Planning for Demos 7 & 8

[Mark_Everson]

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:

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:

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.

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: -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: -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: 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: 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!

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.

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.

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!

[Mark_Everson]

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.

-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?

[Gary Thomas]

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

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.

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.

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: -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: -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.

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.

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?

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:
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:
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.

A definite thumbs up on enabling HTML for the tutorial!

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

Cheers

[Gary Thomas]

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.

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

[Mark_Everson]

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:
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.

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.

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!

Can't your dictation software talk American?

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

[edit] fix a Really confusing mis-wording.

[Gary Thomas]

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:
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.

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.

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.

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.

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:
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:
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

as outer classes.

Cheers

[Gary Thomas]

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

[LDiCesare]

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.

[Mark_Everson]

Updated D7 todo list

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.

[Gary Thomas]

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

[Gary Thomas]

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

Might give it some thought now.

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.

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

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.

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

[LDiCesare]

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).

[Gary Thomas]

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

[Gary Thomas]

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

Moving closer, but still gestating.

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

Will do this today

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.

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.

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.

-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.

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

That is really odd. Again I will check.

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!

-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

[Mark_Everson]

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.

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

That'll show 'em!

This is done and is too pretty to suppress.

Agreed!