PROJECT: Playtest (the 4th Thread)

[Ekmek]

Originally posted by LemurMadness
oh I can do that

what advances enablesn tundra terraforming?

just pick an advance from advances.txt. I think tundra terraform ought to be a later advance though

can I add the water terraforming option?

Yeah, you would have to add a terraform water in tileimp and then change the terrain.txt parts too. There is A LOT you can change in ctp2

But modding should be discussed here (for organization reaons):

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=118

Let me know if you guys get into coding Seriously I never learned how to code but with a lot of effort and lot of help from Martin G, Fromafar, J Bytheway I was able to do all my stuff. Its not perfect but it was fun to add stuff I wanted in a game.

[LemurMadness]

hmmm...

Im not intending to do my own mod, just some improvements the game could use...

I noticed that this project includes the super apolyton pack, How do I add the goverment, tech tree changes and the terraforming options to the super apolyton pack?

[Ekmek]

We'd just replace those files. Of course it depends on how many changes you make. Maquiladora improved the terrain values and they were added in.

But ift hey are too controversial we could just mak a scenario folder (and included in a playtest especially if its just tech changes)

[Ekmek]

Oh for those wondering why there hasn't been another build I have refrained fromposting another build for a little bit for the sake of getting more bug reports.

So far I guess the AI diplomacy bug is the only one.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by percuno
Is there any way for me to get tundra or desert terraforming back?

You can still terraform from tundra and desert, but why would you want to terraform to tundra and desert? In the terrain thread (somewhere in this forum) we basically agreed to remove negative terraforming because its pointless in the game and unrealistic. IIRC we removed some other terraforming, like creating mountains from nothing, mostly for game balance reasons.

I guess if you just want to do it for your own game folder, then ignore me arguing with you.

[percuno]

I poked and fiddled a bit, I think I can see how to terraform even the various water tiles, but that would be a little too much for even me and I might run into the same problem I am having with Tundra. Desert has appeared, but no matter what I do to the files I can't get Tundra to appear. This is no big deal, as the Desert tiles should be sufficient to get the cities down to 3 or less, but it annoys me that I can't make it happen.

I am enjoying the ability to destroy cities on capture, however, I prefer getting the Infrastructure points while they slowly melt down to Disband size, and then I can take 2-4 of the settlers to quickly build a new city larger than size 1.

Originally posted by Maquiladora

You can still terraform from tundra and desert, but why would you want to terraform to tundra and desert? In the terrain thread (somewhere in this forum) we basically agreed to remove negative terraforming because its pointless in the game and unrealistic. IIRC we removed some other terraforming, like creating mountains from nothing, mostly for game balance reasons.

I guess if you just want to do it for your own game folder, then ignore me arguing with you.

Just for the sake of argument, I don't find it pointless, and it's not really any less realistic than turning a mountain into grassland, or having Fusion Tanks or Plasma Destroyers. In real life, we may have to build mountain ranges someday to influence the weather patterns of the Earth.

As for game balance, well, why remove an option and take away a player's choice, when you can leave it in and then each person can use it or not use it? If it's there, nobody is forced to use it. If it's not, then nobody has the choice to use it or not. To me, it's something that did not need changing, but was changed just for the sake of change, or because someone(s) decided for everyone else that they did not have the right to play the game the way they wanted to.

That said, in the long run it doesn't really matter since I can reverse at least a part of it, and possibly all of it, if I so choose. But I shouldn't have to

[Ekmek]

Originally posted by percuno
I poked and fiddled a bit, I think I can see how to terraform even the various water tiles, but that would be a little too much for even me and I might run into the same problem I am having with Tundra. Desert has appeared, but no matter what I do to the files I can't get Tundra to appear. This is no big deal, as the Desert tiles should be sufficient to get the cities down to 3 or less, but it annoys me that I can't make it happen.

what probs are you having with Tundra. It should be a cut and paste job with a few lines to change.

also for testing its good to cut the production cost and terraform time. but remember to put it back (you can save the original values by having a '#' before it and thenpput your new value before that)

I am enjoying the ability to destroy cities on capture, however, I prefer getting the Infrastructure points while they slowly melt down to Disband size, and then I can take 2-4 of the settlers to quickly build a new city larger than size 1.

I tried to implement a plunder option that would destroy all the buildings and give you PW but the slic didn't work.

the other option I tried but had the same problem was pillage which would have done the same thing except give you gold.

I also would like to see an enslave city option but that might be beyond me (well maybe )

finally the last one was to be puppet govt, only if you captured the capital it would set the other player's govt to the same as yours and then greatly increase their regard to be friendly with you. I have some code for that but we're in the feature freeze now

but your idea might be worthwhile maybe a 'relocate' option where it would destroy the city and leave a maximum of 4 settlers

of course I think I maybe running out of button space!

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by percuno
As for game balance, well, why remove an option and take away a player's choice, when you can leave it in and then each person can use it or not use it? If it's there, nobody is forced to use it.

If its there the human can use it, but the AI cant, giving the human an advantage. If the option of "building" mountains for heavy duty mining is a dodgy one to begin with (and IMO it is), why spend valuable time teaching the AI human exploits, when you can just remove the dodgy exploit?

To me, it's something that did not need changing, but was changed just for the sake of change, or because someone(s) decided for everyone else that they did not have the right to play the game the way they wanted to.

Thats your opinion, uninformed opinion id say. Noone decided anything for anyone. Noone is forcing you to install the Apolyton Edition, or forcing you not to change it. But if the point of the AE is to improve the game then id say those changes do.

Most of the suggestions made for changing terrain and tile imps matched the changes in Apolyton Pack, and not by coincidence, but because they improve the balance of the game.

[percuno]

If someone wants to choose to do that, whose business is it to tell them they can't?

If someone chooses not to exploit the ability to build mountains and then mine them, that is their choice.

I personally use the Desert tiles (and used to use Tundra tiles) to surround a city with non-food-producing tiles to get it below size 4 so it can be disbanded into settlers, meanwhile producing PW points. My altered game now has the option to create mountains, but I choose not to and I value having the choice.

Perhaps I am uninformed, so enlighten me, how does removing a person's choice make AE a better game?

>E> The problem with Tundra is that it just doesn't show up, even after I changed its entry in terrain.txt like so :

TERRAIN_TUNDRA {
TilesetIndex 2
HutTilesetIndexA 150
HutTilesetIndexB 151
Icon ICON_TERRAIN_TUNDRA
InternalType: Tundra
CanDie

AddAdvance ADVANCE_EXPLOSIVES
TransformAdd {
Time 5
Materials 800
}

RemoveAdvance ADVANCE_ADVANCED_COMPOSITES
TransformRemove {
Time 5
Materials 400
}

(etc.)

I can terraform to Hills, Desert, Mountains, Swamp and the 4 that were left in AE but not Tundra or Glacier, but then Glacier is still set to :

AddAdvance ADVANCE_NANO_WARFARE

[Ekmek]

ahh you might be running into a problem i ran into with the tileimp txt

something here:

   TerraformTerrain TERRAIN_FOREST
   Level 3
   Column 0
   Class:Terraform

you cant have an repeating column or level names (level is row). ANd that adds to the dilemma because clearly there are more terrains then spots (22 terrains to 12 spots). So technically the AI can terraform but because you cant access the button so you can't.

Atleast this is my best guess. I looked into fixing it in the code but I'm not good at interface yet (nor AI) so I put it off.

Atleast I think this is the problem feel free to mess withthe values to see how they pop up.

PS instead of desert and tundra, if you are trying to kill a city why not make the Dead_terrain the one you can terraform too? i guess it would equate to toxic waste etc. just a suggestion.


Happy modding!

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by percuno
I personally use the Desert tiles (and used to use Tundra tiles) to surround a city with non-food-producing tiles to get it below size 4 so it can be disbanded into settlers, meanwhile producing PW points.

Why not use specialists?

Perhaps I am uninformed, so enlighten me, how does removing a person's choice make AE a better game?

Ive just said it, the AI. If the AI cant use all the tricks the human can, the game becomes a lot easier, even if only for those people who use these tricks.

Anyway as youve found out, noone has removed your choice, you chose to modify your own files easy enough. If you want to modify the ones distributed with AE though, youll have to prove why its better for the game.

[percuno]

Originally posted by E
ahh you might be running into a problem i ran into with the tileimp txt

PS instead of desert and tundra, if you are trying to kill a city why not make the Dead_terrain the one you can terraform too? i guess it would equate to toxic waste etc. just a suggestion.

Happy modding!

Ty.

I have 4 spots open in my terraforming page of the tile, so I just have to figure out what exactly to change in the txt files.

Hmm...there isn't an entry in tileimp.txt for tundra, that might have something to do with it. This is exactly why I don't like them being removed from the game, because it removes a person's choice, and makes it a lot of work for them to get it functioning again if they want to do so.

Originally posted by Maquiladora
Why not use specialists?

Ive just said it, the AI. If the AI cant use all the tricks the human can, the game becomes a lot easier, even if only for those people who use these tricks.

Anyway as youve found out, noone has removed your choice, you chose to modify your own files easy enough. If you want to modify the ones distributed with AE though, youll have to prove why its better for the game.

I do use specialists, but something in the AE that is different from the original game makes it so that a size 4 city, even with forest (the least food-generating tiles left in the AE) all around it and all population points tied up as non-farmer specialists generates Growth +0 or +225, as I showed in my last image post.

The human has the choice to use the tricks or not, and by the time someone is building mountains they have much better ways to generate production. Besides, a city surrounded by mountains with Mega Mines generates so much pollution that it is detrimental to the civ using it, thus it has to be counteracted, making it a dubious tactic at best. And who is it hurting if they do use the tricks anyway? Only themselves, therefore your justification for removing them falls flat.

It would be fine if I *could* mod the files entirely by myself, but with entire swatches of code/configuration completely excised from them (i.e.: the entire entry for tundra in the tileimp.txt file), it is difficult enough for me to determine exactly what goes there, much less someone without an IT background.

Oh, and to address this point from one of your earlier posts:

Originally posted by Maquiladora
why spend valuable time teaching the AI human exploits, when you can just remove the dodgy exploit?

Because that's the lazy way out. Instead of the problem being fixed, it's being swept under the carpet, so that only people who look under the carpet can see it. It's not a "dodgy exploit", it's the way the game was designed, and the AI should be able to use it as well. Activision simply did not put in the time to get it working in the AI, just the way Microsoft is cutting features from Vista now. To reiterate, it's up to the player to decide whether they will use it or not.

[Maquiladora]

I do use specialists, but something in the AE that is different from the original game makes it so that a size 4 city, even with forest (the least food-generating tiles left in the AE) all around it and all population points tied up as non-farmer specialists generates Growth +0 or +225, as I showed in my last image post.

Then there is something wrong.

The human has the choice to use the tricks or not, and by the time someone is building mountains they have much better ways to generate production.

No they dont. An inner ring of mega mines on mountains generates 360 production before bonuses. Besides that, the more production you have from the land to start with, the more beneficial any buildings are after, so you still improve the land as best you can first.

Besides, a city surrounded by mountains with Mega Mines generates so much pollution that it is detrimental to the civ using it, thus it has to be counteracted, making it a dubious tactic at best.

There is a no pollution option. And you can counteract pollution enough to still make it a valid tactic.

And who is it hurting if they do use the tricks anyway? Only themselves, therefore your justification for removing them falls flat.

Who is it hurting if they modify their own files?

The goal was to improve the game for everyone, but you cant please everyone. There were many ideas thrown away because we didnt all agree, but on this we did. By "we" i mean anyone that wanted to join the discussion. Like i said, hunt the "terrain" thread down or restart a new one if youd like to argue for changing it back.

Instead of the problem being fixed, it's being swept under the carpet, so that only people who look under the carpet can see it. It's not a "dodgy exploit", it's the way the game was designed, and the AI should be able to use it as well. Activision simply did not put in the time to get it working in the AI,

Define the problem. Its unrealistic, its unbalancing and its ugly. Do we simplify it or do the coders spend their valuable time telling the AI how to exploit it like a human?

Using Activisions original "design" as a positive for keeping something is dodgy at best, considering the game was barely playtested.

Its the same with Cavalry, do we leave these unmodified too and tell the AI to use full stacks of Cavalry all the time because thats the way it was "designed"? Or do we change Cavalry and balance the units properly?

[NeoFax]

This is the error I get with Rev589:

0x00579a0a [?GetCount@?$PointerList@VGameEvent@@@@QBEJXZ + 0xa]
0x006c4926 [?CreatePrivateBuffers@aui_Mouse@@QAE?AW4AUI_ERRCOD E@@XZ + 0x74]
0x006c47b1 [?Start@aui_Mouse@@QAE?AW4AUI_ERRCODE@@XZ + 0xf]
0x006fe5ed [?RestoreMouse@aui_DirectUI@@QAE?AW4AUI_ERRCODE@@XZ + 0x124]
0x006fe874 [?AltTabIn@aui_DirectUI@@UAE?AW4AUI_ERRCODE@@XZ + 0x95]
0x006e7bc4 [?HandleWindowsMessage@aui_UI@@UAE?AW4AUI_ERRCODE@@ PAUHWND__@@IIJ@Z + 0x1d7]
0x00407f0f [?WndProc@@YGJPAUHWND__@@IIJ@Z + 0x3c]
0x77d48734 [__onexitbegin + 0x7718ae7c]
0x77d48816 [__onexitbegin + 0x7718af5e]
0x77d4c63f [__onexitbegin + 0x7718ed87]
0x77d4e905 [__onexitbegin + 0x7719104d]
0x73781967 [__onexitbegin + 0x72bc40af]
0x77d48734 [__onexitbegin + 0x7718ae7c]
0x77d48816 [__onexitbegin + 0x7718af5e]
0x77d4b4c0 [__onexitbegin + 0x7718dc08]
0x77d4b50c [__onexitbegin + 0x7718dc54]
0x7c90eae3 [__onexitbegin + 0x7bd5122b]
0x77d49402 [__onexitbegin + 0x7718bb4a]
0x77d5e1a9 [__onexitbegin + 0x771a08f1]
0x77d561c6 [__onexitbegin + 0x7719890e]
0x77d6a92e [__onexitbegin + 0x771ad076]
0x77d6a294 [__onexitbegin + 0x771ac9dc]
0x77d95fbb [__onexitbegin + 0x771d8703]
0x77d96060 [__onexitbegin + 0x771d87a8]
0x77d80577 [__onexitbegin + 0x771c2cbf]
0x77d8052f [__onexitbegin + 0x771c2c77]
0x0040151e [?c3errors_ErrorDialog@@YAXPBD0ZZ + 0x11e]
0x0071ca21 [?LoadRIM@TargaImageFormat@@QAE?AW4AUI_ERRCODE@@PAD PAVaui_Image@@@Z + 0x13e]
0x0071c7ad [?Load@TargaImageFormat@@UAE?AW4AUI_ERRCODE@@PADPAV aui_Image@@@Z + 0x3c]


It ask for a UC088.tga file and then doesn't even go into CTP2.

[LemurMadness]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
Its the same with Cavalry, do we leave these unmodified too and tell the AI to use full stacks of Cavalry all the time because thats the way it was "designed"? Or do we change Cavalry and balance the units properly?

hmmm you know, thinking about that, could something be done about it? like, reducting by half the damage flanking attacks do? stacking 12 tanks can tear down an empire... seems pretty hardcore and unbalanced...