looking forward to play an email game?

[techumseh]

Shaka,

-30 Years' War
-RobRoy's version
-change road rate to X3
-single movement and production
-start the game!

Thank you.

[RobRoy]

Yes, Shaka, start. We can continue debating various points, and modify as we go forward.

I really think it's better to use double movement, rather than to change road movement. I think that would do less violence to the designer's intent. Seems to me that, for whatever reason, the designer conciously made a decision that roads should provide a modest boost only. If we change that bonus, we are changing the relative speed of units. Doubling changes it across the board, more evenly, keeping the road bonus, as intended.

I also think ship movements need to be modified if we're monkeying about with land movements, in any way! People assign movement rates very deliberately, and we're starting to make modifications that make have consequences down the road.

[Allard HS]

quote: I really think it's better to use double movement, rather than to change road movement

I'm quite sure we can change that during the game, eventually with the help of some hex-editing.

And if other things don't work, we can always change them halfway, can't we?

[RobRoy]

Yes, I'm sure we can change from regular to double movement, as we move forward. I don't think we even need to hex edit anything.

My point, though, is: I don't see juicing the road movement as some sort of acceptable compromise. I see changes to the road movement as arbitrary and more dangerous; it's really a more significant change than simply using double movement, because it also changes the relative value of road tiles versus non-road tiles, and favors the civ with a well-developed road network at the expense of the civ with a poorly developed road network.

Plus it gets a little complicated because we will all have to be sure we've modified our RULES.TXT file in exactly the same way.

If we want to speed things up. LET'S JUST USE DOUBLE MOVEMENT! Let's not use some half-measure with consequences that are tougher to predict. Double movement doesn't undermine the designer's decisions as much as changing the global parameters does. And either change represents a modification to land movement that needs to be represented at sea.

I think we either should keep the movement rates as they are.

Or use Double Movement, along with some RULES.TXT adjustment to naval unit movement allowances to compensate.

[Stefan Härtel]

Could whoever sends me the sav game also send me the modified files so I can play it the way you do too?

[Jay Bee]

Same here as Stefan's.

Why do not you guys leave the scen just as Jesús M. designed it?

Very important question: Do all of us have the latest MGE pach installed? I really do not know if this makes a difference but in order to avoid any unexpected complication I'd suggest those who don't to install it before we finally start.
[This message has been edited by Jay Bee (edited January 13, 2001).]

[Shaka Naldur]

okay as Tecumseh says.

-30 Years' War
-RobRoy's version
-change road rate to X3
-single movement and production
-start the game!

I´ll begin right now and I´ll send the file to Robroy, future changes in other turns,

I want to begin the game NOW!!!!!!!

p.d.
tecumseh,
what is the difference between your scenario and the original one??

[RobRoy]

OK Shaka, I give up.

But why don't you send the file directly to Techumseh; let him play Sweden. I'm afraid I'm having some computer problems and my patience for this process is evaporating. So, please allow me to remove myself from it.

I guess MagyarCrusader could play Poland, if he's still interested.

I can commit to virtually any scenario, even one not of my choosing. I can fully support mods that a consensus has agreed to, that are applied in a fair fashion. But I have trouble accepting arbitrarily changes to specific rules after the scenario has been selected and the civs assigned. I'm particularly mystified that some people who voted for this scenario now seem intent upon changing it to their liking.

My apologies if my withdrawal inconveniences anyone or leaves a bad taste in anyone's mouth.

Good luck to everyone.

[Allard HS]

A shame to hear this. It finally started to work out.

quote: But I have trouble accepting arbitrarily changes to specific rules after the scenario has been selected and the civs assigned.

Only decisions of which will be agreed (by all) to make the scenario more enjoyable and better. And if somebody doesn't like it, all stays as it is. Nothing hás necessarily to change...

quote: I'm particularly mystified that some people who voted for this scenario now seem intent upon changing it to their liking.

Hope you don't mean me. Yes, I changed my opinion a bit from the start, but only in the hope to make it more enjoyable, after some playtesting not done earlier.
But the truth is, I really don't care about this double movement **** or changed movements or whatever, actually I couldn't care less. The scen is enough fun anyway.

quote: -change road rate to X3

This seems to be the point of trouble, isn't it?


I still hope you might reconsider... I'm sure it can all work out fine.

[Stefan Härtel]

I'm sorry to hear this. I guess in the end the idea is stillborn.

[Jay Bee]

RobRoy,

I really do not know what the problem was. It seemed to me that we had finally reached an agreement. In any case I beg you to reconsider your decision.

[techumseh]

Shaka, would you mind sending me a copy of the scn. file that RobRoy changed so that Independent (barbarian) cities didn't starve? Regardless of what happens here, I'd like to do more work to develop 30 Years War into a "made for multiplayer" scenario. I obviously didn't do enough 18 months ago. If I can get the file today, I'm sure I can make the modifications within a few days at most.

I think in a multiplayer game, the emphasis has to be on keeping it moving and making it interesting, rather than keeping it unchanged. Otherwise, people will lose interest and drop out. If anyone is still interested, I can post here when it's done, and maybe we could organize a game starting next weekend. I'll let everyone know what the changes are up front, and people can decide if they wish to participate or not. The changes will not be subject to debate!

BTW, thanks to Shaka for his efforts. I realize that it must have been very confusing with the lack of consensus over rules, etc. I hope you hang in.

[MagyarCrusader]

OK, I'll take Robroy's spot ONLY if nobody else is interesting (i don't want to seem like a carpetbagger here...). I'll play as Poland, unless someone wants that civ. Let me know where to download the scenario, and any futher details. My email address is still michael@jeszenka.com

[techumseh]

Does that leave me as RobRoy's ex-civ, Sweden? Gustavus Adolphus! Papists beware!!

[Marko]

So many postings here since I last visited the forum. But now I'm back and ready to go!
It can be too late but my votes in discussed questions are:

1. No double movement and production.
2. No to changing the road movement to 3. Let's let it as was designed originally. I don't like wars where battles take place only along roads or are only city sieges.

But I can play with road movement 3 also. So if Shaka Naldur has already made his move then it is okay.