Play Testers for Old Testament

Jacobite1688 · April 4, 2002, 20:54

The Scenario is not finished as such...is any one ever satisfied with their work? The actual game-play (events, rules, etc.) Is finished. Please, help me improve this scenario. Any suggestion large or small is welcome. There is no read me so:
-All civs playable
BUT
-Hebrews are recomended.
(Duh, its called 'The Old Testament' for a reason.)
-Egypt would be VERY easy.
-Some small tweaks of the events and Egypt's starting position and the game would probably be a great MP game. I don't know tho...I have FW.

-Standard Civ II scoring is in effect. There are even my first few efforts in a Hall of Fame file if you wanna see it.
-I could use help getting the A.I. to use Moses the way he is intended to be used. If you play as the Hebrews, I think you will see what I mean. The game play is O.K. as is, though. If the AI has the Hebrews they often get knocked out of the game before Moses turns up, anyway.

Again, thanks for the help.

WarVoid · April 5, 2002, 16:21

I found that the Archers unit showed up twice in the list of units available to build as the Hebrews.

Also, the flag/civilization colours seem to be mismatched. But that's an easy fix.

Other than that, it looks good so far.

If I find anything else i'll complain, don't worry.

Jacobite1688 · April 5, 2002, 17:58

The "mismatched colors" was intentional. the two colors come off each of the flags. I wasn't satisfied with the effect, either and will choose one color for each Civ.

- Two archers, eh, I have never noticed this effect, but it shouldn't be to hard to fix. There are a LOT of unused tech slots.

Shaka Naldur · April 6, 2002, 13:48

is an original idea,

but the rules and the tech tree is the same as civ2

the events are cool

Prometeus · April 6, 2002, 14:31

Yeah, Shaka, the tech three is the weak point... but Civ2 rules works fine enough o' tha' scen.

Shaka Naldur · April 6, 2002, 14:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Prometeus
Yeah, Shaka, the tech three is the weak point... but Civ2 rules works fine enough o' tha' scen.

yes, but..

i don´t know, a little change, a little modification, i don´t know
anything else is perfect but..

Jacobite1688 · April 7, 2002, 18:54

Exactly what needs to be changed to make a scenario good? I think changes from the standard Civ II game should only be made if they enhance the scenario. Civ II, esp. with the Fascist Patch or something like it, plays pretty well to begin with. That's why we're all here in this forum. My philosophy is if it ain't broke, dont fix it. I think it is pretty clear that a fair amount of time went into tweaking the rules (and keeping the tech tree alphabetical

) for this scenario. This debate is raging right now in another thread - "Have we become spoiled" I'll post this there, too. Still, all the comments are constructive. Keep sending them, I am finishing the scenario up.

Prometeus · April 8, 2002, 03:44

I believe tech three should be changed, and there are two roads to do that:

a) radically change evrything ( tech names, stats, icons, etc etc )

b) adjust and/or remove only non-correspondant techs ( i.e. feudalism is a nonsense in Ancient Middle East, so you can replace it with Nobility or Whateveryouwanttonamethat ).

I prefer the second way to change tech.

Jacobite1688 · April 8, 2002, 03:55

Feudalism?

There should be no Feudalism in the tree. Are you sure it's there.

I DID change all anachronistic techs to something else or made them no, no. I would suggest that perhaps the rules.txt didn't get into the ot.zip but that is not possible since Warvoid found the mistaken second archer slot. (BTW - I corrected that.) Italian trouble maker, you DID get the rules.txt, didn't you?

Prometeus · April 8, 2002, 04:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Jacobite1688
Feudalism?

There should be no Feudalism in the tree. Are you sure it's there.

I DID change all anachronistic techs to something else or made them no, no. I would suggest that perhaps the rules.txt didn't get into the ot.zip but that is not possible since Warvoid found the mistaken second archer slot. (BTW - I corrected that.) Italian trouble maker, you DID get the rules.txt, didn't you?

Ooops, a bad view on rules - i noticed only Feu, and didn't look at tech name... sorry, it'as my fault

...

I'll take a better look on Werner Keller's book, and i'll tell you later my suggestions.

Jacobite1688 · April 15, 2002, 11:31

If nobody has anything else to add, I'll finish this up. The reason it is not done yet is I have been playing "The Long XIX Century" which I just downloaded. For some reason, England refuses to build any units, making it a snap to roll over. The units are in their build box, the A.I. just chooses not to build them. Does anyone know what this bug is? Can I repair it? It is a good scenario aside from this problem. Is there a later version of it? Ah Hell, I'll stick this question is seprate thread.

Prometeus · April 15, 2002, 11:35

Still playtesting & checking ancient middle east warfare books for more tips - plz wait some more time.

Jacobite1688 · April 15, 2002, 11:50

No problem, I am glad you are helping to make this scenario as good as it can be. I found and corrected a few small problems. I was getting burned out on it, so I downloaded another scenario to take a weekend break. This week will be all dedicated to The Old Testament. I hope to post it on my new geocities civ site, which I hope will fill its own niche in the market

winterfritz · April 16, 2002, 08:35

Only just got around to downloading this. One piece of advice: you may want to write in descriptions for the wonders.

Other than that, I really like it

Prometeus · April 16, 2002, 13:44

OK Jacobite, first wave o' tips...

a) Assirians were, since their first historical mention on egyptian and hittite archives, a people of merchants. I suggest you to increase their trade amount at the beginning of the game - not so much, only a 7-8% more, it'll be enough.

b) both assirians and babilonians developed their own siege tecnique. Assirians developed the very first version of the siege tower, combined with a kind of "aries" on its base.
Babylonians developed instead the fire burning tecnique: it consisted into accumulate huge amount of wood, oil and petroleum under a wall, then they put fire to the whole item and "ambaradam" the wall after a while crumbled down, litterally popped up because of the heat ( it'as used in Lachis and Azeca sieges ). If you can add them, their siege weapon will help them a lot into building an empire - as they did in history. I'll try to reload scan drivers asap and post basreliefs pics here.

c) change - if you want - Fighting tactics into Battle divisions, or Battle orders. That's because Ancient middle east armies used to fight into scattered groups; it fits well for irregular formations, but to manage an army requires a battle order.

d) Jewish hat was similar to the archers hat - not the egyptian one, i mean, of course. The current one looks kinda philistean.

More to come.

Edit: C***o!!!

Forgot to mention that assirians used huge mounted archers formations to support their chariots since IX-VIII century B.C.. They copied them from Scythians. Have you checked out Hoplites website? there were several pics on the cards used by that game.

Jacobite1688 · May 5, 2002, 17:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Prometeus
a) Assirians were, since their first historical mention on egyptian and hittite archives, a people of merchants. I suggest you to increase their trade amount at the beginning of the game

To simulate this I have now started them with the trade tech. This will give them and advantage in this area.

Quote:

Originally posted by Prometeus
b) both assirians and babilonians developed their own siege tecnique.

These would add flavor, but would just function like a catapult anyway. I think I'll skip this idea.

Quote:

Originally posted by Prometeus

c) change - if you want - Fighting tactics into Battle divisions, or Battle orders. That's because Ancient middle east armies used to fight into scattered groups; it fits well for irregular formations, but to manage an army requires a battle order.

Fair enough, change made, "Fighting Divisions".

Quote:

Originally posted by Prometeus

d) Jewish hat was similar to the archers hat - not the egyptian one, i mean, of course. The current one looks kinda philistean.

Bear in mind that the Hebrews captured much of the Western coast of Palestine. Their units reflect the influence of these defeated people. The dress of the Hebrews came right out of an illustrated child's Bible. Not the best source for history perhaps, but it also important to note that the scenario strives for Biblical accuracy, not strict historical accuracy. This is why the date is figured from the year 1, rather X years Before Christ.

Quote:

Originally posted by Prometeus

More to come.

Any more, anyone?