|
|
Some questions.
1) If I write ANYCITY or ANYUNIT in event command, will it work with FW?
2) Is there any way to cover again a certain square on map in other way than covering the whole map?
3) A more general question; to make a scenario better, you have to give the player little cities. But at the end of the most games, you have enormous number of them anyway. So what's the difference? I know, the difference is that, as you start with them, the overall
time x number of cities is bigger. But when it's more probable you'll loose the cities during the game?
Me myself like to defend then to attack better. But I guess it's conquerors' game 8*)
4) How do you make sure that changing human player won't result in a turn change? Should I move by 1 player?
5) I'm going to have in my scenario a coast terrain, by the shores of seas. For sure it won't be irrigable; what I found very dumb in civ1 is that, as long as I can remember!- you could start irrigation by the sea, and you couldn't - by the river. I know, probably they weren't able to make it the other way round. In civ2, you can do it both ways, which is still not my ideal, but you can defend it by saying that some of the water may be lakes etc. Anyway, by this coast terrain, I can solve it. The coast terrain will give you a lot of trade, which is understandable, but because of that (not minding that inland little lake shouldn't give you money - unless it is about modern scenarios, you know, tourists - but then, the mountains should give some trade too) I'm going to cut down trade produced by the ocean. My question is if should this terrain get you 1 or 2 food.
2 - If they can not be irrigated, the city by the sea must have some food somehow.
1 - the coastal cities WERE importing food usually (but it is not so easy to import food in civ2. It comes from this mistake; in civ2, better grounds means bigger cities, while it was perhaps even the other way
round sometimes; if the soil is good for farming, the villages are bigger, and only from them people come to cities, if there are no more hands needed by the work. Of course, cities in civ2, at least on large- scaled maps, represent regions. But my maps aren't large-scaled... And it would be too profitable to buid a city over the sea. If we give coast 1 food, you can build a city, and by investing in it, by buying
money facilities and -the most important - harbour, you can be sure it will slowly getting some position, and will be a use to you by giving a lot of money. Addtionally, I'll have (again, in the scenario I've
almost done I have it already) a special terrain to represent really good city sites, historically dense-populated areas etc, so there'll be no problem that f.e. Constantineople will be a little village only
because it is over the sea.
But you can find it all to severe, not minding even my idea of cutting down ocean's food production...?
6) After changing human player several times (some turns ellapsed) I noticed that some irrigation and roads appeared - which wouldn't be if there would be some settlers...?
7) And that reminds me of another thing. On some maps, one of the "cities", meaning - civ starting points, are "bigger", and sometimes irrigation appears? Does it have anything in common with which civs start with 2 settlers or with extra techs?
8) Where can I find this city scenario about Warsaw's uprising? I know that there is something like that...?
Bye,
|
13-11-2000 23:43
|
|