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).]