Based on what we know so far, what do you want to mod in CtP2

[meriadoc]

Funny, I can't think of any battleships that use nuclear power. And aren't diesel engines considered to be internal combustion engines?

------------------
The Electronic Hobbit

[Pintello]

Hi Meriadoc,

"aren't diesel engines considered to be internal combustion engines?"

Depends on how you use them. In the case of really large ships like battleships fuel oil was used to heat a boiler that produced steam to turn the turbines that turned the propellers. Smaller ships like destoyers and submarines would use standard diesel engines, just on a larger scale.

You are probably correct though about nuclear powered battleships. I don't ever remember hearing of a nuclear powered battleship, unless the Soviets made one.

The battleships that the US used until a few years ago though, were left over from WW II. They were just very heavily modified over the intervening years. I believe all of them used fuel oil to heat boilers to produce steam to turn turbines as described above. If anyone knows otherwise, feel free to correct me and put the record straight.

Timothy Pintello

[Drakenred]

The USN did a series of design studies on powering variouse ships with Nuclear reactors, including what would have been a de facto Nuclear powered Batleship,(without the Gun armament, it would be more acurate to describe them as a 1950-70 "Arsenal ship" /Cruise misile launcher, however, I dont think they took the pojects mutch beyond the Design study phase, )

their were a few one-up designes of Batleships with internal combustion recipocating engin, but aparently for the most part the early ships were Considered experimental, becuase of actual and precived mantinnece problems(basicaly, its one thing to have to dismatle a destoyers engin, but to do simualr work on a BB would be a nightmare)

[Eternal]

It's tru, no one has or ever has had nuclear-powered battleships -Soviets never built such ships. We only still keep them around to drain what use we can out of them, because there's really no needing them in modern war.

[Slax]

Back to our regularly scheduled thread topic...

What I'd like to see in a CTP II mod is a 'fleshing out' of the time periods by addition of 4 or 5 technologies and units to each time period. Nothing crazy, just the addition of a few more options.

I felt originally that this may occur with the design of CTP II, but alas, the number of techs and units have not changed significantly.



------------------
Light the fuse!

[WesW]

Yeah, Ctp2 definitely needs more fleshing out in the unit and advance department, though we need to figure out how to add advances without causing the problems that occurred in the med mod.

[Gedrin]

While I am no expert on naval history and do not know about nuclear BB's I'd be really suprised.

The primary reason that subs went nuclear is so they do not need to surface for air. I doubt a BB needs the power of nuclear power and so the cost is not justified. BB's are just not big enough I think... they are not afterall super carriers.

Well I'm off to see if CTPII is at the local games shop.

Gedrin

[Locutus]

I agree, the Medieval and Industrial Age need to be put 'back' in and I also think that the Ancient Age should be split in two (as it is it covers almost 5000 of the 6300 years and even in the MedMod is was 4500 years, that can't possible be right).

I did some experimenting with the unit charts yesterday and could come up with slightly under 120 units that would be a minimum for a good representation of history (and I only used units for which there already exist sprites, either in CtPI (including mods) or CtPII).

The main problem of course is that the max number of advances in CtPI appears to be 128 (like Gedrin explained above), so if that holds for CtPII I'd have a big problem fitting all those in That, and I'm not convinced Activision will make the CtPI sprites available for us to use in CtPII

[heardie]

When I'lll get it I'll start on two things.
1. Underwater Scenario - Make use of the underwater units and exploit SLIC to the max. Dont have a story yet(post if you have an idea )
2. Gather a small team (or I'll do it by myself ) of people to write a guide on 'Creation for the Dummy' so all thsoe people with great ideas can actually implement them. Hoppefully this guide will kick ass and then it will end up on teh activison site

But I wont get teh game till it comes out in Oz so....

[TheLimey]

I'm considering adding some SLIC to destroy the slaver, when he's part of a winning stack; to simulate him (or them) transporting the slave(s) back to the appropriate city.

The slaver is bad in his unlimited form, because he allows the ultimate population increase blag; far worse than ICS in my opinion, and in fact makes ICS *MUCH WORSE*. You pay once, you put the slaver in a half decent attack stack, and keep attacking barbarians and the unwitting AI and gaining, the only 'cost' being his upkeep.

Getting one free pop for a slaver in my eyes is fair, not including the city slaving, which I believe is fair and works already, since it can be countered, and he has a chance of failing and being captured.

In game effects, making one combat capture per slaver unit will mitigate the unbalancing force that the slaver provides. This however has the possibility of making the anti-slavery units/wonders too cheap, so they should have their costs increased to balance.
[This message has been edited by TheLimey (edited November 16, 2000).]

[Gedrin]

Hey Limey.

You know you are right. I personally parked a Slaver in every city and led barbarians back with scouts... cost less support that way. I first thought having slave labour a seperate tech was superfluous but it does delay this tactic.

Wes: Note that (oh sorry, do you have it yet? Rub rub ) there is no index in the advances.txt structures. Could it be that advances are actually stored in a real linked list? Oh bliss... abstract data types Lovely concept, yipee!!!

Oh the upshot of that of course is infinite techs (within the physical constraints of available memory of course).

Gedrin

[Chris B]

I don't have the game yet but from what ive heard so far, one thing seemed better in CTP1.
As far as I can tell, CTP2 now ends in 2300 rather than 3000. Does anyone else besides me think that totally sucks, or is it supposed to be that way? Also, somebody clue me in. Did they really take out space cities, or is that just a rumor?

[Depp]

Been along time since I posted on Apolyton, back in CTP 1 days where we were tryiong to use SLIC for the first times.
Gonna try to do something useful with it this time as well, if they find it in their hearts to release some documentation.

Have they build any battleships since the nuclear drive first got installed in a sub ? Since carriers are the way to go Im not sure...

[WesW]

Well, as a member of the A-team, I have had a couple of early builds to look at for a few weeks now. However, it's not the same as the finished product.
For example, the current build I have is skewed to the point where getting the AIs to agree to any diplomatic proposals is almost impossible. Everything else seems to be in there, however.
I received a letter from Parker Davis yesterday where he said that he was going to send each member of the A-team a copy of the game as a reward for our help. So, it will be sometime next week before I get the game (assuming that their mail delivery system works this time- inside joke).

I am glad that the game seems to be receiving largely positive reviews so far.

I counted the advances and units listed in the Great Library, and noticed that they were not a multiple of 2. Any of you computer gurus want to comment on this?

Mark, have any of the Activisioners said whether or not they will be scanning the forums, especially this forum, in the coming weeks?

I would like to know the answer to Chris' question about the advances, and whether there are any limitations on other aspects of the game, or if there are 'optimal' ways of adding things versus other ways.
[This message has been edited by WesW (edited November 17, 2000).]

[Pintello]

Ha!!! I knew it Wes, you did have inside information!

By the way, who else was on the A-Team?

Timothy Pintello
[This message has been edited by Pintello (edited November 17, 2000).]