 |
| |
|
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000
time: 06:29
|
|
Added This thread is placed in Civ2-MP only because I can't place it in more forums simultaneously. So consider a SP view too.
Why I started this thread? I would like a better rules.txt. For both SP and MP. I know there are many better rules.txt in scenarios but they are too different from the original and they are too numerous. So my wish is to get some new standard rules.txt.
IMHO there are many imperfections in Civ2. I see both rah rules and Aussie rules incorporate no changes of rules.txt. Did you ever try to arrange such changes?
Some examples:
There shoudn't be definite strategies in the game. An example is the path to monarchy in the beginning. I think there should be more possible strategies and they should be balanced so that a different starting position need a different starting strategy.
So the tree of reasonable strategies is constricted with the standard rules. And the entertaing principle of games - the decision - is lost.
Barracks: I think they have no prereq so that novice players have one improvement among starting production possibilities. But Barracks are a powerful improvement and the tree of reasonable strategies would be much wider if Barracks were placed on some unwanted tech: Bridge Building for example. This way the game would be more balanced, the value of BB would be much higher.
Marketplace: this is an improvement that could be available from the beginning (no prereq) and nothing would change. You always need caravans long before marketplaces, so marketplaces are always discovered already when you want to build them, you needn't care where they are in the tech tree.
Granaries: they are never used, their cost is too high and should be lowered. Again that would bring much more starting strategies.
Corruption dependent on distance from Palace: I think this is bad. Games where civs expand in concentric circles are not very interesting. Imagine a map with dispersed civs - this is more interesting from strategic point of view. (BTW, games with 2 or 3 starting Settlers on different positions could be interesting)
Solution is introduced in some scenarios: cost of a Courthouse is 10-20 shields, mantenance 0. (But then it shoud be forbidden to use Couthouses for rushbuys of units).
New cities vs. larger cities
(Next I will suppose you also don't like to manage 50 cities and that you would prefer games where a growth of existing cities would be favoured over building of new cities in comparison with standard Civ2 settings)
Deity: I have a feeling that players prefer to play deity because it is 'harder'. But it is not harder if you play without AI: anybody can build some happiness improvement before a city can grow. Only effect is that growth of cities is more expensive.
(Another problem is that only player with HG can easily celebrate.)
Added Also the fact that you need units for martial law don't let you decide if to let a city undefended or to defend. The game is simpler.
And corruption is too high - this force you to build boring empires centered around the capital. From this point of view it is always better to play chieftain and to adjust happiness by changes in rules.txt.
Happiness due to number of cities (see 'Happiness quirk' thread in the GL for details): take republic with deity: there is no penalty for first 8 cities, there is +1 happiness penalty in each city after 16 cities. But then things turns back due to the black hat bug: there is 0 penalty after 24 cities, +1 bonus after 32 cities and so on.
Anyway there is not very much of differences due to number of cities. But I suppose we want to prefer a smaller number of cities. So this is the 'prince' happiness with a changed unhappiness due to number of cities:
no penalty (4 initial content citizens in each city) with 4 cities
+1 penalty (3 initial content citizens) with 8 cities
+2 penalty (2 initial content citizens) with 12 cities
+3 penalty (1 initial content citizens) with 16 cities
+4 penalty (0 initial content citizens) with 20 cities
This way the amount of reasonable strategies is wider: expansion needn't to be maxed.
Last edited by SlowThinker on 29-06-2003 at 17:42
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000
time: 06:29
|
|
What do you mean by 'early'.
I think Barracks must be built when you expect your units will fight, so usually you don't need them in 3800 BC.
quote:
Originally posted by rah
There is no need to delay the ability to build barracks. |
I wanted to say that the game (or rules.txt) is more interesting if you are not able to built barracks in time when you want to build them and therefore you have to discover the appropriate tech.
This is the principle of techs: you can go for different techs, each tech has its merits and you have to decide which tech is the most important.
The game is more interesting if you have to decide among 5 very useful techs than if you know you must go for Monarchy and only for Monarchy.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000
time: 06:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ming
You don't really need them before then... |
I can agree you needn't them as long as you have no contact. But then you need them as soon as possible IMHO...They double every shield spent on combat units.
quote:
Originally posted by rah
You should join us some time and find out just how weak we are. |
I have contacted atawa already, but I am afraid I will be too slow.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000
time: 06:29
|
|
Hydey, I mean all this degenerated MP company. Next time I will post back to Civ2-Strategy.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-06-2003 18:17
That's good.
Even though you're usually still in the land grab era conflicts can occur. But that early settler is 90% of the time, more important than the barracks.
|