standard multiplayer modpack?

[Curumbor Elendil]

Everyone knows that large multiplayer games involve different strategic considerations from single-player games against the computer. Furthermore, everyone knows that Civ's rules are frequently unrealistic and unbalanced. So why don't we get together a "standard multiplayer modpack" for play in large (4 player plus) games? It would consist of new rules adopted particularly for multi-playing, and maybe a new image file for new units.

Here are some of my suggestions for rules changes (actually, I've gotten almost all of these ideas from other people):

1) Longer tech paradigm - In these large games people are frequently getting Industrialization by 200 AD. This is just kinda silly and unrealistic. Doubling the tech paradigm should actually make games last until the 20th century. The problem would be for those people who actually want a quickie. This is sort of the opposite of doing 2x2x. But for many-player games that are supposed to last a long time, I think this is a good change.

2) Communism needs to be made slightly better, it should be competitive with Fundamentalism. One idea is to make it support 5 units free instead of 3.

3) Mass-thrust paradigm - I think it can be increased to help drag the game out a bit. Also, it increases the need for strategy after someone's launched.

4) The process of discovering the techs needed to build a spaceship should be dragged out a bit for realism purposes: after all, it's 2001 and we're nowhere near going to Alpha Centauri. So stick in some 'futuristic' techs like 'Unified Field Theory' or something used in ToT and that might do the trick.

5) Important techs that everyone goes for should be delayed, so that alternative tech paths (including naval and military techs) look more attractive. Namely: Republic, Democracy, Monotheism. One idea is to make Republic require Feudalism and Literacy. This is realistic because the period of limited monarchy, i.e., early republicanism (if you discount the Greek & Roman anomalies), began after feudalism. Democracy can require gunpowder and economics: in fact, democracy arose after popular ownership of firearms was widespread, and, in most countries, after the period of free trade had begun (1848). Ideas to force people to research naval techs that are usually ignored until very late include making University require Astronomy and Philosophy and making Theory of Gravity require Navigation and University. But there are all kinds of ways to do this.

6) Nukes should definitely be eliminated - if you have players who are at all intelligent and self-interested, they will use them. It's a zero-sum game after all: only one winner, it doesn't matter how you win. Once nukes are eliminated, you can also eliminate SDI Defense.

7) Make Oracle not expire. This is an MDL rules change and it was a good one. However, shields should also be increased from 300 to 400 as it now becomes a very attractive wonder. Shields should also be increased for Mike's and Bach's, since these are very powerful wonders that everyone goes for.

8) Eiffel Tower can be eliminated, for obvious reasons. Others have suggested changing its function, but that requires editing the *.exe; you certainly can't do it in the rules.txt.

9) Shields for Great Wall and UN can be greatly reduced, because in multiplay they no longer serve the important function of forcing peace. I've rarely seen people build these wonders in large MP games unless there's nothing else to build.

10) Make Pyramids expire, perhaps with Refrigeration. That's another MDL change.

11) Hit points for settlers should be reduced to 1 - they should be vulnerable even to warriors.

12) We can change Fundamentalism to Fascism and Fanatics to Stormtroopers. That seems to be a popular change.

13) Alpine Troops should be changed to something else, as they can be built in desert areas, plains, near the equator, whatever. I suggest "Recon Troops," an early mobile unit.

14) Cost of Marines should be reduced slightly; no one ever builds 'em.

15) Should extend the modern military period by creating two classes of Tank and also two classes of jet fighters and bombers. The Hi-Res Modpack does this by making Armor a weaker unit than the existing Armor and making it require Automobile. Heavy Armor replaces the Mobile Warfare unit we all know and love. It also gives us Fighter and Bomber units that you can get with Flight and have WW1-like capabilities. With Advanced Flight you can build Jet Fighter and Jet Bomber units, with WW2-like capabilities. Then later on you can build Stealth units, which do not make the Jet units expire (the regular ones are still built today).

16) The Iron Age was actually a watershed in human history in terms of its military applications. This fact should be reflected in Civ. Increase a Legion's attack/defense to 5 and 3 and you make it more useful to research Iron Working early, as it should be.

17) Catapults, cannons, & artillery should have their attack ratings increased slightly, to give them more of an advantage over Legions, and because they are not built very often.

18) All air and sea units should have movement rates doubled. It's absurd that you can go only 1/20th of the way around the world in a ship or boat during an entire year (or 20 years!) in Civ. We can't fix this unrealism completely, but we can at least alleviate it.

19) MDL reduces shields for caravans and freight to 40. We also do this for the New Millennium game. I think it's a pretty good idea.

20) New unit: Trade Vessel. Like a Tri but with no attack. Good for Rep & Dem when you don't want unhappiness. After Magnetism use Galleons.

21) New recon unit? Some have suggested a Recon Plane. Another idea is from the Hi-Res Modpack: a Zeppelin unit. Though Zeppelins have gone out, spy blimps are still used.

22) Some have suggested a mobile SAM unit. I'd like to hear more about this. What function does it fill that non-mobile SAMs don't? What ADM ratings are suggested?

23) Diplomats and spies should either have their build cost hiked substantially, or city bribe should be banned.

Please follow up with your other suggestions. I have incorporated 1-21 in a new patch you can download at http://bestofmetal.net/multimod.zip . There are a rules.txt and a units.bmp. Cut and paste your original rules.txt and units.gif into a backup folder; then move the new files into your main Civ2 directory. Remember, this mod won't work very well in SP, just in MP. So I'd like to try it out in a 4 or 5 player game. Many of these features are being used in the New Mill game, but I'd like to try out some other features mentioned here. Any takers?

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

[CapTVK]

Is this for 2x2x or 1x1x? Those are quite distinctive styles you know.


As for suggested rules, most look nice. Although I would suggest simply increasing the movement factor of naval vessels by two, doubling them is a bit too much.

[Berzerker]

I dont know about making legions stronger than muskets.

[markusf]

marines should have Firepower raise to 2. I think this should be an immediate change in mil dip as well.

Caravans should have the same ability as explorers and alpine troops (move over any land)

3 ; Road movement multiplier Should be upped to 6, for the same reason as why ships are upped.

[DaveV]

<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 Curumbor Elendil on 03-25-2001 11:12 AM</font>
9) Shields for Great Wall and UN can be greatly reduced, because in multiplay they no longer serve the important function of forcing peace. I've rarely seen people build these wonders in large MP games unless there's nothing else to build.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

GW is a highly sought after wonder in the games I've played. Free walls that can't be sabotaged are a great benefit in protecting your cities. UN becomes a late game MPE, and is not worth much, I agree.

<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 Curumbor Elendil on 03-25-2001 11:12 AM</font>
16) The Iron Age was actually a watershed in human history in terms of its military applications. This fact should be reflected in Civ. Increase a Legion's attack/defense to 5 and 3 and you make it more useful to research Iron Working early, as it should be.

17) Catapults, cannons, & artillery should have their attack ratings increased slightly, to give them more of an advantage over Legions, and because they are not built very often.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Beware of fiddling with attack/defense factors! They are nicely balanced now, and changing them will have far-reaching effects. Making the legion's defense better effectively obsoletes pikemen. And as Berzerker points out, increasing the strength of early-era units could make them more attractive than later-era units. Then you have to tweak up those units, and where does it stop?

I've built bunches of catapults when the circumstances are right, and artillery are a very strong attacking unit that a warmonger ignores at his peril. A slower tech paradigm makes pouring shields into units a more attractive strategy; try a few games before you get carried away making changes.

Several of the proposed changes seem to be intended to make early republics more attractive. I like the balance between war and peaceful building strategies in the game now. Why make it easier for someone to run WLTCD in a bunch of undefended cities? If anything, caravans should be increased in cost, not decreased.

[Curumbor Elendil]

<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 03-25-2001 12:56 PM</font>
marines should have Firepower raise to 2. I think this should be an immediate change in mil dip as well.

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

This is a good idea; as it is, Marines are mostly a pre-Mobile Warfare unit, which is not realistic.

<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>
Caravans should have the same ability as explorers and alpine troops (move over any land)

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

I actually tested this in the Mill Dip game settings - I thought it made trade routes just too easy.

<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>
3 ; Road movement multiplier Should be upped to 6, for the same reason as why ships are upped.

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

I would be in favor of upping it to 4 or 5. What would be really cool is to make railroad a more advanced type of road that had a higher multiplier - but that's impossible in the framework of the rules.txt.

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

[Curumbor Elendil]

<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 03-25-2001 02:10 PM</font>
Is this for 2x2x or 1x1x? Those are quite distinctive styles you know.

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

You're right; 1x1x is what these rules changes are for.

<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>
As for suggested rules, most look nice. Although I would suggest simply increasing the movement factor of naval vessels by two, doubling them is a bit too much.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

It depends on the size of the map. On a medium or large map, doubling seems reasonable. People build too few ships anyway; increasing the moves increases the attractiveness of building them.

[Curumbor Elendil]

<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 Berzerker on 03-25-2001 02:22 PM</font>
I dont know about making legions stronger than muskets.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

They aren't - muskets have 2 HP, so they're still quite a bit stronger than legions.

[Curumbor Elendil]

<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 DaveV on 03-26-2001 10:16 AM</font>

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

About Great Wall - in duels it is certainly sought-after. But in many-player games war is typically deferred until later eras and Wall is rarely built. For example, in the New Millennium game (with seven players, any one of whom could have built it) Wall wasn't built until a few turns before it expired. However, I agree that the reduction in shields for Wall should be, percentage-wise, less than the reduction in shields for UN. Reducing Wall's shields from 300 to 200, putting it on a level with wonders like Hanging Gardens, seems reasonable, while I favor reducing UN's shields from 600 to 300.

<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>
Beware of fiddling with attack/defense factors! They are nicely balanced now, and changing them will have far-reaching effects. Making the legion's defense better effectively obsoletes pikemen.

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

Not really - legions are quite a bit more expensive than pikemen, so for defense it's still best to build pikes. I actually don't think the A/D factors are that well balanced. Who ever builds legions and marines? (And carriers too!)

<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>
And as Berzerker points out, increasing the strength of early-era units could make them more attractive than later-era units. Then you have to tweak up those units, and where does it stop?

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

The increase in hit points for later-era units makes them much more attractive, something that people don't always realize. A musketeer is better than a crusader (or the improved legion) on attack (never mind defense!), even though its attack rating is lower.

<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've built bunches of catapults when the circumstances are right, and artillery are a very strong attacking unit that a warmonger ignores at his peril. A slower tech paradigm makes pouring shields into units a more attractive strategy; try a few games before you get carried away making changes.

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

We have a slower tech paradigm in the New Mill game, though not apparently slow enough for realism purposes. I don't think it makes the military option that much more attractive, since the paradigm is slowed for everyone.

But yes - testing is definitely in order. I just don't think we should settle for game parameters that were set down over five years ago with single play in mind.

<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>
Several of the proposed changes seem to be intended to make early republics more attractive. I like the balance between war and peaceful building strategies in the game now. Why make it easier for someone to run WLTCD in a bunch of undefended cities?

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

I thought you just said the proposed changes made warmongering a more viable strategy.

And it's harder to get Republic under these rules! You have to get Feudalism first. Also harder to get Democracy: Econ is a prereq.

[Curumbor Elendil]

I don't understand where you get the attack factor from. A vet crusader has 7.5 attack but only one hitpoint. A vet unfortified musketeer has 4.5 attack, 4.5 defense, but 2 hitpoints, which I believe is roughly equivalent to 9 attack, 9 defense (the actual calculations are hard to do). Thus, a vet musketeer should beat an unfortified vet musketeer more often than a vet crusader does.

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

[DaveV]

CE - see one of these threads on the Civ2 combat system: http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum18/HTML/001417.html http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum1/HTML/001761.html

I used to think the same way you do, that a musketeer was just as good on attack as a catapult, but understanding the way it really works is essential if you're going to start fine-tuning attack and defense factors. Understanding the combat system will make you a better player and scenarist.

[Curumbor Elendil]

I've done some testing, and you seem to be right. I'm confused now, though. Explain more fully how it works. (Fortunately, I never actually use musketeers to attack, so my misunderstanding of the mathematics hasn't hurt my game play often in the past.)

(N.M. - I'll check out the threads.)

------------------
Curumbor Elendil http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35/
ICQ 56126989
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Curumbor Elendil (edited March 26, 2001).]</font>

[markusf]

ya one of my most powerful attacks is to use conscripts to attack a civ with musketers, even fortified behind city walls the musketeers will die.

[Curumbor Elendil]

I downloaded the Battle Odds calculator, and all I can say is: the game designers must have been on crack. For example, a veteran artillery, with a 15 attack, is virtually unstoppable. That whole veteran aspect really throws the battle odds all out of whack. On the defensive side, city walls really make units virtually invulnerable to 1-unit attacks. Of course, that makes sense instinctually, thinking about my experience in the game, but it doesn't strike me as realistic.

Well, the battle odds calculator showed me that the Legion unit I was envisaging was a bit too strong. I think 5/2/1 ADM might be a better way to go. Also, catapults, cannons, and artillery don't need any more help.

I made a new file with the revised Legion, Cat, Cannon, & Artillery: http://bestofmetal.net/multimod.zip . I also added one change I forgot: increasing the defense of carriers. This is an important change both for realism and gameplay. You shouldn't have to stack battleships & cruisers with your carriers. It's implicit in the idea of a carrier unit that the escort ships are with it (unless you want to make the carrier an incredibly weak and cheap unit whose only function is to serve as a landing strip, and stacking simulates the escort).

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

[DaveV]

<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>&lt;font size=1&gt;Originally posted by Curumbor Elendil on 03-26-2001 11:42 AM&lt;/font&gt;
The increase in hit points for later-era units makes them much more attractive, something that people don't always realize. A musketeer is better than a crusader (or the improved legion) on attack (never mind defense!), even though its attack rating is lower.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

No!! A musketeer will, on average, lose when attacking an unfortifed musketeer of equal vet status, while a crusader will, on average, defeat him. This is because of the "differential bonus" factor, which gives the crusader an effective attack of 7 when attacking a 3 defense unit.

<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>&lt;font size=1&gt;Originally posted by Curumbor Elendil on 03-26-2001 11:42 AM&lt;/font&gt;
I thought you just said the proposed changes made warmongering a more viable strategy.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

I said one of the changes made warmongering more attractive...

Edit: messed up the quotes.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by DaveV (edited March 26, 2001).]</font>

[markusf]

Their values are not that high.... remember your calculating on open terrian. what about hill cities and forest/river cities? The attack ratings are there for a reason. Even then vet artillery sucks.

[OzzyKP]

If something should be tweaked you should do something about Celebrating under Republic and Democracy. I think its terribly unrealistic that a city can go from population 3 to 8 in a few turns. Its just a race to get to those techs to double and triple your population. All sorts of other improvements such as grainaraies become pointless when celebrating takes care of all population needs.


------------------
Ozzy - King of Metal
Ozzy - French in Millenial Euro Dip
Ozzy - Formerly Proud Sayen member
Ozzy - Prez of NYRA, http://nyra.ecg.net

[Curumbor Elendil]

<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 03-27-2001 12:58 AM</font>
Their values are not that high.... remember your calculating on open terrian. what about hill cities and forest/river cities? The attack ratings are there for a reason. Even then vet artillery sucks.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Well, according to the battle odds calculator, a vet artillery (A: 15, HP: 2) 88% chance of beating a fortified vet musketeer on hills (D: 12, HP: 2).

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

[Curumbor Elendil]

Ozzy - you're right of course, but the best I've been able to do is to delay Republic and Democracy as much as possible - Republic now requires Feudalism, which requires Iron Working, and Democracy requires Gunpowder and Economics.

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

[DaveV]

<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 Curumbor Elendil on 03-27-2001 09:50 AM</font>
Well, according to the battle odds calculator, a vet artillery (A: 15, HP: 2) 88% chance of beating a fortified vet musketeer on hills (D: 12, HP: 2).
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

I think the vet musketeer's defense is actually 13.5 (3*1.5*1.5*2). But the artillery will still win easily. Even against fortified vet riflemen on a hill (4*1.5*1.5*2=18), the artillery should win, because it inflicts 2 hits for every one hit by the riflemen. Against fortified vet alpines on a hill (5*1.5*1.5*2=22.5), the artillery is at a slight disadvantage, but should still win sometimes. Railroad plus artillery is a deadly combination.

[markusf]

by the time you have artillery you have vet mech infantry. And city walls + spies. Its still going to take a lot of firepower to take out a city. The whole point is not to make stuff invincible.

[Curumbor Elendil]

<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 03-27-2001 11:24 AM</font>
by the time you have artillery you have vet mech infantry. And city walls + spies. Its still going to take a lot of firepower to take out a city. The whole point is not to make stuff invincible.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Noo... Artillery come about in the age of riflemen, maybe alpines. Still, I agree in theory that there is some wiggle room in giving things better attack ratings. I tried out the new marines unit you suggested and it doesn't seem to have absurd consequences. The 5-attack legion obviously isn't invincible either - it has the same rating as the crusader. So I guess my position is in between you two: yes, the game balance is sensitive and we should be aware of dangers - but also, we can make the game better if we're careful.

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

[Curumbor Elendil]

I did some testing with Capo and discovered that, much to my disappointment, if you change the tech paradigm in a multiplayer game, it does nothing. Not even if everyone has the same rules.txt. We tried it with a 200/10 paradigm. That's probably why the New Millennium game is not going as slowly as it should! This is really disappointing and I see no way around it. I've asked for comments on the Civ 2-Creation board.

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

[markusf]

? you mean cannons?

yesterday i was attacked with 6 cannons 4 dragoons, and 4 calvery. I had 6 defending vet conscripts in a river city. I didn't lose a single unit.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by markusf (edited March 27, 2001).]</font>

[sekong]

<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 03-27-2001 04:19 PM</font>
? you mean cannons?

yesterday i was attacked with 6 cannons 4 dragoons, and 4 calvery. I had 6 defending vet conscripts in a river city. I didn't lose a single unit.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by markusf (edited March 27, 2001).]</font>
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

That's from me All cannons can only attack at 2/3 strength. That's the reason. American is way behind in tech. After how many different subs I don't know. I think the American deserve some extra techs such as bridge and railroad for game balance issue,no matter who going to take it next time.

[CapTVK]

<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 Curumbor Elendil on 03-27-2001 02:24 PM</font>
I did some testing with Capo and discovered that, much to my disappointment, if you change the tech paradigm in a multiplayer game, it does nothing. Not even if everyone has the same rules.txt. We tried it with a 200/10 paradigm. That's probably why the New Millennium game is not going as slowly as it should! This is really disappointing and I see no way around it. I've asked for comments on the Civ 2-Creation board.


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


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

[markusf]

sekong take them over for the rest of the game

[sekong]

<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 03-27-2001 06:16 PM</font>
sekong take them over for the rest of the game
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

So my request is granted, you will give american bribge or railroad?

[The Capo]

Finally Cur I have time to talk, yes it is ****in 7:30 in the morning before I have to go to class and I'm not feeling particularly saucy right now, so bear with me.

Basically what you are striving for is the ultimate Civilization experience, you want a Multi-Player game that is as perfectly realistic but at the same time fun as possible. To do that you are delaying and making things tougher to actualize, which is a good way to go about doing it.

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.

I think some noteable bridges need to be gapped as well, the cavalry as a precursor to Armo

[Curumbor Elendil]

<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 03-27-2001 04:19 PM</font>
? you mean cannons?

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

No, artillery. Cannons come in the age of musketeers. Machine tools is usually researched before automobile - frequently by the person who owns Leo's because he wants to upgrade his cannons!

<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>
yesterday i was attacked with 6 cannons 4 dragoons, and 4 calvery. I had 6 defending vet conscripts in a river city. I didn't lose a single unit.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by markusf (edited March 27, 2001).]</font>
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

That does seem out of whack. In a scenario I once gave 2 FP to all post-musketeer units: it allowed dragoons and cavalry to take out fortified defenders more easily. Perhaps too easily? I don't know.

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