Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SXN with alternative game parametres

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Old n Slow
    replied
    I agree with the scenarios folks -- a lot of technical expertise lurks there -- all we have is playing expertise (and practice!)

    Leave a comment:


  • La Fayette
    replied
    IMO it may be useful for you to ask questions on the scenario forum. I guess that many of the problems you are facing have already been solved by those inventive people.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sore Loser
    replied
    Disbanding any unit to help any production is okay, as that causes a considerable net loss. I'm starting to toy around with the other files, but I'm having a problem with the tech paths in the Civiliopedia. How can they be changed? It's really annoying to have to look up the rules.txt every time you want to find out how to get to a given tech (I didn't change much, mainly the government techs).

    I've added another major change: 4 shields for forests, 6 for mined hills, 8 for mined mountains. I think this helps the AI more than it helps the human player, as it means that all those extra units it produces take up a smaller portion of their total production. It also makes pollution a greater factor, along with roads as a means to counter waste problems.

    I agree that not much can be done to improve Civ2 in a major way without a better AI, but I think I can "improve" it slightly by creating parametres that the AI responds to more favourably. For example, terrain improvement is one thing the AI does reasonably well, so making it more important effectively improves the AI.

    Leave a comment:


  • duke o' york
    replied
    I notice that you're not allowed to feed caravans into wonder production, but can you disband them for 25 shields?

    Leave a comment:


  • La Fayette
    replied
    SL,

    My pleasure when playing scenarios is to discover new features (techs, units, terrain, ...) and find a way to win with/against them.

    (Have you had a look at JB's scenarios on the Spanish Site? I have a feeling that your project is somewhat alike, as far as playability is concerned, even if the philosophy is not the same).

    Anyway I don't wish to help you build an improved civ2, because I consider that this would require an improved AI, but I am ready to play your succession game once you have chosen (and preferably tested) the required features.

    Leave a comment:


  • Old n Slow
    replied
    I'm a contender -- have you updated the civlopedia to explain the changes (so I can have some sense of the tradeoffs)?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sore Loser
    replied
    Oh it's entirely possible, I've tried several different approaches. I keep running into some problems though, namely the limitations of what you can actually change. The unit differentiation bit is particularly tricky. Specifically, I'm missing the bombardment option of AC.

    I would also like to lower food output of all squares by 1 along with the food consumption per citizen, making grasslands useful under Despotism. Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to give mountains, desert and glacier -1 food.

    One of the more radical ideas is to lower shield output by 1 for all squares, creating a sharper distinction between economy and production. The AI doesn't seem to respond well to this change, but I still think it's doable. This also faces the player with more decisions to make when making new cities. A city with lots of plains and grassland can become an economic powerhouse because of fast growth and much trade, but will be of no use in matters of immediate expansion and military matters.

    Here's a preliminary list of self-imposed rules (ie. not included in rules.txt), suggestions are welcome:

    1) You may only establish trade routes with own or allied cities and only where the commodity is demanded 2) You may not buy any city production ever
    3) You may not bribe enemy cities (units are still okay). 4) You may not accept or demand tribute of the AI.
    5) You may not share maps with the AI.
    6) You may not use caravans to help wonder construction along (regular units are okay)

    Leave a comment:


  • -Jrabbit
    replied
    It sounds like fun, but as a Mac guy, I don't want to upset the delicate balance that allows me to play under normal rules.txt with my PC brethren.

    I'll have to pass, SL, but will be lurking...
    Good luck with this.

    Leave a comment:


  • duke o' york
    replied
    I assume that you've already played with this ruleset and ensured that the whole thing isn't impossible.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sore Loser
    started a topic SXN with alternative game parametres

    SXN with alternative game parametres

    I proposed a SXN game with an altered rules.txt file ago, and did manage to enlist a tiny bit of interest in spite of massive opposition If you have no interest in fiddling with the game parametres then I won't try force it on you this time, but if you're willing to consider a different gaming experience then I'd much appreciate your participation.

    I don't have much worked out yet, I'd like to get the basic goals of the rules changes worked out yet. This is what I have so far:

    1) More emphasis on terrain improvement, reducing the usefulness of ICS, making conquest a more economically viable choice and making exploration for valuable city sites a bigger concern
    2) More differentiation between units, making sure that all units are important in some way and that you have more decisions to make
    3) More differentiation between governments, making these decisions more difficult to make as well. Specifically, Despotism shouldn't be the dead weight it is at the moment
Working...
X