Civ specific units

[Nordicus]

DanMc:
The wonder is right now built in whatever city the AI decides upon, and I'm not sure there's a way (there may be, don't know) to specify for the AI to do that in a specific city (wouldn't work, say, if that city was not built yet, or if was not theirs--revolt into barbarians, captured, dead due to starvation, etc.)
But each would have a wonder, some more--but general wonders would also be there, for anyone to build.
I'm going to rig the aips so that certain AI types cannot build certain units (like the English (democrat aip) would be incapable of building Samuria since it is missing from its aip's build lists.
Of course, this would mean that an initial unit (formerly warrior) would have to be available for each type--many of John's suggestions above I like--like the warrior could be used for Native American civs (meso aip), perhaps African as well (warfew), but maybe legions could be the equivalent for most European civs, and the phalanx for Greece (all with the same strengths).
Unless someone has a better idea....*shrug*


Anyway, there would be no way possible to trade this way, sorry. If someone comes up with the option (like in Civ2) to give away units, then it could be done, but the receiving civ could not build anymore (not in its build lists).

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!


EdCase:
Sorry to hear that
To answer your question: yes, I reasonably think that this can be done--a new aip can be set be to loaded upon a change in government (or a workaround is easy enough)--: example: Russia or the Soviet Union is an Expansionist AI type...they choose a Communist government, and then the xenoph aip is loaded (they become like other Asian civs). I haven't worked out everything yet, but from I've seen, there's a lot that's possible here.

[DanMc]

Nordicus,

Regarding the Wonders, that point was in response to someone's (can't seem to find the original post!) idea of allowing the creation of civ-specific units by granting each civ a (also civ specific) wonder - a bit like the eco-ranger only being able to be built after Gaia Controller (or whichever one it is - Manhattan -> Nukes in CivII).

I suppose this could be done by SLIC (?), adding the wonder to each newly built city (does SLIC also apply to the AI?)

Dan

[chance]

Pardon me for jumping in here.

Thinking about the samurai and horse dilemna, it seems that several civs have a need for special units that are similar to each other. I mean, for gameplay purposes, there wouldn't need to be much of a difference between a samurai and a beserker unit--both could have the same values, just different names and sprites. Maybe lump the legion or a dervish in there along with them. The problem would then be limiting these "special unmounted units" to only some of the civs (unless you want to make 32 new sprites, be my guest). If you want a "special mounted units" class, you could include elephants, llamas, reindeer, koalas, anything you want, along the same line. And any special unit could be at full power just like samurai and knights are in a regular game. Perhaps some civs would get to research a special mounted unit, others a special unmounted unit, others a special naval unit, etc.--or two out of five possible special units, etc.

As far as civs getting each other's special units, I'm not too worried about it. I just wouldn't want everyone to be able to start out with the possibility of researching all of them. But historically civs have traded and stolen unique techs from each other; if the enabling tech can be stolen, it becomes that much more valuable to guard. I think of the plains tribes adapting the horse to their own purposes after they were introduced by the Spanish.

I know nothing about programming, so this may all be bunk, but there's my two cents anyways.

[Nordicus]

DanMc:
Hey!
This is from wonders.txt:

WONDER_WORLD_WILDERNESS_ACT {
SHIELD_COST 8000
WONDER_DEFAULT_ICON ICON_WONDER_WORLD_WILDERNESS_ACT
WONDER_MOVIE MOVIE_WONDER_WORLD_WILDERNESS_ACT
WONDER_DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION_WONDER_WORLD_WILDERNESS_ACT
ENABLING_ADVANCE ADVANCE_WILDERNESS_PRESERVATION_ACT
OBSOLETE_ADVANCE NULL

### FLAGS HERE
WONDER_FLAG_POLLUTERS_TO_PARKS 3
WONDER_FLAG_ENABLE_PARK_RANGERS
}

That last line is precisely what you're talking about--it enables the "park rangers" so...my reasoning is that this can be done with any unit, CTP default or new--as long as CTP knows what the heck unit you're talking about!
I'm not going the "civ-specific" route. (Simply because the hours of work involved with that is unbelievable--> for 32 civs, you need 32 separate aips different in some way (or not) but defined differently (or what's the point), so 32 files there...I took me two weeks to effectively design and create 6, with no testing yet; then you have all and all aips that could be loaded according to the type--this is optional, of course; then you have the set_govern.fli file--> this specifies which government type is best for whatever civ...; then you have outputs.fli; then you have the aiploader.fli--> this would take a while; now you have 32 begin_turn_*whatever*.fli files to create; and then you have 32 Main*whatever*.fli files to organize and create; next you have 32 personality*whatever*.fli files to invent; then you have, if you don't want simply "scientist" or "warrior," at least 6 more fli files to adjust; and, if you want the same, you must alter every diplomacy file to include however many different types you want, and there's 14 of these; and, so, that the aidata folder---> I count at least (and I'm being kind) 140 to 150 files (maybe over 200 if you want some complexity for your civ/AI types). Now you have to change Units.txt, uniticon, any corresponding Great Library files and the gl_str; if you want a tech tree for each type, you have to times the current advance.txt and advanceicon.txt by 32; same with wonder.txt and wondericon.txt; and of course the civilisation.txt and the civ_str.txt files; and if you want specific improvements for each separate civ/AI type, then see advances and wonders. This second phase (working alone) will take you a couple of months, working full-time, IMO; the first phase, the aidata alone, will take you, IMHO, at least six months--if you have a partner, 3, along with playtesters.)

Now these are very general and kind estimates (I rationally see a project of this scale, just based on my experiences with Awesome Aips, to take probably a years, with two creators, 4 playtesters--and Wes and I basically work at home right now (at least I do), so much more time could be spent on this, as opposed to having a full-time job somewhere else...) and I'm sure I left out a lot.

This is information for anyone, and I'm not trying to discourage anyone from trying (I wish anyone a lot of luck if they choose to tackle this, and I tip my hat...if I wore one ), but it is so much work...personally, I do not see how it's worth the time and effort.


Nuff of that for now. But basically this is why I thought of the method I'm trying.


Chance:
Hello...

Yes, good points--and don't worry; jumping in is encouraged!!!
I had this in mind as well--basically, there's 16 types, but many can be doubled up; hurts realism, sure, but saves needless time and work--> like the legion, yes, this could be a basic and initial unit for most of europe; but I don't really have a problem with letting any civ have mounted units. At least, like in Civ2, there should be a general "horseman" type, IMO.
But as far as more complex mounted united, if fairness for civs that don't, say, have knights, would be to increase the range of some appropriate unit.
I see what you're saying--the real difficulty I see will be realism vs balance in gameplay --and fairness--let's face it, Native North Americans wouldn't be able to keep up with Europe...but they really wouldn't need to, since (at least on the map I play on) there's no way an invasion from and civ outside North America would work until ships of the line were available. Wait--then again, I have USA and Canada here, so scrap that!
There would need to be some fairness.

As far as civs getting each other's special units, I'm not too worried about it. I just
wouldn't want everyone to be able to start out with the possibility of researching all of them. But historically civs have traded and stolen unique techs from each other; if the enabling tech can be stolen, it becomes that much more valuable to guard. I think of the plains tribes adapting the horse to their own purposes after they were introduced by
the Spanish.

Yes, some very good points. I don;t want this either--> samurais stay in Japan, damnit! But as far as future tech/units go...I'm not going to be closeminded about it. Realistically, if you enter combat with another civ, you learn a lot of what they have as far as war tech goes...and collecting items from fallen enemies helps too.
So, I agree, but there would have to be a limit, some line drawn somewhere.

I know nothing about programming, so this may all be bunk, but there's my two cents
anyways.

Thanks for your thoughts!


Later.

T.

(PS: I'm not a programmer either )

[wheathin]

Uh... Tom (is that right?) - I hate to rain on your parade, but I'm gonna guess that you can't enable anything beyond Park Rangers - the format of the flag suggests that "WONDER_FLAG_ENABLE_PARK_RANGERS" is the title of the flag, but that it takes no arguments. So it will only ever activate the unit given the "IS_PARK_RANGER" flag (or whatever it is called) in Units.txt. A flag like "WONDER_FLAG_ENABLE_PHALANX" would just be undefined.

Here's another idea, though: Place-holder wonders? Each civ type gets a wonder (make it cheap!). Then, when the wonder is built, a SLIC trigger gives the civ that built it the advance that allows the unit. And, you just make the technology have no pre-requsites, not appear on the "free at start of game" list in DiffDB, and keep it out of the goody huts (although, maybe leave it in: your civ finds a small tribe with a strange method of wagin war, etc....)

Thus, SLIC provides the trigger, and the wonder itself is the flag! If the wonders aren't in the build lists for the AI, they won't get built.

Advantages: easy to program.
Disadvantages: same as with all tech-based ideas:
1. what about city-conquest? (could be solved by eliminating tech from conquest - that's in Const.txt, I think)
2. What about tech thefts? (happens so rarely, and civ-specfic units are more impt in the early game - pre-spy, so no worry)
3. What about the Human player? (well, just don't build those Wonders!)
4. Only one civ of each type could have the special units.

... and, it just occurs to me, that the same result could be reached by having techs that are only researched by each civ type. Uh... DOH! (except for #4 above)

ethan "wheathin"

[Paul]

Having an unresearchable tech given to each civ at gamestart would probably be the best way to prevent problems with human players. I'm not a slic expert but wouldn't it be possible to give this tech to a player based on the name of his civ? Or is there no variable that contains the civ name?

[DanMc]

Originally posted by Nordicus on 12-19-1999 11:37 AM

I count at least (and I'm being kind) 140 to 150 files (maybe over 200 if you want some complexity for your civ/AI types)

Nordicus - enough - I get the idea!!! I assume the workload would be proportionally less if you were to have AIP specific advances? Naval AI's being able to build boats more easily (ie chaeply) than military AI's (to reflect some sort of specialisation advantage conferred?)

Chance: Good point. Damn.

And another point, what happens if (sorry, when ) you conquer another civ? Would you be able to research (continuing the example) Samuri? If you've totally conquered the civ, the cities and people are still there (well, most of them ) - this is a point that bugs me. When I've conquered a civilisation, I want ALL their techs, dammit! I don't mind not getting one when I take individual cities (well, I DO mind, but I can see it's reasonable!)

Dan

(A bit excessive on the smilie:text ratio )
------------------
Just a thought......


[This message has been edited by DanMc (edited December 20, 1999).]

[Nordicus]

Geez, forgot to look in here for a while...

Hope everyone had a pleasant holiday

Wheathin/Ethan:
Yep, Tom is correct

Just been going thru an AIP--> ok, we don't have to worry about anything; the units can only be made by the AI if it's in the build lists in an AIP; and advances don't matter if the wonder or improvement is missing from the AIP as well: so, stealing Shintoism from Japan will get you nothing, waste of money, cuz (if you're, say, England) your AIP will not include build proiorities for Asian/Japanese temples and such, nor would you be able to build samurai.
However, later on, a more generic tech (i.e. Flight, Radio, Espionage--*whatever*, I have around 90 advances currently, which seems to solve all concerns) can be not only stolen but utilized (stealing flight will give you the first airplane--or a balloon, if someone wants to make one?--whatever it may be).
So, what matters is units, wonders, and improvements in the AIP build lists; advances merely grant these things.
Good point about the Park Ranger guys, though--never actually tried that yet...but it may not be necessary to even worry about that.
Oh, and the governments...shouldn't matter either.

DanMc:
You got it (BTW, I forgot about all the GL files, production files, etc., but I see you got the point )
Yeah, I go nuts with the smileys too (is there any other way to add tone or hint at sarcasm?--I fear everyone would think me a total butt-head if not...when in fact I'm only a parttime one )

Interesting point...but I think (some) realism is more important than getting everything you want Maybe you're just fixated with samurai
Okay, seriously, like I was saying--later on I think tech should be (depending) available to whoever...but most of the early on specific stuff I'm going to have attached to religious advances (different temple/cathedral sorts for each AIP, for example) but not usable if taken/stolen (democrat AIP civs cannot build pagodas even if they have the advance they swiped).
I think this is fair, and certainly would make things realistic (on an earth map).
But (as I so long-windedly explained) I don't want to get carried away. Of the 90 advances, 9 are govs, 20 are religious, and 30 are from Civ2 (Sanitation, Currency, Pottery, a few to make Monarchy worth more, et cetera et cetera, extending the ancient period significantly and allowing for more diverse modern units/improvements as well. I have about 35 improvements, but have not included many AIP-specific ones yet, mainly lots from the ancient period.
But the units are still pretty open right now.
Anyway, the X-files is on--gotta go.

Later.

T.

[John LeMaitre]

Nordicus -

Thanks for sending your chart of your proposed advances. I have a problem with some of them, though, and was trying to come up with a solution....

I'm not too keen on the heavily expanded religion thing. Religion is very important to any culture (especially a pre-scientific one), but they aren't as individualized as all that I don't think. Also, how do you choose who gets which advances? Was Xianity a Middle Eastern phenomenon (as the Xian bible might lead one to believe) or a European one? What of highly multi-faithed cultures such as Rome or India?

I think that a solution might be to expand the religion and science advances, but not to name them as specific religions. Mere happenstance kept Europe from being Mithraic instead of Xian. Try these:

Superstition
Animism (replaces Mysticism in CTP)(leads to "Astronomy")
Polytheism (leads to "Theocracy")
Natural Philosophy (replaces CTP Philosophy)
Mysticism (and "Advanced Mysticism"?)
Monotheism (with "Monarchy" leads to "The Enlightenment", which in turn leads to "Democracy")
Philosophy (leads to "Natural Selection")
Agnosticism (leads to "Communism")

Something like this might show the interrelationship that politics, religion, and science have had historically. The more technologically advanced a civ, the less the impact of religion, but in early phases of history they are intimately connected.

You could then have different "Cleric" units for each religion -- and even some sort of analogue for agnosticism! (I imagine him looking like T. H. Huxley...) A civ with Democracy might be allowed to use a couple of different "cleric-types", whereas a Theocratic civ might get a bonus for their single type.

I also picture "The Enlightenment" as a double-edged sword... Although needed for any sort of advanced technology or governments, there might also be a chance that a city might break off and need to be subdued, at least until the Industrial Age.

Just a thought!

I hope you all enjoyed whatever holidays you all celebrate, if any!

[Nordicus]

John:

Hey, yes, the holidays were very enjoyable for me--and yourself?

I agree to some extent with what you've stated here--and I certainly appreciate your honesty. About Xian, though, I'm really not sure.
Having a broader religious spectrum in the ancient period solves many AIP-specific preoblems (almost the entire question of temples/cathedrals/et cetera was solved), and (although incomplete) I thought I'd leave it with the Catholic/Protestant split. Each AIP (some share one) has its own religion in the ancient period, and this advance will have various wonders, improvements, units, assigned to it.

Plus, this was the best way I found to enable unity among similar civs early on (i.e. "Catholic" civs get along better; "Moslem" civs get along better; "Protestant" civs get along better; et cetera; and this, IMO, adds much realism to the game, well, an Earth map game, which is basically what is primarily (but not solely) geared towards).

You could then have different "Cleric" units for each religion -- and even some sort of
analogue for agnosticism! (I imagine him looking like T. H. Huxley...) A civ with Democracy might be allowed to use a couple of different "cleric-types", whereas a theocratic civ might get a bonus for their single type.

Exactly. (T.H. Huxley! lol!)
I had this in mind as well--and I like the idea of [Agnosticism (leads to "Communism")]. This makes sense.
Not entirely sure what you mean here:

Philosophy (leads to "Natural Selection")

Some good ideas--basically, you're saying that the religious tree should lead somewhere? To show...how did you say that--

Something like this might show the interrelationship that politics, religion, and science have had historically. The more technologically advanced a civ, the less the impact of religion, but in early phases of history they are intimately connected.

--?

I'd like to hear more on this "Enlightenment" idea....

Talk later.

T.

[John LeMaitre]

I had a pretty good holiday, too -- thanks for asking as well!

Okay; I've made a tech tree for what I think might need to be done to CTP as far as religion goes. It can (or should!) be downloadable from ... If that didn't work, just e-mail me and I'll sent it to you.

A couple of explanations are needed for it. I thought that several units and governments needed to be added in order for this to work. For example, Theocracy is no longer used, as we would now use Monotheocracy with its familiar Cleric unit, Polytheocracy with the Brahman unit, Mystotheocracy with the Monk, and Oligarchy, Communism, and Technocracy with the Darwinist. In addition, the Shaman is used with Tyranny (and maybe Anarchy), and non-theocratic/ -scientific governments would use a weaker, more generic Priest unit. All of the above units are outmoded with the advent of Mass Media and the Televangelist, except that the Darwinist is never outmoded and the Shaman is outmoded with any religion more "advanced" than Animism. I've pretty much worked out stats for the new governments and units, which I'll post if anyone is interested, although I'm not sure if they're possible within the confines of the SLIC language.

Hope this'll help!

[John LeMaitre]

Whoops! Just click on most of my earlier message... Sorry!

[Nordicus]

OMG! That is theee longest link I've ever seen! At first I just thoguht you showing your colrful side--yeah, true blue...yuk yuk.
Don't worry, I muck one every so often

Okay, I'll have a look.