|
Are you, in fact, a pregnant lady who lives in the apartment next door to Superdeath's parents? - Commodore |
|
New EitB PBEM
|
|
You can build forts on types mana spots?
And yeah unique features give the resource. It's part of the risk reward of exploring them (though that is very swingy.
Erebus in the Balance - a FFH Modmod based around balancing and polishing FFH for streamlined competitive play.
 (November 1st, 2023, 16:12)Qgqqqqq Wrote: You can build forts on types mana spots? Yup; I tested it to be sure. They're not eligible city sites, but fort-building works. You can build forts on raw mana too, but of course that doesn't give you anything. The fort will even grow into a castle and then citadel if left alone, like any other FfH fort, still providing the mana if it's typed - but if you cast Dispel Magic, turning it into a raw mana site again, the spell also destroys the improvement - whether it's an adept-built node, a worker-built fort, or a worker-built-and-then-grown-for-ages castle or citadel!
Hum. I wonder if this is a EitB inadvertent change or it worked that way in FFH2.
Erebus in the Balance - a FFH Modmod based around balancing and polishing FFH for streamlined competitive play.
(November 1st, 2023, 21:44)Qgqqqqq Wrote: Hum. I wonder if this is a EitB inadvertent change or it worked that way in FFH2. I just checked, and it's indeed apparently a change in EitB: Base FFH2 forts/castles/citadels don't seem to connect resources (of any kind; mana isn't singled out). You can still build them on mana tiles, typed or otherwise, but you can't get the mana that way.
Yeah. I believe in the changelog there are shifts around forts (possibly garrison bonus, improving without garrison?), as there's a reason you can't settle on a mana node.
Erebus in the Balance - a FFH Modmod based around balancing and polishing FFH for streamlined competitive play.
Alright, I'm back, I've told everyone we got married while overseas, now I can focus on this.
No extra players? Sad! Excited by what you're cooking up though, Ref. I've updated assets with only one change - Elven work rate goes to -10%. The rest is the same as described here. However, the attachment issues are striking again and I can't add it to this post, so I've hosted it.
Could a lurker roll 3 leader/civs (with no repeats) each and randomise who they are offered to? I assume we're doing two rounds of throwing back (full combos only, not just leader/civ)?
Erebus in the Balance - a FFH Modmod based around balancing and polishing FFH for streamlined competitive play.
Sigh - if it doesn't work I can upload the whole assets file. I'll also test tonight.
Erebus in the Balance - a FFH Modmod based around balancing and polishing FFH for streamlined competitive play.
Aye - congrats, Q! I hope it was a terrific trip in every way!
On the game: (November 7th, 2023, 23:17)Qgqqqqq Wrote: Sigh - if it doesn't work I can upload the whole assets file. I'll also test tonight. I believe this is an actual XML error: The game is very particular about the order in which certain XML tags appear. Specific diagnosis in spoilers: As for the leaders/civs, this is the way I'd be inclined to do it, trying to be as explicit and detailed as possible: 1) Players create threads in this subforum and post in this thread either that they're happy with doing it this way or that they'd prefer something different. To speed things along, I'd also strongly recommend posting preferred play windows so we can choose a play order accordingly ASAP! 2) When each player has posted a thread and we have a consensus on the way we're handling civ rolls, I post a starting screenshot and three random civ + leader-of-that-civ combos (with no overlap among the fifteen civs and also e.g. no more than one Decius) in each player's thread. (Or another lurker does, either with just the starting combos if I haven't gotten updated starting screenies into the lurker thread yet, or both if I have...) 3) Each player chooses one of the three combos, rejecting the other two or rejects all three and asks for a different set, and posts their decision in their thread. 4) When each player has done that, if anyone rejected all three options, three more choices are rolled for them, drawn from the other players' rejects (and the civs not included in the first roll). 5) If necessary, repeat step 4 one more time, but any players who reach this point are stuck with one of the last three choices they're given. 6) I or another lurker posts what all the choices were and who chose what in this tech thread - note no one knows until this point what anyone else has been offered or what they chose - and rolls a starting player; I assign the appropriate civs and leaders and starting units to the appropriate players in order, start a PbeM game on the map, and send the starting save to the first player! Finally, one more note/question on the map: I'm planning to follow the example of our previous game and give each player a regular Settler at the start of the game, and not one with the "starting Settler" promotion. Let me know if this is a problem; I figured since everyone agreed they wanted more space between players than in the previous game, the potential for someone to found their capital 7 tiles closer to an opponent than their start tile after a 1-turn delay that might get eaten up by Anarchy anyway wouldn't be in keeping with the idea. |
