Playtesting "The River War v4 beta (for ToT)"

[fairline]

Wow, Christmas has come early! Nice one Allard

Boco is right: apologees to everyone I owe units to, but I need to make a few new ones for this... The Vickers is out of place, and I have some newer British colonials troops in ToT format, if Allard is interested.

Allard, I love this scenario in all it's formats, but one thing has always niggled my pedantic mind - everything I have read about the Anglo-Egyptian Army says that the Sudanese battalians were more disciplined and soldierly than their Egyptian counterparts. Will you consider swapping their stats in the scenario?

[Allard HS]

Now that's good! Already some useful things I can work with.

did you intend a 1 tech/turn rate? It's not difficult to maintain. I seem to be getting reinforcements pretty quickly.

Euhm, oops, no, not that fast. That's a mistake. I intended to give an advance every say 3-4 turns. But it should be a well-considered choice between making money to buy Soudanese units at the spot wanted and researching units mostly far away. But still, by maximising research while not losing money and not causing too much unhappiness, to -say- 30/60/10% should allow a new tech every 3-4 turns. Tech paradigm in the cheat menu should be changed to 4/10 instead of 1/10, then.

What are your thoughts on including a Red Sea naval squadron?

No real thoughts behind that one. Might be a good idea to include, except that it is not really in the scope of the scenario, and might make defense of Tokar too easy, while it should be a hard job over there (after all, that was Kitchener's first real job to get noticed, by his brutal treatment over there and finally pacifying the tribes).

Historically, the Camel Corps followed a difficult but passable route between Merowe and Abu Hamed. Would it alter the AI's behavior too much to put one in?

I think that that might be a good idea indeed, but I would like a different solution, to prevent a RR there and too many troops walking around, by giving the CC the ability to cross impassable. I know, that might given some other problems, but still probably the best solution. What do you think?

If it's not already on your list, you might want to use a different icon for the Dervish artillery. If you're drafting Fairline, tell him it's more important than Turkish trains.

I don't want to be too demanding on the poor busy man, but if he doesn't mind helping me, of course I would be absolutely very grateful if he could make me one. I have no idea what it would look like, though, cause I have only vague descriptions, and absolutely no pictures.

Unbuildable Anglo-Egyptian Unit stats aren't listed in the Civilopedia. Instead of making them obsolete, you might want to use an unreachable preq.
As the beta test matures, it would be helpful to have some clues in Describe.txt indicating what happens when you receive specific techs.

done. will post the update shortly.

If you think it would help, I can compile a list of suggestions for Game.txt.

on my TDL, but if you have suggestions, I'd like to hear them, of course.

The steamers were sternwheelers. From the pics I've seen, the Maxims were largely mounted on artillery-style carriages.

hmm, I'm not too great an expert on this area.. I trust your advice.

The Vickers is out of place, and I have some newer British colonials troops in ToT format, if Allard is interested.

My ears are getting red with eagerness already..

that the Sudanese battalians were more disciplined and soldierly than their Egyptian counterparts. Will you consider swapping their stats in the scenario?

Hmm, that's a thing I had been considering myself earlier, as my sources tell the same. I did swap them, but later swapped them back, as I thought there were probably more things to consider, like the simulation of the difficulty to get good training, etc. and also the fact that you can simply build them, which might make it too easy. Now that I think of it, though, I might split them in two, the units given at the start would be with better stats, and the units hastily assembled by events or by building in cities would have the same stats as the Egyptians. Already there are some pseudo-Soudanese Infantry units, but I don't want to spoil that. I could use those.

[Boco]

Originally posted by Allard HS
Tech paradigm in the cheat menu should be changed to 4/10 instead of 1/10, then.

Should I do this, or are you going to post a new Riverwar.scn? Should I also change the research progress so that the first tech is discovered on the right turn?

No real thoughts behind that one. Might be a good idea to include, except that it is not really in the scope of the scenario, and might make defense of Tokar too easy, while it should be a hard job over there (after all, that was Kitchener's first real job to get noticed, by his brutal treatment over there and finally pacifying the tribes).

You're right about scope. Including the RN would require a lot of testing and rebalancing — all for a minor side show.

I think that that might be a good idea indeed, but I would like a different solution, to prevent a RR there and too many troops walking around, by giving the CC the ability to cross impassable. I know, that might given some other problems, but still probably the best solution. What do you think?

Letting the CC roam freely sounds dangerous, and it seems a poor strategy to build a RR in that area. Overall, however, you're probably right. Placing a passable corridor between Merowe and Abu Hamed is likely to siphon the Ansar westward from Abu Hamed once Merowe is captured. Just when the railway is approaching from the north! The stats for Unpassable are ideal to discourage the CC from roaming, especially if there are some Fur or Baggara riding nearby. So your idea has a good chance of working. You're probably way ahead of me on this, but I suspect that you might need to tweak some CreateUnit events to make unwanted CC treks dangerous (e.g. from Tambuk to Abu Hamed).

I don't want to be too demanding on the poor busy man, but if he doesn't mind helping me, of course I would be absolutely very grateful if he could make me one. I have no idea what it would look like, though, cause I have only vague descriptions, and absolutely no pictures.

My bet is that you couldn't stop him from making icons. I doubt there's a scenario on his hard disk that still has the designer's original units.bmp. I'd make suggestions, but Fairline knows mid-19th century arty better than me.

on my TDL, but if you have suggestions, I'd like to hear them, of course.

Oops! Sorry to jump on that. This is a beta, after all.

Hmm, that's a thing I had been considering myself earlier, as my sources tell the same. I did swap them, but later swapped them back, as I thought there were probably more things to consider, like the simulation of the difficulty to get good training, etc. and also the fact that you can simply build them, which might make it too easy. Now that I think of it, though, I might split them in two, the units given at the start would be with better stats, and the units hastily assembled by events or by building in cities would have the same stats as the Egyptians. Already there are some pseudo-Soudanese Infantry units, but I don't want to spoil that. I could use those.

Maybe the buildable Sudanese can be Reservists.

[AGRICOLA]

I've had a pretty thorough look at Riverwar before starting play. Strategically, it looks like it will be a lot of fun to use limited forces to overcome a numerous enemy as well as to deal with extremely difficult terrain.

Here are a few first impressions.

1. This is not a scen that can be played easily without a grid. The terrain is too monotonous for that. However, the map seems unnecessarily cluttered up by the double grid lines. Also, the dotted city ZOC overlays obscure what units or improvements lie underneath.

I removed the double grid lines and got rid of the ZOC markers entirely. That made the map a great deal less visually cluttered.

2. IMO, impassable terrain plays such a major role in the scen that it should be a bit more visible. I fixed mine with a 4x4 pixel red square in the centre of each impassable grid square. That made the pattern much easier to see. This may not be very realistic but it does provide what I wanted.

3. On the small world map, the ocean and navigable rivers are sand colored. This is also the case with the game map as one zooms out. I changed the 3 ocean terrain icons from sand color to blue. That fixed the problem and did not seem to adversely affect anything else.

4. The resource map in the city window uses the same symbols for resources as many other scens. IMO, they should be changed so that all 3 have highly distinctive shape and color for easier reference. Vanilla Civ2 has some pretty good ones.

5. The question of info on non-buildable units has already been addressed. In addition, a rather comprehensive readme might be very helpful. It took me a while to figure out why the resource map for Wady Halfa shows that two squares are used by a nonexistent city and how to get British forces to Suakin across unstable ground. Would it be better if the term "unstable" were replaced by "waterless" or something similar? It might give players a clue as to how to proceed.

[Boco]

After working with El Aurens, I must be too used to subtle differences in terrain appearance by now. No grid works for me. Good thing, though. When tired, my eyes start seeing double. Those grid shadows are creative, but distracting in their current form.

There are a lot of other creative ideas in the bmp files, but yes, the terrain could be refined a bit. Desert and Trade Route effectively represent arid areas that can support troops. Unpassable, Unstable, and Hills cannot. I'd suggest using multiple versions of the shrubby desert icon (perhaps with a little sparser vegetation) as the passable desert, and the sand only versions for Unstable. I know the term 'Unstable' came from Winston, but Agricola's suggestion of Waterless (or simply Dry Desert) makes sense. Visual cues for this topic are very important for playability, but I'd vote for a non-measles solution.

Besides an entry about "Label Cities" in the readme, which I'll bet is already on the TDL, you can get around the used city squares in Wady Halfa simply by changing the squares used by "(to Abu Hamed)".

Btw, I don't think it can happen, but can Raiders (and now the CC) ever cross the Nile without a boat?

[Allard HS]

@Boco:

You're probably way ahead of me on this, but I suspect that you might need to tweak some CreateUnit events to make unwanted CC treks dangerous (e.g. from Tambuk to Abu Hamed).

That's a good idea, especially because the first part of the scenario should be the hardest part, when the troops from Suakin are not yet available, and very few - stronger- reinforcements have arrived.

How do you feel, by the way, of the size of the Suakin army? And of the movement of the Indian regiments? Should the whole of the Suakin army be forced to somehow stay there? It would be more historical, but less fun (after all, it's just a scenario, not a simulation).

Maybe the buildable Sudanese can be Reservists.

I'm not really the military expert here, but would that not be historically uncorrect?

@Agricola: first of all thank you very much for your constructive comments.

This is not a scen that can be played easily without a grid. The terrain is too monotonous for that. However, the map seems unnecessarily cluttered up by the double grid lines. Also, the dotted city ZOC overlays obscure what units or improvements lie underneath.
I removed the double grid lines and got rid of the ZOC markers entirely. That made the map a great deal less visually cluttered.

I was under the impression that nobody ever played any scenario or game with the map grid turned on actually! I use it only for quickly telling the city zoc, which I made quite nice-looking I think with my semi-transparent dots.

I personally never had trouble with the squares without the grid. But then, I use the keyboard a lot, maybe that makes a change.

But, ok, if you insist I will turn the grid back to normal again.

IMO, impassable terrain plays such a major role in the scen that it should be a bit more visible. I fixed mine with a 4x4 pixel red square in the centre of each impassable grid square. That made the pattern much easier to see. This may not be very realistic but it does provide what I wanted.

I'm not sure what you mean. You say the impassable squares, but I think you mean what I have called "unstable ground". Because the impassable terrain is clearly marked with a square around it.
Actually, I thought that it the difference was quite visible. It's whiter, and less flat.

On the small world map, the ocean and navigable rivers are sand colored. This is also the case with the game map as one zooms out. I changed the 3 ocean terrain icons from sand color to blue. That fixed the problem and did not seem to adversely affect anything else.

No, but you don't have the 19th century-looking map window. And it's only a problem with the unplayable higher zoom-out factor.
I like it better this way. It's probably just a matter of taste, so if you disagree, feel free to use your terrain

The resource map in the city window uses the same symbols for resources as many other scens. IMO, they should be changed so that all 3 have highly distinctive shape and color for easier reference. Vanilla Civ2 has some pretty good ones.

Good idea. I shall have a look at it. What's vanilla civ2?

The question of info on non-buildable units has already been addressed. In addition, a rather comprehensive readme might be very helpful.

Yet to come, yet to come...

Would it be better if the term "unstable" were replaced by "waterless" or something similar? It might give players a clue as to how to proceed.

Yes, that's probably better, and more helpful for the somwhat difficult step of "irrigating" the desert.

@Boco:

but can Raiders (and now the CC) ever cross the Nile without a boat?

No, they can't, which of course is entirely not historically correct. The AI doesn't allow for a useful way of ferrying the units over, though, and besides, it has no real negative influence, except an occasional stupid raider or two that keeps "locked" opposite Assuan. Might be a good idea to send those units a moveunit command every few turns.

[Boco]

Here's a link on the Egyptian army: http://www.savageandsoldier.com/articles.html. It notes that the 15th-18th Egyptians were reservists. This is consistent with WC referring to the 16th Egyptians at Kassala as reservists (check the index of "River War" for Egyptian Army). By 1896, the all of the first line Egyptian (1-8) and Sudanese (IX-XIV) were formed. Since all the last battalions to be fielded seemed to be 'reservists', I was rationalizing that builds should be from this pool. I'd argue for 3a, 3d stats for these buildables. Another option is to allow building units typified by the Kassala Arab Battalion (ex Italian Ascaris, aka Kassala Irregular Bn). My own vote would be to allow the building of both Reservists and Irregulars.

As you know, the entire Suakin area represents a 'what-if', since HHK deprived them of camels necessary for offensive action. The only march these malaria-ridden troops made was from Tokar to Kassala (16th Egyptians and some CC). I very much like the improvements of v4. Now a path must be cleared by engineers to allow these troops to participate in the primary campaign. That's a very good simulation. It would be nice to allow the march from Tokar to Kassala, but that takes careful planning (plus I haven't seen your sequence of events for Kassala). That route shouldn't be practical (or possible?) for all the artillery and Maxims in NE Sudan. Overall, I applaud that you allow the player to deviate from history, but force him to face historical limitations.

For fun, I suspect you've deviated a bit from the historical OOB and situation in the NE Sudan. The artillery and Maxims seem too plentiful. On the other hand, the Maxim battery count seems low along the Nile. Tokar is much more vulnerable in 'River War' than it actually was in 1896. It looks like you've chosen to use the Ansar forces that threatened this area between 1885 and 1891 against the Indian 1896 garrison. These deviations make for a fun game in this region. The high density of artillery and Maxims also encourage the building of the Suakin Rwy. In a way, it appears that you're encouraging that too much, but it's much too early in the playtest to pass judgement on that.

I think the mf's of the NE Sudan forces is about right. If they were any faster, they would tip the scales too much along the Nile once the Suakin Rwy is laid. However, you might consider deploying an Indian Cav at Suakin (1st Bombay Lancers, http://www.defencejournal.com/nov99/13th-duke.htm ).

It's good that there're no unblocked land routes over the Nile. Removes one of my reservations about allowing the CC to enter impassable terrain.

I think I can start a new beta test on Tuesday. Let me know what changes to put in.

[AGRICOLA]

Originally posted by Allard HS
I was under the impression that nobody ever played any scenario or game with the map grid turned on actually! I use it only for quickly telling the city zoc, which I made quite nice-looking I think with my semi-transparent dots.

I always have the grid on to better work with aircraft and ship ranges and general unit movement. The use/non-use of the grid may be an interesting question for a poll at Poly and CFC. Regarding the city ZOC markings, I owe you a big thanks because I've never liked or needed them and messing around with the Riverwar ones accidentally let me figure out how to get rid of them.

Originally posted by Allard HS
But, ok, if you insist I will turn the grid back to normal again.

Please, I'm in no position to insist on anything. Whether or not to make changes is the exclusive prerogative of designers.

Originally posted by Allard HS
I'm not sure what you mean. You say the impassable squares, but I think you mean what I have called "unstable ground". Because the impassable terrain is clearly marked with a square around it.

No, I really did mean impassable (unpassable) squares. But, as Boco suggested, my "measles" solution may indeed be too extreme. I just wanted to see how impassable terrain compartmentalizes the map.

Originally posted by Allard HS

The resource map in the city window uses the same symbols for resources as many other scens. IMO, they should be changed so that all 3 have highly distinctive shape and color for easier reference. Vanilla Civ2 has some pretty good ones.

Good idea. I shall have a look at it. What's vanilla civ2?

This is a pet peeve of mine which I keep raising once or twice a year. The attached images may help explain what I'm talking about.

A. Resource map from Riverwar.
B. The same resource map except the that resource icons are standard Civ2 (vanilla Civ2).
C. The same resource map with the very simple set of icons that I paste into every scen or game.

[fairline]

I am desparate to play this one, but my PC throws a wobbler and overheats when I fire up ToT. Running with the case off and a domestic fan blowing into it's guts just about allows me to play normal civ....oh well. Reading Boco's playtest comments is fun and frustrating in equal measure!

As for the grid / no grid debate, I've never had a problem with the terrain in Riverwar versions 1 and 2, but as yet can't comment about this ToT version. I never play with it on in any scenario for that matter; maybe this is a function of playing with the keyboard rather than the mouse, as Allard suggests (?)

Boco: that's a great link to the Egyptian army page at Savage and soldier; the link doesn't seem to work BTW but some frantic Googling got me there in the end. Interesting to read more about the Sudanese battalions impressive ability relative to the (albeit much improved since the first Sudan campaign) Egyptian equivalents. Allard, I think you could have Sudanese regulars with combat stats not far from the British units and, as Boco says, a buildable reservist Sudanese unit for garrison work.

Interesting also for me as a military histary geek was the description in that article of the Sudanese and Egyptian campaign uniforms; brown jerseys for the Egyptians and blue for the Sudanese. I have read elsewhere this is the reverse, ie blue for the Egyptians. Boco: you're as sad as me in this obsessing about detail ( ): I'm well into making a set of units for this and I want to get this right for some unfathomable reason - does the Osprey Omdurman book have any details?

[Allard HS]

@Boco:

That's a great website! Lots of new info, as well as good details.

Yes, of course, the whole large-scale Suakin attack is just for the player's fun. I thought the game would become too boring if there wouldn't be something to bind the player especially in the beginning, and to keep him playing. Maybe I gave the Suakin army too much artillery and Maxims, yes. I have now replaced one maxim by the 1st Bombay Lancers, and am thinking about removing the "heavy artillery" altogether. Not yet decided, really.

Indeed, I also blocked the player the shorter way to Kassala (though of course the Camel Corps can now pass it). Mostly for gameplay purposes, again.

@Agricola:

The exclusive prerogative of designers? Quite the opposite, actually, the players may decide most. After all, what's a designer if noone plays the scenario?

In the newest version, I have not yet greatly changed the terrain or the resource icons, but that's next on my list.

@Fairline:

Yes, I now have 3 Sudanese Inf types (I keep calling it Soudanese, but only because WC does so). Regular units, given at the start, which have 5a/3d, buildable reserve units (4a/3d) and converted Ascaris (also 4a/3d). The Egyptians have also been downgraded to 4a/3d. Poor guys. But I was finally convinced after I saw that webpage.. Still doubting if I would make the British units 6a/4d, 5a/4d or 6a/3d.

[Allard HS]

Beta 2 is now uploaded.

http://apolyton.net/upload/view.php?...Warv4beta2.zip

Unfortunately, some units needed to be switched around for better overview, so I'm afraid it won't be 100% competible with your savegames. Some units are messed up.

New units:
3 types of Soudanese Infantry instead of 2
New 1st Bombay Lancers at Suakin (instead of one Maxim! So please replace that one in your game.)
2 Camel Corps units instead of the old one. (same story)
Maxim replaced by Maxim and Krupp (same story again)

Many other remarks from this thread have also been changed.

Triggers are now visible. In the real version, they'll of course need to be invisible. If you want to be surprised, remove the squares in the unit slots. (and the sprite file)

My personal research excel sheets have been added. Some of it won't make sense for most of you

Some events have been changed. Especially some AI stuff.

Well, I'm sure there's more that I changed, but I can't think of it right now. Unit icons are now yet perfect (especially the krupp and maxims).

Oh yes, and I gave the Soudanese Infantry units a blue coat instead of a grey one..

[Boco]

Can't wait until tomorrow night. The job's got me tonight.

You know, Allard, you really shouldn't feed hapless obsessives like Fairline and myself with such an excellent Overzicht of your design in Excel.

Historically, I'd keep the British with a 4d. They had better rifles. I reread part of WC's account of Omdurman. There was a close shave when a huge Ansar charge bore down on 3 Sudanese Bn's. The Sudanese almost used up their ammo before the host got into effective range. Brits marched up and broke the attack with their better rifles and firing discipline. The Sudanese weren't about to bolt, though. That's the historical argument. I'll let you know this player's opinion in several days (don't see a big civ session coming this week ). Agricola may be a bit faster with feedback, plus he's got a bit of Xin Yu in him.

Interesting also for me as a military histary geek was the description in that article of the Sudanese and Egyptian campaign uniforms; brown jerseys for the Egyptians and blue for the Sudanese. I have read elsewhere this is the reverse, ie blue for the Egyptians. Boco: you're as sad as me in this obsessing about detail ( ): I'm well into making a set of units for this and I want to get this right for some unfathomable reason - does the Osprey Omdurman book have any details?

Allard, I suspect you've read this book, too. No color plates of the non-Brits (so many of the 21 Lancers, though, that I thought I'd find one of their cook), but the text explicitly confirms the website.

Yes, of course, the whole large-scale Suakin attack is just for the player's fun. I thought the game would become too boring if there wouldn't be something to bind the player especially in the beginning, and to keep him playing.

True confession time. This idea worked so well for RWv1, that I decided to use it for v2 of El Aurens, compressing the entire a year (1915) of Turk raids on the Canal into turns 1 and 2.

Triggers are now visible. In the real version, they'll of course need to be invisible. If you want to be surprised, remove the squares in the unit slots. (and the sprite file)

You can also turn on the "invisible until attack" and "override .SPR file for this unit" switches in @UNITS_ADVANCED. Saves having to use alternative files. If the units are air and 0af, they won't even show in the city schermpje.

Fairline, what is it with inadequate PC fans these days. A few years back, I replaced my W98 Dell after months of running it next to a house fan. Now, I've just realized that my UPS is dead...just as we enter brownout season (34.5°C tomorrow).

[Edit]
@Agricola
Thanks for the city screen post. I'm afraid with ToT's defaults, you might have to air your pet peeve more than twice a year. I'll see what I can do in EAv2.
[/Edit]

[AGRICOLA]

Originally posted by Allard HS
Triggers are now visible. In the real version, they'll of course need to be invisible. If you want to be surprised, remove the squares in the unit slots. (and the sprite file)

Originally posted by Boco
You can also turn on the "invisible until attack" and "override .SPR file for this unit" switches in @UNITS_ADVANCED. Saves having to use alternative files. If the units are air and 0af, they won't even show in the city schermpje.

I've been trying to get rid of the $#@%&? triggers but have had a remarkable lack of success. I can get rid of the writing but not the health bars. Here's what I've done:

" remove the squares in the unit slots" - Replaced the 4 trigger units with one of the blank unit icons in UNITS.

"(and the sprite file)" - Renamed .spr files to XXXA.spr and XXXB.spr but did not delete them. I figured that was enough. Should I delete one? Which one?

"You can also turn on the "invisible until attack" and "override .SPR file for this unit" switches in @UNITS_ADVANCED. Saves having to use alternative files. - Have done that. I hope that the following is correct:
DarfurTrigger
10000001, 00000000, 0, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Any help would be greatly appreciated.


COMMENTS:
1. The RULES file is the best organized one that I have ever seen, even though some of the Dutch comments are beyond my meagre knowledge.
You may want to check the @UNITS_ADVANCED entry for the Fashoda Trigger; the 0000000, 000000 . . . . . . line precedes the trigger.

2. The scenario is certainly dripping with "atmosphere". It IS slow moving and the RR-Steamer-RR-Steamer logistics are a nightmare but that's how things happened in 1896. Unit balance appears to be spot on. The gunboats are the critical attack unit because of the risk of razing towns with no Zeribas. Riverwar is an apt name.

3. Gameplay is in Aug '96, the east side of the Nile has been captured as far as Kerma and the town is stuffed full of units preparing to attack Dongola.

4. I miscalculated at Tokar. Figuring that there was no hope in holding that miserable outpost, I changed production to Naziriyah (rather than pay to RB a second garrison unit) and starved the city to prepare it for razing when the Dervishes attacked. Sold the Naziriyah as planned but then the Indian Inf garrison upset all calculations by surviving the onslaught. They are still holding out as of now.

5. You may want to change the Osman Digna popup to "He has been transported to Omdurman to recuperate, . . . . . . ."
I've changed the rank of the sharpshooting sergeant who only wounded the b******d at Suakin to private.

6. I've noticed that there is now no Raider activity in the Assuan - Wady Halfa area and have started to reduce garrisons to single Inf units. I also have pipe dreams about leaving the towns undefended if no hostiles appear in the next 6 months.

A Raider unit, spawned every 2 or 3 turns at random locations near towns along the rivers would do much to keep certain players honest.

[fairline]

Allard: Here's the first of the unit updates. They're as geekily accurate as I could make them in terms of uniforms and flags. BTW, the Egyptian flag at this time was three crescents and moons - the single one as used in EA was later. The S(o)udanese are dressed in blue-grey jerseys and blue puttees while the Egyptians are in brown; I have a pic showing a group of Egyptian CC blokes wearing the khaki jacket and no fez cover, while all the other pics of Egyptian infantry have the fez-cover with neck-flap and jerseys. Brits had white belts and equipment at this time, while the Indian and Egyptian armies had brown leather.

I would use pose rather than uniform variation to indicate unit strength BTW. More to follow....

[Boco]

@Agricola: those two edits worked for me. I suspect you might have done one of two things:[list=1][*]Edited the wrong column of @UNITS_ADVANCED
Does it look like this?

00000000, 00000000, 0, 0000000000000000,0000000000000000,0000000000000000, [B][SIZE=3]1[/SIZE][/B]000001[B][SIZE=3]1[/SIZE][/B]  ;0 DarfurTrigger

[*]Edited and saved Rules.txt, then loaded a SAV or SCN file without first exiting ToT.[/list=1]

6. I've noticed that there is now no Raider activity in the Assuan - Wady Halfa area and have started to reduce garrisons to single Inf units. I also have pipe dreams about leaving the towns undefended if no hostiles appear in the next 6 months.

Lack of a garrisons doesn't appear to affect happiness. AH, is the AE 'monarchy' a republic? Looks like an ungarrisoned city can build and deploy one Soudanese Inf. (R) without revolting. The second such deployment causes unhappiness.

Agricola, what's your building strategy? Many cities with Caravan Financing and few actually building units? I tend to go for Nazirahs myself. That worked well in v1, because there wasn't a huge need for Egyptian or Sudanese Inf upriver. The existing force was plenty. I don't yet know how AH is in v4, though.

@Fairline