T-Hawk, when you say you backed out the associated code, do you mean you restored it to the original CIV:BTS release version? I have a fix for that, but it does change the savegame format (by adding that flag into the save data) so maybe that's undesirable here?
|
Rebalancing Civ4: RtR Mod
|
|
Yes, restored it to the original. (Not the entire files, just removed the lines related to the Oracle fix.) I think I'd prefer savegame compatibility over fixing it through the savegame format. It's not like we ever have problems with people actually using the exploit.
(September 7th, 2013, 00:11)T-hawk Wrote: Yes, restored it to the original. (Not the entire files, just removed the lines related to the Oracle fix.) I think I'd prefer savegame compatibility over fixing it through the savegame format. It's not like we ever have problems with people actually using the exploit. Agreed. I wasn't sure how far back it was being rolled.
A couple of small suggestions for discussion:
- Spearmen should not make warriors obsolete. Why should they when they're still clearly better for some purposes? It's a hidden advantage to Inca, but Inca doesn't need more advantages. - Beef up scouts' bonus vs animals (maybe a lot), and maybe nerf bears. Losing a scout early, or even a very long healing time, is a large disadvantage, and this would make the early game less random while still not allowing you to spam settlers with impunity. (October 4th, 2013, 13:57)SevenSpirits Wrote:(October 4th, 2013, 13:50)WilliamLP Wrote: - Spearmen should not make warriors obsolete. Why should they when they're still clearly better for some purposes? Other than UI clutter and cases where a unit is clearly better at the same cost, I agree. But the warrior is the one that affects the game the most. (I think?) 
I don't think changing scouts is necessary. If you play it cautiously (baby steps and 2 moves only to forested hills) there are quite a bit better chances to keep him alive. If you always move 2 tiles, you should expect him to die sooner rather than later. Playing without barbs is better way to remove random effects.
(October 4th, 2013, 14:11)WilliamLP Wrote: Other than UI clutter and cases where a unit is clearly better at the same cost, I agree. But the warrior is the one that affects the game the most. (I think?) So you don't like the mechanic of units becoming unbuildable. I see. Why do you think making warriors not become obsolete would improve gameplay?
October 4th, 2013, 14:40
(This post was last modified: October 4th, 2013, 14:41 by WilliamLP.)
(October 4th, 2013, 14:17)SevenSpirits Wrote: So you don't like the mechanic of units becoming unbuildable. I see. It's nothing dramatic, it just gives another build option, and takes away the gamey (heh) element of not wanting to learn hunting (or hook up copper) because it will screw you over. I think warriors are already balanced by maintenance cost just fine. plako Wrote:I don't think changing scouts is necessary. If you play it cautiously (baby steps and 2 moves only to forested hills) there are quite a bit better chances to keep him alive. The key word is "chances", which I feel make a game inferior when applied to a single irreplaceable and valuable unit. Turning barbs off has much larger effects. |
