The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Eveyone doing OCC would be a quick game. Considerably less units to move, considerably less city maint, and considerably less thinking.
But most importantly, easier to eliminate your opponents.
It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O
I wonder what the optimal number of players would be. We usually go with 4, but in OCC, more might be ok.
One issue would be what happens if you capture someone elses city, are you allowed to keep it?
It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O
Well, the optimal number of players would probably be 7 cause the game would run much faster. If we play double production we might just be able to do it without relying too much on colossus, though col wouldn't hurt.
The location of this city would be of paramount importance so would the distance to the other cities.
Probably trade partnerships would develop and possibly roads would connect these two trade partners. Of course assuming you can trust your trade partners
It would be extremely difficult to achieve victory by spacerace if we maintain no tech trade rule.
Let's agree that the one who captures a city can keep that city - you can only build a city once in this game but you can have as many as 7.
One issue would be what happens if you capture someone elses city, are you allowed to keep it?
Once you capture one other city your power and potential will grow so quickly you will be unstoppable. Keep to the OCC rule that you cannot capture another city, you must raze it. Gives the weak player under attack a little chance...
If you do play one, someone post an AAR here (or a link) to let us know what happened.
You could bet that I wouldn't have an unguarded rail line to anybody.
I doubt it would ever get to a space race. It would be a hut chase for non-units and bribing those that would be non-units based on location, and then whoever got leos would probably have a heck of an advantage that I'm sure would be exploited.
Think of what defense you would need to stop a real player. If you were close to the ocean there probably isn't a way. You would be wasting a lot of shields.
The caravan defense/sentry can be effective against the AI, but humans would laugh at it.
It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O
Once you capture one other city your power and potential will grow so quickly you will be unstoppable. Keep to the OCC rule that you cannot capture another city, you must raze it. Gives the weak player under attack a little chance...
You could just build city walls and force the attacker to poison your water supply to reduce the city to size 1 before capturing it. You'd need a massive effort to take another city.
If you make it too hard to take a city, what's the point. The true test is finding the right balance. Or judging when it's time to throw the dice and risk diverting resources to try to take someone out. A pure tech race between 7 one city civs would not hold my interest.
It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O
But of course rah, all aspects of an MP game must be represented here. But in order to increase the number of strategies and allow a tech race if someone chooses so, I believe we have to allow tech trading.
I don't think anybody will leave his city undefended. It's just not in the spirit of MP. So I think shields would be far more valuable than arrows in this game. And with only one city, who needs monarchy?
In a normal MP game you can allow yourself the luxury of losing one of your cities due to poor defence.
In this game, I expect defence at the premium since losing one city means losing your entire civ.
Centuries later, archaeologists discover the remains of your ancient civilization.
Evidence of thriving towns, robotics, roads, and a centralized government amaze the startled scientists.
Finally, they come upon a stone tablet, which contains but one mysterious phrase:
Yeah, pretty good, but I doubt it would be my city destroyed.
We don't allow tech trading in our current games, so I know I wouldn't want it in one of these games. And I would be nice to have only once city that a tech could be stolen from. It's always annoying to be Techs 'R' Us, like I normally am.
It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O
tech trading really would be nescessary. The thing I feel would happen in a MP OCC is that everyone would be so bent out of shape about defense that it would make it diffiucult to build up your city. Perhaps one of the games criteria would be peacful alliance from all civs. Of course RAH would hate that
While in SP it's no problem to save before opening a hut and reloading if you get a city (meaning not OCC any longer), it would be MUCH longer and unpractical in a MP game...
As I'm not a MP specialist, I might be wrong on that, though...
Of course, you could then play without huts, for Rah greatest pleasure...
Tweet
Comment