Rules.txt modifications for SP games

[MikeLynch]

Trade may be balanced by another trick - you can give a gold to civ that sacks (kills) the caravan (using scenario means). It is a nice feature, that makes sending caravans very dangerous (at least in MP).

Nice! I never thought of that, but now that I'm learning how to use events.txt, I think I just might implement that. Whaddya think, 100 for caravans and 125 for freight?

Even the AI has been known to destroy my caravans from time to time, though it will not of course recognize this new incentive.

[MikeLynch]

Hey Sore Loser, what are the stats and unit graphics for your Rangers and Pioneers?

[Sore Loser]

Pioneers are about 20% cheaper than settlers and can move a bit farther, Rangers are early Alpine Troops. The stats are up in the air, as I keep modifying the global parametres.

[MikeLynch]

Can we get a look at 'em? I'm contemplating using these cribbed graphics:

[Varwnos]

hi

cool topic, unit strenghs are one of the most important factors in the game i am almost in the beta-testing phase of my own scenario, and would like to ask if its a good idea to have all units of the same sector (land/sea)have the same firepower and hitpoints, thus altering strenghts more easily by the other two levels (attack/defence). also i would like to ask if a unit that has firepower 2 is twice as strong as another with firepower 1 (assuming every other level is identical) and if the same goes for hp

here is a pic from my scenario & units & cities

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by varwnos
also i would like to ask if a unit that has firepower 2 is twice as strong as another with firepower 1 (assuming every other level is identical) and if the same goes for hp

Yes it is twice as strong in both attack and defense.
Another example: a unit with FP=2 and HP=3 is 2*3=6 times stronger than a FP=1, HP=1 unit.

and would like to ask if its a good idea to have all units of the same sector (land/sea)have the same firepower and hitpoints

There are several pros and cons.
It is a good idea, because you minimize problems with AI choosing weaker defender from a stack.
It is a bad idea if you want to differentiate "stable" and "unreliable" units. But a good compromise is to keep HP*FP constant - then you can have "stable" and "unreliable" units, with a minimum impact on problems with weaker defender (only problem is that properly you should choose a less stable unit against a stronger attacker and a more stable against a weaker one - but the AI will ignore this).

Read last posts of Info:Combat thread (link in the GL) for details.

[Sore Loser]

Sorry for not responding to this, I've been busy in school (I've just started studying to become a teacher).

I've gone back to using 3 movement points on roads, meaning that I can give units movement allowances in increments of 1/3. Rangers gets 4/3 movement points, meaning that they can always move one square and then attack, a major offensive advantage in rough terrain. Their OFF and DEF ratings are just below that of musketeers. Same thing with Riflemen and Alpine Troops. Alpine Troops are slightly weaker but can attack more readily and are a little cheaper.

Pioneers cost 20% less than Settlers and can move on open terrain and then do something (movement allowance of 7/3, open terrain costs 6/3).

I also prefer identical FP/HP ratings. Both because it's easier to gauge unit strengths and because it seems to make the AI a little smarter.

One problem I have at the moment is that archers are too good at exploration when they get the pathfinding ability, which is not the point. There is little sense in going for explorers if archers can do the job just as good with mighty off/def ratings at the same time.

[Sore Loser]

I have done another revision, and this is what I have now:

1) Grassland and plains give zero shields
2) Deserts give 1(3) shields, Hills give 0(4) shields, mountains give 1(6) shields
3) Ocean gives 2 food and ZERO trade
4) Citizens eat 1 food each
5) Ships require "supplies" when going on long trips. Supply units cost 4 shields, no maintenance (trade units). When a ship starts a turn away form port, one supply unit must be disbanded or the ship must be disbanded. Makes exploration more difficult, and puts emphasis on establishing outposts.

This makes specialists fairly powerful, and it also makes caravans less powerful. There are far more decisions to make and differing strategies to make. I'll upload it tomorrow, if anybody is interested.

[MikeLynch]

Color me interested! I gotta see your Rules.txt, dude.

[Sore Loser]

The way it plays right now is that you have several approaches to choose from when growing towns. A town with plenty of forest squares can be highly productive in a hurry, which is good for further expansion. If it has a few plains squares as well then it will also be able to support the settlers for some terrain improvement. Towns near grassland, hills and mountains will take quite a bit of terrain improvement to get started, and will likely be a burden early in the game. Deserts are somewhat useful now. They give more shields than forests (and a little trade), but they take a little to develop and they give no food. Ocean squares give NO trade but 2 food. Since citizens eat 1 each, that means they act like irrigated grassland, letting you keep a rapid growth rate. It also makes it less useful to maximize trade just before delivering a caravan.

All of this also serves to limit the use of caravans. Ordinary cities won't have much trade for a long time, unless they're near good specials.

ICS is pretty much eliminated as a killer-strategy. It is still viable at certain stages in the game, but there will be significant payofffs. You will need to get Monarchy (renamed to Imperialism) fast, and it is far down the tech tree now (requires Con + PT, I think). If you beeline for that, you'll have to pass up on Currency, Writing, Mysticism, Bridge Building (gives Pioneers) who all serve to enchance your growth in different ways.

Additionally, ICS means less time for terrain improvement, meaning that you cannot adequately take advantage of the availability of irrigated grassland and mines hills/mountains. You'll have to strike a balance somewhere in between.

I'm also trying to balance the city improvements. Right now, specialists are good enough to use even while you have more terrain to utilize and without xinning. This means you can tune some cities towards research and others towards money and growth (due to better entertainers). To compensate, marketplaces and libraries are more expensive to build and maintain and should not be built as a common occurance.

Another major change is that pioneers now cost half as much as settlers, but cannot be used to found cities (you can still join with an existing city). This means terrain improvement is quite a bit more expensive until you get Bridge Building, presenting you with yet another dilemma to deal with.

The supply system for ships works very well. With triremes able to move 6 squares you can do a lot of exploration near your cities, but you will have a hard time exploring nearby continents without establishing outposts or mounting a major expedition. Supplies cost 4 shields each, which seems to be just right. It also make distant caravans more expensive to establish, and requires you to setup distant bases if you want to be able to haul units around the map efficiently. I really like the concept of outposts, it gives you yet another use for cities. I wish something similar could be extended to units, but it would be very cumbersome.

One major problem is that the AI doesn't really know how to take advantage of the different terrain settings. It still values grasslands too highly, meaning that it can get stuck with utterly unproductive cities early on. If you create a map and place the starting cities then it manages to expand in a reasonable manner. I have often been unable to keep up with its expansion, because of its 100% production and growth bonuses.

There are some other minor imbalances, but I'll let you figure them out for yourself. I'll upload a new version tomorrow, I only have net access at college.

[Sore Loser]

Here's the file. I can't quite make up my mind whether to go with a low or high number of shields and corresponding production costs. Despotism is definitely helped by 0-shield grassland/plains, 1-shield forests and 2-shield hills, but the AI doesn't seem to cope with this very well. The other version is 1 shield for grassland and plains, 4 for forests, 5 for mined deserts, 6 for mined hills and 8 for mined mountains. This one hurts Despotism a lot, both because of the reduced shield production and because of the higher waste levels.

[SlowThinker]

I would like to debate about details with you, but I am short of time and this thing requires a lot of time
Later, I hope.

[MikeLynch]

WHOAH! Transports can cary 60 units?!?! wtf?

[Sore Loser]

There are number of self-imposed rules to be used with the file, listed at the beginning of it. One of them states that units take up more than one slot, depending on the type of transport. Units on transports take up 4 slots each, meaning that it can only carry 15 units. If it also needs supplies then the number goes further down. That said, 60 is probably too much. It was a sudden idea that I quickly pencilled in, I didn't make much of an effort to balance it. I'll set it to 40 instead, letting it carry 10 units minus supplies. I'm also letting warships of all kinds carry units, but they are very ineffective at doing so, requiring 9 slots per unit for a battleship, for example.

I'm not sure if this is too much of a hassle for the player. Gameplay-wise it provides the player with some uncertainty and restrictions regarding exploration, which is intended. Later on it might require too much time to make sure you stay within the required limits and figuring out what is the best choice in the given situation.

Another concern is that players might be able to nullify the supply aspect too easily by setting up outposts everywhere.

[MikeLynch]

Yes, but setting up outposts everywhere IS historically accurate.

Inspired by this file, I am now toying around with fractional unit moves (i.e. 172 instead of 1 or 2). Do you know if it's possible for a unit to have a starting move of *less than 1*? 1/3rd or 2/3rds? If so, that might be a great way to limit the power of caravans.........