Anyone up for a patched succession game?

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

I'd be following closely, if the game does get played. And if you have a units.gif to go with the rules.txt and game.txt files, I'd be interested in playing a game. On my own, of course.

[Old n Slow]

I might be willing to join in as well.

[Sore Loser]

Originally posted by rjmatsleepers
Another point that this particular 56 year old conservative

Just HOW many 56-year-old conservatives are there here?

has at the back of his mind is whether the rules changes are actually balanced.

They aren't all that well balanced yet, another reason why I made this post is that I would like to get some feedback.

We know that in Civ II there are a lot of strategic decisions that are very finely balanced.

Again, the game mode that I intended this for was non-ELG and SP. Both of those are interesting ways to play the game, but I would like to expand on the possibilities for SP play, specifically succession games. That said, I don't feel that the gameplay is very well balanced unless you add additional challenges. Specifically, I think the balance between expansion and perfectionism is bad. And caravans are poorly balanced, as you mention.

There is a risk that with so many changes rules.txt, we take the trouble to work our way through what sounds like a very different game, and then some clever person (living in Seattle?) discovers a killer strategy that guarantees a win.

I disagree. To me, challenge in games comes from two sources: Playing against better players and changing the rules. Both provide gameplay satisfaction to me. MP provides one kind of challenge, succession games another kind. Besides, I feel fairly confident that this killer strategy doesn't exist.

La Fayette, Old n Slow: Thank you for the encouragement, I'll certainly try to start one up. What is the minimum number of players for this to be any fun? I'm aiming for 5.

STYOM: There is no units.gif, the games.txt file has been modified only to allow for additional difficulty levels and map settings.

Old n Slow:

The units are not well balanced. This is partly because I'm more of a builder kind of player and thus don't really know much The HP/FP are uniformly set to 4/2 because I never understood the significance of either. I know what the terms mean, but how does a 4/3 unit perform differently than a 6/2 unit? I put them to same values so they'd be easier to evaluate. Modern units do indeed have fewer advantages over pre-modern ones. I have mostly been testing this in pre-modern times, so there is probably room for improvement here. However, one of the points with the military bit is that you shouldn't just use tanks for offense, I've been trying to make every modern unit unique and useful in some way.

You raise another point, namely how to make the AI stronger. This is what I've done so far:
1) Raised the production cost reduction to 40% (from 20%)
2) Made Despotism more useful, meaning that the AI won't suffer so much from it
3) Increased food cost for settlers, which doesn't harm the AI (their cities never starve, and their settlers are never disbanded due to starvation)
4) Added coastal flag to all sail-driven ships (ignored by AI)
5) Raised the difficulty level to 7 and increased the net riot factor (unrest doesn't hamper the AI as much as it does human players)

[SlowThinker]

Sore Loser,
you spread your thoughts over too many threads. Don't you want to talk about rules.txt details in one thread only? I propose Rules.txt modifications for SP games in the Scenario League (or any other thread, but I suggest to put links pointing to the chosen thread in remaining ones, so that the debate is directed towards one thread only.

[Sore Loser]

I know, too many words and too many threads I'll follow your suggestion and stop posting here.

[SlowThinker]

I generously permit you to post here about other things, only your rules.txt proposal is banned here.

[rjmatsleepers]

Originally posted by Sore Loser


Just HOW many 56-year-old conservatives are there here?

1947 was the peak of the post-war baby boom so there are a lot of us out here (I guess a large number of people who had been on active service got home in 1946 )

I'm not sure why we are conservative - actually I'm not sure we really are that conservative. But we do take a little bit of convincing.

RJM at Sleeper's

[duke o' york]

Was it Churchill who said:
"Any man who is not a liberal in his twenties has no heart. Any man who is not a conservative after he is thirty has no brain."

[Sore Loser]

It's hardly fair to keep bumping this thread after I've pledged to stop posting here

As for Churchill, we'll see about that. I like to think of myself as progressive rather than either liberal or conservative. At any rate, those terms have different connotations in Danish politics, liberal=right-wing, conservative=also right-wing

[rjmatsleepers]

Originally posted by Sore Loser
It's hardly fair to keep bumping this thread after I've pledged to stop posting here

As for Churchill, we'll see about that. I like to think of myself as progressive rather than either liberal or conservative. At any rate, those terms have different connotations in Danish politics, liberal=right-wing, conservative=also right-wing

You must be careful not to confuse conservative with Conservative. Many conservative people are not Conservative and (under Maggie Thatcher at least) the UK Conservatives were not conservative.

RJM at Sleeper's

[Scouse Gits]

The idiosyncracies of internal politics rarely travel well over international borders ...

New Labour, for example, being a party far to the right of traditional (pre-Thatcher) Conservatism

Stu

[rjmatsleepers]

Originally posted by Scouse Gits

New Labour, for example, being a party far to the right of traditional (pre-Thatcher) Conservatism

Stu

But then of course the Blessed Margaret did rather break the mould of British politics (to borrow a phrase from a party that you can read about in the history books).

RJM at Sleeper's