Middle-Earth: Lord of the Mods (octa)

There is nothing wrong with lurking :p

I just dodnt have anything to say at the moment... I might also create some pedia entries... (good old "Tolkien Beastery")
 
Hello,

Sorry -- I haven't uploaded many files before -- forgot about spaces :o . Edited the link above. Thanks Yoda!!! :D

Re: the fact that it is a PTW map. Is there somebody out there that has conquests and a bit of extra time?? I would appreciate it if someone could add some marshes? The tiles that need to be changed are in the Midgewater Marshes east of Bree, the marshes in the northfarthing, and in the southeast shire, the marshes near Tharbad on the Gwathalo river, the Gladden fields, the Dead Marshes, the Nindalf (near the dead marshes), and some marshes that I added on the outlet of a large river in the southeast corner of the map. These tiles are all represented by floodplains.

Now, as for the request for a screenshot, I'll try;) :





RRnut
 
I love it. I will be d/l-ing that for something. I can't wait to play this mod.
 
IIRC there were already some Isengard graphics posted somewhere in CFC. I belive I posted a link in the last thread.
 
embryodead-
Then, the help file is wrong. I actually tested it. Test it yourself if you want, you will see. Appearance ratio of 160 in an 8 player game does not give 2 resource per player, but 1,6 resource per player, that is 12.
Click to expand...
That is pretty surprising, and it's hard to imagine, how could they be wrong, wouldn't the whole of Civ3 be unbalanced? Or was it just some guy who got the detail wrong when making the helpfile? It wasn’t changed in c3c.
So I tested it, I used all the ‘standard’ settings I could think of, and had Iron require no tech (plus debug mode). And from the start of an 8 player game I only counted 11 iron resources, which holds true with your theory of 12. However! I have my own twisted theory;), I believe the appearance ratio is quite different than the essential distributive property, which comes into play upon map generation. For instance, the map may start out with only 11 resources, but over the course of the game 5 more resources will appear, and later some of those (within the number of 5) will disappear.

So I tested it out again, this time with the appearance ratio set to 200 with all standard sets and debug mode on. I counted 16 resources this time. Now conceivably, if a setting of 160 supposed to be 16 resources with 8 players, then a setting of 200 there should be 20 resources in the game. And once again, we find that with only 16 resources with a setting of 200, we are still short by 4-5. (Even my math is good enough for that:p ) Seeing as this is the case, I don’t think 16 resources, or two (2) per player (and a little extra) is so extreme. I don’t see why we should lower it from 200, especially to 180. Why do we not make it 190 and call it even;)?

I see no reason to give Luxury’s appearance ratios... Perhaps we could give them a low disappearance probability, however? They usually come in mass, how could one disappearing be problem, it would simply reflect historically accuracy, what do you guys think?

Sorry for the slow reply, been transferring everything to the .biq before we go on. I’ll post the civilopedia for the next 5 resources next time.
 
Originally posted by PCHighway
That is pretty surprising, and it's hard to imagine, how could they be wrong, wouldn't the whole of Civ3 be unbalanced? Or was it just some guy who got the detail wrong when making the helpfile? It wasn’t changed in c3c.
Click to expand...

Unbalanced? I think it's fine. Actually it doesn't seems suprising to me, the help files and such are always done by different people, who know only what has been told them.

So I tested it, I used all the ‘standard’ settings I could think of, and had Iron require no tech (plus debug mode). And from the start of an 8 player game I only counted 11 iron resources, which holds true with your theory of 12. However! I have my own twisted theory;), I believe the appearance ratio is quite different than the essential distributive property, which comes into play upon map generation. For instance, the map may start out with only 11 resources, but over the course of the game 5 more resources will appear, and later some of those (within the number of 5) will disappear.
Click to expand...

No :p As you can test it too, it makes no difference whether dissapearance ratio is 0, 400 or 1000... (at 0 no resources disappear but also no new are spawned). They just made a mistake in the help file, you have to live with that ;) Also, the percentage of number of players theory is actually more logical. BTW I bet you got 11 resources because you counted manually and missed one ;) Civ3MT can't be wrong at this point, though it deosn't work with C3C yet.

So I tested it out again, this time with the appearance ratio set to 200 with all standard sets and debug mode on. I counted 16 resources this time. Now conceivably, if a setting of 160 supposed to be 16 resources with 8 players, then a setting of 200 there should be 20 resources in the game. And once again, we find that with only 16 resources with a setting of 200, we are still short by 4-5. (Even my math is good enough for that:p ) Seeing as this is the case, I don’t think 16 resources, or two (2) per player (and a little extra) is so extreme. I don’t see why we should lower it from 200, especially to 180. Why do we not make it 190 and call it even;)?
Click to expand...

LoL ok, if you want so. It's just that iron might be to easy to get and won't be really "strategic".

I see no reason to give Luxury’s appearance ratios... Perhaps we could give them a low disappearance probability, however? They usually come in mass, how could one disappearing be problem, it would simply reflect historically accuracy, what do you guys think?
Click to expand...

by low disappearance probability you meant high disappearace ratio I assume? Sure it will be very proper ie. for Mithril.
In WH-Mod I used appearance ratios for luxuries to make some of them rare, while others remain "common".

Sorry for the slow reply, been transferring everything to the .biq before we go on. I’ll post the civilopedia for the next 5 resources next time.
Click to expand...

Did you fix all the rules that where transferred from PTW? I think we use the new rules, ie. 3x upgrades, 4 shields per gold etc.
 
Nice lookin' Isengard, there, mrtn! :goodjob:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
[C3C] Delaying/Removing Military Alliances and Right of Passage? When?
Replies
0
Views
69
SayHayKid
S
megabearsfan
Polycast episode 428: "Freedom?" is now available on YouTube
Replies
0
Views
357
megabearsfan
megabearsfan
Theov
Tackling the Middle Ages Tech Tree
Replies
11
Views
2K
Ozymandias
Ozymandias
C
Improvement Idea: Project Smoke of War on the Ground
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
Coronel_Civ3
C
hokath
  • Poll
[Vote] (7-01) Make Villages Buildable on Marsh
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
azum4roll
A
Top Bottom