16-05-2002 18:57									#31
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Colonel Kraken Hey, me too! It still have a bunch in a box somewhere.

I think I only have 2 left, d-day and midway. I loved d-day, but midway never lived up to expectations. I miss hes tiles, these squares just dont make sense from a movement standpoint. Plus it makes river much easier to see. with squares its hard to tell which diaginal tiles with rivers will impact the center tile.

	17-05-2002 16:49									#32
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Colonel Kraken Here are some of my thoughts. (I still want to look at your spreadsheet, Alpha). Bear in mind, these are just musings. Ideas for Unit Stats: Attack/Ranged/Defense/Movement. [Cargo Capacity] Ranged attack in ( ) is range 0. Ranged attack with "r" is the range. TRADER: 0/(0)/0/2 [1] Capturable. Coast movement only. Foot units only. *No graphic. GALLEY: 1/(1)/1/3 Coast movement only. *In game. POLYREME: 3/(2)/2/3 [1] Coast movement only. Foot units only. *No graphic. (But see this thread) CARAVEL: 0/(0)/0/4 [2] Capturable. Coast and Sea movement. Foot units only. *In game. GALLEON: 4/(4)/4/5 [3] Coast, Sea, and Ocean movement. Foot and horse units (is this possible?) *In game.

No you cannot make a unit carry foot and horse units only. You can make it carry foot units only, or carry all land units excluding missiles, or missiles only, or all land units. I would make all ships prior to the Galleon carry foot units only and let later ships carry all except missiles (meaning they can carry horse, artillery, and mechanized units). I like how you made the Trader and Caravel capturable by the way.

quote: DREADNOUGHT: 25/20r2/22/8 HP+2 *Graphic available. BATTLESHIP: 30/25r2/28/10 HP+2 *In game.

It looks like the Dreadnought and Battleship are a bit too similar in capabilities. The Battleship should have a clear advantage in one-on-one, but not overkill. How about giving the Battleship HP+3 to reflect that it has the heaviest armor of any unit ever?

quote: MISSILE DESTROYER: 22/25r3/20/12 [4^] ^Cruise missile only? Can see and attack subs. *Graphic available. NUCLEAR ATTACK SUB: 25/20r2/18/10 [2^] ^Cruise missile only? Can see and attack other subs. *In game. BOOMER: 20/(0)/20/10 [6] Can carry ICBMs. Can see and attack other subs. *No graphic. AEGIS CRUISER: 25/25r3/22/12 [8^] ^Cruise missile only? Special defense against air/cruise missile attack? Can see and attack subs. *In game.

The Missile Destroyer and Aegis Cruiser seem to be redundant with each other, with the Aegis Cruiser only being able to carry more missiles. Given that Robotics comes so close to the end of the tech tree that nobody ever uses it much, I would combine them into one unit available with Rocketry.

quote: Note on limits on movement: all units can move in sea tiles with Astronomy and Ocean tiles with Navigation. Another thing you'll notice is the progression of movement rates all the way to 12!

Agreed, but if modern units are to have a movement of 12, then I would NOT want to see them also having the "All terrain as roads" ability. That would give them 36 moves per turn, which means that a unit could move from its home base in an enemy city to attack your city AND withdraw out of your vision range. While this may be realistic, it unbalances gameplay to have a sea unit able to leave port, strike a ship in international waters, and return to port all in the same turn.

quote: TECHS: Available with . . . Trader: Pottery? Galley: Map Making Polyreme: Construction Caravel: Astronomy Galleon: Navigation Frigate: Magnetism Ship-of-the-Line: Magnetism Merchantman: Magnetism Ironclad: Industrialization Dreadnought: Steel Transport: Steel Destroyer: Refining Submarine: Refining Battleship: Mass Production? Aircraft Carrier: Flight? Missile Destroyer: Rocketry Nuclear Attack Sub: Nuclear Power Boomer: Nuclear Power Super Carrier: Rocketry Amphibious Assault Ship: Advanced Flight? Aegis Cruiser: Robotics?

Mostly, this looks all right, but as I said above, the Missile Destroyer and Aegis Cruiser seem redundant with each other. I would also put the Frigate as available at the same time as the Galleon so that it would see more use. The Super Carrier I would rename the Nuclear Carrier and put it with Nuclear Power (modern carriers are nuclear powered). Lastly, the name Boomer reminds me of the anime "Bubblegum Crisis" (Boomers in that anime were a kind of combat android). I would rename them something like Missile Sub.

	17-05-2002 22:05									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

have you guys had a chance to look at the numbers i posted the other night? I think i've incorporated units and upgraded numbers.

	18-05-2002 00:52									#34
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

AW,
If you posted new numbers somewhere I sure didn't see the link to such things. Please post the link! Not to mention the wonder and other spreadsheets I believe you've finished.

Ijuin,
Thanks for the thoughts. I think CK wrote those naval movements before thinking of the all terrain as roads possibility.

Regarding stuff coming too near the end of the tech tree, I think we should fix that some. Add more techs so things go a little bit into the future (2010, at least), even if they're largely blank ones (better that just "future tech"). Move the SDI and space stuff into that near future. Cos as it is now, we have a mix of future stuff with already history stuff.

That way, the tech tree won't just abruptly give out.

	18-05-2002 01:54									#35
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Combat clones...yeeehaaaaaaa


ooops, we got hijacked by star wars....LOL

	18-05-2002 16:34									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Harlan Regarding stuff coming too near the end of the tech tree, I think we should fix that some. Add more techs so things go a little bit into the future (2010, at least), even if they're largely blank ones (better that just "future tech"). Move the SDI and space stuff into that near future. Cos as it is now, we have a mix of future stuff with already history stuff. That way, the tech tree won't just abruptly give out.

This is what I did in my own personal mod. I created a couple of new advances, like Advanced Composites (Synthetic Fibers and Superconductor), which is now needed for SS Exterior Casing, and Nuclear Fusion (Nuclear Power and Superconductor), which allows SS Engine.

	21-05-2002 04:49									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I have been following your discussions with great interest. Here are some thoughts:

1) One way to differentiate the ships is with possible resource pre-requisites, for example, oil might be necessary for some early modern units, uranium for the nuclear variety.

a) Along these lines the cruiser could be a less powerful version of the battleship that requires coal instead of oil for the battleship. That way a player is not relegated to ironclads if oil is not to be found.

b) What about a PT Boat/Corvette which would be available without any special resources in the modern era? This would stop the Frigate/SoTL from being built late in the game when a player is cut off from all resources.

2) Something else to keep in mind is that it is possible to change the appearance of a unit by era without changing its underlying statistics by adding a tag in a specific folder. Thus, a Battleship could start with a Dreadnought graphic and have this change to the modern version without adding a unit.

3) I am not sure that there is much benefit, in game play terms, to having both a nuclear sub and the boomer.

	21-05-2002 09:45									#38
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Bubba I have been following your discussions with great interest. Here are some thoughts: 1) One way to differentiate the ships is with possible resource pre-requisites, for example, oil might be necessary for some early modern units, uranium for the nuclear variety.

this as already been incorporated

quote: a) Along these lines the cruiser could be a less powerful version of the battleship that requires coal instead of oil for the battleship. That way a player is not relegated to ironclads if oil is not to be found.

in essence ironclads arent as weak as people think. They be more like pre-dreadnaught battleships meaning they need coal, have comparative weapons (10-inch guns) as a cruiser would, but it is slower. I think the resource frequencies will need to be increased slightly so even if a player doesnt get a resource, it should at least be available for trade. thus trade wars may be required to get specific resources.

quote: b) What about a PT Boat/Corvette which would be available without any special resources in the modern era? This would stop the Frigate/SoTL from being built late in the game when a player is cut off from all resources.

see above

quote: 2) Something else to keep in mind is that it is possible to change the appearance of a unit by era without changing its underlying statistics by adding a tag in a specific folder. Thus, a Battleship could start with a Dreadnought graphic and have this change to the modern version without adding a unit.

i'm worried less about appearance than values. My fav example is the BB. The retrofitted Iowa-BBs were substantially more powerful than their 1945 versions, and I'd like that increase in power to be reflected in its stats and abilities.

quote: 3) I am not sure that there is much benefit, in game play terms, to having both a nuclear sub and the boomer.

I'm not sure there is either. Will probably playtest it to see if the AIs will build balanced navies or strictly sub navies.

General rule is if the AI cant use it, we dont want to add it. We are still trying to figure out how the AI determines what to build under which circumstances.