standard multiplayer modpack? - Page 2

Curumbor Elendil · March 28, 2001, 10:23

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by CapTVK on 03-27-2001 05:04 PM</font>

This might have something to do with the scenario flag. Maybe you should try saving it as a scenario?

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

No, we weren't using a scenario file. We were just switching out the rules.txt and starting a new regular multiplayer game. (Yes, we had the rules in the right directory.

)

------------------
Curumbor Elendil
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35/
ICQ 56126989

Curumbor Elendil · March 28, 2001, 10:25

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by The Capo on 03-28-2001 07:51 AM</font>
I think the game requires a few new units and some changes to old units. I think Facism should either replace Fundamentalism or Communism, but most likely Fundamentalism since you get the free unit that is specific to the government.

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Done that.

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>
I think some noteable bridges need to be gapped as well, the cavalry as a precursor to Armo
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Done that - there's now an early Armor unit that you get with Automobile. Heavy Armor (the game's equivalent of Armor) comes with Mobile Warfare.

------------------
Curumbor Elendil
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35/
ICQ 56126989

The Capo · March 28, 2001, 10:51

Man that's queer, it didn't send in my entire post so it cut off at "Armo"

I had written a lot to, dangblasted technology.

Give the spy and partisan stealth and two square visibility, because its a spy who would find out enemy coordinates and would NEVER just walk around letting a foreign country know it was there. Pretty much same with Partisan, scout for enemy undetected etc...

And there's other **** but I have a class in ten min, PEACE!

Curumbor Elendil · March 29, 2001, 15:09

I've given the spy and diplomat submarine advs/disadvs, and same for the zeppelin unit (reconnaissance plane). Didn't do it for partisans - because they're also military units. And it's hard to hide an entire partisan army. I also added an A.A. Battery unit for air defense in fortresses.

I think I may have found a solution to the tech paradigm problem: increasing the food and shield boxes to 15 from 10. This is roughly equivalent to playing 2/3x, 2/3x instead of 1x, 1x. The biggest problem with this, I think, is that it may benefit Democracies and Limited Monarchies unduly by allowing them to grow without going through the expanded food box. On the other hand, the expanded shield box probably discriminates against Democracies & Limited Monarchies. I tried to make up for the slight Democratic advantage by raising the cost and upkeep of Police Stations pretty substantially, & returning the costs of caravans and freights to 50 shields. I also reduced the cost of Granaries slightly to help out non-Dem/Lim Mon govts. Finally, I added a recommendation in the readme that you play on Deity, 1x1x.

The new file is at http://bestofmetal.net/multimod.zip .

------------------
Curumbor Elendil
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35/
ICQ 56126989

reds4ever · March 29, 2001, 18:37

is n't the issue of movement points dependent on the size of the world?

ie. on a 50x50 world a peice with 1 movement point can move to any of 8 squares or stay still = 9 squares which is 0.36% of the world, on a 100x100 world it can influence 0.09%

adding 2 to ship movement would have a far bigger effect on a small
world than a big one, is there anyway the map size can be used the give the movement points for the units as a multiplyer or could we have different sets of rules.txt for, say small, big and giga maps.

Curumbor Elendil · March 30, 2001, 09:51

I suppose I could make different rules for differently sized maps - however, the rules as a whole are really meant for games with 4 or more players, on medium and larger maps. I guess I could make separate rules for medium and large maps, but I don't know if it's really worth the trouble. After all, if we were concerned with realism, we'd quintuple ships' and planes' movement rates or even more, even on a medium map. Since I'm just doubling, I'm not sure it's necessary to reduce that for a medium map.

------------------
Curumbor Elendil
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35/
ICQ 56126989

markusf · March 30, 2001, 19:34

Put nukes back in and leave out SDI. A nuke should cost 6,000-10,000 shields to produce.

The Capo · March 31, 2001, 01:23

Cur I disagree with you on the allocation of Submarine advantages to various units...

Diplomats - Should not recieve it, the nature of a diplomat is not one of stealth, it is on the contrary one of attention. Therefore it should not have the submarine advantages based on that alone.

Spies - No problem.

Partisans - I have an issue here, regardless of whether they are military or not, it adds credence to the idea that these are in fact guerilla soldiers. To have them visible is against all that Guerilla tact teaches, which is stealth and speed, only speed is given in this particular case. Stealth I believe brings out the true nature of what a partisan reprsents, and I think should remain.

Zepplin/Recon units - Eh, the Zep shouldn't have sub advantages since I mean c'mon, its a frikin huge blimp. I think what our disagreement is rests on different criteria. You are going for effective realism, what the units intent is. I am going for whole-sale realism, what the unit is (namewise and visually) as well as what the intent is.

So what's what I'm sayin.

Curumbor Elendil · April 3, 2001, 00:29

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by markusf on 03-30-2001 06:34 PM</font>
Put nukes back in and leave out SDI. A nuke should cost 6,000-10,000 shields to produce.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

What's your reasoning for this? With that massive a number of shields, I doubt anyone would build them anyway!

Capo - I just think the partisans would be too powerful if they were invisible. Plus, you could tell where they were anyway because your production would be blocked (say, if you had just taken over a city). OK, maybe the blimp shouldn't be invisible. But I guess the idea is that it may look harmless, not like an enemy unit.

------------------
Curumbor Elendil
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35/
ICQ 56126989