Imperialism 1870 . . . Version 2

[Art of War]

dang....i guess i'll have to figure out another way. can you do it in ToT?

[klesh]

Re: An answer . . .

Originally posted by Exile
You cannot use the CREATEUNIT command to create barbarian units if you use the in-game Events editor. Won't let you. You can only use the command to create barbarian units if you create the Events file manually. Line by line. And you have to be careful about when and where you hit the return when you make it that way.

Its really not that hard. Often I cut and paste events from other files and redo the names. Not hard at all.


In the Stalingrad scenario, the barbarians are named 'Cowards'. Their adjective was thusly 'cowardly'. I used 2 seperate deserter units in the scenario, one german deserter(owned by the Soviets [for you to kill])... and one soviet (owned by the barbs[for you to kill, creating a Soviet volunteer unit fighting for the germans]).

@IF
TURNINTERVAL
interval=2
@THEN
CREATEUNIT
unit=Deserters
owner=Cowards
veteran=no
homecity=None
locations
49,31
endlocations
@ENDIF

Deserters created for Soviet ownership looked german, and the Barb owned looked Soviet. Therefore anytime you care to have the barbking in effect, he is going to exactly match the diplo slot unit in name, function etc. Note they needn't be actual diplo's either.

Also, be careful; you cannot mix and match. If you use one method to create the Events file, you must NOT EVER use the other method. You can either create the Events file using the editor or notepad/manually. If you try to use both methods, the scen will notify you that there is an error in the file. It may crash.

I have never experienced this at all. I very often check my manually built events file inside the editor to see just how much space remains. No problems. I'm certain that Henrik also uses a combination of the two.

Really, simply copying and pasting that event above into your scenario's events, making a few changes will in no way mess up your editor made events file... try it at least. With a backup copy of course. What have you got to lose?

[Exile]

Well . . . . .

The Events file is done now. lol.

But thanks. I'll probably try it out sometime, but my own experience is that (with MGE perhaps, which is what I've got), you simply CANNOT mix the two methods. If you do, the file won't work. IIRC, it seems someone somewhere else (like in the ScenLeague tips section somewhere?) also noted the problem with using both methods. Henrik, you should chime in here.

[Henrik]

Your problem imho is that once you use the ingame editors all events are saved in the savefile itself (unless you save as a scenario each time in which case there really shouldn't be a problem, but that'd cause all sorts of other trouble ). One can remove events that are stored in a save file with the help of the delevent program which I am under the impression shipped with the PC version (the mac version which I use also has this program now, but it's been fan made).
What I usually do is to do all basic events with the editors (as they really are simpler to use), and then inserting the barbarian civ's name afterwards. I then run delevent on the savefile I am working on (Normally build.sav or somesuch) and load it up again. It will now attempt to load my edited events. If these events contain errors the game won't load them, so one still has to check them carefully
The reason, it seems, that the savefiles works like this is so that they can remember which events has triggered and which ones hasn't, scenario files does not store events at all, and allways load them from the text file. However once you start playing a scenario and save as a savegame the events will be contained within the file.

What to remember here is simply that unless the savefile hasn't got any events stored, it won't even look at your events.txt. And that a savefile's stored events can be removed by the little delevent.exe program. Once this is done the new events will be loaded and you can continue to edit them ingame if you feel like it.

I hope this wasn't too unclear

One should ofcourse as when using all the editors keep back up copies, as the editors will at times without your help, mess up the files...

I like the random events approach btw Exile, it's allways been my philosophy that random reinforcements works better than schedualed ones for barbarians in a scenario (well even for player civ's in MP to FMK's great dismay ).

I'll have to think for a while before comming up with a suggestion for that new unit...

[Case]

Exile, have you been following the Imperialism PBEM at CFC? Through trade and co-operative research, the US/German/French alliance has developed techs at an incredibly fast rate - we're up to 1873 and they already have cruisers, zepplins, etc!

I think that you may need to increase the tech paradigm to slow down tech development, especially in light of the massive benefits which can be gained from trade.

[Exile]

Agreed.

Yes Nick, I agree. I've been playing with the scenario quite a bit myself and tech can be acquired at an accelerated rate if one trades aggressively, much more so if there is cooperative trading.

Unfortunately, if I increase the paradigm, the scenario really fails in solo play--the AI will have too much difficulty gaining tech.

And you're right about the massive benefits. As I pointed out in the ImpRead files, in this scenario, trade PAYS. I hadn't foreseen just how much it would payoff. The American player can hit the 30000 gp ceiling very easily via trade income.

I'm monkeying with several things in the scenario right now to improve it, but the paradigm will have to stay the same.

[Art of War]

I agree with Case. It's 1886 and I'm one tech away from Powered Flight...

[Goingonit]

Even in SP, it's incredibly easy to gain tech with trade. As Britain, I'll have democracy and dreadnoughts by the end of 1877. I also have >60,000 gold (with the no limits add-on).

Also, due to the quirks of the game, trade with America pay far more richly than trade with any other parts of the world.

[Henrik]

What about somehow reducing the money to be gotten from caravans instead?

[EmuGod]

Exile. how about giving the Japanese another city to start with so that they can contend better with the other empires. Maybe a city on Formosa.

[curtsibling]

I have to agree with Goingonit, although getting those techs can be fun!

The solution would be to make the trade unit appear later on, perhaps after central banking or something...

[Palaiologos]

Or perhaps if improvement maintainance was very high....

[klesh]

Is the trade unit the actual caravan unit, or is the freight? Obviously the latter generates far more mulah...

[Dr. Nick]

If Japan does good trade, she'll be a-conquering China before you know it.:

[Art of War]

in my game Britain own south china, along with the afghanistan/kazakhstan region, arabia/palestine, and Alexandria...plus her original colonies. I, as the USA, own all cities from Panama up on the American continent. The Great American Empire..