How`s this for an idea?

[Paul Hanson]

I`ve been toying with an idea for a scenario for quite sometime, and I was wondering what other people would think of it, and whether it would be possible to do.

Basically, it goes like this. You have a complete world map, set in the present day, with cities in the correct places. The civs are not nations, but airline companies, who can only build passenger airlines, like 747`s and the like. The planes are all trade units, and by moving a plane into a city, you recieve money for completing a trade transaction. When you have accrued enough money, you can send a diplomat style unit into an rival`s city/airport and buy it. Eventually you will have a complete monopoly of the world`s airways. Obviously, it would only be a multiplayer scenario, due to the AI not being up to the same level as a human player .

So, if anyone has any opinions or ideas for me, just post them here.

[Macbeth]

Interesting, but just remember you can't corrupt capital cities, nor Democratic cities.

[techumseh]

A great idea, Paul. Unfortunately, Civ doesn't like trade units that aren't ground units. But if you take the concept and apply it to railways, for example, you'd have a unique scenario.

[Paul Hanson]

Well Macbeth, how about this? None of the civs are democracies for a start. Is it actually possible to have a civ without a capital city? I`m not sure, but I think you can.

Techumseh, I know someone who managed to create ships that were capable of trade after a bit of messing around with the editors. I`m not sure how he did it, but I`ll give it ago myself and see what I can do. And if it doesn`t work, I can create a Railroad Tycoon scenario instead!

[valmont]

It sounds like fun! Unlike any other scenario out there. I think the Railroad Tycoon idea is actually stronger in a way, because you'd have to actually build the railroad & decide on the best routes. I think that would be more fun than just sending out airplanes. [Isn't there an increase to trade routes between cities connected by rail?] It would probably be more interesting if you adjusted the movement principle of railroads from instantaneous arrival at the destination to, say, double the speed of a road.

I love the idea of a game with no offensive units - only traders, diplomats & settlers! Way cool! However, consider disabling the Democracy government, since it's likely to lead to a stalemate.
[This message has been edited by valmont (edited October 18, 1999).]

[Paul Hanson]

I`m glad that people seem to like the idea! I`ve been thinking about it, and I`ve got these ideas:

1) Railroads are infact oceans, and you have flying engineers that can transform terrain into oceans. Therefore the trains would infact be ships that could only travel along railroads and not halfway across a mountain range. It`s not an ideal prospect though.

2) You`re right, Democracy won`t be avaliable as a government. A better choice would be Communism, because corruption is flat and spies (which would play a large role in the game, under a different name of course, would always be veterans).

3) The Barbarians are terrorists and high-jackers that attack your trains and that kind of stuff. Of course, you`d always have to watch out for people bribing your trains and buying your most profitable routes!

The only problem I`ve got is that there aren`t any train graphics for units, and I`m no artist. Maybe someone could have a go at drawing some train units, featuring trains from the beginning of steam train travel upto the present day (and maybe beyond)? If anyone feels like it, do tell me!

------------------
"I`m a rugged individualist, just like everyone else".

-Bart Simpson`s Guide to Life

[Miner]

If you used TOT you could use the impassable terrain for everything bar RailRoads. Engineers could transform the terrain into RailRoads so the trains could then travel across it. How does this sound?

[Paul Hanson]

I`m not planning to use TOT, cos I don`t have it either.

I have got another idea. Rather than using oceans as railroads, I could use ground units with the ability to carry air units. Then trains would only have 1 movement per turn and if they didn`t land on a rail unit, they`d run out of fuel and crash (I`d change the game.txt file accordingly, of course). The problem with this is that each unit is sentrified automatically when it comes in lands on a carrier unit, and it`d be annoying having to unsentrify them every turn.

Assuming that I do stick with railroads. Trains would be sea units capable of carrying other units. So what you have are static ground units, representing raw materials like steel or coal, even passengers. Trains could pick them up, take them to another town, where they could be disbanded to gain production bonuses. Sea units can be made into trade units by they way, but it takes a bit of messing around to do it.

Oh, and flying engineers would work, if they had helicopter abilities (check out the pants Alien Invasion scenario that comes with CiC to see what I mean).



------------------
"I`m a rugged individualist, just like everyone else".

-Bart Simpson`s Guide to Life

[valmont]

Mommy yes! Barbarian hijackers!

Please don't use TOT I don't have it!!

I can understand wanting to use oceans, but would you be able to make them look right? There's only 1 ocean terrain slot isn't there? I like the fact that the game is smart enough to connect your tracks vertically or horizontally. The good thing about using ocean is that you'd be able to use transport units! Much cooler than just sending the freight along the tracks. Hmm...

Flying engineers -- cool idea, would it work?

Hey, I'd like to playtest this when you get to that point.
[This message has been edited by valmont (edited October 19, 1999).]

[valmont]

But you can make ground units transport things can't you?

You could give poor move stats to the freight units, so you have to use the trains. [Would it work to give them 0 move?]

Then when the Barbs appear, they will vandalize the railroads, giving your engineers more to do.

Time for a long Eddie post.......

=================================

Flying Engineers eh? Well, what if the computer decided to go build a new city?

....

Now the solution...

Instead of using the normal terrains (with the main terrains being grasslands and plains), you can change the stats and the images over to the swamps and jungles and vice versa. The squares will still prduce the same number of food, shields \, and trade arrows, but the computer will refuse to build a city on it! Just watch where you put the new terrains in the grasslands and plains slots....

=================================

To help with the sentry problem...

It IS possible to make a unit that carries both air and sea units. (BTW, that would be great for representing different trains ), and the only way I've been able to do it is through the editors. Maybe instead of making the cargo all air or all ground, mybe make the minerals air units and the passengers or machinary ground units. That way there could be three trains, one for air units, one for ground units, and one for both.

=================================

Here's a thought, why not make special cargo appear in certain cities like in the real game! Say, a king or queen has demanded that they be taken to a certain city or station within a limited ammount of time. To make a reward they could be trade units, or there could be a way through events to make a reward. Special mineals too.

=================================

As for making it more slowly when going through mountains, you cold have barbaran units like mudslides, floods, and rocks appear. They would be in the slots that would make the AI get rid of them, but they could still be around for a long enough time that they're a nusance (I'm off of school, gimme a break if it's wrong ). Either just make these stay on the tracks for awhile, or make the trains waste movement points on them.

=================================

Ummmmm, steel isn't a raw material...

Since railroads are huge...you should let them build depots to collect coal and iron and timber and oil and other raw materials they need. Then they ship them back to main cities and get them converted into things like steel and petroleum so that then they can build more track. (Not sure how they could do that track theng, but the rest of it does make a point....)
=================================

I think that there should be a neutral civ that controls all the major cities except for the "capitol" or "headquarters" of the railways. That way you could really build routes to cities.

=================================

I think that there should also be a civ that is the designer of the trains, so that when a new train (higher movement, higher hp, higher cost) comes out you would have to buy the tech to get the trains.

=================================

*pant* *pant*....*sigh*

I have more *pant* ideas. *pant* But I don't know how to word them yet. More long posts later!

[This message has been edited by Fast_Eddie (edited October 20, 1999).]

[EnochF]

One possible solution would be to use Dominion Three units instead of Air units for trade. D3 trade units would be able to move over all three kinds of terrain, yet would not run out of fuel. D3 units set for trade can trade; set for settle, they can settle; they can also "fortify" in midair.

BIG PROBLEM, though: the computer doesn't know how to use D3 units. It usually treats them as ground units, despite their ability to cross water. You could design the scenario with a particular tribe recommended for the human player, with the other tribes jury-rigged to provide competition with ground-based trade. Or you could simply design a multiplayer-only scenario.

More information on D3 units can be found in the design tips section of Scenario League. They're useful little buggers.
[This message has been edited by EnochF (edited October 20, 1999).]

[Paul Hanson]

Yea, I`ve heard about the "putting terrains in the glacier/jungle/etc. trick. It`s a good point you`ve made there.

When you say "it is possible to make a unit that carries both air and sea units", I assume you mean "both air and land units"? Another good point, so now I can have freight and passenger trains and etc... great idea.

I did have the idea that the events .txt would generate cargo in certain cities, say every two turns. So from a town like Detroit, you would get cars which you had to take to other places that wanted them.

OK, so steel isn`t a raw material, but you know what I mean . I`ve got another idea, which would be hard to get working but it might just work. Each individual city is locked into the production of a certain unit, like steel. But steel requires a lot of resources, and the only way to accumulate enough is to get some iron and disband it in the city (iron would have a unit cost of about 900 shields, as would steel). To illustrate what I mean by "locking" a city into a certain type of production, take a look at "Lord of the Rings" by Harlan Thompson. Some cities, like Iron Hills, are producing Dwarves, but if you change to something else you can`t revert back to building Dwarves. The same would be true of this scenario.

Nice idea about trading techs for trains, I might give it a go. Or techs for trains would be given through events at historically accurate times.

Oh, and I had always intended for the scenario to be multiplayer, because the AI is incredibly dense...

Fast Eddie, when you decide how to word your ideas to post them here.




------------------
"I`m a rugged individualist, just like everyone else".

-Bart Simpson`s Guide to Life

[Paul Hanson]

Damn, double post
[This message has been edited by Paul Hanson (edited October 20, 1999).]

yes, yes, I meant to say air and land units. Caught myself saying air and sea units once but that one slipped away. At least you got the point.

These are all just ramblings of what I'm thinking about when I type it. It's no order at all (except for random ), but at least it has deviders!

some more suggestions/ideas....

=================================

Perhaps the neutral civ and the train producer should be the same civ...

=================================

When will the scenario start? The 1830's in Europe? Or later on in America? If it foes into the 1900's then you'll need to deal with air transport.

=================================

What about having to fight with other companies for government contracts to carry the mail and things like that? Dunno how you'd do, but could make for a profitable venture (the player, not you ).

=================================

Instead of starting at the begining, why not have a few upstart companies and maybe two big ones that are kinda slumping. Might make for a challenge.

=================================

How about giving each train a 99 attack so that when they colide there would be some rubble to clean up. SDI (renamed appropriately) will keep them from nuking the cities.

=================================

And the reason for having air units (instead of D3 units) is because you can't move them off the train (really a carrier) withouot losing them. It's a security measure .

=================================

I'll keep going as soon as I can get some more ideas...
[This message has been edited by Fast_Eddie (edited October 20, 1999).]

[valmont]

If you give the train an attack value it will cause unhappiness by being outside the city won't it?

Well, because there's going to be the "bribing" of the competitor's routes, the government used is probably going to be communism. So then the answer would be "no".

[Paul Hanson]

Lets tackle each point in a random order

I`d intended for the scenario to be set in one of the worlds out of Railroad Tycoon. I`ll probably go for the USA during the 19th century, but if it`s successful I could do more set in other places, like Europe and Britain.

Same goes for the idea about the "established companies": if the normal "start from scratch" scenario is popular, I could always do something like that.

I`m not sure about making trains into pseudo-nukes, but if I gave them an attack strength and one crashed into the other, the company who`s train caused the crash would be fined serverely, and would be less likely to get used (don`t know how I`d do that one though).

Keep the ideas coming.

BTW, if anyone`s interested in drawing any train graphics for the units, do tell me. If no-one is, I`ll give it a go myself using the graphics from Transport Tycoon.



------------------
"I`m a rugged individualist, just like everyone else".

-Bart Simpson`s Guide to Life

[Mark von Wagner]

<>

In events.txt, set up an event so that when a train is destroyed, the TRIGGERATTACKER is given -100 (or however much you want the fine to be) gold.

[valmont]

Just give the unit less movement or less hold space. Or make it cost an arm and a leg to build.

[Paul Hanson]

Mark, I know how to make a civ lose money

What I meant was that I don`t know how to dissuade people from using a certain train company using the CivII engine.

Sorry if it wasn`t very clear what I meant, which is wasn`t!

[mindseye]

Um, am I missing something here? Why go through all of this very hard work to make a rail scenario? Railroad Tycoon II is an excellent simulation! Just get a copy and enjoy it! You will never be able to beat its wonderful animated graphics in a static strategy game like Civ2.

- Tim Smith (a steam enthusiast)

[Miner]

You are missing the point, the idea is to see how far the game engine can be pushed as well as having some fun! Personally I think this is a stonking-ly good idea and look forward to it being finished!

[Paul Hanson]

Well, I have played Railroad Tycoon 2 a few times, and for some reason I much prefered the original, which I do own (on the Amiga, don`t laugh!) And as Miner correctly points out, it`s more to do with having a bit of fun and seeing how much you can accomplish with a game engine not designed to do such a thing!

------------------
"I`m a rugged individualist, just like everyone else".

-Bart Simpson`s Guide to Life

[mindseye]

Oh, sorry - now I understand!

The farthest stretch of the Civ2 envelope I have seen was an evolution-themed scenario. Instead of building cities, you develop organisms. In place of city improvements you "grow" organs. I guess the tech tree consists of things like vision and sentience. I didn't actually download this thing, and cannot attest to its quality, but the idea was the most creative I've seen yet in a scenario.

I never played RR Tycoon I, not even on my PC Jr. ;-> Personally, I could do with a lot less of the financial/stock market aspect, but the remarkable look-and-feel make for great mindless fun!

If you want to get an idea of how a train can look in Civ2, check out my patch/modpack "HiRes". When you build the first section of RR track, you see a tiny steam locomotive and train (simple trick with the TERRAIN1 file). That will give you an idea of what you are up against in terms of graphics (think microscopic)!

Best wishes and good luck!
- Tim

I love the original!!!!

I just can't beat the higher levels cos I lost my manual and I have no clue how to play it. Although on easy I can do quite well until the game stops me from expanding anymore. I figured out that the money stops at 30,000,000 pounds when playing on the European map. Stupid Lenin had to come and beat me...

[Mercator]

When you're using ocean to be railroads, you can use the coastline graphics to create a railroad look. I'm not sure, but I thought the ocean graphic in terrain1.gif isn't even used.
You could also simulate landslides or other 'disasters' with random 'changeterrain' (or whatever that's called) events, changing railroads to rubble terrain or so. Your engineers should then transform the rubble back to railroad.

[Allard HS]

I'm not sure, but I thought the ocean graphic in terrain1.gif isn't even used.

It is used but only if you zoom the view out quite a bit.

[valmont]

How long does it take to transform terrain to ocean? Is that something the designer can adjust? I think the player needs to be able to build a railroad in a reasonable amount of time. One turn is a reasonable length of time to build a RR; ten turns is not.

DISABLE DEMOCRACY!!!!