Accounts e-mail HP

Earth scenario and civ2civ3 ruleset

Contribute and discuss maps, scenarios, rulesets or modpacks here.

Re: Earth scenario and civ2civ3 ruleset

Postby bardo » Sat Apr 19, 2014 6:32 am

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.
bardo
Author of Civ2Civ3
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 6:05 pm

Re: Earth scenario and civ2civ3 ruleset

Postby ifaesfu » Mon Apr 21, 2014 9:55 pm

bardo wrote:Please, confirm me if you see occupychance = 100 this way. Else there is a bug somewhere.

Yes, it is 100 when you choose civ2civ3 ruleset. Thanks.
User avatar
ifaesfu
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 1:03 pm
Location: Huelva, Spain

Re: Earth scenario and civ2civ3 ruleset

Postby XYZ » Mon May 05, 2014 6:30 pm

Bombers are completely useless units. The "bombard" function doesn't seem to work since I can only hit only once per turn regardless if I attack an unit in a city or outside. The only thing I'm achieving is that the enemy acquires vet status. Not even a pitty settler gets killed by them...

A structure and population loss on cities would give them a strategical value and be closer to the real bombers of WWII. Maybe with chances of a firestorm creating greater loss in structures and people. My suggestions...
User avatar
XYZ
Contributor & Co-Admin
 
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 4:12 pm

Re: Earth scenario and civ2civ3 ruleset

Postby monamipierrot » Mon May 05, 2014 8:11 pm

XYZ wrote: I can only hit only once per turn

This is intended, afaik.
Only fighters can fight more than once
monamipierrot
Co-Admin of GT01, GT10-Hex.
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:43 pm
Location: Barcelona, Spain

Re: Earth scenario and civ2civ3 ruleset

Postby XYZ » Mon May 05, 2014 8:52 pm

* Does bombard attacks (3 per turn)


from GT10-Africa.
User avatar
XYZ
Contributor & Co-Admin
 
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 4:12 pm

Re: Earth scenario and civ2civ3 ruleset

Postby morphles » Mon May 05, 2014 9:32 pm

I don't play africa game, but I tested bombers and yeah the current state is just bullshit. I think ruleset editing help sucks on that piont. Bombard rate does not mean how many units you can attack per turn, but it means how many attack rolls are made per attack. Currently for civ2civ3 bombers have bombard_rate = 3, that means that when attacking bombers can at best hit three times, each hit will take 1 HP as bombers firepower is 1. This is seriously bad, for unit of that costs max 3 point dmg is below pitiful. It should probably be increase to something like 20 at least. As well defended unit will make many bombers rolls to miss. I just tested bomber with bombard_rate 15, attacking musketeer on mountains did 10 hp damage, that is half of musketeers life. And attack ends bombers turn... I suggest testing and possibly rate setting as high as 50.
morphles
Co-Admin of GT10-Hexmap
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:43 pm

Re: Earth scenario and civ2civ3 ruleset

Postby XYZ » Mon May 05, 2014 10:20 pm

ok, thanks!
User avatar
XYZ
Contributor & Co-Admin
 
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 4:12 pm

Re: Earth scenario and civ2civ3 ruleset

Postby Major Nimrod » Tue May 06, 2014 3:39 pm

Frankly, some settings from default ruleset are still the best. Change for the sake of change isn't always warranted.

Case in point: the bombard ability only ends up creating progressively more experienced defenders (albeit wounded ones) making city conquest even harder - not easier. Unless the attack is followed up *immediately* by ground forces - aka some kind of Blitzkrieg attack - then the bombard ability is counterproductive.

Ferdi is right to suggest some kind of extra benefit, such as reducing city size or destroying infrastructure. Or maybe, just maybe, the default settings are still the best.
"Big Brother is watching you" - George Orwell
"Shh! I'm Hunting Wabbits" - Elmer Fudd
"What a Nimrod" - Bugs Bunny

NIMMY
User avatar
Major Nimrod
Contributor & Co-Admin
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 5:24 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Re: Earth scenario and civ2civ3 ruleset

Postby Corbeau » Tue May 06, 2014 3:48 pm

Major Nimrod wrote:Case in point: the bombard ability only ends up creating progressively more experienced defenders (albeit wounded ones) making city conquest even harder - not easier. Unless the attack is followed up *immediately* by ground forces - aka some kind of Blitzkrieg attack - then the bombard ability is counterproductive.

Isn't this the only way to use them? If someone bombards a city every turn and doesn't go in immediately, I'd call him an idiot. I mean, that's exactly why you bombard cities: to conquer them before they get a chance to recover. Bombing for the sake of bombing is stupid and wasteful.

And yes, it produces veterans.

Very realistic, actually.
User avatar
Corbeau
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:23 am

Re: Earth scenario and civ2civ3 ruleset

Postby XYZ » Tue May 06, 2014 5:40 pm

I mean, that's exactly why you bombard cities: to conquer them before they get a chance to recover.


WWII showed that you don't need a military target to use bombers. You can target in large scale cities destroying infrastructure and killing workers without planning to conquer a city. The picture shows Cologne bombed out, largely on one single raid in 30/31 May 1942 but the city was conquered in march 1945. A big time gap.
Attachments
800px-Koeln_1945.jpg
User avatar
XYZ
Contributor & Co-Admin
 
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 4:12 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Maps, rulesets and modpacks

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron