 |
| |
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
techumseh
|
 |
of the frozen North.
Apr 1999
time: 22:13
|
|
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. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Marko
|
|
Tartu, Estonia
Sep 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Allard HS
|
|
So.. if I understand everything correctly, we can start now, can't we?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Marko
|
|
Tartu, Estonia
Sep 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
2194 was played as Internet game and Cntrl+N worked there. I don't know about hotseat game. Hope still that we can play in this mode also without any problems.
My e-mail is markourm@yahoo.com
Please send files there.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13.
Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-01-2001 00:47
I'm sorry to hear this. I guess in the end the idea is stillborn.
|