Anyone up for a patched succession game?

[Sore Loser]

I've been working on my very own patch for some time now, the purpose being to change the focus of non-EL games away from ICS to a more balanced approach. The main changes include:

1) Settlers & engineers are much more expensive.
2) All buildings require a higher upkeep, typically requiring a 40% tax rate just to break even
3) All citizens eat one unit of food
4) Settlers cost 2 food to maintain under monarchy and lower, 6(!) under communism and higher form of government
5) Only 1 free unit for monarchy
6) Unit values and abilities changed completely around: warriors are 6/2, phalanx are 5/3, archers are 6/3 with pathfinding, catapults, cannons and artillery all ignore city walls; legions and musketeers are amphibious; lots more
7) Cost and upkeep of city improvements changed around as well
8) Terrain improvement takes more time, especially irrigation of grasslands and mining on hills and mountains.
9) Grasslands give 1 food, +2 for irrigation; mountains give +3 shields with mining; ; swamps and jungles give 2 trade
10) Production rows are now 6 shields each instead of 10. This gives the AI another advantage, 33% discount as opposed to 20% (it goes from 6 > 4 per row instead of 10 > 8)
11) Pioneers added with Bridge Building as a prerequisite. They're faster settlers at a discount, and are not made obsolete by Explosives.

Additional rules include:
1) You may only establish trade routes with your own cities where the commodity is demanded AND the receiving city supplies a commodity that is demanded in the other city (doesn't matter if it's actually used).
2) You may not buy any city production ever. This creates a distinction between production and economy.
3) You may not bribe enemy cities (units are still okay). 4) You may not accept or demand tribute of the AI.
5) You may not share maps with the AI.
6) You may not use caravans to help wonder construction along (regular units are okay)
7) You must have both Monarchy and Republic before switching to to Monarchy; you must have both Democracy and Republic before switching to Republic; you must have all government techs before switching to Democracy; Fundamentalism and Communism not allowed.

All of this creates a need to reconsider your strategies, hopefully providing a whole new gaming experience. For one thing, terrain improvement is now an important factor in determining whether it's worthwhile to launch an invasion force. Conquests will also more often prove to be a sound alternative to colonization or infrastructure from an economic point of view.

The scenario isn't really one, you start out with a couple cities and units and the computer starts out with a bunch of cities [and possibly Vendettas against you ] Please don't dismiss all of this as a newbie's nonsense at first glance just because it's different, you just might end up enjoying it.

EDIT: Ideas and suggestions are more than welcome.

[Scouse Gits]

This is clearly not newbie nonsense - but I'm unsure whether its the way I personally would like the game to go ...

Stu

[Sore Loser]

Woohoo, fish in the net!!

Thank you for your praise, but could you expand your comment a little? Note that this was designed with AI opposition in mind, most of the self-imposed rules are intended to overcome AI deficiencies.

[rah]

If you want to handicap yourself more vs the AI, just use the skill levels above deity and the nastier barbs settings above raging. You will be challanged.

[Sore Loser]

It's not difficult to handicap yourself by adding more troops and bonuses to the opposition; what I want is a higher challenge on more even terms. Take a look at the ideas and tell me what you think.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Didn't someone named Nicosar try something like this about a year ago?

Anyway, those are a lot of modifications. I'm not sure I'm interested in re-learning how to play civ with new rules, so as to participate in one succession game... sorry.

[Sore Loser]

You wouldn't have to relearn Civ. As I understand the concept of succession games, one of the main points is that it lets players yell at the other players for their complete and utter foolishness in everything they do. Think about when you first learned to play Civ. Wasn't it more magical back then? Wasn't it more intense? In my experience, the magic fades once all the discoveries are made. I read a post here to the effect of "Will anyone worship the mysterious lady now that her secrets are all revealed?", and I think it holds true.

EDIT: I just looked up the Nicosar thread, quite an impressive read. You were all a bit hard on him, even if he was a bit (very) pompous.

[Old n Slow]

Is this intended to run as a scenario? If not, I’m hesitant to have to overwrite my civ II files for this variant and thus risking nay other civ games that I’m playing. I’m willing to try new things, but I don’t want to risk what I already have.

As far a jumble to rules, I’m sure that you’ve carefully thought out the systemic and cumulative effects of your proposed changes. As a few of us found out (especially with our Silly Rules Sxn game), individual changes might start out as minor, but cumulative effects often dramatically change the patterns of play.

Given my quick look at your setup, I see incentives for ICS, and with nothing but offensive units, and incentives for early and constant combat. Once a city has a few too many units to support, it simply puts production towards infrastructure, then sells said buildings, and repeats as necessary.

I don’t see reasonable value for infrastructure (in many of my games nowadays, the SSC gets everything and rest get temples, and maybe markets & aqueducts -- very little infrastructure.) If settlers/engineers are “expensive” to maintain and modifying terrain is “expensive” to do, then there is the incentive to not do those things -- Settlers will found new cities and make roads, and probably nothing more.

Switching to Monarchy takes a little longer, but it looks like with reasonable play, the game shouldn’t get to Democracy at all.

Much less trade, (which doesn’t affect early conquest much), but that simply brings the players back to older styles of play -- looks like an SSC still has considerable merit. Actually, I’m not sure that “double coincidence” trade is an ‘enforceable’ activity unless it is built in (i.e. the camel doesn’t disappear) and in reality it doesn’t make much sense -- after all, money was invented to ease trade and the double coincidence requirement of barter.

But Rah captured it best -- my next suggestion for a succession game was simply a D+1, B+1, & I was planning to offer it circa Christmas or the New Year.

[Sore Loser]

Thank you for your comments Old n Slow. Yes, it is intended to run as a scenario, though I believe they can be modified to suit normal games as well. I know it's stupid to argue about this before you've seen the actual file, I'll see if I can get around to uploading it tomorrow (only net access at college).

1) Incentives for ICS

I've playtested it quite a bit, and I don't think this is what happens. For starters, the riot factor is 12. Secondly, terrain improvements are fairly important and take more time. Lastly, settlers cost 120 shields. I've not been very succesful with ICS in my test games, balancing expansion with infrastructure seems to work better. Or at least that's what I'm aiming for with the patch, so maybe I'm biased.

2) Infrastructure not valuable enough

While infrastructure certainly seems useless at first glance with more turns and food required for settlers and more gold for improvements, bear in mind that the alternatives are equally hampered. Settlers cost 120 shields, which is just too much to spend on a tiny outpost that doesn't grow much due to a lack of infrastructure and terrain improvement, considering that they also add unhappy citizens at an alarming rate.

3) Trade routes

I'm not entirely sure about this rule, it may prove to be too bothersome. How about just requiring the initial commodity to be demanded?

All of this certainly changes the pattern of play, which is fully intended. I'm the type of player who often likes changing rules more than actually playing the game, and I don't expect everyone to have that attitude.

[rah]

Originally posted by Sore Loser

All of this certainly changes the pattern of play, which is fully intended. I'm the type of player who often likes changing rules more than actually playing the game, and I don't expect everyone to have that attitude.

I guess this sums it up the best. Most of us here like to play more than changing the rules. This would explain some of our reluctance to use such extreme changes. We usually just tinker. This is not intended as any type of insult. It is always interesting to read proposed changes even when I know I'll never use them.

[Sore Loser]

This is an interesting discussion. I run into the same problem in pretty much every kind of game I play, I can never persuade anyone to try out just a single game with alternative rules. Granted, my ideas tend to be extreme, but they usually are so with a purpose.

I'm not asking you to change your life or your wife, all I'm asking for is a single game to show you what I'm talking about. This isn't coined on you in particular, as I think your opinions are generally shared. I just don't understand it. Noone ever wants to play with me

*cries a little in a corner in an attempt at getting some more attention*

[Scouse Gits]

Yes, it is intended to run as a scenario, though I believe they can be modified to suit normal games as well

Nope! some (indeed most) of your changes can only be accomodated by a full modpack -- unless I am losing something here ...

Stu

[duke o' york]

O n S, the succession variant you're suggesting was played (and won) at CFC about a year ago. It proved to be a challenge, though obviously not impossibly difficult.

If anyone could make the AI use freight in the right way then that'd make the game a hell of a lot more of a challenge, but that's not very likely.

[Sore Loser]

I'm not terribly well-versed in the creation of modpacks, scenarios and the like, so I might be misunderstanding something. However, the proposed rules changes work fine for me in regular games. The only major problem is getting the AI to expand, but that goes for the ordinary rules.txt as well, so I usually start them out with 3 cities or so, preferrably on different continents (with a Palace in each).

For clarification, what exactly is a full modpack? No gif files need be changed here, just rules.txt.

[Sore Loser]

Here is the full list of changes, and the rules.txt file.

COSMIC

1) Road movement multiplier = 2
2) 100% chance coastal ships are lost
3) Citizens eat 1
4) 20 rows in food box
5) 6 rows in shield box
6) Settlers eat 2 if gov <= Monarchy
7) Settlers eat 6 if gov > Monarchy
8) Unrest factor = 8
9) Riot factor = 12
12) Monarchy supports 1 free unit
13) Communism supports 3 free units
14) Fundamentalism supports no free units (except Fanatics)
15) No max science rate in Fundamentalism

CITY

[Just about every building changed, because of 5) above, look at the file]


Only Great Library, Great Wall and Michelangelo's
Workship now expire, the rest are permanent

UNITS

[All units changed, look at the file]
Major changes include:
1) Amphibious for Legion and Musketeers
2) Pathfinding for Archers
3) Ignore ZOC for Paratroopers
4) Bombardment for Catapult, Cannon and Artillery
5) Coastal for all sail ships
6) Settlers now cost 120, Engineers 180, Pioneers 90
7) HP and FP set to 4/2 for all units
8) New units: Rangers are early Alpine Troops, Pioneers are cheaper Settlers with more moves


TERRAIN

1) Desert, Plains, Grassland and Tundra get +1 trade
2) Grassland yields 1/3 food w/without irrigation
3) Irrigation takes 2 turns for Desert; 4 turns for Plains, Tundra and Hills; 10 turns for Grassland
4) Mining takes 4 turns for Desert; 8 turns for Glacier; 16 turns for Hills; 20 turns for Mountains
5) Mining gives +3 shields for Mountains; +2 shields for Glacier
6) Jungle/Swamp get +2 trade
7) 2 moves for Plains and Grassland; 3 moves for Desert and Tundra; 4 moves for Forest; 5 moves for Hills, Swamp and Jungle; 6 moves for Mountain
8) -50% defense for Tundra, Jungle and Swamp; +50% for Glacier
9) Specials receive an overall boost

SELF-IMPOSED RULES

1) You may only establish trade routes with your own cities and only where the commodity is demanded
2) You may not buy any city production ever
3) You may not bribe enemy cities
4) You may not accept or demand tribute of the AI.
5) You may not share maps with the AI.
6) You may not use caravans to help wonder construction along (regular units are okay)
7) You must have both Monarchy and Republic before switching to to Monarchy; you must have both Democracy and Republic before switching to Republic; you must have all government techs before switching to Democracy, Communism or Fundamentalism
8) Airbases not allowed as a production boost

[duke o' york]

Just as a quick point: what do you mean by pathfinding?

Is this being able to see over two squares away, like spies and ships can, or is it being able to treat all squares as road, like explorers and partisans?

You also seem to think that Jungle should reduce your defence! Try fighting partisans in the jungle, and you may find that it takes far longer than you first thought Mr Kennedy.
What does the movement next to all the terrain types mean? That horsemen can only travel at the same rate as warriors? Not a good idea.
What have you ever found in the jungle/swamp to offer more trade than a river grassland?
Bombardment doesn't exist in Civ 2.
If Marco Polo's doesn't expire then you have two wonders that do exactly the same thing. What's the point of that?
Sorry, have answered these backwards, but I'm using the Quick Reply window, and keep scrolling up to comment. I hope you wanted robust constructive criticism.

[Sore Loser]

That's not even close to robust, but thanks anyway

In order:

1) By pathfinding I mean "treat all terrain as roads" (old MoM term)
2) Jungles and Swamps contain incredibly rich flora and fauna. As for the defense thingy, I know it's not terribly realistic. However, the way it works is that an invasion force that is not used to guerilla warfare (doesn't have pathfinding) will have to penetrate the jungle one move at a time, exposing itself to rapid counter attacks from partisans and the like. From a gameplay perspective, I'd like some terrain types where you actually lose defence.
3) By bombardment I mean "ignore city walls"
4) This is just a convenience thingy, it's not really important. However, the primary function of the UN is to prevent the senate from intervening and to force the enemy into cease fires, so it won't be redundant if you have MPE.

[duke o' york]

Still Civ won't let you pick when the defensive bonus is applicable. It's fine for you to be at a disadvantage when you are being attacked from the jungle, but if you're phalanx in the jungle and are being attacked by knights from the plains then that'd give you a much better chance of defending yourself than if you were on the plains too. It's not possible to take account of each of these possibilities so mounted troops are diadvantaged by losing movement in forests, rahter than losing attacks, etc. As far as I'm concerned then the Civ 2 program as it is is the best option, apart from the damned caravans!

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Sore Loser
You wouldn't have to relearn Civ. As I understand the concept of succession games, one of the main points is that it lets players yell at the other players for their complete and utter foolishness in everything they do. Think about when you first learned to play Civ. Wasn't it more magical back then? Wasn't it more intense? In my experience, the magic fades once all the discoveries are made. I read a post here to the effect of "Will anyone worship the mysterious lady now that her secrets are all revealed?", and I think it holds true.

EDIT: I just looked up the Nicosar thread, quite an impressive read. You were all a bit hard on him, even if he was a bit (very) pompous.

I disagree. With succession games (lately, anyway), what we've been doing is adding a restriction to the existing rules - like 'no building Settlers' or 'no foot units' or even 'move on diagonals only/research techs alphabetically/revolt every 4 turns/etc'.

The thing that makes these games different from what you're proposing, is that outside of the one (or eight!) restrictions, the game plays the same way and the same general strategies will work. In the silly rules game, we know that a Caravan can always be delivered to get some kind of return on it, for example. We know that a fortified Rifleman will win against a Dragoon. We know that Navigation is a desirable tech, because new Caravels won't sink. So, we've made the game harder, but it's essentially still playable in the way we know how to play it. Too many changes, and almost none of the usual strategies will work... thus, the game is essentially a new game.

Your modpack (and that's what it is) does require a player to learn new rules and basically play a new game, much like a scenario like Red Front would.

(simple examples... with attack/def 3/2 and all-terrain capability, might not an archer be a better offensive unit than a horseman? Will the warrior/horse defence work against barb archers the way it does now?

...or... normally I build caravans as the default production choice. Seems to me that if you can't build wonders with caravans, and if you can't find a city with the right demand/supply match, caravans are much less useful.)

Robust constructive criticism is part of the fun, yes, but I doubt anyone would want to be part of a game which they have to muddle through, trying to figure out how the rules affect the way the game is played, and then be 'criticized' for their mistakes. Look at past succession game threads... you'll see that players who are less familiar with civ (the newbies, or the players who are comfortable on King level, for example) are typically very reluctant to play a game (on Deity) which everyone else is very familiar with.

[Sore Loser]

You raise two important points:

1) Units in jungles bordering open terrain are exposed to attacks

True. One way of looking at it is that you aren't able to hide properly in the outskirts of the jungle. Again, I'm not using the realism argument to back up my ideas. The problem here is that most jungles in the game are very small, meaning that the "defensive" bonus will rarely apply. That can be dealt with by making larger ones.

2) Mounted troops are impaired by forests

Isn't this the way it should be (and the way it already is in the default file)? The 50% defense bonus is hardly significant when you consider the usually poor defense ratings of mounted troops, and their movement advantage is nullified. Infantry, however, generally have better a defense rating and don't have their movement impaired.

My main point with jungles and swamps is to make pathfinding (light infantry) units more useful as guerilla soldiers. The balance, as I see it, is thus:

Heavy cavalry units are strong in open terrain, weak in closed terrain. They benefit the most from roads.

Heavy infantry are strong in most closed terrain except jungles and swamps. They benefit from roads, but not as much as heavy cavalry.

Light infantry are decent in open terrain (only decent because their off rating is mediocre), decent in closed terrain (because def is also less than heavy inf) and really good in jungles and swamps.

All of this needs more tinkering...

[Scouse Gits]

I'm with STYOM here - this is a different game

Perhaps a very interesting, good game, but nonetheless a different one.

I have several years of experience playing civ2 - do I want to make that investment again in SL1 ?

Stu

[Sore Loser]

STYOM, thank you for your robust constructive criticism, you state your points very clearly. From your description of succession games, I think I understand your opposition a little better now.

The point about my proposed game requiring fundamentally different strategies is correct. You cannot assume that the unit strength balance you have learned will do you much good, you'll have to evaluate the units individually and see what suits your needs best.

I take it, then, that your argument is (like SG) that having to learn a whole new game balance detracts from your gaming experience. So the difference between this succession game and others is the degree of change. You can deal with some change without having to change your mindset completely, too much change requires too much adaption, which is a strain on your mental reserves (not intended as an insult).

Am I following you so far?

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

I'll overlook the insult.

Let me try another tack. You have a pretty good idea how to play this new game, having devised it. You probably have played at least a couple of games all the way through (at least; I hope this has been playtested to some extent).

How do you expect the rest of us to learn how to play a new game, from scratch, playing 10 turns out of every eighty (which is how succession games are played)? By the time anyone has an inkling of what strategy will work, their turns will be over, and someone else will go through the same process. Eighty turns later, the initial player will be facing an entirely different situation and will have to try to re-learn what to do.

In the past, I had suggested a Red Front (RF) succession game. If you aren't familiar with RF, it's a very well designed scenario - and very highly thought of by scenario players and designers. I didn't get much response here, and I was sort of disappointed by that (as you seem to be). However... if you haven't played Red Front, it's very confusing. The unit values are all different. The terrain values are all different. What used to work, doesn't. Roads and railroads don't work the same way. Trade doesn't work the same way. I played RF all the way through the first time, and made some incredibly dumb mistakes, simply because I kept forgetting not to do things the regular civ2 way. I can now see why people who have never played RF wouldn't want to play a RF succession game. And at the very least, RF is at least something we can all try out, before agreeing to a succession game. On the other hand, you're asking us to commit to a succession game using your modpack, without any of us having played even one turn with your rules...

[Sore Loser]

It really wasn't intended as an insult, note that English isn't my first language.

As for your argument, I'm actually beginning to understand it. Because of the fractured sessions, noone will ever get close to a real understanding of the game balance, and they will have to adapt to new units and improvements on every new session. Agreed.

However, let me use your previous argument against you:

the game plays the same way and the same general strategies will work. In the silly rules game, we know that a Caravan can always be delivered to get some kind of return on it, for example. We know that a fortified Rifleman will win against a Dragoon. We know that Navigation is a desirable tech, because new Caravels won't sink. So, we've made the game harder, but it's essentially still playable in the way we know how to play it

My claim is that this would hold true for my game as well. Building settlers lets you build more cities, which is good, or improving your terrain which is good. Building caravans when you have vacant trade routes and the commodity is demanded somewhere is good. Units with a high movement allowance make good explorers for open terrain, units with pathfinding make excellent explorers for all types of terrain. It isn't as extreme as it might seem. I don't know anything about the RF scenario, but given that it is a scenario I gather that it would be a lot more different from a regular game than what I'm proposing. What do you suggest I do then? Give up? Go to another forum? Moderate the rules? Shut up (unlikely as that is)?

EDIT: You're free to try out my modpack, of course. I posted the rules.txt, and that's all there is to it. I do lack graphics for pioneers and rangers, I've gotten used to zeppelins and balrogs myself

EDIT2: Personally, I would enjoy playing a succession game of Red Front, if it is indeed as good as its reputation. Provided that most of the other players were equally clueless, of course.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Sore Loser Go to another forum?

I'm not telling you to leave; however, you might get more takers in the Scenario League and/or Creation forums.

I had to laugh at the accusations of being 'conservative'. We're Civ2 players! We're playing a 7 year old game! Of course we're conservative! Otherwise, we'd all be somewhere else, playing Age of Empires II or Vice City or something...

[Sore Loser]

I don't see anything conservative about being faithful to a game. After all, your playing style and knowledge of the game have continually improved. I've been playing pool on a serious level for four years now and am not about to run out of challenges anytime soon. Besides, you keep coming up with variants for the game in the form of succession games, scenarios and diplo games. I'm merely attempting to provide a variant, not to change the game.

As I understand it, the quality of SXN is that it doesn't require the same sacrifices that MP does, yet it plods along at a considerably faster pace than PBEM. Assuming this is true, my question is why you flat out refuse a variant before trying it? If specific parts of the pack bother you in particular then anything is subject to change.

[Old n Slow]

Sore Loser --

I glanced through your rules.txt, more intensively through the units, much less so regarding the terrain.

My recommendation would be to explore this as a scenario, perhaps seeking other help for graphics, packaging etc. The play balance among units is moderately different, narrowing the range between the extremes as far as I can tell -- If I read your hit points & fire power columns correctly, modern units don't seem to gain significantly over older units.

This may be intentional (fewer tanks per battalion, for instance), or it may be an oversight. I know that in gameplay it is a BIG difference in that the firepower of tanks = 1 and arty = 2, thus tanks are rarely in my combat portfolio in the late stages of the game.

I agree with SG [1] and STYOM's comments regarding the 'fixed cost' to learn a game -- not only is it real, but there is a significant cost to learn and play a game well.

You may want to consider "phasing" in differences, perhaps one at a time.

For example, an succesion game might simply be one where the ai has access to "Uber" units -- maybe a few redefined that players agree they can live without: Say phalanx = 1 att/ 3 def; legion = 6 att/ 3 def; ironclads = 7 att/7 def; subs = 20 att/6 def, fp = 3; tanks = 18 att/ 8 def, fp =2. (You may want to leave the legions alone due to potential barbs, but this is just an example.)

Players would agree to never build these type of units (and perhaps not even bribe them) - we're now limited by having fewer options and challenged by facing a more powerful set of enemies. By allowing the ai Uber units, we may see them a) avoided altogether, b) grossly misused or c) a tremendous and enjoyable challenge.

Hmmm I think the possibilities here might be worth exploring a bit further...

[rjmatsleepers]

Another point that this particular 56 year old conservative has at the back of his mind is whether the rules changes are actually balanced. We know that in Civ II there are a lot of strategic decisions that are very finely balanced. The only one that seems really out of line is the power of the caravan to generate beakers, gold and build wonders. 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.

(In any case, I'm personally still not good enough at the game as is to want to try a radically different version.)

RJM at Sleeper's

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by rjmatsleepers
We know that in Civ II there are a lot of strategic decisions that are very finely balanced.

Aaargh. You are a happy man. I am upset from those imperfections always I play a game.

[La Fayette]

Sore Loser
If you manage to start a game, you have at least one player willing to play: the name is La Fayette

I have been playing mostly scenarios during the last 2 years, precisely because I enjoy the undefatigable pleasure of discovery, surprise (even nasty), new units, new graphics, new objectives ...

But most players also have a life outside civ2



... they cannot afford to learn a new game every week.