 |
|  |
 |
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000 time: 06:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Zedd
The last evidences of the reign of kind dedanu have faded, the army has re-grouped and is just now starting to cary out Zedanu's plans for defending the realm. Let us hope they are enough to protect our cities until peace is restored. |
Do we hear well that Assyria is prepared for a capitulation?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000 time: 06:22
|
|
In 2780 the Babylonian swordsmen that lost their way in the desert due to use of CivDip in a Black area should arrive in one of my cities.
I would like to make them by hexediting my 2790 save (adding shields to my city so that swordsmen are completed in 2780).
I will post my original save, then the edited one. The new save will have one byte changed (number of shields in that city).
You can find an agreement of other players if you go to page 53:
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...318#post3471318
and read subsequent posts.
Last edited by SlowThinker on 15-06-2005 at 21:20
|
|
|  |
 |
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000 time: 06:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Zedd
I said from the beginning that I was not looking forward to war, and would keep a mind open for peace. But if the price of peace is 1/2 of all Assyria then it is too much. If my enemies require 1/2 of what the Assyrians have worked for then there will be blood shed on each side. Thus far I have made no move more aggressive save the delivery of camels and the defense of Assyrias only Island city from ships sent to attack. I have elected to defend those cities left in my charge at Dedanu's passing, rather than "aquiring" more cities, which was most certainly possible.
I doubt that this distinction will sway the hatred of our enemys. |
A half of Assyria (we think it was about a third only) and a coequal position among other nations might be better than no Assyria at all. But if Zedanu thinks he can resists against 6 nations in the long term...
For completeness: in the meantime Babylonians had to invest enormous amount of gold in the war industry and so our trade suffered very much. Therefore now for peace we would require all the area Sippur-Kurigalzu-Arraphka-Ekkalate as a compensation.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000 time: 06:22
|
|
Giving units
There is a problem with exchanging units:
If a unit is passed via MP connection, it is rehomed to nearest city of the new owner. If a unit is passed via CivDip, it stays homed in the original (and so foreign city).
Rehoming caravans is bad, therefore we disallowed passing units by MP sessions. We supposed with this rule caravan revenue won't change, because home cities doesn't change, but this is not true: this way a foreign bonus may change, also the Railroad=BronzeWeapons loss may be suppressed etc.
So I suggest to add this rule:
If caravan is passed to another civ it cannot be delivered if the revenue would be bigger than the revenue of the original owner.
Another problem is a shield support after passing a unit by CivDip:
If a city homes a foreign unit then the unit doesn't need a shield of support (although it would need it if it weren't foreign).
So I suggest to add this rule:
It is forbidden that an unfreezed unit doesn't consume a shield of support due to being a foreign unit.
(You must rectify it:
the home city must "unhome" some units so that no shield support would be consumed (for example under Monarchy the city must support only 2 own units + the said foreign unit)
or the owner of the unit must rehome it (a fast trick how to rehome a unit is to connect online with ANY civ and to pass the unit back and forth)
(You needn't care the first turn you possess the unit and the unit cannot move (is freezed by CivDip or is "freezed" by the new owner after an online connection))
But some people needn't be prepared for it - units could be lost due to lack of shields etc. ... therefore I propose this rule would be required from 2750(?)
Black-clicking
At CivFanatics I found another trick of black clicking:
If a cursor is on an invisible foreign city (on both black or revealed square) and you press Enter or Spacebar then you get a list of demanded commodites.
So don't use Enter and Spacebar on non-city squares.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000 time: 06:22
|
|
There is another question related to giving units:
If the home city of your unit is in danger then you can connect online with any other player and pass the unit back and forth. This way the unit is rehomed to your nearest city.
Shall this be allowed?
I think this should be forbidden. Exception: the unit is homed to a foreign city (see my last post).
A similar trick could be done more "slowly", for example you can pass a unit away and get it back next turn or after several turns. I think this should be rather allowed because it would be painful to track all units that cannot be passed back.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Straybow
|
 |
SG(2)… gone but not forgotten
Jan 1970 time: 23:22
|
|
Eh, I don't know that it's something to worry much about and make a new rule, except for caravan revenues (it is already illegal to change caravan home). Somebody is paying a shield to support the unit, or using a free slot allotted for support. If it becomes NONE then there is a problem.
[Edit: nevermind]
Last edited by Straybow on 16-06-2005 at 09:49
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kull

|
|
El Paso, TX USA
Mar 1999 time: 22:22
|
|
I can understand the desire to try and curb questionable tactics, but complicated rules tend to suck the life out of any endeavor, be it games or real life. I'd recommend something a lot simpler:
"Units shall not be exchanged if the sole purpose is to achieve an exploit, i.e something outside the normal flow of the game."
So if you are trading caravans to bump up gold, no - if it's to help a partner amass shields to build a unit or wonder, yes. Likewise, if the only reason you are giving a unit away is to prevent it's destruction through loss of the home city, that's an exploit. If it's part of an acceptable strategy, such as giving units to an ally to help them win a war, no problem.
And if a particular situation looks a little gray, then I say leave it between you and your conscious, just like everything else in this game - and in life, too.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000 time: 06:22
|
|
I agree with Kull that rules should be simple. Unfortunately Civ2 has many bugs and we should deal with them.
quote: Originally posted by Kull
Units shall not be exchanged if the sole purpose is to achieve an exploit, i.e something outside the normal flow of the game. |
IMHO these terms are very unclear.
For example I consider to give a unit to my ally so that it doesn't die as a normal flow of the game. Similarly if I saw I would lose several cities then I would give my gold to my ally so that it is not looted by the enemy.
I wouldn't be affected by such a restriction now, but I would cry if my plans were based on a possibility to save units by their giving to another civ and then somebody told me it was forbidden.
quote: Likewise, if the only reason you are giving a unit away is to prevent it's destruction through loss of the home city, that's an exploit. If it's part of an acceptable strategy, such as giving units to an ally to help them win a war, no problem. |
Another problem is both purposes (to help an ally + to rehome unit to a more safe city) may often be mixed. Where is the line allowed / forbidden?
quote: Originally posted by Peaster
Personally I think civ should allow your exploring units to rehome to the nearest city but thats just one of the quirks of the game. |
For me it is not a quirk. It adds a kind of strategic deciding into game: shall I home units in safe cities only and to pay for shield support or save support but risk that units may be lost?
Unfortunately it brings a lot of micromanagement too.
quote: Originally posted by Straybow
In many cases the donating nation will not want to pay support for a gift unit, in which case a quick MP swap-back should be legal to change the home city. It should not be required. |
But it can save many shields per turn. For me this is against the natural flow of a game.
I think support of foreign units may be tracked easily (you see units of diferent color in your city window) and unit(s) may be rehomed if shields are saved unwarrantedly.
Last edited by SlowThinker on 17-06-2005 at 01:39
|
|
|  |
 |
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000 time: 06:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Zedd
Shall we recieve compensation for Assyrias fallen soldiers, or the razed city and sunken ships?
NO? I didn't expect so.
|
Ah, we remember now ... it was Babylon who attacked the peaceful Assyrian people sneakily. We remember... Egypt protested and warned Babylon that Pharaoh couldn't tolerate that. Also Persians, Minoans, Hittites and Greeks expressed they would support Assyria - the victim of the attack. We remember... Then Babylon started a war against these four civs without warning...
Therefore you are right, it is Assyria who should ask for a compensation.
But bloodthirsty Babylonians will continue their attack and destroy many Assyrian cities soon.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22. Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|