#1 Re: LT31 » Suggestions for next civ2civ3 version » 2013-06-18 01:11:41

I uploaded here the new version of the ruleset, while cazfi update the pack for modpack-tool:

There are some additional changes compared to LT32 that you may like, in case there is still time to introduce them.
The only one that could affect seriously the gameplay is the removal of terrain bonuses for wheeled units, and the reduced movements of howitzer, the rest are minor adjustments, mainly to try to make democracy/republic more competitive in conquest games.

#2 Re: LT31 » Suggestions for next civ2civ3 version » 2013-06-09 16:50:33

haha, it really looked like cannibalism.
It seems this bug was already reported and the fix is planned for next freeciv version.

About civ2civ3, this is the full list of changes for the incoming version, based on the comments from LT31:

- Doubled the empire size for all governments. Federation available with tech Economics (instead of Democracy).
- Republic uses standard upkeep of units again: 1 shield per unit. Increased free units under Democracy (to 1\2) and Federation (to 2\4).
- A city can support twice as many units with gold upkeep as its population size (aditional units cause waste of food).
- Max 3 units can apply Martial Law (was max 20 for Despotism and Anarchy).
- Barracks available without any techs again. Warriors become obsolete by Musketeers instead of Pikemen.
- Super Highways require Stock Exchange to get the bonus +50% to Gold/Luxuries.

- Wheeled units (Big land) can conquer cities again, but do not take advantage of terrain defense bonuses. They can move to fortress even if not roaded.
- Units with CityBuster (artillery and missile) bypass the bonus to defense from fortress. Howitzer movement reduced to 1.
- Increased damage caused by Bombardment. Cruise Missile no longer cause unhappiness, and increased range to 16. AEGIS protect against fighters, bombers and missiles again.
- Removed bonuses to movement in river. Triremes can navigate rivers again.

#3 Re: LT31 » Suggestions for next civ2civ3 version » 2013-06-04 15:26:05

Now I see there is a bug related to food upkeep.
When a city is supposed to shrink due to starvation, a unit supported with food is destroyed instead, and the city does not shrink, but the unit is destroyed no matter if it is actually wasting food or not... so the city will keep destroying units turn after turn until there are no more units, and then the population finally shrinks.

Until this bug can be fixed, I'm trying to find an alternative way to limit the max number of units supported with gold.

#4 Re: LT31 » Suggestions for next civ2civ3 version » 2013-06-03 05:30:45

civ2civ3 was mainly designed for single player games on Earth maps. It was adapted for Longturn by Elrik (if I remember) who changed the effects/costs of some wonders, the movement points, and some other things, to try to adapt it to multiplayer games, so LT31 was not exactly the same than civ2civ3.
The incresed movement of longturn affects the unit balance more than I'd like. For example, longturn artillery can move further than tanks in standard rules, and they seem to make useless the standard cavalry. It could be a good idea to reduce the movement of Howitzers to 1 (3 in longturn) in order to keep some use for Armors.

akfaew, then I'm not sure what is happening in your case, but I see that this waste of food seems to cause troubles to the AI too. I'm testing a different system where units cause military unhappiness instead of food upkeep when there are more supported units than population in a city.

#5 Re: LT31 » Savegames from lt31? » 2013-06-02 07:18:49


Kryon, it is not my script, it is a new feature of the latest freeciv development version. I'll try to see if possible to create such animated maps with older savegames.

#6 Re: LT31 » Suggestions for next civ2civ3 version » 2013-06-02 06:45:34

akfaew wrote:

I built a civilization and let it just be there for the night in LT32's test game. And all my units died, because cities grew/shrunk for 400 turns.

I know what is happening now. If you build units faster than the city grow to next level, then the extra units will waste food and the city will be stuck at the current population.
It is not really a bug, but the way the gold upkeep was designed in order to keep a similar number of units than the total population.
I guess you need to let the city grow, then to let it build units.

Xercise wrote:

1. Trireme can move on rivers and does not become obsolete (irl, the Vikings ventured from Scandinavia to Turkey in this way)
2. New 'train' unit - can only move on rail, no/low defense, no offense, can carry all kinds of units incl. air units and nukes, maybe not battleships though wink

I have decided to give trireme on rivers another chance for next version. I just remembered that I removed it because android version had no option to load/unload units outside cities, so triremes on rivers were useless.

#7 LT31 » Savegames from lt31? » 2013-06-01 06:44:32

Replies: 13

Could some admin please tell me if it is possible to get savegames from the last lt31 game?
Thank you.

#8 Re: LT31 » Suggestions for next civ2civ3 version » 2013-06-01 03:43:34

akfaew wrote:

I built a civilization and let it just be there for the night in LT32's test game. And all my units died, because cities grew/shrunk for 400 turns.

As it was designed, after those 400 turns, you should have as much units in each city as its pop size (if Despotism) or as much as shield production (if Tribal).
I'm not sure what is the cause of the rest of the units dying. I'll try to test it.

Kryon wrote:

I like that wheeled units can't climb mountains but it is annoying that they also can't attack mountains. Without wheeled units, it is very hard to kill rifleman landing on a coastal mountain especially after a fortress is built.

I have found a partial fix that makes fortress native for wheeled units (so artillery can attack there, and from there).
Artillery will be still unable to attack mountains wihout road nor fortress, but enemy can not place artillery there either.

Xercise wrote:

1. Trireme can move on rivers and does not become obsolete (irl, the Vikings ventured from Scandinavia to Turkey in this way)
2. New 'train' unit - can only move on rail, no/low defense, no offense, can carry all kinds of units incl. air units and nukes, maybe not battleships though wink

I implemented the 1st one in previous versions of the ruleset and I don't remember why I had to remove it. I guess in part because AI don't know how to use such units, in part because I found it annoying to micromanage this kind of transporter units.
Actually, I'm not sure if it is a good idea to allow Mech inf to carry 1 land unit, as planned for next version. I don't like the idea to see chain movements on land. I prefer to keep Helicopters as the only unit capable to transport other land units.

#9 Re: LT31 » Suggestions for next civ2civ3 version » 2013-05-30 07:55:57

About Mariners, I agree what akfaew says. It was designed this way in the original ruleset too.

About Air units, the more I test them, the more powerfull they seem. I'm testing to conquer a city with all the defensive improvements, defended by mech inf.

It seems I'd need as much attacking howitzers as defending mech infs in order to conquer it. For example, 40 howitzer against 40 mech inf.

If I use Stealth bombers, 20 of them can damage completely any number of mech inf in the city, and then I can use 20 fighters to end the job (each fighter can destroy several damaged defenders), and 1 helicopter to capture the city, without the need of any land unit, and with almost no casualties (maybe some fighter).

I think they are not overpowered because bombers are field units (cause unhappiness even in home land), and because such army would be more expensive than the howitzers, and vulnerable to enemy fighters. But they look very dangerous, and I'd like to know your opinion.

#10 Re: LT31 » Suggestions for next civ2civ3 version » 2013-05-30 02:46:49

My attempt to improve air units:

- bombers cause 1 extra damage point:
Helicopter 2 (cost 70), Bomber 3 (cost 100), Stealth Bomber 4 (cost 120)
- fighters get "citybuster", so they are as powerful as in default rules against cities.
early Fighter similar to Cavalry against cities, and Stealth Fighter similar to Armor.

I'll try to update this week the ruleset available with modpack tool.
Thank you all for the comments.

#11 Re: LT31 » Suggestions for next civ2civ3 version » 2013-05-29 02:19:34

If the howizers that start in your cities can reach the enemy city in this same turn, then I agree there is no reason to build anything else. And the military unhappiness will have no effect at all.

I think the only solution for that is to disable the use of enemy infrastructure (roads).

This way, if howitzers need to stay in enemy territory one turn, I think they will not be so good, and it will be useful to take positions with paratroopers or helicopters, or to use mech inf and armors. At same time, if it is hard to send howitzers, then bombers are going to be important to damage the defenders, and at the end I think all unit types will become useful.

But I think you are right about communism, I'll keep the same martial law.
Maybe the easiest solution for longturn games would be to increase the trade bonus for Democracy/Republic so it affects every tile, or at least every oceanic tile.

#12 Re: LT31 » Suggestions for next civ2civ3 version » 2013-05-28 03:51:46

Some people point that democracy is underpowered, but I personally think it is Communism that is overpowered.
The AI rarely use any government other than Democracy, and I do not like the idea to improve it even more. But I'm testing some minor changes that could make them a bit more even:

- Increase the number of free units to 1\2 per town\city for Democracy (was 0), and 2\4 for Federation (was 1\2).
- Reduce the effect of martial law under comunism to 1 per unit (was 2).

If you think this is not enough for longturn games, I'd suggest to try to worsen Communism, better than to improve Democracy.

#13 Re: LT31 » Suggestions for next civ2civ3 version » 2013-05-24 22:41:09

mrsynical wrote:

Maybe, just some of them like mech inf? makes no sense for howitzers and canons to capture cities ...

This would require to create a new unit type for them, and I think it is not worth just for artillery units. After all, they already have low defense and low movement.
I agree some people that pointed that chariots are useless if they can't conquer cities, and I agree that it is weird to lose the capability to conquer cities with cavalry when they get obsolete by tanks.
I'd vote to return to default behavior in this case.

I think kryon might have gotten a bit lucky with neighbours? He got to a large number of cities very quickly and by that point it was pointless to make big cites/improvements. I actually built quite a lot of improvements. I think the cost difference between aquaduct near river and the normal acquaduct was too high.

I'm glad to hear that some people managed to create large empires with lots of improvements and republic/democracy governments.

Aqueducts near rivers/lakes were for free in Civ III, but this was not possible in Freeciv. The idea is to give them some advantage to compensate that cities near rivers are more vulnerable to attacks (due to movement bonus).

I presume you will inspect the saved games... I didn't have bombers myself, but I saw lots of bomber stacks surrounding cities... I was surprised one of my cities withstood a big pounding by 10+ bombers. My gut feel they were to weak....

I'll try to increase a bit his attack.
Note that bombarder units can't destroy enemy units, only damage them. You need other unit types to end the job.

det0r wrote:

I think one of the reasons people struggled with happiness is that they failed to take advantage of the trade bonus that is available with celebrating cities outside of democracy - when combined with marketplaces and banks you can significantly increase your total trade by running at 10% lux (the increased trade pays for the cost of the luxury plus more).

If you are able to build many happiness wonders, I agree this could be a powerful strategy. It was similar in Civ III where I found it fun to guess whether it was worth to celebrate or not.

However, I admit I like more the ruleset with the empire sizes doubled, even at medium maps.

det0r wrote:

Super highways:
I agree that it's a bit overpowered. My income really shot up when I built these, and I even didn't know what to do with all the gold anymore.

I adjusted them a bit for next version so they need Stock Exchange to get full effect:
Super Highways double the effect of Stock Exchange (+50% to Gold/Luxuries), and they produce extra trade at tiles with roads but without farmlands

Thank you all for the comments.

#14 Re: LT31 » Suggestions for next civ2civ3 version » 2013-05-23 23:32:51

Now I'm starting to have an idea of the gameplay in LT31, thank you all.

akfaew wrote:

Various cavalry units get obsoleted by tanks, and thus there are no long range units to take far away cities in the end game. (tanks cannot take cities)

Good point. In the version of the ruleset that I sent to you some time ago I tried to fix some of those problems, did you reveive it (named civ2civ3_v2.3-4lt) ?

My main changes until now were:
- Doubled the empire size for all governments.
- Wheeled units (Big land) can conquer cities again. Given BadCityDefender to Armor. Mech inf can carry 1 Land unit.
- Warriors become obsolete by Musketeers instead of Pikemen. Barracks available without any techs again.

I plan to release this new version at same time that they release the incoming freeciv v2.4, but first I'm trying to adjust it with the latest coments from LT31.

mrsynical wrote:

The lack of movement of caravans annoyed me (more so, as I was trying to find an exploit on trade routes). I don't see a reason for severely reducing the movement of caravans/freight, esp. if there are no trade routes.

You are right, the reason is that trade routes with foreign cities are enabled in original ruleset, but those movement restrictions could be removed for LT games.

wieder wrote:

For those who don't know Kryon's strategy, it seemed to be focused on 2 key objectives. Build troops and only the most important improvements and grow by conquering players who develop their countries and do build those wonders and all the nice improvements.

One of the objectives of this ruleset was to try to encourage the construction of buildings and wonders in the cities, I'm sad to hear that it seems a better strategy to build the minimum. I'd thank suggestions to encourge the development of cities a bit more.

An idea would be to give the extra defensive bonus (and extra free upkeep) to cities with pop > 8 (aqueduct needed), instead of the current pop=8 where you do not even need aqueduct.

Another idea would be to force all governments to upkeep less units in a city than its population size. Currently this rule only affects to upkeep by gold (like Democracy), but not when upkeep is by shields (like Communism).

Kryon wrote:

In communism corruption is small and there is no production waste but due to food waste it was impossible to maintain far cities

As I said when you started LT31, I think you should disable completely the waste of food by distance. I like it to make it hard to conquer the whole world against the AI, but it is not needed in LT where the only possible victory is to conquer the world.

- when bombarding units (bombers and stealth bombers) attack a stack that has spies, only spies get slightly injured. I'd expect the best defender to be injured and it's odd that spies are only slightly injured. it seems the spies somehow get the defense of the best defender in the stack.
  - fighters and bombers have very weak attack. I understand fighters are useful against catching bombers/submarines but bombers need better attack to be useful.

This is how bombardment is supposed to work: when the bombarder attacks to a stack of units, every unit in the stack has a chance to receive damage (the chance is calculated same than any other attack, comparing attack and defense). helicopters cause a max of 1 damage per unit, bombers 2, and stealth bombers 3.
Bombarders are very weak (almost useless) against single enemy units, but they seem very powerful against cities or fortress where there are lots of units stacked, because one single attack can damage lots of units.
I was afraid that a stack of bombers could be overpowered because it allows to conquer cities without casualties, and maybe I reduced their attack too much. It could be increased if people agree, but first I want to be sure that you took advantage of the full power of current bombers.

- when a city's food storage reduces to 0 a supported unit dies even though the city has not lost population.

I didn't know it, I'll update the readme.

- I like that wheeled units can't climb mountains but it is annoying that they also can't attack mountains. Without wheeled units, it is very hard to kill rifleman landing on a coastal mountain especially after a fortress is built.

Good point. I'd also like to make possible the attack of wheeled units against mountains, and I think it will be possible to implement with the new "road" system of freeciv v2.5, but not for v2.4 yet.

#15 Re: LT31 » Suggestions for next civ2civ3 version » 2013-05-22 16:51:30

Thank you wieder, this is very usefull feedback.

Some things are specific to LT31, as you say: mainly the wonders, the option to protect land units with air units, and the use of enemy roads.

wieder wrote:

Because marketplaces and banks didn't work like they do in standard ruleset, I found Democracy to be, while not really unplayable, worth using only for a very short period of time. That's why I played only in Monarchy and Communism. Players who had Democracy seemed to have lots of problems with it. Actually I know only one player who managed to play well with Democracy but then again, he didn't make war as much as those who failed with it.
I would like to see banks and marketplaces to work like they used to do, but this may be my personal preference.

If they half the corruption by distance, as planned for LT32, maybe democracy will be easier to handle. But I agree that maybe I nerfed this government too much.
Federation is supposed to be like a Democracy for large empires, I hope people found it usefull in LT31.

Markets and banks give the same bonuses than default rules (also the same than commercial civ III), but I guess they are less useful because there is no trade routes, and because republic/democracy do not give trade bonuses at oceanic tiles in this ruleset.

A solution for both issues could be to restore the bonus to trade in ocean by republic/democracy.

Population cost of 2 was really slowing down the early game and lots of people seemed to be frustrated about that. I was one of them, but it was not a critical issue for me.

I really suggest to keep the pop cots of 2 for settlers. This way you will be using practically the same pop system than commercial civ III where expansion was pretty well balanced in my opinion, even when a bit slower (I used to play online those days smile .
When you build a new city it appears with 2 worked tiles, and it makes sense that the construction of the settler also reduces by 2 the worked tiles in the original city. Else you are encouraging too much the smallpox, that is already powerfull because the first pop in the new city will not need food upkeep.

In conclusion the early game seemed to be more balanced than the late game. I can post more once I remember more of that stuff.

Other people commented the same, but I'm not sure why it happens. The defensive bonuses in this ruleset are the same (or greater) than default rules, while the offensive attack is lower in most advanced units (for example, the naval units and the missiles have reduced firepower, while the howitzer do not bypass the walls).
The only mayor change that could make the conquering easier late in game could be the use of bombardment ability to weaken the defenders.
Please, tell me if someone guess the reason of this unbalance in the late game.

One oddity, maybe not related to ruleset but to something else, happened when Japan was split when their capital was not conquered. The reason for this seemed to be a unit in the capital, when that unit had it's home city being conquered. Maybe it triggered the civil war. No one seems to really know. But it's probably not because of the ruleset.

Sounds like a bug in freeciv engine, but maybe it is related to the special unit upkeep used in this ruleset. We should report it gna.org if you have a savegame.

#16 Re: LT31 » Suggestions for next civ2civ3 version » 2013-05-22 02:24:09

I prefer not to include new units or buildings because they would need new UI images and texts, and it would be harder to make the ruleset compatible with the different graphic sets.

Now that LT31 is finishing, I wonder if it will be possible to download some savegame, because I'm curious to know how people played it.

Or even better, I'd thank if players could tell me here your favourite governments, the buildings that you found more important, and the units that you liked to use.
I'm specially interested in the balance between Federation-Communism, the power of bombardment (bombers and helicopters), and the usefulness of the "nerfed" cruise missiles.

#17 Re: LT32 » LT32 ruleset » 2013-04-27 15:26:34

I meant that foodbox and settler cost in lt31 (and my ruleset) are equal to commercial CIV III, where settlers cost 2 pop (and workers/migrants 1 pop).

When you create a new city, it works 2 city tiles (1 pop and 1 central tile), so it makes sense that a settler reduces 2 city tiles from the original city (2 pop). Else, you are going to spoil this inherit balance, and smallpox would be even better.

#18 Re: LT32 » LT32 ruleset » 2013-04-27 14:27:52

I see, I was afraid that you found some "crazy" effect in some government that made it unplayable.

From what I have seen, lt32 uses many things from lt31, but many effects are restored to default rules, and there are so many changes that feedback will no longer be useful for development of civ2-3 rules.
I knew it would happen with time because civ2civ3 was designed mostly for single-player with AIs and space race, and it is logical that you adapt it to LongTurn. Anyway, I'm glad that you used it practically unmodded for lt31, and I'll try to hear more opinions or suggestions before it finishes.

The change less I liked from your lt32 rules was the cost and upkeep of settlers. The foodbox and settler costs in lt31 are practically the same than civilization III, where city growth and expansion were pretty well balanced in my opinion. I'd suggest to keep at least the cost of 2 pop for settlers.

#19 Re: LT32 » LT32 ruleset » 2013-04-26 17:09:59

Ok, I see lt32 rules are no longer based on civ2-3 rules, so I guess this is my latest chance to get some feedback from lt31...
I'm curious about the reason why the opinion about this ruleset changed from "seems well balanced and it is worth to try" to "let's revert to default rules". I hope it is because people just prefer default rules, but your latest comments suggest that there is something broken in lt31 ruleset, and it is important to me to know what, because these rules are still planned to be included as default for freeciv v2.5

Could you at least explain me this one:
"Removed all those crazy governments, except for fundamentalism"
" I tought ALL governments were crazy!!!"

Bardo, if you're reading this thread please send me patches, if any, to your ruleset.

Btw, I sent to akfaew an email with some fixes to my latest civ2civ3 version, in response to this request, but I never got an answer. I do not know if you were no longer interested or you did not receive it.

#20 Re: LT32 » LT32 ruleset » 2013-04-01 23:37:14

akfaew, I have not made any patch for this ruleset since the version that you used as base for lt31.
I'm working on some minor chages for the next civ2civ3 version, but there are no bug fixes. I think you are save to use lt31 rules as base for lt32.

I like the settings that you proposed, the only things that I did not like are the walls with defense x3 (for the reason pointed by Kryon), and the restore of FirePower, because it would be a huge change to the balance of the ruleset and I do not think it fits the changes made to many units.

For example:
- Artillery units have the ability "CityBuster" that already doubles the FP against cities.
- Bombers and Helicopters have a new ability in this ruleset (Bombardment) where FP works in a complete different way
- I really think the balance of naval units (and city defense) would be broken if you restore the old FP values.
- while Fighters and Missiles were rebalanced compared to these new Bombers and the new stats of Naval units

If you like classic freeciv units (I really don't), I suggest to restore all modern unit values. I think a mix of civ2civ3 with default values could cause undesired results.
I'm not sure if I'll be able to play lt32, but I'm interested to know why you feel it is needed to restore the old FP values (maybe in lt31 thread).

#21 Re: LT31 » Food waste and Industrialization » 2013-04-01 23:00:47

What Kryon said about Communism is right. I'd clarify that the bonus from Mysticism and Theology are canceled when you chose Communist as your government. It does not affect the discovery of the Communism tech.
I have verified that Industrialization should not affect the happiness. It just increases the pollution caused by population.

I agree that the waste of food should be showed in a different line in the city dialog. I'll suggest it in the development forum (I'm not a developer myself, I only helped to fix some bug, and I help to maintain this ruleset).

About waste of food, there is another effect in this ruleset where cities lose food, due to upkeep of units. I try to explain it more accurate in the latest readme:

If a city supports more units with gold upkeep than its population size, each extra unit will waste one food (free units = pop size: min 4, max 20). If the population shrinks due to starvation, one of those extra units will be disbanded.

#22 Re: LT31 » Food waste and Industrialization » 2013-03-23 14:21:20

The food waste by distance is not affected by the governments

This was intended, altough I suggested to disable the food waste for LT games in big maps.
The courthouse halves it.

Industrialization cancels both the effect of Temple of Artemis and the effect of Mysticism

This was not intended. I didn't know Industry disables Mysticism.

#23 Re: LT31 » Suggestions for next civ2civ3 version » 2013-03-20 00:01:54

I suggest Big land should be able to take over cities. Chariot, tank and mech inf are right now unable to take over a cities and it does not make sense to me.

Thinking about it, I'm liking the idea to allow those units to take cities again, now that "restricted infrastructure" is available to avoid the use enemy roads.
I remember now, that the main purpose was to avoid that artillery was used as the only attacking unit when the cities are close enough to reach one from another.

Be careful not to fall in the trap of modern games, where the player is relieved of making any hard choices and compromises, and the game becomes flat and plays itself.

I think I see your point. I admit the gameplay with this mod is someway simpler than default rules because there are smaller differences between a good and a bad choice.
I personally like it, and it makes it possible for the AI to play with these rules even if not designed for them. In LT, I guess it makes the games more even, but also longer and hard to finish.

One of the main objectives of my changes for this mod was to give something unique to each unit so you can not win wars if you only recruit one unit type.
Also, my main fear when you started to play these rules in LT was that someone could find some unit or some strategy that is clearly better to the others, and it would spoil the gameplay. I'm still in doubt about the missiles, the bombers, and such special units that could break the fun if not well balanced.

I remember some players were able to win civ3 games with a rush of warriors, and I tried to adjust the defensive bonuses so this is not possible in this mod.
However, I'm afraid warriors could be the best defensive unit in the ancient times because each attack can only kill one city defender, and warriors are the cheapeast ones. If that is true, I do not like that the solution is to make them obsolete. I prefer to allow them and to adjust the cost of spearmen or pikemen if needed, until they are better to defend. Anyway, I think that the greater chances to survive an attack of spearmen/pikemen make them more efficient right now. While warriors would still be useful if sort of resources or time.
The fun would be to decide when to build warriors and when spearmen, instead of whether you should research bronze or not.

My suggestion to the ruleset itself is that by bumping the city limit for aqueduct from 12 to 16 you basically made Sanitation useless. I think it either needs to me moved up the tech tree or city size reverted to 12.

The idea was that Aqueduct and Sewers are important to counter the plague, more than to bypass the pop limit. Cities without Sewers will surely never reach pop 16 due to the plague, and they will lose valuable population even before they reach pop 12. I find important to research Sanitation and Medicine as soon as possible if your cities grow fast.
I agree the pop limit could be reverted from 16 to 12. I increased it mainly to give more freedom, to let the player decide when the sewer is really needed based on the status of each city. I find it boring when all cities are forced to build the same improvements at same time.

Bardo, would you maybe want to prepare a ruleset and settings for LT32?

It'd be too much responsability for me to setup all the files, when one single mistake could spoil the game. I prefer if you setup the settings, and I can help to modify the rules the way you want. For example, I can send you the files with double empire size, or with halved corruption, what you decide it is better. I guess those changes to the effects file would be easier for me.

#24 Re: LT31 » Suggestions for next civ2civ3 version » 2013-03-19 01:35:23

If mech inf can't take cities, may I suggest to give them the ability: Can carry and refuel 1 Land unit.

I like this one, thank you.
Related to this, I'm curious to know if people use carry units online: like helicopters with infantry, carriers with bombers, or submarines with missiles. I'm not sure if it is worth the risk to be destroyed by one single attack.

Now I understand what you point about chariots. I agree they should be normal land units again, else I also find them a bit useless. But I did not like to create this exception to the definition of "wheeled unit" (big land).
What if we keep them big land, and we give them IgZOC like the archers? Maybe too much early IgZOC units??

Other changes planned for next civ2civ3 version:
- Barracks available from start (no tech needed).
- Warriors do not become obsolete until Gunpowder. I agree some people who pointed the importance of such cheap unit.
- Pikemen with Att 2, Def 3, Cost 30
- Armour with flag "badcitydefender". Else they are better to defend cities than any infantry.
- Superhighways require Stock exchange to gain the +50% to lux/taxes. Else, I find Stock exchange underpowered and Superhighways a bit overpowered.
- Doubled the empire size for every governemnt. I see it important for single player games too, even at small/medium maps.

Thank you for the help.

#25 Re: LT32 » LT32 ruleset » 2013-03-14 16:12:11

Ok. An important one.
I suggest to remove the capability to stablish trade routes from Caravan/freight in units.ruleset, if not done already.
The current server setting "trademindist" does not affect inter-national routes and there is a hardcoded limit of 256.

I also suggest to disable tech upkeep, just in case:
tech_upkeep_style = 0

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB