Caveman 2 Cosmos

Oh they were already removed, players used to get them when playing below Noble like Nomandic Lifestyle.
Instead you may want to remove these lines from handicaps:
<GoodyType>GOODY_SPACESETTLER</GoodyType>
<GoodyType>GOODY_SEEDSHIP</GoodyType>
These units aren't used at all.
At Noble the Player never got free techs. Easier levels did. I would be against giving free tech to anyone on Noble.
 
At Noble the Player never got free techs. Easier levels did. I would be against giving free tech to anyone on Noble.
Huh?
I said, that players used to get free techs on Settler/Chieftain/Warlord, but free techs for players were already removed.
 
Maybe tech diffusion should be based on absolute difference rather than percentage?
Or, maybe Tech diffusion should just be removed. Why? Because we now have an Option called Win for Losing.

Also both these Options can cause players to disable long time standard Option like Tech Trading. Why bother with trying to trade for a needed tech when you get free research towards it any way, with either or Both of TD or WFL On.
 
Or, maybe Tech diffusion should just be removed. Why? Because we now have an Option called Win for Losing.

Also both these Options can cause players to disable long time standard Option like Tech Trading. Why bother with trying to trade for a needed tech when you get free research towards it any way, with either or Both of TD or WFL On.
They do cover different intentions. And yeah, tech trading sucks.
 
I don't use that option because the name sucks.
I take it you've never heard anyone complain that they can't win for losin' huh? Is that a regional thing?
 
Also both these Options can cause players to disable long time standard Option like Tech Trading. Why bother with trying to trade for a needed tech when you get free research towards it any way, with either or Both of TD or WFL On.

Because a player should be in a hurry to acquire techs.
 
It sounds like a pity thing. A participation trophy. Which is given in kindergarten to save the kids' feelings.
Maybe it's just where I'm from but if you say you can't win for losing, it means you've got bad luck even when everything should be going for you, so in experiencing that, you would think that you'd experience some fortune when times get down but nope... then it just gets worse.

It's a fairly common saying.

In this case, to say you CAN win for losing is a quirk. In some ways, I'm challenging the player to NOT pull too far ahead in terms of territory and population, or it will give your opponents all the more power and strength to research, which, as Joe points out, is probably most effective in a non-tech trading environment.

When players are experiencing some benefit from the effect of the option, it might be because they are cleverly using the option to not outgrow their competition but rather focus, instead, on making the fewer cities they have as powerful as they can in terms of yield output (not so much in terms of population perhaps, which plays into a high-education strategy).

There are even some realism based arguments that were posed a while back that support the effect being an explanation for some historical examples of small nations advancing faster than larger ones.

It's NOT intended to be a participation trophy for failing to compete, but it IS intended to help those that haven't competed as well to get a better chance to recover and grow to become a truly competitive player on the board. It REALLY helps those newborn barbarian civs to become valid participants in the game.
 
Last edited:
I think win for losing could use a better name. Quality over quantity? Synergy from concentration? Can't think of a really good name right now.
 
They do cover different intentions. And yeah, tech trading sucks.
No. It does not. It adds to the diplomacy side of the game. Are you trying to diminish that area? Seems you are.
 
Because a player should be in a hurry to acquire techs.
They "should be" yes. But with both On, the "crutches" they provide, diminishes the need to rush to acquire thru active trading. Especially when you would have to "sell the farm" to get that needed tech in days of yore.

Both were originally designed to aid the AI. To keep the AI competitive longer. But the players quickly adapted their play styles to incorporate these to spped up their own research at a lesser cost to them. Quickly negating the AI's crutch.
 
When players are experiencing some benefit from the effect of the option, it might be because they are cleverly using the option to not outgrow their competition but rather focus, instead, on making the fewer cities they have as powerful as they can in terms of yield output (not so much in terms of population perhaps, which plays into a high-education strategy).
This is wishful thinking. And not how the average joe uses these options. You need to understand this T-brd. It does not do what you say here for the masses but only for a few.
 
This is wishful thinking. And not how the average joe uses these options. You need to understand this T-brd. It does not do what you say here for the masses but only for a few.
This is true.I think hard core strategy players may do as T-Bird suggests but for myself, I focus on building my military for the most part to defend my empire or attack as need be. Personally I think options that either cancel each out or make each redundant should be removed but please, by no means take away too many options. I consider myself a mediocre strategy player at best, it's not my forte', and all the options help to tailor the game. Civ 4 is the only strategy game I play and it's because of C2C, I love the diversity of units, techs, et. al not too mention how much time and effort has gone into it.
 
No. It does not. It adds to the diplomacy side of the game. Are you trying to diminish that area? Seems you are.
I can give numerous reasons why it disrupts the game but everyones got differing opinions so there's no point arguing. I just despise how it messes with the game flow.

As for diplomacy... I usually find it an annoying inconvenience.
 
This is wishful thinking. And not how the average joe uses these options. You need to understand this T-brd. It does not do what you say here for the masses but only for a few.
Not a compelling argument as you're not really making one. Is there any substantiation for your claim?
 
This is true.I think hard core strategy players may do as T-Bird suggests but for myself, I focus on building my military for the most part to defend my empire or attack as need be. Personally I think options that either cancel each out or make each redundant should be removed but please, by no means take away too many options. I consider myself a mediocre strategy player at best, it's not my forte', and all the options help to tailor the game. Civ 4 is the only strategy game I play and it's because of C2C, I love the diversity of units, techs, et. al not too mention how much time and effort has gone into it.
I feel this is just showing a lack of understanding of the option. It isn't cancelling out another option. What gives you this impression?
 
Wow... the totally broken 38,1 is still on the air as a main download??

This pickering about preference issues feels absolutely crazy while the main download file of the mod has been totally broken for over a month. It looks like the whole edifice comes tumbling down for this case and it is really awkeard to recommend this great mod to anyone new since the main download is total crap and the crew seems very committed to be somewhere else than fixing it. Also, I find absolutely astounding that patch V38-thread has been closed under these dark premises.

As good as the base of this great mod is, it is going down very fast on this path guys. Hopefully you all can muster the energy and resolve to concentrate to the essential.

Right now I heartly recommend all new players steer far away from the main download and please... no more of that get the newest svn it is much better-crap anymore. You are shooting yourselves in the foot here every day and don't even appear to care. So very sad guys... so very sad.
 
Back
Top Bottom