-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I haven't played a game that long to reach this limitation, but if it's really true then please fix the AI instead of finding ways to ignore the problem.
This might get me banned but i will just have to say it. If modding was allowed in this game, odds are that someone would have fixed the AI by now, it surely wouldn't be the first game to get fixed by its community. I won't speculate on the reasons behind modding prohibition, but it's clear it's not that the game doesn't support modding and it's just that they don't want you to mod it.
This might get me banned but i will just have to say it. If modding was allowed in this game, odds are that someone would have fixed the AI by now, it surely wouldn't be the first game to get fixed by its community. I won't speculate on the reasons behind modding prohibition, but it's clear it's not that the game doesn't support modding and it's just that they don't want you to mod it.
That's not a lose condition that's a bug. The game use to crash when you hit 401 but now they have simply increased the limit to 501. It most likely has something to do with memory allocation. Why they just don't add a simple check to the spawn, If Monster counter > 400 then don't spawn, I don't know. I mean if you have a hard set limit on the number of units due to array variable limitations and memory constraints then the code should be such that it never reaches that limit.
You won't get ban for that. You get ban for talking about HOW to actually do modding, not asking that the Devs support it. Also I recall one of the devs dropping the hint that they "might" support modding in the future but no guarantees.
And for the reasons why the Devs don't want to support modding I suspect it's the same reason a lot of Devs don't want to. The old piracy boggy man, in that if they open up the code so people can see how it works then it's likely someone will crack it so they don't need steam to play it and thus lead to the game being more easily accessible to pirates. Even though pirates crack games with various forms of DRM all the time.
The other argument is the whole DLC route. I've heard this one on a lot of other games, that the Devs don't want to support mods because if people can simply make their own content then they will not buy the DLC and thus the company loses sales. But this line of thinking is simply not true as Civ 4&5, Fallout 3 & NV, Eldar Scrolls Series, and etc have shown in recent years.
If anything a very active modding community can help promote a game as fans dedicate multiple sites to the various mods and some mods become so popular that people buy the game just to play that mod. There is also the benefit that sometimes Devs see a curtain mod is extremely popular and so they incorporate it into the game. Modding community is basically a great prototyping playground on ways to improve the core game.
Lastly there is of course the possibility that the engine just doesn't support modding that well. The code has to be written in such a way that it can support mods. For example if it's hard coded that there are X number of unit and the various places in the code where it only checks of X number then if a modder tries to add a new unit suddenly you have X+1 and the code is not able to handle that. So the simple task of adding a new units because extremely difficult requiring a lot of changes throughout the code.
For a better example of what I mean, there was an open source project for Table Top games that allowed you to create your own rule sets so you could play any Table Top game over the web. I got into it when D&D 4ed came out and they had yet to have any advanced 4ed rules sets made up. In the course of making my own I used a Dynamic Array (Array that can change size for all the non-coders) which stored all of the damage types in the game. I did this because they were adding and planning to add more damage types with other expansions. This made the rule set very easy to mod because all you had to do was go in and add the name of new damage type to the Array and the code could handle it all.
However after posting it for others to use one of the senior guys in the forum criticized the code as being "Hard to read" since many of the people in the forums were not experienced coders. He suggested I changed the code to be a Case Switch statement instead (Again for non-coders that's basically a IF A then do B, if C then do D, and so on). He claimed to be a software engineer for several years and that setup was the way it was done in most companies as well.
The problem with his approach is that any time a new damage type was added it was no longer simply edit one variable and your up and running. Instead it would also mean having to edit the code to add a IF X then do Y statement to every place in the code that was checking for damage type any time you wanted to add a new damage type. So the code would not be nearly as modular and thus be harder to maintain as well.
The type of programming decisions mentioned above need to be taken into consideration early in a project and can be hard to change late in the project since they can require serious rewrites, especially on large projects. I will admit his method would of been easier for other people to read the code and simpler to implement than what I did, but the trade offs are lack of versatility and harder to maintain code base. Having graduated and now working in the software industry for a few years myself I see companies often go with what is quickest to implement rather than what will be better in the long run, all in the interest of simply getting the product out the door and worrying about the details later. It makes me sad.
... Not saying that these Devs are like that just an observation from my own experience at some companies and what I've heard from my former Classmates who have gotten jobs at other software companies.
Last edited:
The game is over. The end can not be undone by backing up a few turns. I consider it as an AI win because the player allowed too many units to be accumilated. It is the Unity spell mark II.
Of course most players will not see this happen unless they play with max planes, max ai, max difficulty (impossible), and max size map (huge). If you fiddle around it can happen on a large map too.
In MOM, when you casted the spell of mastery, you could not cast any other spell which was a huge drawback because you needed magic. So putting heavy pressure on a player could force him to break the spell. Since warlock's magic is less essential, using the same method would not be used.
I agree that it's not a great restriction and if a player knows he cannot lose his empire within 20 turns, he could just sacrifice everything and hope the spell to end before dying.
I agree that it's not a great restriction and if a player knows he cannot lose his empire within 20 turns, he could just sacrifice everything and hope the spell to end before dying.