This scenario is very severely outdated.
@Toffer90 or someone has to update it, as scenarios were broken again and again after V40 SVN.
Caveman 2 Cosmos (ideas/discussions thread)
- Thread starter strategyonly
- Start date
@Toffer90 or someone has to update it, as scenarios were broken again and again after V40 SVN.
strategyonly
C2C Supreme Commander
wasnt using it as a C2C, just a plain BTS. .for now . .
EDIT: I just changed a few things in the above file, originally i made it for Fall from Heaven for Kael, so i just deleted a few bonuses ..
Last edited:
Some things were changed too - compare to vanilla scenarios
You didn't do that in other place: appveyor.yml
Its first line of that file. This is one displaying version in SVN changelog.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
um... whatever appveyor is
Is that actually a .yml file you're referring to somewhere in the codeset or do you mean .xml?
The top file in this screenshot:
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
And we can go in there with notepad to change the version number?
appveyor.yml is file related to repository itself.
Its in base Github repository, like gitignore, or game icon files.
Yes, you can use notepad to edit it
Yeah, it's just a text file.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
okie... not sure where I missed the memo on this but alright thanks guys.
Septentrion
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2015
- Messages
- 152
I've been testing city placement MIN_CITY_RANGE at 3 and unfortunate it's a square range. It's rather overkill with the worst overlap two cities can have is 3 out of 20
Now to talk about places I couldn't settle. The diagonals(2 overlap) and near diagonals(4 overlaps) at 3 range are essential positions for nation building. There was even a case I wanted a near-straight where the max 6 out of 20 tiles would overlap, but it was no big deal.
Here's an idea I don't think I've mention: Having a different city range for players who don't own the city. The AI likes to initiate hopeless culture battles and it's only have been a annoyance in my experience.
Now to talk about places I couldn't settle. The diagonals(2 overlap) and near diagonals(4 overlaps) at 3 range are essential positions for nation building. There was even a case I wanted a near-straight where the max 6 out of 20 tiles would overlap, but it was no big deal.
Here's an idea I don't think I've mention: Having a different city range for players who don't own the city. The AI likes to initiate hopeless culture battles and it's only have been a annoyance in my experience.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Wow you pack your cities close together. Let's see... I like to make sure that I have about 5 - 6 spaces per city. At closest 4.
Septentrion
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2015
- Messages
- 152
I'm only talking about the closest locations after many, many cities. After about 14 cities, my nation has a lot of wilderness between the cities. Of course, I'm playing on "fragments only" and 20% mountains on c2csmartmap. I wanted to see how hindering increasing MIN_CITY_RANGE to 3 can be.
JosEPh_II
TBS WarLord
Many players like a mix. The AI right Now is using your spacing and it's leaving lots of land really unused. They may have 8 cities in an area equivalent to mine and I have 13-15 cities. With spacing for a few more later when needed. Good utilization of the map is essential for a Good strong AI.
These annoyances for you are Major Culture warfare for land for me. I find the AI is very adept at Culture Wars. More so than for outright Warfare in fact. But I only play on Immortal Difficulty for testing purposes. And using Game speeds of Blitz or Noble, with a rare Long any more.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
One thing Koshling insisted on was that they spread out far to try to crowd other players - I would suspect this is what you are seeing because MY complaint about the AI is that they pack cities WAY WAY too close together, to the point I feel the need to destroy many of them.
We'd probably both complain and whine about AI choices here no matter what they do so in a way as long as they are irritating us both, they're at least between the polarities.
I don't stretch to claim and annoy, I do it to give my cities the perfect amount of tiles, none shared, so they can all be as strong as a single city can possibly get. At least for the first ones that will be my best military and economic generators utilizing the benefits of % modifying wonders to the max.
That said, Koshling's playstyle DID stretch to bottleneck off claims to larger swaths of land and I have to admit it was frustrating as hell to play against that and it may be one key reason he won our game - our conflict's outcome regardless. So I suppose I don't mind letting the AI use his tactic even though I find it frustrating to use myself because I'm not a fan of backfilling as much.
Last edited:
JosEPh_II
TBS WarLord
This currently is not True. I can provide save game evidence that shows otherwise.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
We'll see next time I play - I haven't manipulated their placing value AI for a long time so I would say there's probably quite a bit of variation in their approaches based on numerous factors like river access, coast access, bonus access etc... I play with a lot of bonuses - that might be why I see them pack in closer. I recall you prefer less bonus heavy maps and that might be getting them to spread out farther to get the more sparse bonus benefits.
strategyonly
C2C Supreme Commander
can someone pls explain to me WHY when i conquer a complete area, not all of that civ but 86% their area that i mostly own is still in the other civs landmass??,, if u look at the pic i have, i own ALL that land inside the red marker, and i deleted all the fort/palisade/etc etc from that other civ also...
it is straining my economy badly. .
it is straining my economy badly. .
