Potential Cradle Bug, or just bad luck?

[Velociryx]

Started my first game of Cradle (huge map, 8 civs, max barbs, "hard" difficulty)....as the Celts, of course! (being a strapping Celtic lad myself, what can I say?

Anyway, I wound up near the Han and the Babs. Not long after the founding of my fifth city, the sound of a weighted net began bein' heard over my turf....a bit of investigating turned up a Bab slaver. Poof, two dead Bab slavers and war with that nation.

No problemo....'cept that when I took their last city and enslaved (conquered the civ) and opted to enslave it (only three tiles distant, too close for my liking), the game froze. No error message, it just stopped responding.

Anybody else seen that one?

Anyway, early impressions of Cradle are that IT ROCKETH!!! In fact, for my next test game--as I'm feelin' in the mood for a little kicka$$--will be last month's tourney game.....here goes!

-=Vel=-

[Wittlich]

Never experienced this problem....so it must be bad luck on your part.

[Pedrunn]

I have experienced this error before too. Martin should take a look at it

[Hermann the Lombard]

Vel: If you saved, exited, and relaunched Cradle were you able to continue? I haven't experienced that bug but maybe I've never enslaved the last city of a given civ.

[Velociryx]

Nahh, I just started over....hadn't really put all that much time into it, and was anxious to download the game of the month....

-=Vel=-

[Martin Gühmann]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Anyway, I wound up near the Han and the Babs. Not long after the founding of my fifth city, the sound of a weighted net began bein' heard over my turf....a bit of investigating turned up a Bab slaver. Poof, two dead Bab slavers and war with that nation.

No problemo....'cept that when I took their last city and enslaved (conquered the civ) and opted to enslave it (only three tiles distant, too close for my liking), the game froze. No error message, it just stopped responding.

Anybody else seen that one?

Well I never saw this but I have to admit that I never tested it to enslave the last city, because I wanted to be able to replace the city of that civ, unfortunatly I am not able to place a settler or city of this civ on the map afterwards it was killed, maybe here lies the problem, I should do a player is valid check before the city is enslaved.

-Martin

[hexagonian]

Martin,

Could you also take a look at the PW bonus that a player gets (not the 75 per pop bonus, but the chunk of PW from the AI civ fund) Vel got over 10,000 on approx. turn 150 from a city capture, and the city was size 3.

Needless to say, this is a little too much to be getting, especially so early in the game. Could you scale this down to 1/10 of that, or disable this part of the code.

Thanks

[Velociryx]

Update on that:

It's now 3760BC and my war with the Eutruscians continues. Captured and kept a size six city (became a five upon moving in), captured and enslaved a size five city. I had spent all but some 3k of my public works points (had to make some loooooong roads, and some thru some pretty expensive territory.

Net results tho, after one additional city capture, and one enslavement:

PW is back up to 27,472. I've currently got my PW set to 10%, so I can *maybe* take credit for 172 of that myself, but I'm not complaining....

-=Vel=-

[Maquiladora]

And you still have PW set to 10%?? May i suggest some trading posts and latifundas? That tech gap is a killer, unless you already have all those, you must be well placed with tile imps now.

[Velociryx]

LOL! Actually, I turned my PW off! Two more city captures and it's up to almost 70k. I don't have the techs yet for any of the coolio terraforming, tho they'll be really cheaply bought when I'm done with my current beeline. My first stop was the tech for Fortifications, and I'm researching it now....the farm techs and such are all 8-9 turns each tho, even without any of the fancy terraforming yet! (yep...the ONLY terraforming in my kingdom so far is roads and whatever happened to be in and around the cities I conquered!)

So....the plan is to build some forts, get those borders secured, and then terraform my nice (safe, and hopefully resistant to pillaging) lands!

-=Vel=-

[Martin Gühmann]

Originally posted by hexagonian
Martin,

Could you also take a look at the PW bonus that a player gets (not the 75 per pop bonus, but the chunk of PW from the AI civ fund) Vel got over 10,000 on approx. turn 150 from a city capture, and the city was size 3.

I could make it so that the number of PW you steals is depending on the city size, and wheather it is the capital, but the problem that the AI has to much PW will still be there.

Originally posted by hexagonian
Needless to say, this is a little too much to be getting, especially so early in the game. Could you scale this down to 1/10 of that, or disable this part of the code.

Thanks

Disabling is always the last thing you should do, the real sollution of this problem would be to make the AI to use the PW and maybe give them less of them, so you could disable player1's PW cheat. Obviously the AI doesn't need the additional PW.

-Martin

[hexagonian]

Could I just change the following entries...

AddGold(player[0], (PlayerGold(player[1]))/Player[1].cities);
AddGold(player[1], -(PlayerGold(player[1]))/Player[1].cities);
MGPwP0 = MGPwP0 + ((player[1].publicworkslevel)/Player[1].cities);
MGPwP1 = MGPwP1 - ((player[1].publicworkslevel)/Player[1].cities);

To

AddGold(player[0], (PlayerGold(player[1]))/20);
AddGold(player[1], -(PlayerGold(player[1]))/20);
MGPwP0 = MGPwP0 + ((player[1].publicworkslevel)/20);
MGPwP1 = MGPwP1 - ((player[1].publicworkslevel)/20);

...so that the PW gain would only be 1/20 of the total fund? This will prevent the early game human windfall, allow the AI to keep its reserve for its early-mid game kick, and also allow the player to still make some sizable PW gains later in the game.

The 75 per pop setting is fine though...

[Martin Gühmann]

That is a temprorial fix, Dave. I would rather find it more reasonable if it depends on the actual PW size, but of course that could be handed diffrently in the early game or you could do it PW size dependent.

-Martin

[hexagonian]

The setting in DiffDB.txt was one that had been in place before you sent me the code. For the current SP game, the bonus is at 4,000PW, so my guess is that the main culprit for the early game AI PW surplus is in Player1's code. Taking away the 4,000 that the AI starts with will not put too much of a dent in that surplus though, especially with Vel ending up with 75,000 PW...

I am actually very happy with the way the AI has been using it's PW funds, and have gone into the cheat mode (later in the game) and the surplus AI PW fund has been very reasonable, so I do not want to touch the ongoing bonus.

The thing is, I want to keep in your code, because it provides a way for a player to carry on a war and bypass the caps, but at the same time, a player can choose to make the game more challenging for himself by choosing not to use that option.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Martin Gühmann
I could make it so that the number of PW you steals is depending on the city size, and wheather it is the capital, but the problem that the AI has to much PW will still be there.

But isn't there a section of the code that also adds PW to your account by directly taking from the AI main fund divided by the number of AI cities. This is the one part of the code that may be giving the huge amounts.

[hexagonian]

Well, I ran a test with the change I made above. Did a city capture thru the cheat mode - here's the result. The AI had a little over 4,000 PW in its fund when I ran the test.

With change...
PW bonus - approx 200 PW per city capture

Without change...
PW bonus - approx 1800 PW per city capture (due to a 3-city empire)

Phew...

[Velociryx]

Hmmm....I dunno, guys. The more I think it over, the more I'm wondering if there should BE a PW reward for taking an enemy city. The basic reward for capturing or enslaving a rival city is already pretty sweet (that being, I get stronger while my rival gets weaker). If I enslave the city, that's even better....I get stronger, my rival gets weaker, andI get the pop points added into my (more easily defended) cities, making them more productive on the whole.

If we further add a PW bonus for each town captured, then what's the incentive for NOT attacking? At this point, with three big benefits to attacking, there's no disincentive present that I can see. No downside, and in fact, attacking becomes an alternative form of generating a steady stream of PW, especially in the very early game, when even the toned down 200 pts is far, far more than I could generate on my own.

Thoughts?

-=Vel=-

[Maquiladora]

I still think its still a good feature, no matter if it helps the human build a few more roads or whatever.

The biggest incentive for attacking is still the option to "enslave" or "disband and road" trick, and not the PW bonus alone.

Getting rid of it altogether wont make enough difference if you dont get rid of enslaving the whole city too. Which i woukdnt like either.

[Velociryx]

Is there a way to tie the max possible PW gain a player could get no greater than a quarter of the amount he could possibly generate on his own (either with or without taking current PW tax rate into account?) That way, there'd be some tradeoff present. If you attack, but have a high PW, sure you'll get more, but in the same breath, you'll be churning out reinforcements at a slower rate. OTOH, if you're running like I am, with PW turned off, then my max amount would be zilchola....something like that?

-=Vel=-

[hexagonian]

Thanks Maquiladora

It'll be interesting to see what other players have to say

Here's my opinion...

I think that the city disbander/enslave option is the most powerful feature of the code, because it enables a player to continue to pursue an aggressive war. It nullifies the city cap. I generally play Huge/Gigantic maps, so this is a feature that would seem taylor-made to global conquest. There is a loss of regard if you raze a city, but this is peanuts, because the AI in Cradle will attack you, so what is a loss of regard in light of that.

But when I play, I do not use this feature - I have razed one city, and it was only to see what happens. I play this way because this is a carryover from my CTP1 days, when this code wasn't available. It makes the game harder, that much is for sure. What it means is that I have to have a long-term plan in place. How many cities do I build and how many do I conquer?

Having this feature in does allow a player a choice, and having the option to set up house rules makes the game fun. Players can choose not to raze cities until 1400AD, for example... And I play for enjoyment, not high score or quickest victory. So I lean toward keeping in the raze/disband feature, only because it is flexible.

In playtesting, I was getting a stallout when I chose 'Enslave' - any way to fix this???

SIDENOTE
I never was too crazy about the raze feature in civ3 because of the way it was implimented. You were most often better off razing a city because of the many negatives if you kept the city - culture and revolt flips and piss-poor production due to corruption were the most glaring. Both could be killers too - if you were in a war and wanted to push onward, you were better off razing because cities would flip on you if not adequetely garrisonned - and the question was - how long do you need to garrison before the city was safe? And the huge corruption hit made big cities practically worthless.

At least in CTP2, you could take those cities and make something worthwhile out of them.

REGARDING PW
Vel is right regarding incentives - but the first 2 are a given - there is no way to change that (unless you choose not to use the disbander/raze code) And couple the fact that the building destroyer code will wreck a good town with a choice not to raze cities, and you have an uphill battle. (You still are weakeneing the AI though...)

This discussion came up when the code was first put out. The code came out at the same time as the AI PW booster, so the feeling was that this was a means to help the human player. I lean towards Vel on this - but I would like to see some kind of boost (maybe no more than 100/200 per capture). A small boost is nice, but it will not be something to hinge an entire strategy on - rather it will be an accent.

In looking at the code, it seems that this can be easily addressed too. I can almost nullify the raid to the AI fund, and adjust the amount based on city pop.

In my playtest, it is the small civs that have this surplus too. I ran a 100 turn test with two civs - One had 3 cities, the other one had about 8 cities. Guess which one had 51,000 PW and which one had 4,500 PW in its fund at turn 100???

[J Bytheway]

Perhaps it would be easiest simply to cap the AI's PW (at 1000 per city, or something likle that). That way it will always have PW when it needs it, but won't have too much for passing on.

[Velociryx]

I'm not sure what the fix is....for starters, I totally agree, a toning down is needed, lest it be unbalancing in favor of early warmongering (which is already quite attractive as an option).

As a side note, I noticed last night that Watch Towers also provide troops with instant healing....didn't know if that was intended or not, but I thought I should mention it....

-=Vel=-

[hexagonian]

No it wasn't...

I was never able to pin down exactly why Fortifications provided instant healing, as there was nothing in any of the coding that iindicated that ability.

So I figured it was a hard-coded occurance, or that it was tied into the following section of coding for Forts.
IntBorderRadius 2
SquaredBorderRadius 5
as this establishes borders - the same feature as cities (which also has the heal ability)

But in looking at the files and comparing the entries between Watchtowers and Forts, the things that jumps out is the defense modifier and the vision ability - these are common to both. I'm hoping that it isn't the vision, because there are other vision-based tile improvements to take into consideration.

I'll have to test it out tonight

As I always intended Watchtowers to be a vision-specific TI first and foremost, I do not have a problem with taking away the defense modifier. But if I can't get this to work, then I will have to put Watchtowers in the place of Forts, boost the price of the towers and move Forts to a later tech - and then obsoleting Watchtowers when Forts come available.

During gameplay, I had built very few Watchtowers, as I concentrated more on getting Forts and using units with high vision/movement to see no-mans' land and then scramble back to my main forces when trouble brewed.

[Devil of Truth]

I agree that there is way too much PW to be gained from conquest – and this should be toned down.

WARNING: Civ3 comparison follows :
Let’s pretend that in the CTP world, PW represents workers (just don’t tell Firaxis PW is better ). When you capture a city and you gain PW, you’re effectively gaining workers. So, what if there’s a random chance (say 50%) that these workers decide to run for the hills and you get nothing ?

This shouldn’t be hard to implement – and would (slightly) reduce the “Rich get richer and the poor get the picture” problem with conquest.

[Velociryx]

::nodding:: yeah, I'm feeling rather poor where PW is concerned. Actually gave myself a 10% PW tax (which is generating all of 52 pts a turn), so I can start providing a bit of a boost myself. After a massive round of road building, fort-and-watch-tower building, and general repairs, I have slightly less than 20k, which should still be enough to lay down a pretty massive stream of those romancollectivefarmingthingys when I get the tech for it (which, gods willing, will be soon....I don't know that I can hold out much longer ignoring the military side of the tree....my warrior/slinger groups are getting hammered now, but increasingly effective enemy troopers....MW's, swordsmen, and archers are all over the place, but my old guard is still hanging tough.....for how much longer? I dunno, but hopefully till we can get the juicy terraforming in place, and then play some rapid military catchup, make a dash for Monarchy and a higher city cap, and finally put the southern reaches of the continent (which is a seething mass of chaos....no less than 8 new civs have been born in that area as cities revolt and such....many cities are stacked 3 tiles apart, too, as the civs compete with each other for space. I'll happily relieve them of their burdens, just as soon as I get an increased city cap. Already one over it, and since I got beat to the temple of Zeus, my happiness won't stand much more of an increase.

So....we're in a holding pattern, scrambling to keep our armies alive, and scrambling to research those terraforming techs!

-=Vel=-

[Hermann the Lombard]

In my playtest, it is the small civs that have this surplus too. I ran a 100 turn test with two civs - One had 3 cities, the other one had about 8 cities. Guess which one had 51,000 PW and which one had 4,500 PW in its fund at turn 100???

That 51,000 (like Vel's result) sounds like a bug. It seems the AI usually does NOT have a massive surplus in the early game. Personally, I like a moderate PW bonus in conquest, and I don't think it should be tied to the conqueror's own PW output. After all, the Huns and the Mongols didn't produce much of their own, but they gained a lot by conquest. That was part of the point. For that matter, look at Rome after the conquest of Dacia. Basically they took everything that wasn't nailed down, and pried loose what WAS...and some of the booty could be seen as PW rather than gold.

[Martin Gühmann]

Originally posted by Hermann the Lombard
That 51,000 (like Vel's result) sounds like a bug. It seems the AI usually does NOT have a massive surplus in the early game. Personally, I like a moderate PW bonus in conquest, and I don't think it should be tied to the conqueror's own PW output. After all, the Huns and the Mongols didn't produce much of their own, but they gained a lot by conquest. That was part of the point. For that matter, look at Rome after the conquest of Dacia. Basically they took everything that wasn't nailed down, and pried loose what WAS...and some of the booty could be seen as PW rather than gold.

That is the basic concept of getting PW due to conquest. You simply steal it when you conquer it. Maybe some of it could be used for healing units, and maybe some of it could be lost in the battle. So the more you have the more can be wasted. The gain of PW must be related to amount of PW that could be stolen.

I think that player1's PW cheat causes a part of the problem, I used by accident the first version of the cheat that gave less PW then the second version, I saw that this was enough, I came to the conclusion that settings in the diffDB are enough.

-Martin

[hexagonian]

The heal rate is caused by the defense bonus, so I dropped it from the Watchtower. Problem solved.

Meantime keep the reports coming in about any inconsistencies that are occuring. I will bundle the fixes up after the tournament and post them as an update.

Sheesh, I thought I was out of the update business...

[Hermann the Lombard]

Originally posted by hexagonian Sheesh, I thought I was out of the update business...

There's no escape for you...my precious.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Hey Hex,

I probably have a messed up system as I hear of no others having the game lock up. I downloaded latest and greatest on your site and fired up the game via the Modswap utility . Everything was fine, the game loaded I was able to play a grand total of about 12 turns Enough to get 2 spearmen out and start exploring (I was playing medium dif) then all of sudden the game locked for no apparent reason.

It happened both times I tried, once on regular Cradle the other on the Alpha Centauri long game.

Any thoughts, suggestions?

Og