Hawk66 Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Hello, I just want to share my ideas for a possible SDK/Modding of CMx2 engine. They are not 'whining' requirements, nor I'm 100% sure if they make sense, so don't kick me </font>AI callback routine in c++ to give modders the possibility to influence the AI (for a scenario etc.) Of course this is not that easy due to the fact, that you would need reading access to the complete game environment and write access to all units.</font>Description of scenario file format (technical structure) to give modders the possibility to write own tools to modify an existing scenario.</font> What do you think? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Someone translate please? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 I think that he wants in to BFC's file structure. I really don't think that's going to happen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkEzra Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Any guy who buys all the Cm's is tops in my book. I don't actually understand what you are asking (either) But I'm certain others here do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 I'd guess an API for CM is (a) unworkable and ( undesirable from BFC's viewpoint. You could lobby for greater scripting control, even external script files for certain triggers, but an API - I can't see it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawk66 Posted December 10, 2007 Author Share Posted December 10, 2007 Ups, I've thought my English is quite good for a German. But probably no hit here Yes, I was talking about the BFC's file structure. What I don't understand is, why this (and a limited 'AI' SDK) is not in the interest of BFC as long as you are not able to create own content with it, which cannot be created manually with the built-in tools... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Well, any questions of BFC's desires for control over their product aside... a) How many people would use it? And How much time would it take BFC's single, sole, too-much-to-do-already programmer to do it? I'd use it. I drool at the prospect of it. But spending time making stuff so a couple people can do things more easily is not low-hanging fruit in my opinion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawk66 Posted December 11, 2007 Author Share Posted December 11, 2007 @Phillip: I agree with you, that BFC has probably too less resources to build a real SDK. In general a SDK can be a win-win for both parties. If I'm not wrong, the AI of Civilization 4 was improved by a community project (with help of the SDK) and the developers have retrofitted that coding in an add-on. But regarding the file structure (scenario/campaign), I do not see much effort. It would just be a docu and would allow to play with it (e.g. write some generators to randomize a little bit the existing scenarios or even semi-generate campaigns). In these days such modding support is standard, isn't it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 Originally posted by Hawk66: @Phillip: I agree with you, that BFC has probably too less resources to build a real SDK. In general a SDK can be a win-win for both parties. If I'm not wrong, the AI of Civilization 4 was improved by a community project (with help of the SDK) and the developers have retrofitted that coding in an add-on. But regarding the file structure (scenario/campaign), I do not see much effort. It would just be a docu and would allow to play with it (e.g. write some generators to randomize a little bit the existing scenarios or even semi-generate campaigns). In these days such modding support is standard, isn't it? Actually, this as a sub-set of full API/documentation is not bad idea. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 Aren't they already planning to release modding tools in the future? I don't mod so I don't know what is required but I though I had heard something about this before. Or am I completely confused here? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawk66 Posted December 11, 2007 Author Share Posted December 11, 2007 Originally posted by SgtMuhammed: Aren't they already planning to release modding tools in the future? I don't mod so I don't know what is required but I though I had heard something about this before. Or am I completely confused here? Perhaps Steve can comment on this, when the 1.05 works permit that 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 The mod tool is for skin and sound only. The scenario format will remain locked, and the ai control is already built into the editor. Hope this helps. rune 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 In layman's terms, what is being proposed here? To me modding is just changing the way things look. I don't think any current game allows you to actually mess with source code. Maybe some old stuff that is now freeware. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Originally posted by SgtMuhammed: In layman's terms, what is being proposed here? To me modding is just changing the way things look. I don't think any current game allows you to actually mess with source code. Maybe some old stuff that is now freeware. To my mind opening up the map format would allow 3rd parties to - e.g. - create a dynamic map generator. Sounds good to me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Oh, now I see. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawk66 Posted December 12, 2007 Author Share Posted December 12, 2007 Originally posted by rune: The mod tool is for skin and sound only. The scenario format will remain locked, and the ai control is already built into the editor. Hope this helps. rune If this is the official statement I've to accept it, but that does not mean, that I understand it (scenario format locked). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Originally posted by Hawk66: Ups, I've thought my English is quite good for a German. But probably no hit here Yes, I was talking about the BFC's file structure. What I don't understand is, why this (and a limited 'AI' SDK) is not in the interest of BFC as long as you are not able to create own content with it, which cannot be created manually with the built-in tools... Regarding the file structure. I once asked in CMX1 times if it ain't possible to give us the pure map data in a raw text format, so that maybe a third party can program an alternate quickbattle map generator or similiar things. Steve answered that the scenariofile is encrypted in the same way as the PBEM turn files. To give away unencrypted files such as maps or scenario data would people enable to find a way to unencrypt PBEM-files. Well, I'm not such a techbuff that I know if this is possible or not. But from a practical standpoint let's imagine that somebody would invest a lot of time and efforts to program a tool that can decrypt PBEM files into some kind of editable text format. Now let's furtherly image the poor wannabe cheating bastard that spends some days to work through some megabyte of raw PBEM data to manipulate the result of a single shot fired during a game. With all respect, but Steve argument sounds a bit paranoid for me today... I think it's time to ask the question again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawk66 Posted December 12, 2007 Author Share Posted December 12, 2007 @Leopard II. I fully agree...I think the vast majority of the CMx customers are no counterstrike-kiddies but people who share interest in complex strategy/tactical (war-)simulations and not in cheating. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.