ifaesfu wrote:bardo wrote:The option is named occupychance = 100, it is enabled by default in my tests.
You may see an attacking unit not moving to the attacked tile if the Zone of Control rules do not allow the movement (when there are other enemies adjacent to the attacked tile).
I forgot to answer this. occupychance=0 when I start Earth (civ2-civ3/medium)
Oh, right. My Earth scenario uses an old file format that does not include the modern server settings. I have to update it for v2.5.
In order to load the right server settings, you have to load the scenario, and then to select the ruleset civ2civ3. If you leave the default rules selected, you will play with civ2civ3 rules anyway, but some server settings will be default ones.
Please, confirm me if you see occupychance = 100 this way. Else there is a bug somewhere.
Major Nimrod wrote:I look forward to seeing the terraforming changes that you want to implement. As you know, it's my biggest criticism of the otherwise very good ruleset.
I understand your point. I see now, that with civ2civ3 rules, the max size of your city is too linked to the initial terrain. If there are no grasslands or food specials around, it is not possible to use a largepox strategy. I'm liking the possibility from default rules to transform plains (or forests) to grasslands early in game, even if you need a lot of working time (up to 45): Plain --15-> Forest --15-> Swamp --15-> Grassland.
I still think that this ruleset should keep limited transformations to preserve the aspect of real maps as long as possible. And I'd like to keep low output from jungles and swamps, like tundra or desert in default rules, that can not be transformed either. But once geoengineering is researched, I see ok to allow as much transformations as default rules (for example, to allow again mountains to hills, or swamp to lake/ocean).
Corbeau wrote:General unit upgrading. Warriors to Phalanx, for example, is currently not possible.
As morphles said, I find important to keep Warriors available all along the ancient times because they are useful as the cheapest unit.
I agree it is a disadvantage the lack of cheap units once musketers are researched, but I like it because it compensates the huge bonus of the 20 hit points, and it gives a chance to less advanced players, so they can produce more units, or use pillage tactics. I also find it realistic to recreate historical conflicts between modern and ancient nations, for example american indians wars: native indians with horsemen and archers, against americans with riflemen and cavalry.
The unit costs were designed so modern units always have better ratio attack/cost or defense/cost, but I'm interested to know if there are units that are never used in your games, because there is room to readjust some costs.
morphles wrote:I can't disagree more with they idea of making units more identical. There are now two distinct kinds of units, and making them into one kind would not do good for a game. Also as I said with movement multipliers one can have air battles, maybe not fighter to fighter, but fighters taking out bombers is nothing new, which is their purpose after all. Also suppose you change fighter to heli model, I think fighter has better stats, why would you even go for heli? City ocupation ability does not seem to be interesting enough, again esp with movement multipliers, you can roll in some armor or similar. So please do not do that.
They would not be identical. Bombers and Helicopters have the bombarder ability (that do not allow them to kill or die when attacking), so Fighters are the only ones capable to kill other air units. While Helicopters can capture cities, transport 1 unit, and have fuel 10, compared to fuel 2 (or 3) of Bombers.
I just miss fighter to fighter battles, and the only way to get them in a non-RTS game mode is to increase the fuel to 2. But I'm also worried about the movement rates. I prefer to test them better before defending this possibility.