Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 81 to 98 of 98

Thread: [Workshop] Collection

  1. #81

    Default Re: [Workshop] Daruwind's Building Trees and Resources

    So, I've got my Athenian and Roman lines implemented in game. I'm talking with another modder Phalangitis about working with me on buildings. If anyone wants to see the latest work in game, I'll send the download link or post it.

    I'll try to do a bit more research and hammer out the specifics on the regional specific buildings. I figured I'd start on Sparta (which should be a tweak of the Athenian lines) as the next faction.


  2. #82
    Daruwind's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    2,898

    Default Re: [Workshop] Daruwind's Building Trees and Resources

    Quote Originally Posted by ABH2 View Post
    In terms of resources, you are correct. But there is an effect in game to boost income from mines and some similar effects for things like agriculture etc. I think most of the GDP mods (that provide money directly) have effects that can be boosted. That's my plan for mines.
    Vanilla style. Looks like the best we can do in that case....

    Yea, but I'm still not sure if a port added in would function correctly if it allowed for recruitment of naval units.
    Not working. I have tried to add port to some locations and it is causing crashing. Maybe if you have some time,try it yourself ABH, maybe iīm doing some mistake here. (DB and startpos edited at my best.) Anyway there are almost no towns at river side. So the best option could be just secondary slot with "river fishing village" theme to provide some food andincome..

    Congratulation on finishing Athens line. And I would like to see the link when you are ready.

    EDIT:finally got permissions from DeI to use their building Icons, so my Icons are 100% ready at the moment...
    Last edited by Daruwind; July 24, 2014 at 08:24 PM.

  3. #83

    Default Re: [Workshop] Daruwind's Building Trees and Resources

    Latest work I've done (doing the text entries now):
    http://www.mediafire.com/download/zj...buildings.pack
    Athens will have blank buildings on the UI at the moment. The text files are the most annoying part of adding buildings for me so I tend to delay it. I also need to link them with models for the campaign map still.

    Not working. I have tried to add port to some locations and it is causing crashing. Maybe if you have some time,try it yourself ABH, maybe iīm doing some mistake here. (DB and startpos edited at my best.)
    Yea, I'm not expecting it to be a functional port. There are DB entries tied to creating new slots on the campaign map (related to issue we had with adding functional slots). I'll give it a try when I have a chance, as well, but it's a long shot.

    Anyway there are almost no towns at river side. So the best option could be just secondary slot with "river fishing village" theme to provide some food andincome..
    That's what I was thinking.


  4. #84

    Default Re: [Workshop] Daruwind's Building Trees and Resources

    So, I've been thinking the last few weeks about the unique regional buildings placed in the extra slots. When I developed the idea, it was before it occurred to me that we could heavily customize main settlement and port chains while adding unique effect descriptions for color/immersion. I'm not 100% sold, but I'm now leaning in the direction of scrapping the extra slots. It seems more logical to keep the features we would lose, and it would involve less risk to stability as the game goes on. Given that the slots aren't really functional, there doesn't seem to be much of a point to the extra building.

    Pro's of the extra slots:
    1. Clearly visible and noticeable to the player.
    2. Immersion as they get to see the actual building in question depicted with its own graphic.
    3. UI. By this I mean, the the tool tip for buildings with too many effects will cut off the screen partially. If you've played DeI, you know what I'm talking about as some of the main settlement lines they use have this small problem. This would potentially come into play.

    Negatives:
    1. Lose sack/loot. While this can be compensated for, it's still cutting features that could probably be developed further. Included in this - natural disasters (which are more annoying than anything) would need to be cut from the game, as well.
    2. Stability questions. I haven't had any issues, and I don't know what would cause any.

    I'd love to have more buildings, but this is the direction I'm leaning. Daruwind, I know you disagree with me on the number of 'unique' regions, but I think that has more to do with communication breakdowns.

    Ultimately, unique doesn't equal easier for the player or AI. The building chain impact on the game is just a matter of the effects we set. So, regional unique areas could have the effects of the extra buildings we had planned on while being standard in every other way. Or they could be customized further.

    It doesn't change much from a research perspective. I'm not sure how much work you've done on the unique chain lines. I'll have to remove a few from my pack.
    Last edited by ABH2; July 27, 2014 at 02:35 PM.


  5. #85
    Daruwind's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    2,898

    Default Re: [Workshop] Daruwind's Building Trees and Resources

    Quote Originally Posted by ABH2 View Post
    So, I've been thinking the last few weeks about the unique regional buildings placed in the extra slots. When I developed the idea, it was before it occurred to me that we could heavily customize main settlement and port chains while adding unique effect descriptions for color/immersion. I'm not 100% sold, but I'm now leaning in the direction of scrapping the extra slots. It seems more logical to keep the features we would lose, and it would involve less risk to stability as the game goes on. Given that the slots aren't really functional, there doesn't seem to be much of a point to the extra building.
    No problem with that approach. I was glad we have been thinking about these options. If there are more burden then advantage then why not to scrap them completely.

    Pro's of the extra slots:
    1. Clearly visible and noticeable to the player.
    2. Immersion as they get to see the actual building in question depicted with its own graphic.
    3. UI. By this I mean, the the tool tip for buildings with too many effects will cut off the screen partially. If you've played DeI, you know what I'm talking about as some of the main settlement lines they use have this small problem. This would potentially come into play.

    Negatives:
    1. Lose sack/loot. While this can be compensated for, it's still cutting features that could probably be developed further. Included in this - natural disasters (which are more annoying than anything) would need to be cut from the game, as well.
    2. Stability questions. I haven't had any issues, and I don't know what would cause any.

    I'd love to have more buildings, but this is the direction I'm leaning. Daruwind, I know you disagree with me on the number of 'unique' regions, but I think that has more to do with communication breakdowns.

    Ultimately, unique doesn't equal easier for the player or AI. The building chain impact on the game is just a matter of the effects we set. So, regional unique areas could have the effects of the extra buildings we had planned on while being standard in every other way. Or they could be customized further.
    My original idea was to use provincial/regional effects (aka wonders) in the same way. Itīs not as much user-friendly in term of info. But if the effects are on 4/6th slot building, primary building or just wonder effect..makes no difference in the end. By the way donīt take my pesimist too hard on yourself. I just like to discuss matters from all angles and if people manage to convince me than Iīm more than happy to take their ideas as mine. Thatīs why I prefer to find weak spots and think about them. You managed to convince me about unique port/primary building chains for cities. Question is how many and how much unique they should be. Donīt think that I prefer "generic" towns over the more unique. In fact I have 20 different resource cities. Minor + major variant ...thatīs 40 variants together. Plus at least 10 more unique cities (now) like Athens, Syracuse, Antioch, Jerusalem.....1-2 Major, 2-X for minor cities per resource , combination with different resource port,unique ports....And Iīm slowly reaching number of available region just by that. So almost every settlement is unique in some way. Just for current balance I prefer to see these options as generic from my systematic approach. After we add some regional effects, resource boost to GDP.....they would be quite unique.

    EDIT: I would like to have every province somehow different sou the optional building path would be different. (Like Egypt - Grain resource cities, plus unique city, unique port, plus regional effect for boosting food production from farms, GDP from them....)And so on...so every province would really feel different.

    It doesn't change much from a research perspective. I'm not sure how much work you've done on the unique chain lines. I'll have to remove a few from my pack.
    No problem. Iīm just gathering infos so I havenīt implemented any one of these yet....
    Last edited by Daruwind; July 27, 2014 at 05:49 PM.
    DMR: (R2) (Attila) (ToB) (Wh1/2) (3K) (Troy)

  6. #86
    Hetairos's Avatar Roma Surrectum II
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Serdika
    Posts
    1,511

    Default Re: [Workshop] Daruwind's Building Trees and Resources

    I agree on not implementing features that could cause instability and do not work completely within the engines limitations (I would release such elements as optional only anyways).

    About unique provinces as wonders. 1.) Is it possible to set up multiple wonders per region? 2.) Can I have an example of a unique region / wonder you have thought of?

    -------

    + Now enough of previews. The Steam Group and all other organizational stuff have been set up. The mods will just be released one by one while we are working on other stuff.

    You know that the map is very important to me. So I will work on that. Than I do want to get the Roman roster ready for preview / release in the upcoming time and than we have to make a choice about resources vs roman buildings. I would lean towards completing the Roman buildings first since it is very handy to be released with the roman roster itself. So we have 3 people who can work on that buildings project.

    ABH you are already working a bit on our weapons preview, isn't it?

    Daruwind and ABH with your expertise, how much can you offer me a resource system that works mainly for trading purposes only, so we can actually make taxes less significant and trade more important opening up some new game design where defending your trade routs (territory) on land or sea does mean something. e.g. piracy has a bigger impact. blockading or besieging has a huge impact on income, raiding vs patrolling vs fortifying makes stances more economic and forces you to make more strategic choices. I want armies to be not only military but have an impact on provinces (positive and negative).

    I would love to have a word from you guys about multiple resources per region. In the GC apparently not even all provinces have a resource. In CiG you can have plenty of different resources per region. What are your pro's and con's on that? Apparently once we can modify the map i am fine with one resource per province, but until than a long time can pass so i would like to use multiple resources per region.

    Let me know what you guys think about all those things and next steps.

    -----

    So in that fashion the next previews would be:

    - Roman Roster
    - Roman Buildings

    Than a text preview:
    - Weapons

    And two probably long time projects with more or less unclear release date right now:

    - campaign map
    - resources & wonders

  7. #87

    Default Re: [Workshop] Daruwind's Building Trees and Resources

    Something I thought you might be interested in - you can give the AI and the AI only a resource through the campaign_difficulty_handicap_effects table. Setting it to 1 resource production for the AI for a given resource will allow it to produce it, yet the human player can't import it. So, if there ARE key buildings you think the AI will need, you can give the AI factions a limited amount without impacting the player much. I don't know how the AI will respond to trade agreements and such while having production of a particular resource, however.

    Just use the same building production effect as in the building_effects table with the in_all_your_regions scope. I'd set it to every difficulty for test purposes. Obviously leave the human column unchecked.

    Another drawback-the player will see the AI producing those resources.

    On that note, I've reworked my building pack with partial tables to make it more organized and to increase compatibility with other mods/future patches.

    EDIT-
    I'm going to try some other things to see if I can't hide the resource production with new effects.
    Last edited by ABH2; July 27, 2014 at 10:04 PM.


  8. #88

    Default Re: [Workshop] Daruwind's Building Trees and Resources

    ABH you are already working a bit on our weapons preview, isn't it?
    I did most of the weapons today. Within a few days I should have it done.

    About unique provinces as wonders. 1.) Is it possible to set up multiple wonders per region? 2.) Can I have an example of a unique region / wonder you have thought of?
    No, you can't technically have multiple 'wonders' in the same region as they are effect_bundles assigned to specific regions. You can set whatever and as many effects you want, however. It's also possible to create custom effects so we can have custom text. So, let's say I wanted to put my Roman Curia concept into Rome. I could create a series of effects that could read something like "Roman Senate: Effect description I choose."

    I prefer the unique regions through the main settlement line as it's easier for the player to see, and it allows for dynamic effects as we can change them based on the building level.

    Daruwind and ABH with your expertise, how much can you offer me a resource system that works mainly for trading purposes only, so we can actually make taxes less significant and trade more important opening up some new game design where defending your trade routs (territory) on land or sea does mean something. e.g. piracy has a bigger impact. blockading or besieging has a huge impact on income, raiding vs patrolling vs fortifying makes stances more economic and forces you to make more strategic choices. I want armies to be not only military but have an impact on provinces (positive and negative).
    Daruwind has spent much more time on resources than me, but from what I've seen, each resource has a strategic value. You can also set effects based on a resource. So, we could add GDP mods to increase their value. I believe there is also a basic value that sets a price for every unit of a resource traded for each.

    It's also very easy to modify the tax rates. There's a single table that controls the tax percentages you can set by the province along with the public order hits.

    I'd like the economy to be tighter in general for the player. So, I'm aiming for smaller incomes from buildings in general.

    A lot of this will just have to figured out by trial and error. At least the specifics of it. But I think that's a pretty good general plan.

    I would love to have a word from you guys about multiple resources per region. In the GC apparently not even all provinces have a resource. In CiG you can have plenty of different resources per region. What are your pro's and con's on that? Apparently once we can modify the map i am fine with one resource per province, but until than a long time can pass so i would like to use multiple resources per region.
    Definitely Daruwind's area of expertise. I couldn't tell you the impact on the AI of having resources all over. I believe the creator of the original Meaningful Resources mod took the same approach as Daruwind, though, in limiting it to one a region placed carefully across the map.


  9. #89
    Daruwind's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    2,898

    Default Re: [Workshop] Daruwind's Building Trees and Resources

    Quote Originally Posted by alecwermuth View Post
    I agree on not implementing features that could cause instability and do not work completely within the engines limitations (I would release such elements as optional only anyways).

    About unique provinces as wonders. 1.) Is it possible to set up multiple wonders per region?
    Quote Originally Posted by ABH2 View Post
    No, you can't technically have multiple 'wonders' in the same region as they are effect_bundles assigned to specific regions. You can set whatever and as many effects you want, however. It's also possible to create custom effects so we can have custom text. So, let's say I wanted to put my Roman Curia concept into Rome. I could create a series of effects that could read something like "Roman Senate: Effect description I choose."

    I prefer the unique regions through the main settlement line as it's easier for the player to see, and it allows for dynamic effects as we can change them based on the building level.
    Only one wonder bundle per region. However you can merge them together of course as ABH said. The question is how many wonders we will create and which effect we will add to primary buildings/ports. As stated previously if we are adding a lot effects to some high level buildings, there will be out of screen. Like DeI has a really long list of effects for buildings. (But it allows dynamic change of effects with new building levels).SO we have 2 possible ways now:

    1) only a few of real wonders (+/-Vanilla), region unique properties will be added to primary building/port chains..effectively we will have unique chains for every settlement.
    2) little more generic settlements (plus some unique chains of primary buildings like Syracuse,Jerusalem..) with effects being mostly in Wonders style.

    I would vote for second as balancing this options is a little more doable. (balancing buildings chains + balancing wonders separately). First option is a lot of effects in buildings and balancing looks more complicated.

    Quote Originally Posted by alecwermuth
    2.) Can I have an example of a unique region / wonder you have thought of?
    I would separate "wonders" into two categories.
    1)real wonders as Vanilla (we can add anothers) (((I would suggest to rework effects from faction wide to regional/provincial. Why? +1%across faction is just some statistic. Allow Collos of Rhodos to provide +40% from maritime commerce, trade bonus...such effect would force players to build province around them.)
    2)regional/provincial effects characterising that particular region....old example egypt with bonus to grain production,food production,GDP from farms.

    Quote Originally Posted by ABH2 View Post
    Something I thought you might be interested in - you can give the AI and the AI only a resource through the campaign_difficulty_handicap_effects table. Setting it to 1 resource production for the AI for a given resource will allow it to produce it, yet the human player can't import it. So, if there ARE key buildings you think the AI will need, you can give the AI factions a limited amount without impacting the player much. I don't know how the AI will respond to trade agreements and such while having production of a particular resource, however.

    Just use the same building production effect as in the building_effects table with the in_all_your_regions scope. I'd set it to every difficulty for test purposes. Obviously leave the human column unchecked.

    Another drawback-the player will see the AI producing those resources.

    EDIT-I'm going to try some other things to see if I can't hide the resource production with new effects.
    I love you man!!!!! I found that DB a really long time ago and lost it in process. I just knew it was there somewhere. :-) We donīt need to add every resource to AI factions. In fact I try to sort resources to some categories like
    1)really crucial - Copper,iron,timber especially for unit production chains.
    2)not so crucial -the rest....
    3)for trading,some cosmetic voodo -honey,livestock,pottery,bricks..

    So we can add only 1) group to AI factions so it will allow them to construct properly buildings for unit production,ports.. Basically copper and iron is more common among resources as we want many faction to acquire it early. Only 2) as slaves,tar,horses,salt....are pretty rare in the fact.

    The drawback could be a little confusing as player would like to trade the iron for example yet he donīt know which faction is in reality producing the iron...:/ too bad that there is no offset like the minimum needed for trading is 2 units of resource production.. (we should try to solve that..canīt we play with timing to this bundle gets activated after player ends his turn? Just activating effect for time when AI factions are playing? Or something similar?)

    Quote Originally Posted by alecwermuth
    Daruwind and ABH with your expertise, how much can you offer me a resource system that works mainly for trading purposes only, so we can actually make taxes less significant and trade more important opening up some new game design where defending your trade routs (territory) on land or sea does mean something. e.g. piracy has a bigger impact. blockading or besieging has a huge impact on income, raiding vs patrolling vs fortifying makes stances more economic and forces you to make more strategic choices. I want armies to be not only military but have an impact on provinces (positive and negative).

    I would love to have a word from you guys about multiple resources per region. In the GC apparently not even all provinces have a resource. In CiG you can have plenty of different resources per region. What are your pro's and con's on that? Apparently once we can modify the map i am fine with one resource per province, but until than a long time can pass so i would like to use multiple resources per region.

    Let me know what you guys think about all those things and next steps.
    Quote Originally Posted by ABH2
    Daruwind has spent much more time on resources than me, but from what I've seen, each resource has a strategic value. You can also set effects based on a resource. So, we could add GDP mods to increase their value. I believe there is also a basic value that sets a price for every unit of a resource traded for each.

    It's also very easy to modify the tax rates. There's a single table that controls the tax percentages you can set by the province along with the public order hits.

    I'd like the economy to be tighter in general for the player. So, I'm aiming for smaller incomes from buildings in general.

    A lot of this will just have to figured out by trial and error. At least the specifics of it. But I think that's a pretty good general plan.

    Definitely Daruwind's area of expertise. I couldn't tell you the impact on the AI of having resources all over. I believe the creator of the original Meaningful Resources mod took the same approach as Daruwind, though, in limiting it to one a region placed carefully across the map.
    Ok I will make some point which should be taken into consideration:

    -Having resources just for trading income is +/- Rome 2 Vanilla way. It is making resources pretty much irrelevant. It is just another form of income even if itīs the major part of income. On the other hand resource requirement for some key buildings (we are speaking about 3+4levels of Vanilla so pretty much mid/end game) is adding a new layer of strategy to acquire them. Thatīs in my opinion much more strategic concern than money income because money can be obtained somewhat from buildings but resources are set. (For player, we are able to cheat AI thx to ABH - all the love to him )

    -At the same time the resources or just the key resources must be somewhat rare. So player has to plan accordingly in order to acquire them. Like stated above while copper,iron is more common. Things like slaves,salt,tar,horses are really rare so player care what he conquer and what he can build there after... And basically this is connected with number of resources per provincies.

    ->If you check my maps at first page you will see regions/provincies with multiple resources. Major/Minor settlements,ports. That is pretty much working system. However from my testing I would not add multiple resources into one region (2 being top for port +primary building...remember we are speaking about resources from groups 1) and 2).....group 3) like livestock,honey,pottery could be produced wherever you want it). This leads to provincies with 6-8 resources and it is making provincies to be quite similar. Good value is about 4-5 top for 4-region provincies. We donīt need a lot of different resources in one spot,we can set numbers/prize of units so even 1 resource with small production is profitable. And such system allows better spread of resources like olive oil+wine around middererean sea, hides to the north.... and so on. Silk to the very east.

    ((CiG has multiple resources per region? Are you not confusing it with DeI? As in vanilla there are not so many of them....in fact all three campaigns are almost empty in terms of resource production Wiki for regions+resources: http://dsi0fanyw80ls.cloudfront.net/en/regions )

    -Now we can set prize of 1 unit for every resource and how much faction is getting from unspent resources. Increase corruption level....set taxes and lower income form buildings. Thatīs doable. But this is game. If major income is comming from trades it is makes income somewhat unstable. Somebody manage to blocking the right port,lanes....and player is bankrupted. And of course piracy and blocking is working only if the resources are not flowing from literally every trade partner. By the way I think that DeI already implented food consuption,public order bonus to armies in settlements.

    -Well there are some narrow points. Current system is: The size of a faction determines how much of a given resource you can trade with it. 1 region consumes 3 resources, 3 regions = 5 resource units. The minimum amount that can be traded is 1 unit.SO if you produce 3 units of a resource and have 3 trade agreements then you will trade 1 resource with each of those 3 factions. (i have to check my notes in this) When you increase production of a resource your income will only increase if you have enough trade agreements to consume those excess resources...this behavior is basically what is limiting trading options!!!!! So we can set a prize per unit to be higher,increase tariffs and longterm bonuses but have to sort out some balance between all of this. Just having much more volume of resource production is for nothing.

    (as a result it is more useful to have more different resources with lower production than just a few with higher production... )
    Last edited by Daruwind; July 28, 2014 at 05:06 AM.
    DMR: (R2) (Attila) (ToB) (Wh1/2) (3K) (Troy)

  10. #90

    Default Re: [Workshop] Daruwind's Building Trees and Resources

    The drawback could be a little confusing as player would like to trade the iron for example yet he donīt know which faction is in reality producing the iron...:/ too bad that there is no offset like the minimum needed for trading is 2 units of resource production.. (we should try to solve that..canīt we play with timing to this bundle gets activated after player ends his turn? Just activating effect for time when AI factions are playing? Or something similar?)
    I forget - there is a minimum resource required to trade, correct? One table you may want to look at if you haven't is the faction_resource_consumptions. I believe it just sets the amount of a resource a trade partner will consume based on the number of regions they own as I'm aware that 1 region consumes 3, and the game then seems to just add 1 for each region.

    On making it more player friendly - the plan is to show region resources on the UI map, correct? Or, if it's not, couldn't it be added in the future? The player could then easily see which region has the needed resources for genuine production.

    -Now we can set prize of 1 unit for every resource and how much faction is getting from unspent resources. Increase corruption level....set taxes and lower income form buildings. Thatīs doable. But this is game. If major income is comming from trades it is makes income somewhat unstable. Somebody manage to blocking the right port,lanes....and player is bankrupted. And of course piracy and blocking is working only if the resources are not flowing from literally every trade partner. By the way I think that DeI already implented food consuption,public order bonus to armies in settlements.
    I consider this all pretty much a matter of balancing. The key is that the economy is pretty easily tweaked in the DB.

    On the blockading risk - unless they've changed it, blockading a faction's port capital basically can bankrupt them already instantly. More of a threat for the human player, however. The AI rarely does it.

    That's the biggest issue. I'd like to see raiding play a more sensible role in the game, but how much will any of it impact the AI to begin with?

    -Well there are some narrow points. Current system is: The size of a faction determines how much of a given resource you can trade with it. 1 region consumes 3 resources, 3 regions = 5 resource units. The minimum amount that can be traded is 1 unit.SO if you produce 3 units of a resource and have 3 trade agreements then you will trade 1 resource with each of those 3 factions. (i have to check my notes in this) When you increase production of a resource your income will only increase if you have enough trade agreements to consume those excess resources...this behavior is basically what is limiting trading options!!!!! So we can set a prize per unit to be higher,increase tariffs and longterm bonuses but have to sort out some balance between all of this. Just having much more volume of resource production is for nothing.
    The amount consumed by the trade partner is moddable, however, in the table listed above. It would just require tweaking the values of each unit of a resource.


  11. #91
    Daruwind's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    2,898

    Default Re: [Workshop] Daruwind's Building Trees and Resources

    Quote Originally Posted by ABH2 View Post
    I forget - there is a minimum resource required to trade, correct? One table you may want to look at if you haven't is the faction_resource_consumptions. I believe it just sets the amount of a resource a trade partner will consume based on the number of regions they own as I'm aware that 1 region consumes 3, and the game then seems to just add 1 for each region.

    The amount consumed by the trade partner is moddable, however, in the table listed above. It would just require tweaking the values of each unit of a resource.
    Iīm speaking exactly about that. We can change numbers in DB however we will end up with a similar dependence between resource consumption and number of controlled regions. (some linear dependence probably) I just wanted to point this to Alec as having a big resource production is not going to solve anything alone. Itīs good up to mid game when player start to control the large part of map. From that point there is not so many trade partners, factions get wiped so naturally trade income is something going down (major conflicts with big empire across map).... So we should decide how much the trade income is going to be...it should be important but not to cripple you instantly when some faction manage to block a few things here and there. Something like trade income is difference between income of 0 or large sum. Not difference between positive and negative income...at least for sufficient large empires with corresponding armies. Else the game could be really unstable. One blockade and GG... :/ Especially if we increase prize of every resources unit.

    For the moment I would suggest to produce competely building chains. Lower the tax income and start testing games to see how much we must adjust the prize of resources. Buildings should provide the basic income. Just for surviving with a few armies, not for big development....

    On making it more player friendly - the plan is to show region resources on the UI map, correct? Or, if it's not, couldn't it be added in the future? The player could then easily see which region has the needed resources for genuine production.
    In game campaign map can shows just one resource per region by the name of settlement. And campaign overview map is showing also only one resource per region but in reverse order. (see my post on previous page or two with screenshots) So yes..thatīs going to allow player to get info about production of that particular faction. Problem is un-explored territory...
    DMR: (R2) (Attila) (ToB) (Wh1/2) (3K) (Troy)

  12. #92

    Default [Discussion] Salvaging politics and dynamic policy choices [On Hold due to Campaign Framework for v0.10]

    Normally I'd deal with this in PM's or such, but in the spirit of open source this mod is going for, I figured I'd start a thread. I've expressed these goals before, but I think I've come up with a solid plan to implement it in the game.

    Politics is ultimately about the civil war feature. I like the civil war as a late game challenge. I hate the randomness of it. Part of my efforts with buildings has included giving the player more control over their political power through building effects.

    Another goal I have - creating unique experiences for each faction that realistically reflect the policy choices they would have faced had they expanded. Since Rome is easiest example and I've done the most work on their building lines, I will use them as the example in this post. As I've developed the concept of unique regions, I've been able to develop this concept further.

    Realistic faction choices

    As Rome expanded, the primary question they faced was related to land due to tying their recruitment to it. The political instability that developed in the late Republic was directly attributable to land policy. Generals gained power and influence through their armies as the soldiers became increasingly dependent on them for subsistence. A successful general provided his men loot and land which was in short supply in Rome and wider Italy due to the spread of the Latifundia/large slave estates. As soldiers campaigned overseas, they lost their land and became beholden to their leadership (from the Second Punic War on).

    To deal with this, Roman politicians first attempted land reform proper (the Gracchi). This was mostly a failure, however, as it created strong backlash from the upper classes at risk of losing their property. The Marian reforms were the final solution. It wasn't land reform proper, but instead detached recruitment from property, and created a professional soldier class based on steady pay and promises of land. These professional forces owed their loyalty completely to the generals.

    So, how do we show this for Rome in game?

    The role of region specific main settlement lines
    With a unique Roman settlement, we can create whatever effects and unique chains available only in Rome which would reflect land policy. Rome's main settlement line would essentially control the land policy in the region. Meanwhile, it would have custom chains for the rest of Italy, and another line of chains for the provinces outside of Italy.

    So, the main Roman line will represent several things:
    1. The advancement of Rome as it expanded from early-middle-late-Marian-Imperial era.
    2. The land policy of the Romans
    3. Unique regional effects such as the Roman senate.

    Example:
    Small farms:
    Upkeep for troops increases greatly if keep land (away from homes)
    +recruitment slots increase/stay same
    +morale
    -Corruption drops
    -Food
    -slave unrest (suppressed)
    -political influence
    +Imperium

    Latifundii:
    Upkeep decreases if Latifunda formed
    -Recruitment slots decrease
    -Morale
    +Corruption increases (soldiers dependent on generals)
    +food
    +slave unrest
    -public order
    +political influence
    +political occurrance
    +Imperium

    The policy choices will be more complex, but this represents the basic choice.

    Some of these would increase the likelihood of other historical events. The servile wars, and the Social War could be shown in game based on the choices the player makes in how they build up Rome.

    Now, you'll notice they both share the +imperium as a positive. The difference will be to degree. Combined with fluctuating political influence based on the choices made, we can give the player control over the civil war feature as well how it occurs.

    Tie-in to politics and the civil war

    With the fame level table, it is possible to set different imperium levels for the AI and the player. It is also possible through the campaign_variables to set the level at which a civil war will always occur (as well as when it's initially possible).

    While the effort is to avoid scripting at the moment, it's also possible to trigger events (such as a civil war or the appearance of forces) based on the imperium level. The script from CiG is what I'm referencing. If we used that script, we could trigger the civil war. We could also balance imperium level for the player and AI differently. For the player, imperium levels could be gained faster (their only purpose is to restrict armies - something I hope to counter by making upkeep and logistics a real part of the game - I want the player's forces stretched thin).

    Sidenote - I believe this will be necessary to help the AI with recruitment. People who have messed with army limits in the past have reported that the AI begins to spawn little stacks. It will field it's full amount of armies based on imperium, basically.

    Giving the player control over their political influence will give the player control over where the civil war starts (on the fringes or their capital). The nonsensical political menu with its shallow choices will have less impact on the game. One building path could also trigger an early civil war while the other could be later in the game.

    Another note - there is a line in the campaign_variables table which refers to annexed_territory_multiplier_on_realm_divide. It's currently set at 1. I'm not sure exactly what this does, and as far as I know, no one has experimented with it. I'd like to test it out and see what happens if that's increased. Would it be possible with this variable to give the civil war faction more than one region is the basic question.

    So, to summarize:

    1. The player would have control of realistic policy choices.
    2. These choices would impact the internal power of the faction.
    3. With these choices, the player would have more control over the civil war and how it occurs. It's no longer the random mess it currently is.

    The goal of this thread: It's a lot of work to come up with these ideas. I'd like some dialogue to flesh them out and input which can help me develop the concept further. The goal would be to create a logical system for each faction. There may be overlap, but they should be unique choices.

    This concept would require a good deal of work. A lot of it I'm doing already with my building chains. The other complication or good thing - CA may release tools in the future that would open up even more possibilities. An expansion may beef up the political feature (we can only hope). In the mean time, I think this is the best and most realistic solution (if not the only) I've seen to make politics make sense.
    Last edited by Hetairos; August 05, 2014 at 12:41 PM.


  13. #93

    Default Re: Salvaging politics and dynamic policy choices

    A more specific example of Rome's main settlement line. Since I'm trying to represent change in both land policy, military recruitment and law, it gets a little complicated. Especially trying to piece together proper Latin terminology.

    This main settlement line blends what I had in my previous Roman draw (which showed progression through the stages of history as we think of them today from early-mid-late-imperial) with my public land chain.

    The B chain represents a more historical progression path. I'm still not 100% comfortable with some of the terms, but it does mimic how things played out. The B chain provides a late game civil war that takes place in the center of your empire. The A chain represents a path where the player picks strict enforcement of land laws. You keep small lots of land and prevent the build-up of large amounts of wealth. It features an early game civil war on the outside of your empire.

    Settlement Rome-The Senate and People of Rome (Res Publica Romana)

    1. Ager Romanus (Public Land of Rome)

    A Path - Early Civil War
    Early
    1a. Assigno Limitatus (Divided Assignments)
    2a. Concessi (Essentially Leases)
    Middle
    3a. Plebis Fundus (Lower class estates)
    Late
    4a. Sodalicium (Political Alliances)
    Imperial
    5a. Imperium Romanum (Roman Empire)

    B Path - Late Civil War
    Early
    1b. Quaestorius (Auctioned Off)
    2b. Possessiones (Essentially private property)
    Middle
    3b. Interdictum de Precaria (Right to evict)
    4b. Villae Rustica (Countryside Villas)
    Late
    5b. Latifundia (Slave Estates)
    6b. Lex Agraria (Agrian Reform Laws)
    Marian
    7b. Lex Militares (Law required state to provide equipment and clothing)
    8b. Capite Censi ('Counted by the Head')
    9b. Lex Evocati (Land for veterans)
    Imperial
    10b. Sodalicium (Politican Alliances)
    11b. Imperium Romanum (Roman Empire)

    Why does A represent an early game civil war on the fringe of the empire? Well, the latifundia developed in large part from soldiers on long deployments losing their land. In order to maintain and keep order in their growing sphere of influence, Rome needed to keep troops deployed. The logic is that if they had a less responsive military policy, they would have been more at risk to an ambitious general on the fringes of their territory.

    Each path has drawbacks and advantages. Your income, public order throughout your empire, corruption, political influence, imperium, upkeep, unit morale, food and income will all be effected by the choice you make. I'm also thinking of adding custom effect descriptions.

    Ex: You don't just have villa in these territories. There are still small land holders. The name represents the predonimant policy taking over the land. So, buildings could have effects that read something like:
    Villa: 100 income
    Small Estates: 50 income
    To reflect the nuance involved here.

    Triumviri could replace the 'Sodalicium.' It's recognizable to the player, and there are three parties in the game.

    I'm also thinking that I could set it so the player can't convert these chains. Maybe they would have the ability to switch policies at different times in the middle through upgrade paths, but they'd be locked in.

    So, my main question here is - does this make sense to people? Or is it too convoluted? I could make it a simpler.
    Last edited by ABH2; July 31, 2014 at 04:24 PM.


  14. #94

    Default Re: Salvaging politics and dynamic policy choices

    I'm being ambitious here with this concept. I don't know if I'll be allowed to implement it.

    Sparta. This one has two main paths, with the first (late civil war) branching off into two. If the start date of the mod is 219 BC, at that point Sparta would have just lost a disastrous war to Macedon. They would have been in shambles, to be honest. Antigonus was the first foreign conqueror to enter the city. He had restored the Ephors whom Cleomenes had disposed of in a coup (his puppets, basically). In 220, Sparta allied with the Aetolians and took part in the Social War of 220-217. Those still loyal to Cleomenes had massacred the pro-Macedon ephors, and formed an alliance with the Aetolians. They then restored the dual-monarchy, though real power rested with a man named Lycurgus who had no actual right to the throne. After this period, Spartan leadership passed into the hands of tyrants (warlords, basically). The Helots were freed etc.

    Having just had a large army butchered by the Macedonians, manpower was in short supply. Sparta turned to mercenaries for defense (including from Italy, and specifically Tarentum).

    So, the only real choice the player would have is to attempt to rebuild while also fighting a war. This campaign should be very difficult because the player is attempting to do the near impossible. I'm not that worried about AI Sparta surviving, to be honest.

    Efforts to rebuild should weaken Sparta's relationship with other Hellenistic factions - particularly Macedon which should be the overlord of Sparta (client state relationship).

    Main Settlement-Sparta
    1. Sparta
    Spartan Agoge
    2a. Aídes
    3a. Paidískoi peda Krypteia
    4a. Hebontes peda Krypteia
    5a. Syssition peda Krypteia
    6a. Agoga peda Krypteia
    7a. Agoga tou Trophimoi (Foreigners trained by Spartans)
    8a. Seisachtheia (Debt forgiveness)

    9a1. Koinos Kleroi (Common Stock) (Civil War spark, diplomatic hit with Hellenic factions?)
    10a1. Lakedaimonios kai Symmachoi(Lacedaemonians and their Allies)

    9a2. Syntrophos Aides
    10a2. Syntrophos Paidiskoi
    11a2. Syntrophos Hebontes
    12a2. Syntrophos Syssition
    13a2. Syntrophos Agoga
    14a2. Koinos Kleroi (Common Stock) (Civil War spark, diplomatic hit with Hellenic factions?)
    15a2. Nomos Neodamodeis (Law to free Helots)
    16a2. Lakedaimonios kai Symmachoi (Lacedaemonians and their Allies)

    Periokoi/Mixed Agoge

    2b. Seisachtheia (Debt forgiveness)
    3b. Koinos Kleroi (Common Stock)
    4b. Syntrophos Aides
    5b. Syntrophos Paidiskoi
    6b. Syntrophos Hebontes
    7b. Syntrophos Syssition
    8b. Syntrophos Agoga
    9b. Agoga tou Trophimoi (Foreigners trained by Spartans)
    10b. Nomos Neodamodeis (Law to free Helots)
    11b. Lakedaimonios kai Symmachoi (Lacedaemonians and their Allies)

    Tech research - Eisagagei Sarissaphoroi (Introduce Sarissa)/Spartiates Sarissaphoroi

    There's a few concepts at work here. the reformers of Sparta had a number of issues to deal with to rebuild their military strength:
    1. Massive debt among the lower classes. The reform efforts had in the 3rd century started with debt relief.
    2. Land consolidated in the hands of such a small class that the number of citizens had been reduced to a few hundred. Land reform (Koinon Kleroi = Common Stock/allotments of land).
    3. Outdated military. To be honest, Cleomenes had introduced the pike/sarissa during his reign. However, it's likely the Spartan military was left in shambles and this was undone in the aftermath. There's really no good answer here as Spartan development is really a complete what-if scenario.
    4. Freeing the Helots.
    5. Incorporating foreigners into the state. The Trophimoi were a class of foreigners who were welcomed to train in the Spartan Agoge during the city-state's heyday. As Sparta expands this is a way for it to spread its culture.
    6. The Agoge. Cleomenes attempted to establish it. While it continued to exist in later times, it was only nominal or a sideshow.
    7. Syntrophos-mixed class of Spartans. The word is a little ambiguous. It referred to those of mixed heritage (in terms of class). It could be the son of a Spartan/Helot or Perikoi. I'm using the term to mean a mixed class of the Agoge. You are, essentially, training the newly incorporated citizens.

    This plan is ambitious. I have a number of effects planned. Certain lines will weaken the morale of Spartan units in return for strengthening your auxilla/allies/lower class units. Other effects/lines will do the opposite. Recruitment slots, politics/government, imperium will all be impacted by these decisions as well as upkeep.

    I think this system would give the player realistic choices anyone attempting to reshape Sparta would have faced in this time period (as unlikely as that scenario would have been).
    Last edited by ABH2; August 03, 2014 at 01:54 AM.


  15. #95

    Default Re: Salvaging politics and dynamic policy choices

    219 diplomacy map (it's a crazy time period):
    -Aetolians and Spartans at war against Macedon and it's allies arranged in the Hellenic League (this includes the Achaeans). Epirus is basically a client state at this point.
    -Knossos/Crete is in the middle of a civil war in which Knossos is allied to the Aetolians, and the rival cities were allied with Macedon and the Hellenic League.
    -Byzantium and Rhodes were at war.
    -The rebellious Seleucid general Achaeus had declared himself a King and was situated in Sardes. Attalus of Pergamon had lost a war to Achaeus previously and lost the territory he had accumulated. Achaeus controlled most of Asia Minor.
    -Byzantium appealed to Achaeus, and had a short lived alliance. The Rhodians were able to appeal to the Egyptians (who held the father of Achaeus as a prisoner) in order to strike a deal which broke the alliance.
    -Pontus was at war with Sinope
    -The Seleucids were at war with Achaeus, but neither side acted initially.
    -Tylis (an inland city - not a port situated right where Byzantium would be *hint*) would be destroyed in 212 BC by the Thracians (Odryssians in the game).
    -The Illyrians at this point are a tricky mess - Ardiaei in 220 allied with Aetolians before switching sides to support Macedon. By 218, Scerdilaidas (who had agreed to the alliance with Phillip) became the King of Illyria. However, he turned against Macedon which he accused of failing to pay him. Phillip in turn was eying up Illyria and Italy. Technically an ally of Rome.
    -Daorsi - allied and friendly with Rome, but didn't control Delminium. Delminium was in the hands of the Dalmatae.
    -Dalmatae hostile to Rome.
    -219 is also the second/final year of the Second Illyrian War between Rome and it's short-lived client state under Demetrius (who had ruled the coast).
    -Carthage/Macedon alliance.
    -Rome/Macedon - increasing hostility.
    -Rome develops its alliance with Aetolians, First Macedonian War follows.
    The only Hellenistic faction really on the sidelines, then, is Athens, which had been liberated of its Macedonian garrison in 229 BC by the Achaeans.

    So, combined with the Second Punic War, it's a pretty hectic start to the game. It's going to be tough to simulate.

    I'm convinced we need the Aetolians in the game. Larissa needs to be replaced until or unless we can get map tools. I'm also in support of making Tylis into Byzantium. There could, perhaps, be a rebel army to represent the threat of the Celts (who would be destroyed, anyway).

    Knossos should probably also be in revolt at the start of the game.
    Last edited by ABH2; August 03, 2014 at 03:05 AM.


  16. #96

    Default Re: Salvaging politics and dynamic policy choices

    Proposed changes to factions in Balkans
    -Macedon loses Pulpudeva.
    -Tylis is shifted to Pulpudeva
    -Odryssians stay put
    -Byzantium is in the place of Tylis
    -Aetolians for Larissa
    -Epirus client state of Macedon
    -Delmatae controlled Delminium. Should be flipped with Daorsi (who aren't perfectly situated, but this would make more sense). Ardiaei/Daorsi allied with Rome. Delminium hostile.



    Interesting map that highlights what I was going into above. The Thracians are situated fine currently (or Odryssians). Tylis was located somewhere to the east of the Haemus Mountains. They weren't a coastal/trading people.

    Another that puts Tylis right where Pulpeveda would be:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    Map of Macedon:
    Last edited by ABH2; August 03, 2014 at 03:07 AM.


  17. #97

    Default Re: [Workshop] Daruwind's Building Trees and Resources

    I wanted to bump this thread as it has a lot of relevant information.

    I've recently created a new 'sell food' edict which is based entirely off the food building lines the player constructs. A provinces food can now be sold through this edict for +50 income per food stuff.

    It also should be possible to modify the production of a particular resource through another building chain. So, for instance, if you have +5 gold production, another building should be able to enhance that value.


  18. #98

    Default Re: [Workshop] Collection

    Dowload please? Where can I download the icons? please

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •