Modified Scenarios Workshop

[Patine]

Atomic Era II:

I was just going to ask if Asia 8 was my antique scenario (when I first arrived on Apolyton, I was, indeed, unimaginative enough to have continent or region and numbers for iterations as names of scenarios of historical epochs ), so I looked at the units, and the intro text, and compared with the digital dust-covered Asia 8 in my MGE folder, and the units are indeed updated graphics of the same units (to the MGE unit limit) and the intro text is identical. Thanks, greatly, @gapetit!

 

[techumseh]

Holy Horsehockey, @gapetit ! You've been busy. Some real blasts from the past!

 

[gapetit]

Thanks to those who like this trip to the past... in some cases to their past... because I have been very busy trying to make you happy and make you so proud that you dare to continue making more and better scenarios... in fact You are already doing it... from what I see, only you, @Patine, are left to resume the work . Thank you for the enjoyment that your scenarios give me. Saludos

 

[Patine]

Thanks to those who like this trip to the past... in some cases to their past... because I have been very busy trying to make you happy and make you so proud that you dare to continue making more and better scenarios... in fact You are already doing it... from what I see, only you, @Patine, are left to resume the work . Thank you for the enjoyment that your scenarios give me. Saludos

Actualy, I have begun in the process of getting the four scenario ideas I'd long ago shelved as unworkable to the light of day now that LUA and ToTPP may well work make them workable, as I had announed. I just have not given an update for a while, as RL has been busy the last while. Here's a development thread for one of them. https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...ottp-lua-remake-official-thread.653218/page-3 I'm not utterly inactive, just, "picking at it," and gathering ideas while reading LUA posts and such, and plan to be up and running soon, once the offline taskmaster of RL duties alleviates, a bit, which I hope should be soon.

 

[gapetit]

Actualy, I have begun in the process of getting the four scenario ideas I'd long ago shelved as unworkable to the light of day now that LUA and ToTPP may well work make them workable, as I had announed. I just have not given an update for a while, as RL has been busy the last while. Here's a development thread for one of them. https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...ottp-lua-remake-official-thread.653218/page-3 I'm not utterly inactive, just, "picking at it," and gathering ideas while reading LUA posts and such, and plan to be up and running soon, once the offline taskmaster of RL duties alleviates, a bit, which I hope should be soon.

I'm glad to hear that from one of the pioneers of Civ-2. I am looking forward to enjoying one of your scenarios again. Cheers and greetings

 

[gapetit]

I add the last modification made this season... I was waiting for more Fairline cars, but you can always see it interesting and be encouraged to do it in the future. Units of one of the most fascinating scenarios in the Civ-2 world: Mafia - La Cosa Nostra of Eivind IV:

View attachment 675809

 

[gapetit]

Eivind IV's Mafia scenario for MGE converted to Test of Time by Catfish:

https://forums.civfanatics.com/resources/mafia-v1-4-for-test-of-time.13280/

 

[gapetit]

A House Divided 1861 - 1865 by @tootall_2012 :

http://sleague.civfanatics.com/index.php/A_House_Divided_1861_-1865

 

[gapetit]

A Divided Nation (aka Union) by @civ2units :

 

[gapetit]

MP American Civil War by @techumseh :

https://sleague.civfanatics.com/index.php?title=American_Civil_War

 

[zwei833]

Jesús Muñoz Fernández's Carolus Invictissimus scenario for FW converted to Test of Time (with new Fairline's wonderful graphics):
https://forums.civfanatics.com/resources/carolus-invictissimus-for-tot.28151/

Thanks for your conversion, Carolus is one of my favourite scenarios in Civ2. I have a small issue when playing it though. The scenario starts at summer 1520, but sometimes after one or two turns the year number becomes something like 1508, 1510 or 1512. This happens randomly.

Here is the save file that the date becomes 1508, in turn 2 when I play as Habsburg.

 

[gapetit]

Thanks for your conversion, Carolus is one of my favourite scenarios in Civ2. I have a small issue when playing it though. The scenario starts at summer 1520, but sometimes after one or two turns the year number becomes something like 1508, 1510 or 1512. This happens randomly.

Here is the save file that the date becomes 1508, in turn 2 when I play as Habsburg.

Hello zwei, the conversions that seemed so easy a priori, the truth is that these brought quite a few problems, which were solved over time.
The problem you indicate would be something new, I checked it and made the screenshots correctly passing from one month to another within 1520. Where then could the problem be? I think it may be because of the ToT version you use, but the matter is beyond my knowledge... I hope someone from the League can provide you with more information. And yes, for me it is one of my favorite scenarios too. All the best

 

[gapetit]

I add a new improved ToT conversion of the Godi Diego's Celtic Italy scenario:

 

[zwei833]

Hello zwei, the conversions that seemed so easy a priori, the truth is that these brought quite a few problems, which were solved over time.
The problem you indicate would be something new, I checked it and made the screenshots correctly passing from one month to another within 1520. Where then could the problem be? I think it may be because of the ToT version you use, but the matter is beyond my knowledge... I hope someone from the League can provide you with more information. And yes, for me it is one of my favorite scenarios too. All the best
View attachment 678473
View attachment 678474

Thanks for your reply. To better indentify the issue, could you provide the following information?
-your operation system?
-your version of ToT?
-do you use ToTTP?

For me, the answer is
-win11 64bit
-ToT 1.1
-yes

I would also like to add, if I do the following things, year number always become 1508 in turn 2:
1. play as Habsburg.
2. choose "Marquis" Difficuty level
3. after enter the game, move Charles V 2 tiles toward Futenterrabia
4. sleep all other units
5. end turn
6. If Frederick reach to you, don't talk to him, send away his Emissary.
7. year number becomes 1508 after entering turn 2.

Edit: after some test, I find that Difficuty level might be the decisive factor. Interestingly, if I choose "Emperor" Difficuty level, the year number would not go wrong!

If possible, could Gapetit or other people try the same thing above, and check the result?

-----------------------

Another question about the Carolus Invictissimus scenario. In @UNITS_ADVANCED section of Rules.txt, I find that Swd Pikemen is set to be unbuildable by Sweden, while Swiss Pikemen is set to be buildable by Sweden (even though Swiss Pikemen's preq is "no" which mean it should be unbuildable at all). Is that a typo?

 

[gapetit]

Thanks for your reply. To better indentify the issue, could you provide the following information?
-your operation system?
-your version of ToT?
-do you use ToTTP?

For me, the answer is
-win11 64bit
-ToT 1.1
-yes

I would also like to add, if I do the following things, year number always become 1508 in turn 2:
1. play as Habsburg.
2. choose "Marquis" Difficuty level
3. after enter the game, move Charles V 2 tiles toward Futenterrabia
4. sleep all other units
5. end turn
6. If Frederick reach to you, don't talk to him, send away his Emissary.
7. year number becomes 1508 after entering turn 2.

Edit: after some test, I find that Difficuty level might be the decisive factor. Interestingly, if I choose "Emperor" Difficuty level, the year number would not go wrong!

If possible, could Gapetit or other people try the same thing above, and check the result?

-----------------------

Another question about the Carolus Invictissimus scenario. In @UNITS_ADVANCED section of Rules.txt, I find that Swd Pikemen is set to be unbuildable by Sweden, while Swiss Pikemen is set to be buildable by Sweden (even though Swiss Pikemen's preq is "no" which mean it should be unbuildable at all). Is that a typo?

It's great that someone analyzes and discovers errors in the scenarios. I will check if the level (marquis) is the one causing the error (and I will move to Carlos V). And in the points: 1. 32-bit Windows XP 2. and 3. a ToTPP version of 1.1 (not with LUA because I have it separately).

 

[gapetit]

Thanks for your reply. To better indentify the issue, could you provide the following information?
-your operation system?
-your version of ToT?
-do you use ToTTP?

For me, the answer is
-win11 64bit
-ToT 1.1
-yes

I would also like to add, if I do the following things, year number always become 1508 in turn 2:
1. play as Habsburg.
2. choose "Marquis" Difficuty level
3. after enter the game, move Charles V 2 tiles toward Futenterrabia
4. sleep all other units
5. end turn
6. If Frederick reach to you, don't talk to him, send away his Emissary.
7. year number becomes 1508 after entering turn 2.

Edit: after some test, I find that Difficuty level might be the decisive factor. Interestingly, if I choose "Emperor" Difficuty level, the year number would not go wrong!

If possible, could Gapetit or other people try the same thing above, and check the result?

-----------------------

Another question about the Carolus Invictissimus scenario. In @UNITS_ADVANCED section of Rules.txt, I find that Swd Pikemen is set to be unbuildable by Sweden, while Swiss Pikemen is set to be buildable by Sweden (even though Swiss Pikemen's preq is "no" which mean it should be unbuildable at all). Is that a typo?

Confirmed that it is a problem on scenario. I have followed your instructions and I got the error of going to 1508 in the second turn... I have tried removing Game, Labels... and the error continues... I have the feeling that it may be a problem with the technology, since with marquis the professional soldier is discovered and that is what can be different with other levels... I have changed several things in technology but the error continues... It is truly very strange...

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

Looking under the hood, it seems the original scenario has a badly-configured calendar: rather than use the Starting Year in scenario parameters, he's brute-forced it to the in-game turn (16646—hence "Maximum Turns: 17080"). Leaving the Starting Year on 0 means it's basing calendar progression off the default track that varies by difficulty and map size; that far into playable turns it should be stable, but evidently it's getting thrown off playing below Deity.

Fortunately it's an easy fix:
Set Game Year: 1
Starting Year: 18241
Maximum Turns: 434
Adjusted as necessary if the Turn 200 threshold should be preserved.

(End date will be Autu 1628, rather 1556 as given in the original scenario briefing.)

 

[gapetit]

Looking under the hood, it seems the original scenario has a badly-configured calendar: rather than use the Starting Year in scenario parameters, he's brute-forced it to the in-game turn (16646—hence "Maximum Turns: 17080"). Leaving the Starting Year on 0 means it's basing calendar progression off the default track that varies by difficulty and map size; that far into playable turns it should be stable, but evidently it's getting thrown off playing below Deity.

Fortunately it's an easy fix:
Set Game Year: 1
Starting Year: 18241
Maximum Turns: 434
Adjusted as necessary if the Turn 200 threshold should be preserved.

(End date will be Autu 1628, rather 1556 as given in the original scenario briefing.)

Great contribution Thorvard . Your solution is perfect , but I have the doubt why it is necessary to preserve the 200th as threshold and add 434 turns instead of the 146 for the date autu 1556. If it is so necessary, perhaps it is better to pass the periods from month to month and not every three months, to try to adapt better to the historical period, which would force events to be changed to adapt to the new dates.

Another question about the Carolus Invictissimus scenario. In @UNITS_ADVANCED section of Rules.txt, I find that Swd Pikemen is set to be unbuildable by Sweden, while Swiss Pikemen is set to be buildable by Sweden (even though Swiss Pikemen's preq is "no" which mean it should be unbuildable at all). Is that a typo?

This was a error in the conversion and thanks to you it is now resolved

 

[zwei833]

Great contribution Thorvard . Your solution is perfect , but I have the doubt why it is necessary to preserve the 200th as threshold and add 434 turns instead of the 146 for the date autu 1556. If it is so necessary, perhaps it is better to pass the periods from month to month and not every three months, to try to adapt better to the historical period, which would force events to be changed to adapt to the new dates.


This was a error in the conversion and thanks to you it is now resolved

Thanks for your reply, I have three more questions about Carolus Invictissimus:

1.
What does the unit "P E Landskn." represent? Pike Elite Landsknecht? Pike English Landsknecht? I checked the original scenario, and find that this unit doesn't exist in the original scenario, only exist in your conversion.
And what is this unit use for? It is unbuildable and only the Protestant own one in Leipzig at the start.

3.
Maybe "E Crossbowmen" should be renamed as "E Longbowmen"? As the unit graphic clearly doesn't use a crossbow.

3.
In this scenario, there are many technologies (like Landsknecht I, Landsknecht II, Reiter I, Reiter II, Swiss Pikemen I, Swiss Pikemen II, Scots I, Scots II etc.) which are researchable, but do nothing at all. These technologies exist since the original scenario. Do you know what are these technologies designed for?

 

[gapetit]

1.
What does the unit "P E Landskn." represent? Pike Elite Landsknecht? Pike English Landsknecht? I checked the original scenario, and find that this unit doesn't exist in the original scenario, only exist in your conversion.
And what is this unit use for? It is unbuildable and only the Protestant own one in Leipzig at the start.

3.
In this scenario, there are many technologies (like Landsknecht I, Landsknecht II, Reiter I, Reiter II, Swiss Pikemen I, Swiss Pikemen II, Scots I, Scots II etc.) which are researchable, but do nothing at all. These technologies exist since the original scenario. Do you know what are these technologies designed for?

I think I can answer both points. Regarding the first point, it is an Elite unit, then it could only be developed in Germany (whether Protestant or Imperial) and could include it, for example, with Landsknecht II technology (I don't know if the rest of the technologies are associated with any event in Events, I have to check it). The original scenario is not static, let me explain, at that time they were done quickly and then things were modified or added as the players contributed ideas. That's why there are things undeveloped in the original. And also in the case of my conversion to ToT because I work the same. I have made an enormous number of conversions to ToT that I started in 2009 or 2010 (I believe), and on those origins I have been making improvements by myself or because someone has requested them. What is the problem? Because of the volume, if something new comes up I can leave unfinished an idea that had occurred to me who knows when (if we are talking about a period of more than 10 years). That does not mean that quantity prevails over quality (there is no total error in the development of the game in any of the published conversions), but the idea is that when people played them they would see errors that I would have missed. And this is because I don't like spending months playing the same scenario to see any possible failure or improvement. If there is no such information, I can discover it over time or they will remain there until someone discovers them. And for the improvements I cannot deny that the fundamental thing for me is the graphics. I love, for example, the Fairline units, and as in this case, if there are more I try to include them in the scenario (in the case of the last units he included them in the Units graph, which I interpreted as a request for improvement, and from there I tried to include them in the scenario or as it was in this example: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/modified-scenarios-workshop.410838/post-15633192 ) ... in other cases, since they are "barbarians", a good part could be more complex to use, but if you think of them I will surely include improvements.

3.
Maybe "E Crossbowmen" should be renamed as "E Longbowmen"? As the unit graphic clearly doesn't use a crossbow.

That modification is an excellent idea and I will implement it.