Open letter to Firaxis from the scenario community

[MarkG]

here are some news: there will be a reply. but i dont know anything on how soon it will be or how good news it will bring, except that there will be an update on the editor(something that has been said several times of course)

[Case]

Originally posted by MarkG
here are some news: there will be a reply. but i dont know anything on how soon it will be or how good news it will bring, except that there will be an update on the editor(something that has been said several times of course)

Stop the presses!

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Case
Stop the presses!

it's amazing, you guys bump this thread every couple of hours, but when i actually post some news it takes 14 hours for someone to comment

[ravagon]

Originally posted by MarkG
it's amazing, you guys bump this thread every couple of hours, but when i actually post some news it takes 14 hours for someone to comment

I think people were just so stunned by your groundbreaking news Mark

[techumseh]

Originally posted by MarkG
here are some news: there will be a reply. but i dont know anything on how soon it will be or how good news it will bring, except that there will be an update on the editor(something that has been said several times of course)

Who are you and what have you done with the real Mark G?

[Nuke gay whales]

Solution for Unbalanced Combat problem?

There have been too many complaints about advanced units losing battles to vastly inferior units, which is not conducive to fair play - especially when units like tanks could just run over units like spearmen (I would love to hear the sound effect for that! )

But that is not the issue. We ALL know that a tank being defeated by a spearman makes no sense, so there is no point arguing in circles about it. Why don't we try and come up with a solution instead?

I strongly think that there should be a "non-competition" factor when certain units battle each other. If there is a two age period difference between the units, the inferior unit automatically surrenders and returns to their side of the border - with the option for the superior forces to wipe out the unit instead of allowing them to retreat, with a political penalty imposed by the rest of the world.

I know that this is not something that can be "patched", but I like the sound of this type of combat system better than the existing one... . I do not enjoy the careful building of a modern army after advancing ahead of my enemies in the science race just to have my tanks lose a fight against pikemen.

Any other suggested solutions out there?

[MarkG]

Originally posted by techumseh
Who are you and what have you done with the real Mark G?

huh?

[ravagon]

Originally posted by MarkG
huh?

Your announcement post wasn't quite in your usual "style" Mark

[MarkG]

Originally posted by ravagon
Your announcement post wasn't quite in your usual "style" Mark

and what kind of style is that?

[wotan321]

So I guess we can expect some sort of editor patch in the weekly "Friday update" today?

When that occurs, the floodgates of commentary will open, so let me put my 2 cents in before that.

I HOPE that the editor update provides the ability to stop tech advancement. In the old Civ2 Rules.txt file, we could put a "No" in a prereq for an advance, and you could not research it. That way, in a scenario you could avoid stealth bombers in the War of 1812 scenario. A nice little check box in the Civ Advances tab would be nice. This is also essential for scenario creation, just as flat maps and city/unit placement is.


oh, and I'd like landmarks back too.

BTW.....the boycott seems to be picking up steam! Number one AND number two in sales last week! Whooohooo! We've got 'em right where we want 'em! LOL! Okay, its time someone came up with a plan "B" since the boycott doesn't seem to be working.... The reviews in almost every major gamemag are through the roof, so you cannot expect them to point out that the game wasn't finished when it was released. I guess we are just going to have to hope Firaxis shows some mercy and fixes the problems out of some sense of kindness or dedication to their fans. Lets see what happens today.

[protista]

Please Add My Signature

I am in total agreement that some changes need to be made, in a reasonable time, and that we should certainly at least have some communication from the publishers/programmers as to what is being planned, being done, and when it will be available. This is ridiculous for a program which cost me $59!

[Akka]

It's perhaps that I did not understood all, but, when I see people saying that the RULES editor allow nothing to be edited, I wonder if they actually had only a look at it...

Actually, what the editor CAN'T do is :
- makes scripted events
- makes specific start locations for specific civ
- change the engine (ie : how the fight work, how the pollution work, etc...)
- the features that the cheat mode has in Civ 2 (create units, cities, change your civ to take another one, etc...)


That's all.

ALL the rest can be edited/changed.
In fact, the rules editor is actually GREAT. To take more precise examples :

wonder, small wonder and improvement effects, and the strength of those effects all appear to be completely hardcoded, so you can't ever change a wonder to a small wonder for example, or change the power of most effects.

You CAN change a wonder in a small wonder, and you CAN change the effects. Some effects are hard-coded, but you can choose to put them in one wonder, or a small wonder, or even a city improvement. You can make a temple being a great wonder that cause 5 unhappiness in all the city, or change the Pyramids to a -5 pollution standard city improvement that cost 10 and that reduce war weariness.

All the hardcoding you point out suggests that this game will never be very customizable.

It's already customisable, from the color of each civ to the abilities of units and the frequency of ressources. The only limit is the events, locations and game engine.

I HOPE that the editor update provides the ability to stop tech advancement. In the old Civ2 Rules.txt file, we could put a "No" in a prereq for an advance, and you could not research it.

Already doable in the editor. Just change the era of the tech to "none".

I mean, this game is full of flaws and has a lot of places where it's a step back from Civ2 and AC, so why bash it where it's better ???
No scenario sucks, but rules are customisable to the bones.

[wotan321]

Already doable in the editor. Just change the era of the tech to "none".

Thanks. I am sorry I did not notice that. I was still thinking like I was in Civ2. I appreciate your help.

[Roman]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
It's perhaps that I did not understood all, but, when I see people saying that the RULES editor allow nothing to be edited, I wonder if they actually had only a look at it...

Actually, what the editor CAN'T do is :
- makes scripted events
- makes specific start locations for specific civ
- change the engine (ie : how the fight work, how the pollution work, etc...)
- the features that the cheat mode has in Civ 2 (create units, cities, change your civ to take another one, etc...)


That's all.

ALL the rest can be edited/changed.

Well and these things it cannot do are exactly crucial for making scenarios. Heck, without the placement of civ specific starting locations, cities, units, etc. it is NOT EVEN POSSIBLE TO MAKE SCENARIOS.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by wotan321
So I guess we can expect some sort of editor patch in the weekly "Friday update" today?

naah....

the editor update will most propably be part of the patch...