those parameters of the settler unit that would logically change due to the number of colonists would be modified appropriately. The settler unit itself would be free, and created whenever the player wants to undertake colonizing actions. That would eliminate the need for a military unit to be on location when colonists are created. However, there are still issues, such as loading up a settler with ten colonists and going off to explore the world "for free". Of course they wouldn't tend to last very long...

At the moment I have been somewhat immersed in problems with victory conditions. Every time I feel it is under control, another issue erupts. The current one is that victory conditions, up to now, have been global. Unfortunately, for realistic victory conditions, they need to be civilization specific. For example a victory condition like "Occupy Rome" is a bit silly if the player's civilization is Rome. In that case "Occupy Carthage" might be more appropriate.

Accordingly, I have reached the conclusion that victory conditions must be civilization specific. Only the player's civilization victory conditions will be used. So, for example, the Roman condition is: "Win: occupy Carthage", and "Lose: lose Rome".

I am currently coding this.

I see your point... I think we actually need both civilization-specific and global victory conditions in the long run. If there are generic victory conditions like "control three-fourths of the world" or spaceship landing as in civ, it would really be a drag to have to copy that for every single civ.

On a different point, there is no easy way to find out what the specifications are for the various data files. So I am preparing a manual (in HTML format) for the preparation or modification of the basic data files and scenario files. This is in a basic form at present - I am also working on that.

Excellent idea!

[LDiCesare]

That is a great idea to have different victory conditions. However, I could point out that ("Occupy Rome" + "Occupy Carthage") would be a victory condition worth playing. Still, some civ2 scenarios suffered from having a number of victory objectives independent on your civ. Twas way easy to win with one civ, much harder or impossible with others. When the challenge is "just survive N turns", it is worth telling the player they won even if they have a miserable bit of a backwards empire left.

[LDiCesare]

I have coded 2 things relating to tech, military and econ:
1)Units become obsolete when a new, specified in the xml file, unit becomes available and more efficient.
2)Units can be built only if the required tech is at the required level.
This is OK from tech/military standpoint, but the econ should ask if the Unit is buildable in order for this code to be of any use.
This means econ needs a Buildable interface with isBuildable(Civilization,MapSquare) as discussed elsewhere. I just have to implement the MapSquare stuff in order for boats to be built on the coasts. Mark, is it feasible? I may try to do it myself this week-end if it's easy. I don't want to have to merge some econ code versions however.
One side effect would be to reduce the number of buildable units. F.e. I say warriorbands are obsolete if you can build phalanxes. I focus on the Delenda scenario, as Dawn has little military building in it. We would need to specify different starting tech levels for the various scenarios in order to be absolutely okay but I don't think it is an issue.

[Mark_Everson]

Hi Laurent, that's great! Looking forward to us getting it hooked up.

Originally posted by LDiCesare
This is OK from tech/military standpoint, but the econ should ask if the Unit is buildable in order for this code to be of any use.
This means econ needs a Buildable interface with isBuildable(Civilization,MapSquare) as discussed elsewhere. I just have to implement the MapSquare stuff in order for boats to be built on the coasts. Mark, is it feasible? I may try to do it myself this week-end if it's easy. I don't want to have to merge some econ code versions however.

Probably you should finish up the military side, and let me do the econ part. I can do it very quickly, and then we don't have to worry about code collisions. However, if you want to give it a shot, its ok by me. Just mark your changes so I can find 'em if something goes wrong.

One side effect would be to reduce the number of buildable units. F.e. I say warriorbands are obsolete if you can build phalanxes. I focus on the Delenda scenario, as Dawn has little military building in it. We would need to specify different starting tech levels for the various scenarios in order to be absolutely okay but I don't think it is an issue.

This is a little tricky if you are actively building warriors, and then they become obsolete. What happens to the partly-built warriors? If there is also information available on upgrade path, then old investment can be switched over to the next unit I guess. What if there is no upgrade though? So although I like getting rid of obsolete units there are some details we need to work on. I guess this discussion should be continued in either the mil or econ thread.

An Idea -- brought on by Laurent's comments

Now that tech is getting further along, we could spice up Dawn 1 in the following way. To achieve victory the player must build chariots, the tech of which is not available at the start. To get the chariot tech the player needs to discover horses and invest in an application that promotes horses tech to get it to whatever level is needed for chariots. This proposal would make Dawn1 a little more deep in that the resources that the player needs to search for are an enabler for one of the victory conditions. What does everyone think? And of course this is provided that putting in the tech stuff wouldn't substantially slow down getting the demo out.

[edit] improve clarity of idea

[LDiCesare]

This is a little tricky if you are actively building warriors, and then they become obsolete. What happens to the partly-built warriors? If there is also information available on upgrade path, then old investment can be switched over to the next unit I guess. What if there is no upgrade though? So although I like getting rid of obsolete units there are some details we need to work on. I guess this discussion should be continued in either the mil or econ thread.

Units are obsoleted by another unit, so there is always a replacement. I didn't like the civ2 system where discovering a civ could prevent you from building anything. Switching should be possible, as you can retrieve the name of the new unit. I realise there is a bit more to it than what I thought at first. I'll probably just provide the method and interface and let you do the rest

The Dawn stuff looks OK but again I want horses in Delenda thus if we want to have different starting techs, we must be able to specify it in the scenario file.

[Mark_Everson]

Hi Laurent:

I just saw the new Cohort unit become active thru Military Tactics = 20 in Delenda. Pretty cool! It took me like 110 turns to see them with the new slower Tactics progression. Should the Cohorts unit not make Legions obsolete though? The econ gui still shows Legions as buildable. I had assumed by Cohort you meant the manipular legion... which I assume would obsolete Legions.

Things are Really starting to come together!

I think tech is at least coming along decently enough we'll be able to include a moderate bit of it in D7. I will work on tech as needed, but for now I think we need to wait for Richard to tweak the model.

I am going to switch over to trying to implement population diffusion. First I need to look to see if Gary has any code set up to partly do it. Wish me luck! (Gary, if you happen to be able to get access and see this, please let me know.)

[Dale]

Okay, a few thoughts after plowing through this whole thread:

1. Victory conditions being quite specific are excellent. In the example above, if CivA has "Conquor Rome" and CivB has "Conquor Carthage" then the opposite conditions also need to be true. IE: CivA has "Defend Carthage" and CivB has "Defend Rome". There's no point for CivA to go for Rome if it'll lose Carthage in the process. This is good as it'll create "Capture the Flag" type scenarios.

2. Unit obselesance. Quite simple, when you gain a unit that obsoletes an old unit (warband --> phalanx), then not all the production (training if you will) should be lost. Basic military tactics would stay the same, just how to use the new weapons/armor would change. IE: changing unit from warband to phalanx would result in 50% loss of production/training progress.

3. Unit obsolesence 2. What about existing old units in the field? Will they be able to be upgraded for a cost in production/time? Or does the Civ strategy of having to disband old/build new come into it?

4. Settlers/colonists. My vote is for the unit I can see and move independantly of the military.

[LDiCesare]

Mark:

The Cohort is normally obsoleting Legion. It doesn't show because somehow the Cohort is not as efficient as the Legion with the current attack/defense/price values. You can also see you can buid WarriorBands but not Phalanxes. This is all subject to tuning that I am doing now.
What happens is the following:
Buildable units in the scenario include:
-warriorband, phalanx, legion, cohort, elephant, bowmen.
Since the horse tech starts at 0, cavalry is not available. Changing the start level would do the work. Same reason for chariots.
I'll make Elephants Carthage-only, and Legion and Cohort Rome-only.
Warriorband will be obsoleted by Phalanx, thus noone will be able to build them. This may be a problem with the dawn scenario.
Legion is obsoleted by Cohort. I must tweak figures so that it works better. Note a different image would be cool in order to give feedback to the player, as right now there is no way to see the difference between old (Legion) and new (Cohort).

Dale:
I don't think we discussed upgrading units .
I think there won't be any for D7. Upgrading units on field should be possible IMO, probably needing irs own special econ section cost. Questions about how/where to do it should go in the military thread.

Other:
We need to remove the Combat activity from the econ frame, as it represents experience gained from battle, so that you can only chose Military in the frame. I suggest a <hidden/> flag in the tech file. I don't know how to implement it so I leave that task to more knowledgeable persons while I go on tweaking figures. I might even try to edit the legion icon if I find some paint program that can handle the task.

[Mark_Everson]

Yeah, we clearly need some way to upgrade units to fulfill the "low micromanagement" objectives for Clash. My picture had been more of an auto-upgrade for units that are at home, or very near home. For units far out in the field, or in combat, I'm not sure I like the concept of an auto-upgrade. It could completely change the outcome of wars to have units upgrade in the field. Anyway, we should probably continue this discussion in the Military thread.

Ok Laurent, I will make combat hidden if you want. But it occurs to me that things like wargames that your military can stage could act as something to increase the combat activity without actually fighting. In that light, the still think I need to remove the combat activity from the Econ interface?

[LDiCesare]

Edit: Posted in bad thread - replace with relevant to this thread only.
Combat shouldn't be seen because the Military activity already includes that part about fake fights / strategy colleges / wargames.
If someone really wants the details, they should mod the technology file to add the detailed activities they want (like removing the hidden tag I propose).