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
Communism Changes: Added forced resetlment (but not xenophobia)
Fascism Changes: Trade bonus, rampant corruption
Then I have a proposed wonder added to each.
Making democracy and fascism stronger is a much better alternative then further weaking republic. Ok, now I'm going to try another game with these changes and see how it goes.
Don't you think xenophobia is as much part of Fascism's unique flavor as communal corruption is part of communism's unique flavor?
No, not at all. It is far more akin to Fascism and Commie both having 'zero' war-weariness, or in both Demo and Republic having better economies. Genocide to varing degrees, in both Fascism and Communism has tended to be inherent in the nature of their Government systems and ideologies. The two most famous 20th century 'Communist genocides' were responsible for approximately 60 million murders (USSR-20 million, Red China-40 million).
Ision
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.
Originally posted by Ision
No, not at all. It is far more akin to Fascism and Commie both having 'zero' war-weariness, or in both Demo and Republic having better economies. Genocide to varing degrees, in both Fascism and Communism has tended to be inherent in the nature of their Government systems and ideologies. The two most famous 20th century 'Communist genocides' were responsible for approximately 60 million murders (USSR-20 million, Red China-40 million).
Ision
genocide - yes, xenophobia - not really.
the soviet union consisted of slavs, turk-folks, baltics, uralics, armenian, mongols, etc etc etc etc.... but unlike the nazis, everyone was killed, not because of their race (ok, sometimes) but because of their opositional political stance.
in the 3rd reich xenophobia led to the death of (besides the oposers) jews, gypsies, slavs and invalids.
what i want to say: both were evil governements, but xenophobia isn't a typical commie thing. besides - stalinism and maoism isn't communism...
- Artificial Intelligence usually beats real stupidity
- Atheism is a nonprophet organization.
I just had an interesting thought. If we would give Republic a flat free unit support of 12 plus 0/1/1 per town/city/metropolis, that would make it a lot harder to get a lot of free unit support under Republic by conquering large amounts of territory. Obviously, there's some problem in regard to map sizes - a flat number is more useful on smaller maps than on larger ones - but that kind of support arrangement would make it a little harder for good players with big empires to warmonger under Republic without significantly undercutting the value of Republic (more than we already have) for peaceful builders and for less experienced players who have a harder time acquiring territory.
Originally posted by nbarclay
In my view, a fixed number of free units irrespective of map size would be ridiculous.
Originally posted by Nor Me
How about 1/1/1 with 10 free units for Republic. That might help warmongers on a tiny map but shouldn't cause too much trouble otherwise.
I have to note that I'm not too happy about ranking changes to Feudalism in a vacuum (that is, without corresponding changes to Monarchy). See my posts above for my thoughts/solution on this issue (they're still the same, so no point in re-posting them here).
---
2. Fascism
B
A
.
.
.
C (too big a change, sorry; trade bonus in Fascism!?)
---
3. Republic
C
A
B
D (I really dislike the flat free support concept)
---
4. Democracy
A
B (how is this help Democracy with respect to Republic?)
.
.
.
C (waaay to drastic; not at all in the spirit of AU)
---
Dominae
And her eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming...
Originally posted by Dominae
C (too big a change, sorry; trade bonus in Fascism!?)
The only response I have is that Fascism sucks so much that a big change IS needed for balance. A trade bonus with Rampant corruption fills a void in government types. (High income/low production).
B (how is this help Democracy with respect to Republic?)
It's help because no matter what we do to the Republic, Democracy is guaranteed to always be better or equal in terms of unit support, since unit costs are just 1gpt.
My comments from the grandstand, for what they're worth:
Feudalism
I played the "Power of Feudalism" game up to a certain point, trying to be a complete warmonger and taking advantage of the 5 unit support for size 6 and under. While there is a niche there, at the end of the day it would still have been miles better growing to size 7 and being in Monarchy.
In order to make Feudalism a possible choice for a human player, you need to improve it substantially and probably need to handicap Monarchy somewhat.
Removing WW, with unit support not that different from (or worse than) Monarchy, won't make any difference - you still have a better earlier government. Reducing corruption will change the dynamics, but you're still left with a government that limits town size and Republic is a better choice in most cases (subject to unit support costs of Republic).
I think Feudalism may be a lost cause.
Republic
Having struggled to keep my unit support costs under control in AU501, any move to further increase them will cripple Republic IMHO. We are already delaying our move into Republic until size 7 because of the support costs. Delaying that move even further will take Republic out of the game, and players will then go Monarchy --> Democracy.
So if you meet me have some courtesy, have some sympathy and some taste
Use all your well-learned politesse, or I'll lay your soul to waste Re-Organisation of remaining C3C PBEMS
1. a 2 or 3 gpt Feudalism that is 5-3-1 with military police reduced to 1 or 2. The 3 support for size 7 and above cities might do the trick. Reduced MP to ensure Monarchy is still 'clearly' superior for war. My goal is a government that is 'in-between' Monarchy and Republic -at both war and trade.
2. leaving Fascism as it stands now - but adding a second 'secret police' small wonder identical to Communisms. SPH part 2 so to speak.
3. this one is probably way over the top - but I would like comment anyway - leave Demo Min-corruption and 0-0-0 support, but change WW to low. From my expierence the problem with Demo is not that the Human cannot cope with the high ww - but that the AI cannot. The AI rarely gets to stay in this form of government for any extended period of time - and yet the AI will almost invariably change to Demo at the first opportunity - only to change to Commie/Fascism shortly afterwards. Will this make Republic completely obsolete - yes, but no more so than Monarchy is made completely obsolete by Commie/Fascism. One way to view this is that the 'Republic' government that is available in the Ancient Age is an abstraction of a more peaceful and representative ancient gov - a Monarchy/Demo hybrid, but this does not correspond to the more modern 'Democratic Republic' that Demo should be the absraction of.
Ision
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.
The real question is whether we want Democracy to be pretty much always worthwhile compared with Republic if players are willing to take the time for a switch or whether we want Democracy to compete with Republic. If the former, reducing Democracy's war weariness would be an excellent step. If the latter, reducing its war weariness would be a step in an entirely wrong direction.
(Note that I would oppose increasing Republic's war weariness in the strongest possible terms. That might be a workable solution for the best players, but it would be disastrous for many others, especially since players don't always get to choose when and whether to fight.)
With Communism beefed up so much, people who build large empires warmongering can get a lot of advantage out of it compared with Democracy without Democracy's having to have crippling war weariness. Under the right circumstances, Communism is much better than Democracy at production and can be almost as good at research. Thus, Democracy no longer needs to have devastating war weariness for the choice between Democracy and Communism to be an interesting one.
I don't like strengthening Democracy by making it better for warmongering. We already have Communism, Fascism, and Monarchy for war. Just my opinion.
Also, I would like Feudalism to be between Monarchy and the Republic for both war and economy. Monarchy is the best for war, Republic is the best in terms of ecomomy, Feudalism should be between those two, perhaps having an advantage in production for uniqueness. That's why I like the minimal corruption solution.
Regarding using the Power of Feudalism as a baseline - that game has an insane abundance of food and the Civs you are given to choose from are Agricultural - the entire game, to me, screamed out "Monarchy!" along with (maybe) "Always War!".
I actually think AU501 might be a good test-case for Feudalism - limited land(pack 'em in), resource scarcity(war, war, war for many), intercontinental invasions(pre-Demo/Comm, a need for a navy, adding significantly to your troop count/support costs).
Take a look at Theseus' spacing/number of cities on the home island. That would be, IMO, good for Feudalism as a first govt. The PoF game seemed a bit wet and food-rich to choose Feudalism over Monarchy and a bit luxury rich to choose Feudalism over Republic, in my opinion.
I really don't think Feudalism needs much of a boost, and if AU502 is well-received(read "I don't suck at mapmaking"), I'll try to come up with another, later course on Feudalism/Fascism. I think we just haven't been presented with a situation where Fuedalism shines or haven't recognized it, partly due to the nature of AU and its student body - all of us are "good" players, seeking better strategies and very importantly, optimization.
I ramble. I just wanted to point out that I (personally) didn't feel Feudalism was the obvious(optimal?) government in PoF, though it was no slouch if planned for.
Edit: Just so there's no misunderstanding, I really like PoF and thought it was well-built. Nice job pvzh! I just didn't think it was the optimal setup for Feudalism, which was probably part of the point. Not dinging you at all, pvzh, just questioning using that game as a baseline for Feudalism in the AU mod.
"Just once, do me a favor, don't play Gray, don't even play Dark... I want to see Center-of-a-Black-Hole Side!!! " - Theseus nee rpodos
Tweet
Comment