Scenario making for beginners.

ONLY 'Civ2:Test of Time' supports the additional terrain flag that, when checked (i.e. 'Yes' instead of 'No'), prevents all units from entering that terrain--regardless of Roads.
ToT also supports an 'override impassable' unit flag (in the 'Advanced Unit Abilities section at the bottom of Rules.txt) that when checked for a specific unit, will allow that unit to enter squares with impassable terrain. (NOTE: Air units ignore impassable terrain by default --are unaffected either way.)

The closest equivilant in any other version of Civ2 (all versions are the same in this respect) that I can think of is to change the domain of units with 'Settle' role (5?) to 'Air' (1) and give them limited fuel/range so that if they travel too far from the city they will run out of 'fuel.' The only problem with doing this is that the human player can 'cheat' by giving the Settler a build order (e.g. Irrigate) before the last available MP and the Settler's MPs will be reset next turn (not sure about range). This means that you can exploit this by moving as far as you like just as long as you keep setting the unit to build at the end of each turn. It will give you an unfair advantage when playing against the AI which will only do this by fluke and be pointless when playing against a human opponent (unless you use a 'house rule,' but then you could use the sam erule without changing anything).

(Kind of stupid but then many things in Civ2 are --like the abiilty to sentry land units with Coastal flag at sea without them being lost.)

The problem with what you mentioned about building immobile air units would prevent ALL unit types from entering those squares is that it would defeat the purpose of just limiting Settlers.

Aside from that, I can't think of any other way.
 
I have one question about CIV2 features?

Is it truth that all units within a fortress have their defensive strengths doubled?
If it's true, then in scenarios like Bonaparte (fortresses all around as STACKABLE) all units have doubled defenses.
Am I right?
 
Ah, it's been a while since someone posted here! :D


Answer to hanti's question:

In the scenario 'Bonaparte' by John Ellis (I'm assuming you're playing v1.1--don't know if he's updated it beyond that), the Fortresses on most land squares do indeed double the defense factor of units on those squares but most of the units in the scenario have the 'Negates city walls' flag checked (i.e. 000000001000000 in the Rules.txt file). This flag also applies to Fortresses thus the defensive bonus is ignored by these units when attacking STACKABLE squares. Note that City Walls improvement still prevents population from being lost to attacks regardless.

Also note that tiles with Desert, Mountains, Tundra or Swamp terrain types do not contain Fortresses (i.e. are not STACKABLE) in this scenario--I think the idea there is to keep savy human players from exploiting high defense squares and to reproduce the disadvantages of waging war in inhospitable environments. There are also Fortresses on the Ocean squares that comprise the English Channel and the area around Gibralter. The reason why there are no Fortresses on the other Ocean tiles is because John was placing Fortresses manually (i.e. change Ocean tile to land terrain, place Fortress and then change the terrain back to Ocean--the Fortress remains...not fun).

Fortunately there is now the CivStack utility program by Mercator that allows you to place Fortresses on every square automatically (it alters the contents of the .SAV game file). It can also place Airbases on every square instead; the latter tile improvement can also be used as 'STACKABLE' terrain only it gives no defense bonus and will end the turn of any air unit that enters that square (i.e. air unit will land there) so you don't want to use this option in a scenario with air units, but it's good if you want to distiguish between siege units (advantage vs. walls) and regular units while keeping the 'stackable' option.


There are however, a few downsides to using this system:

1) New cities remove the Fortresses from the square when built (cities can then be destroyed thus leaving an empty square without a Fortress).

Since there are no Settler units in this particular scenario, there is no risk of Fortresses being deleted by the placement of a cities--although the pre-placed cities can still be destroyed.

2) The AI has a tendency to Pillage squares around enemy cities so this means that they may remove the Fortress improvement.

3) On Ocean tiles, loaded units are not lost when their transport is destroyed--the AI sets the land units on Sentry since they can't move into adjacent Ocean tiles.

4) If you use the ChangeTerrain event, the affected squares will lose most of their tile improvements (including Fortresses). [This one is a REALLY big pain in the butt for me because I almost always use the STACKABLE feature but I also make extensive use of the ChangeTerrain event action.]

5) This one's obvious: you don't have the actual 'Fortresses' tile improvement in the game. [I usually just make up for this with an immobile 'Fort' unit and place it using the CreateUnit event action or pre-place it (an example of this can actually be seen in the Bonaparte scenario in the 'Fortress' unit).]


Nevertheless, the benefits outweigh the problems associated with using Fortresses in this way.


Hope that answers your question... ;)
 
Thank you yoshi!

Your answer was very detailed.
One thing is still strange to me. Can you confirm that "howitzer-negates city wall" flag has the same effect on fortresses like on cities?


h.
 
I don´t think it says that in the manual, but if it only applied to City Walls, Bonapart would be unplayable since many units have defence values proportional to their attack values--the Fortress bonus would unbalance things.

To test this just put a howitzer next to an enemy with a Mech. Inf. unit and place a Fortress on the latter´s square. Attack the Mech. Inf. in the Fortress with the Howitzer and then the one without (on the same terrain type). The one without the Fortress should do less damage to the Howitzer.
 
I really like this game and would love to start making my own senarios, except for one thing...

While in the Tribe editor, I can't seem to be able to rename anything except for government, commodities, and titles. I can't find anything that lets me edit the name of the tribe, it's leader, adjective, or list the city names for it. Where are these? Sorry if it has been asked before. I have MGE, by the way.
 
Ashram said:
I really like this game and would love to start making my own senarios, except for one thing...

While in the Tribe editor, I can't seem to be able to rename anything except for government, commodities, and titles. I can't find anything that lets me edit the name of the tribe, it's leader, adjective, or list the city names for it. Where are these? Sorry if it has been asked before. I have MGE, by the way.

Use EDIT KING, you can also edit the COPY of the rules.txt that resides within your scenario set of files
 
I found edit king where I could change the leader's name and the name and adjective of the tribe, but I still don't know where to change the city names that will be used. That way I wouldn't have to worry about fictional tribes creating New York or something, but I could still allow them to just create their own cities.

Maybe it's right under my nose and I just can't find it.
 
Ashram said:
I found edit king where I could change the leader's name and the name and adjective of the tribe, but I still don't know where to change the city names that will be used. That way I wouldn't have to worry about fictional tribes creating New York or something, but I could still allow them to just create their own cities.

Maybe it's right under my nose and I just can't find it.

make a copy of the master cities.txt from the main folder and move it into the scenario's folder. You need to manually edit the tribe's names to match those you've chosen. You can delete the rest.
 
Advanced Scenario Design
Leon Marrick, assisted by Harlan Thompson and others.

Having read the above work, which I might add was very helpful, I found a possiible answer to a particular problem mentioned, don't know if this is common knowledge, and I haven't tested to confirm, but....

The Command MoveUnit
Harlan Thompson knows of no example of this working.

The TOT Manual states that this only works for the AI.
 
Uh...i have the mac version of Civ 2 (awsome game) but when ever i edit units the color gets distorted when i try to run the game. it works fine when i edit terrain or city icons ( such as stone/farpavilion/idustrialization etc.) can any one help me with my problem? is it my computer? is it my copy of the game? :sad: please reply soon. (im making a multi-player game based on a volcano filled planet...i need to make some lava creatures!)
 
civ2 said:
Hi Mercator. :)
I tried BOTH!!!
It seems that civ doesn't like saved files...
Are there any additional parameters???
Size/palette/etc.
Also maybe anybody can tell me any GOOD civ2 scenario sites except for this one???
And preferably NOT realistic ones.

Why don't you justc copy and paste the image you want used as a title into a title from another scenario you know for sure is working? Then just hit save. That way you know for sure your title will get the correct palette. I always do that to my titles. Or just save the palette of a working title and then load the palette to your image. Both of them works like a charm. :)

There are two other good creation sites I know of: Apolyton and Creative Design Group .
 
Back
Top Bottom