 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Sore Loser
|
|
Aarhus, Denmark
Sep 2003
time: 06:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by rjmatsleepers
Another point that this particular 56 year old conservative
|
Just HOW many 56-year-old conservatives are there here? 
quote:
has at the back of his mind is whether the rules changes are actually balanced.
|
They aren't all that well balanced yet, another reason why I made this post is that I would like to get some feedback.
quote:
We know that in Civ II there are a lot of strategic decisions that are very finely balanced.
|
Again, the game mode that I intended this for was non-ELG and SP. Both of those are interesting ways to play the game, but I would like to expand on the possibilities for SP play, specifically succession games. That said, I don't feel that the gameplay is very well balanced unless you add additional challenges. Specifically, I think the balance between expansion and perfectionism is bad. And caravans are poorly balanced, as you mention.
quote:
There is a risk that with so many changes rules.txt, we take the trouble to work our way through what sounds like a very different game, and then some clever person (living in Seattle?) discovers a killer strategy that guarantees a win.
|
I disagree. To me, challenge in games comes from two sources: Playing against better players and changing the rules. Both provide gameplay satisfaction to me. MP provides one kind of challenge, succession games another kind. Besides, I feel fairly confident that this killer strategy doesn't exist.
La Fayette, Old n Slow: Thank you for the encouragement, I'll certainly try to start one up. What is the minimum number of players for this to be any fun? I'm aiming for 5.
STYOM: There is no units.gif, the games.txt file has been modified only to allow for additional difficulty levels and map settings.
Old n Slow:
The units are not well balanced. This is partly because I'm more of a builder kind of player and thus don't really know much The HP/FP are uniformly set to 4/2 because I never understood the significance of either. I know what the terms mean, but how does a 4/3 unit perform differently than a 6/2 unit? I put them to same values so they'd be easier to evaluate. Modern units do indeed have fewer advantages over pre-modern ones. I have mostly been testing this in pre-modern times, so there is probably room for improvement here. However, one of the points with the military bit is that you shouldn't just use tanks for offense, I've been trying to make every modern unit unique and useful in some way.
You raise another point, namely how to make the AI stronger. This is what I've done so far:
1) Raised the production cost reduction to 40% (from 20%)
2) Made Despotism more useful, meaning that the AI won't suffer so much from it
3) Increased food cost for settlers, which doesn't harm the AI (their cities never starve, and their settlers are never disbanded due to starvation)
4) Added coastal flag to all sail-driven ships (ignored by AI)
5) Raised the difficulty level to 7 and increased the net riot factor (unrest doesn't hamper the AI as much as it does human players)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
rjmatsleepers
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Scouse Gits
New Labour, for example, being a party far to the right of traditional (pre-Thatcher) Conservatism
Stu |
But then of course the Blessed Margaret did rather break the mould of British politics (to borrow a phrase from a party that you can read about in the history books).
RJM at Sleeper's
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-10-2003 07:34
I'll follow your suggestion and stop posting here.
I generously permit you to post here about other things, only your rules.txt proposal is banned here.
|
|