- Joined
- May 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,882
Yes, it´s intended "CCM-normal"
and not directly from start so the AI can build up a solid base for its empire. Here is a screenshot about the new CCM terrain:Spoiler :
Rat44 CCM - Ultimate Challenge
- Thread starter ThERat
- Start date
Yes, it´s intended "CCM-normal"
and not directly from start so the AI can build up a solid base for its empire. Here is a screenshot about the new CCM terrain:
Looks nice -like a painting.
CommandoBob
AbstractArt
Elections are over and even though our friends won't be in until around Thanksgiving I think I can squeeze in some time for another session of amazing CCM.
Out of nowhere this thought struck me: if WWE were a Civ in C3C or CCM, what would their civ traits be? And their UU?
What's WWE? Their website WWE and the Wikipedia.
Out of nowhere this thought struck me: if WWE were a Civ in C3C or CCM, what would their civ traits be? And their UU?
What's WWE? Their website WWE and the Wikipedia.
Northern Pike
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2003
- Messages
- 6,673
Yes, we definitely need to get going now and make the most of the six weeks before the holidays bring us almost to a halt.
Assuming we'll want a scientific civ to help us keep up in tech during the long centuries when we can't expand by taking cities, I believe the only two we haven't already played in CCM are Israel and Russia. Israel looks better, since not having to compete for Jewish World Religion will be useful in a game where we can't capture anyone else's religion. Israel's second trait of militaristic is probably better than Russia's of expansionist. Russia has a lot of interesting unique WWII units, but it's not clear that they'll matter in win/loss terms.
There's also the question of difficulty level. Rat, you've said that deity would be too much with the no-captured-cities variant. Were you thinking that we'd be doomed by falling behind in tech? The problem of having enough time doesn't concern me in itself, since (IIRC) we've typically won our CCM games with about 200 turns in hand--we haven't necessarily won around turn 300, since we've chosen conquest or space, but we could have.
Assuming we'll want a scientific civ to help us keep up in tech during the long centuries when we can't expand by taking cities, I believe the only two we haven't already played in CCM are Israel and Russia. Israel looks better, since not having to compete for Jewish World Religion will be useful in a game where we can't capture anyone else's religion. Israel's second trait of militaristic is probably better than Russia's of expansionist. Russia has a lot of interesting unique WWII units, but it's not clear that they'll matter in win/loss terms.
There's also the question of difficulty level. Rat, you've said that deity would be too much with the no-captured-cities variant. Were you thinking that we'd be doomed by falling behind in tech? The problem of having enough time doesn't concern me in itself, since (IIRC) we've typically won our CCM games with about 200 turns in hand--we haven't necessarily won around turn 300, since we've chosen conquest or space, but we could have.
- Joined
- May 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,882
I´m very happy, that you still have fun with CCM. As you need a special biq, if the other civs should still be able to produce settlers from start, it wouldn´t be a problem to "enlarge" the number of turns by 200 (or more or less).
If you want, you can also use the new CCM interfaces, which of course work with the current version of CCM, too.
As you need a special biq, if the other civs should still be able to produce settlers from start, it wouldn´t be a problem to "enlarge" the number of turns by 200 (or more or less).If you want, you can also use the new CCM interfaces, which of course work with the current version of CCM, too.
Spoiler :
Northern Pike
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2003
- Messages
- 6,673
A very crisp, elegant look. 
i think going for conquest in a game like that was something we don't need to repeat. I think domination will be fine next time.
Also you are allowed to play fewer turns. Some only played 1-3 for maybe 4-12 hours of play. Basically you don't need to spend more time if you don't want to. We also won't have as much land and as many workers because we will be small for much of the game. I think turns will be much faster than the 4 hours the previous one got to.
So if you wanted to play, I don't think you need to invest huge amounts of time. If the game is slower, then that's ok for these large games.
---------
Israel sounds like a good choice. I say go for it.
I personally think that deity with the AI having the ability to build settlers and us not does have a decent chance of a win, so whatever settings you all want for that is fine for me. So:
1) Can the AI build settlers? I think it is ok.Otherwise the AI is limited in size to us, so there is not much of a disadvantage for us and no chance of the AI winning.
2)Deity or Demigod? Demigod would make an easier first game, but I think deity can also be won (though maybe not every game??)
3) Another way to make it easier is to say any city with a world wonder can be kept rather than complete destruction. You can capture a city if it is abandoned by turn end.
So I will vote Israel, AI build settlers and we don't, and one of <keep wonders or demigod> but not both.
Also you are allowed to play fewer turns. Some only played 1-3 for maybe 4-12 hours of play. Basically you don't need to spend more time if you don't want to. We also won't have as much land and as many workers because we will be small for much of the game. I think turns will be much faster than the 4 hours the previous one got to.
So if you wanted to play, I don't think you need to invest huge amounts of time. If the game is slower, then that's ok for these large games.
---------
Israel sounds like a good choice. I say go for it.
I personally think that deity with the AI having the ability to build settlers and us not does have a decent chance of a win, so whatever settings you all want for that is fine for me. So:
1) Can the AI build settlers? I think it is ok.Otherwise the AI is limited in size to us, so there is not much of a disadvantage for us and no chance of the AI winning.
2)Deity or Demigod? Demigod would make an easier first game, but I think deity can also be won (though maybe not every game??)
3) Another way to make it easier is to say any city with a world wonder can be kept rather than complete destruction. You can capture a city if it is abandoned by turn end.
So I will vote Israel, AI build settlers and we don't, and one of <keep wonders or demigod> but not both.
Northern Pike
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2003
- Messages
- 6,673
I'd be fine with playing the new game only to domination. I've been the biggest advocate of conquest, but getting from the domination point to conquest in this game took us almost two months, so perhaps we can take it easier next time. So, LK, if you're interested, you needn't be deterred by the thought of a conquest endgame, as Greebley says.
As I've said, I'm far more pessimistic than Greebley about allowing the AI to build settlers in this already difficult variant, so my vote would be Israel/no built AI settlers/deity. Keeping Wonder cities is tempting, and I could be convinced if the rest of the team likes the idea, but for the moment I'd say that it dilutes the basic concept too much.
As I've said, I'm far more pessimistic than Greebley about allowing the AI to build settlers in this already difficult variant, so my vote would be Israel/no built AI settlers/deity. Keeping Wonder cities is tempting, and I could be convinced if the rest of the team likes the idea, but for the moment I'd say that it dilutes the basic concept too much.
ThERat
Deity
Great to have you on board, LK 
NP, why don't you start the game with say 20 turns. You can then choose the settings you prefer. I think demigod as Isreal sounds fine.
I like the idea to keep Great Wonder cities only
NP, why don't you start the game with say 20 turns. You can then choose the settings you prefer. I think demigod as Isreal sounds fine.
I like the idea to keep Great Wonder cities only
If the AI is limited in settlers too, then make it deity. I will also vote not to keep the wonder cities since AI is limited.
Northern Pike
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2003
- Messages
- 6,673
Great, I'll do that soon.
I think I'll split the difference on difficulty, choosing deity but letting us keep Great Wonder cities. But anyone who doesn't like that idea has a few hours to speak up.Civinator, how would I implement the new interface? Or--since it's the middle of the night in Germany--does anyone else know?
ThERat
Deity
I am currently having some issues with my computer yet again, put me at the end of the Roster so I can sort that out.
- Joined
- May 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,882
I will make a download for you.
In the CCM\art folder you must rename the existing folders advisors, city screen and interface to advisor-old, city screen-old and interface-old (or something like this) so you still can reactivate the old folders if you should have any problems with the new one (but in all tests they worked very well). Than you only have to zip the file, I will do for you, in the CCM\art-folder.
Before I do the download, I have to cheque the files for the techtrees, so you receive the correct techtree-images for your curent biq as there are some changes in the CCM-techtree for era 2 and 3 in the next version of CCM.
Do you need the new terrain, too?
And most important: Do you need a modified biq for the new civ you want to play, where the AI can build additional settlers ?
Here is a link to the temporaly posted new graphics files. Please let me know when you have downloaded the files, so I can delete these temporaly files.
http://www.stormoverciv.net/forums/showpost.php?p=27400&postcount=9
Lurkers -please don´t download these files.
Northern Pike
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2003
- Messages
- 6,673
Civinator, I've downloaded the art files.
It would be great to have the new terrain.
We've decided against letting the AI build settlers, so I assume we don't need a new biq--I'll be going back to 1.7.1.
Thanks very much for your trouble.
It would be great to have the new terrain.
We've decided against letting the AI build settlers, so I assume we don't need a new biq--I'll be going back to 1.7.1.
Thanks very much for your trouble.
Northern Pike
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2003
- Messages
- 6,673
Sure. A few of the ways in which the early game in CCM difffers from that in C3C:
1. Fast population growth in our early cities is far more important, since there aren't the two ceilings at size six and size twelve--and we don't get many cities.
2. Workers and settlers have to be protected from invisible attackers by 2500 BC at the latest.
3. It's vital to get the cheap culture sources--National Symbol from the start, and a little later religious communities--built as soon as possible.
4. Religion is an incredibly expensive tech, and we have to keep that in mind from the beginning, if only to set up our 50-turn run ASAP.
5. Worker Houses must be built in the second city, not the capital, or its function as a barracks is wasted.
6. Slavers should ambush weak units that come to us, not wander. It's useless to have them operating so far away that the slaves they take can't make it home safely.
OK, I'll stop there before you decide to quit right now.
Similar threads
