Anyone up for a patched succession game?

[Sore Loser]

I've been working on my very own patch for some time now, the purpose being to change the focus of non-EL games away from ICS to a more balanced approach. The main changes include:

1) Settlers & engineers are much more expensive.
2) All buildings require a higher upkeep, typically requiring a 40% tax rate just to break even
3) All citizens eat one unit of food
4) Settlers cost 2 food to maintain under monarchy and lower, 6(!) under communism and higher form of government
5) Only 1 free unit for monarchy
6) Unit values and abilities changed completely around: warriors are 6/2, phalanx are 5/3, archers are 6/3 with pathfinding, catapults, cannons and artillery all ignore city walls; legions and musketeers are amphibious; lots more
7) Cost and upkeep of city improvements changed around as well
8) Terrain improvement takes more time, especially irrigation of grasslands and mining on hills and mountains.
9) Grasslands give 1 food, +2 for irrigation; mountains give +3 shields with mining; ; swamps and jungles give 2 trade
10) Production rows are now 6 shields each instead of 10. This gives the AI another advantage, 33% discount as opposed to 20% (it goes from 6 > 4 per row instead of 10 > 8)
11) Pioneers added with Bridge Building as a prerequisite. They're faster settlers at a discount, and are not made obsolete by Explosives.

Additional rules include:
1) You may only establish trade routes with your own cities where the commodity is demanded AND the receiving city supplies a commodity that is demanded in the other city (doesn't matter if it's actually used).
2) You may not buy any city production ever. This creates a distinction between production and economy.
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)
7) You must have both Monarchy and Republic before switching to to Monarchy; you must have both Democracy and Republic before switching to Republic; you must have all government techs before switching to Democracy; Fundamentalism and Communism not allowed.

All of this creates a need to reconsider your strategies, hopefully providing a whole new gaming experience. For one thing, terrain improvement is now an important factor in determining whether it's worthwhile to launch an invasion force. Conquests will also more often prove to be a sound alternative to colonization or infrastructure from an economic point of view.

The scenario isn't really one, you start out with a couple cities and units and the computer starts out with a bunch of cities [and possibly Vendettas against you ] Please don't dismiss all of this as a newbie's nonsense at first glance just because it's different, you just might end up enjoying it.

EDIT: Ideas and suggestions are more than welcome.

[Scouse Gits]

This is clearly not newbie nonsense - but I'm unsure whether its the way I personally would like the game to go ...

Stu

[Sore Loser]

Woohoo, fish in the net!!

Thank you for your praise, but could you expand your comment a little? Note that this was designed with AI opposition in mind, most of the self-imposed rules are intended to overcome AI deficiencies.

[rah]

If you want to handicap yourself more vs the AI, just use the skill levels above deity and the nastier barbs settings above raging. You will be challanged.

[Sore Loser]

It's not difficult to handicap yourself by adding more troops and bonuses to the opposition; what I want is a higher challenge on more even terms. Take a look at the ideas and tell me what you think.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Didn't someone named Nicosar try something like this about a year ago?

Anyway, those are a lot of modifications. I'm not sure I'm interested in re-learning how to play civ with new rules, so as to participate in one succession game... sorry.

[Sore Loser]

You wouldn't have to relearn Civ. As I understand the concept of succession games, one of the main points is that it lets players yell at the other players for their complete and utter foolishness in everything they do. Think about when you first learned to play Civ. Wasn't it more magical back then? Wasn't it more intense? In my experience, the magic fades once all the discoveries are made. I read a post here to the effect of "Will anyone worship the mysterious lady now that her secrets are all revealed?", and I think it holds true.

EDIT: I just looked up the Nicosar thread, quite an impressive read. You were all a bit hard on him, even if he was a bit (very) pompous.

[Old n Slow]

Is this intended to run as a scenario? If not, I’m hesitant to have to overwrite my civ II files for this variant and thus risking nay other civ games that I’m playing. I’m willing to try new things, but I don’t want to risk what I already have.

As far a jumble to rules, I’m sure that you’ve carefully thought out the systemic and cumulative effects of your proposed changes. As a few of us found out (especially with our Silly Rules Sxn game), individual changes might start out as minor, but cumulative effects often dramatically change the patterns of play.

Given my quick look at your setup, I see incentives for ICS, and with nothing but offensive units, and incentives for early and constant combat. Once a city has a few too many units to support, it simply puts production towards infrastructure, then sells said buildings, and repeats as necessary.

I don’t see reasonable value for infrastructure (in many of my games nowadays, the SSC gets everything and rest get temples, and maybe markets & aqueducts -- very little infrastructure.) If settlers/engineers are “expensive” to maintain and modifying terrain is “expensive” to do, then there is the incentive to not do those things -- Settlers will found new cities and make roads, and probably nothing more.

Switching to Monarchy takes a little longer, but it looks like with reasonable play, the game shouldn’t get to Democracy at all.

Much less trade, (which doesn’t affect early conquest much), but that simply brings the players back to older styles of play -- looks like an SSC still has considerable merit. Actually, I’m not sure that “double coincidence” trade is an ‘enforceable’ activity unless it is built in (i.e. the camel doesn’t disappear) and in reality it doesn’t make much sense -- after all, money was invented to ease trade and the double coincidence requirement of barter.

But Rah captured it best -- my next suggestion for a succession game was simply a D+1, B+1, & I was planning to offer it circa Christmas or the New Year.

[Sore Loser]

Thank you for your comments Old n Slow. Yes, it is intended to run as a scenario, though I believe they can be modified to suit normal games as well. I know it's stupid to argue about this before you've seen the actual file, I'll see if I can get around to uploading it tomorrow (only net access at college).

1) Incentives for ICS

I've playtested it quite a bit, and I don't think this is what happens. For starters, the riot factor is 12. Secondly, terrain improvements are fairly important and take more time. Lastly, settlers cost 120 shields. I've not been very succesful with ICS in my test games, balancing expansion with infrastructure seems to work better. Or at least that's what I'm aiming for with the patch, so maybe I'm biased.

2) Infrastructure not valuable enough

While infrastructure certainly seems useless at first glance with more turns and food required for settlers and more gold for improvements, bear in mind that the alternatives are equally hampered. Settlers cost 120 shields, which is just too much to spend on a tiny outpost that doesn't grow much due to a lack of infrastructure and terrain improvement, considering that they also add unhappy citizens at an alarming rate.

3) Trade routes

I'm not entirely sure about this rule, it may prove to be too bothersome. How about just requiring the initial commodity to be demanded?

All of this certainly changes the pattern of play, which is fully intended. I'm the type of player who often likes changing rules more than actually playing the game, and I don't expect everyone to have that attitude.

[rah]

Originally posted by Sore Loser

All of this certainly changes the pattern of play, which is fully intended. I'm the type of player who often likes changing rules more than actually playing the game, and I don't expect everyone to have that attitude.

I guess this sums it up the best. Most of us here like to play more than changing the rules. This would explain some of our reluctance to use such extreme changes. We usually just tinker. This is not intended as any type of insult. It is always interesting to read proposed changes even when I know I'll never use them.

[Sore Loser]

This is an interesting discussion. I run into the same problem in pretty much every kind of game I play, I can never persuade anyone to try out just a single game with alternative rules. Granted, my ideas tend to be extreme, but they usually are so with a purpose.

I'm not asking you to change your life or your wife, all I'm asking for is a single game to show you what I'm talking about. This isn't coined on you in particular, as I think your opinions are generally shared. I just don't understand it. Noone ever wants to play with me

*cries a little in a corner in an attempt at getting some more attention*

[Scouse Gits]

Yes, it is intended to run as a scenario, though I believe they can be modified to suit normal games as well

Nope! some (indeed most) of your changes can only be accomodated by a full modpack -- unless I am losing something here ...

Stu

[duke o' york]

O n S, the succession variant you're suggesting was played (and won) at CFC about a year ago. It proved to be a challenge, though obviously not impossibly difficult.

If anyone could make the AI use freight in the right way then that'd make the game a hell of a lot more of a challenge, but that's not very likely.

[Sore Loser]

I'm not terribly well-versed in the creation of modpacks, scenarios and the like, so I might be misunderstanding something. However, the proposed rules changes work fine for me in regular games. The only major problem is getting the AI to expand, but that goes for the ordinary rules.txt as well, so I usually start them out with 3 cities or so, preferrably on different continents (with a Palace in each).

For clarification, what exactly is a full modpack? No gif files need be changed here, just rules.txt.

[Sore Loser]

Here is the full list of changes, and the rules.txt file.

COSMIC

1) Road movement multiplier = 2
2) 100% chance coastal ships are lost
3) Citizens eat 1
4) 20 rows in food box
5) 6 rows in shield box
6) Settlers eat 2 if gov <= Monarchy
7) Settlers eat 6 if gov > Monarchy
8) Unrest factor = 8
9) Riot factor = 12
12) Monarchy supports 1 free unit
13) Communism supports 3 free units
14) Fundamentalism supports no free units (except Fanatics)
15) No max science rate in Fundamentalism

CITY

[Just about every building changed, because of 5) above, look at the file]


Only Great Library, Great Wall and Michelangelo's
Workship now expire, the rest are permanent

UNITS

[All units changed, look at the file]
Major changes include:
1) Amphibious for Legion and Musketeers
2) Pathfinding for Archers
3) Ignore ZOC for Paratroopers
4) Bombardment for Catapult, Cannon and Artillery
5) Coastal for all sail ships
6) Settlers now cost 120, Engineers 180, Pioneers 90
7) HP and FP set to 4/2 for all units
8) New units: Rangers are early Alpine Troops, Pioneers are cheaper Settlers with more moves


TERRAIN

1) Desert, Plains, Grassland and Tundra get +1 trade
2) Grassland yields 1/3 food w/without irrigation
3) Irrigation takes 2 turns for Desert; 4 turns for Plains, Tundra and Hills; 10 turns for Grassland
4) Mining takes 4 turns for Desert; 8 turns for Glacier; 16 turns for Hills; 20 turns for Mountains
5) Mining gives +3 shields for Mountains; +2 shields for Glacier
6) Jungle/Swamp get +2 trade
7) 2 moves for Plains and Grassland; 3 moves for Desert and Tundra; 4 moves for Forest; 5 moves for Hills, Swamp and Jungle; 6 moves for Mountain
8) -50% defense for Tundra, Jungle and Swamp; +50% for Glacier
9) Specials receive an overall boost

SELF-IMPOSED RULES

1) You may only establish trade routes with your own cities and only where the commodity is demanded
2) You may not buy any city production ever
3) You may not bribe enemy cities
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)
7) You must have both Monarchy and Republic before switching to to Monarchy; you must have both Democracy and Republic before switching to Republic; you must have all government techs before switching to Democracy, Communism or Fundamentalism
8) Airbases not allowed as a production boost