Version 2.8 discussion

Well I noticed this in both your mod and Next War Advanced. Could it be more the other mod than yours? Like I said, it's in both, and it's fairly high in Next War Advanced.

Although, still, it shouldn't cost crate loads of money. :)
I think part of the problem is that because RoM has much more unit classes than regular BtS so each upgrade jump is added to the calculation and then game option modifiers added on top of that... I'll just need to find good settings so that upgrade paths follow BtS style more closely.
 
Yeah. I knew Next War Advanced uses ROM as base, that's why I said I found it in both. :)

Anyhow, Zappara, I hope you can tweak it. Because 3780 for upgrading 8 units is a bit much. :)

Especially as there isn't a cheat command for giving yourself gold, or is there?
 
no, you did do something with it. you wrote that tic-tac-toe program with a minimal GUI. if only you could find that 5.25" disk it was on... priceless... :cool:
I stopped using 5.25" disks when I was 16,so my TP programme was on a 3.5" disk :) Besides which, it was a simple version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire, rather than Noughts & Crosses :D
 
I think it is in the edit city tab. There you can enter how much gold you want. But you would not want to cheet now do you?;)
 
I think it is in the edit city tab. There you can enter how much gold you want. But you would not want to cheet now do you?;)

Often times, I locked modified assets or enter a random password for the worldbuilder, otherwise I'm way too tempted to, if a battle went sour.
 
Often times, I locked modified assets or enter a random password for the worldbuilder, otherwise I'm way too tempted to, if a battle went sour.
Guilty.:blush: I hate losing battles at 93.6% odds.
 
Zappara, this might just be me nitpicking, but as I went through the Techinfos.xml for my modmods, I noticed that some of the techs have different names than in the tech tree. This makes it very difficult to find the right techs. For example, the tech "Invention" is listed as "Alchemy" in the XML file. I realize that your saving yourself time (read: taking shortcuts) by just changing the name in the Gametexts, but it's really a hassle if you drastically changed the name and don't update the xml. Find and replace all can be helpful too.
 
Zappara, this might just be me nitpicking, but as I went through the Techinfos.xml for my modmods, I noticed that some of the techs have different names than in the tech tree. This makes it very difficult to find the right techs. For example, the tech "Invention" is listed as "Alchemy" in the XML file. I realize that your saving yourself time (read: taking shortcuts) by just changing the name in the Gametexts, but it's really a hassle if you drastically changed the name and don't update the xml. Find and replace all can be helpful too.


Yeah, this has kinda bugged me too. The Aerodynamics tech is listed in the XML as ADVANCED_FLIGHT...
 
Zappara, this might just be me nitpicking, but as I went through the Techinfos.xml for my modmods, I noticed that some of the techs have different names than in the tech tree. This makes it very difficult to find the right techs. For example, the tech "Invention" is listed as "Alchemy" in the XML file. I realize that your saving yourself time (read: taking shortcuts) by just changing the name in the Gametexts, but it's really a hassle if you drastically changed the name and don't update the xml. Find and replace all can be helpful too.
Yeah, I know there's few of those and it's true - they're there only because I wanted to save some time when designing the tech tree. I guess I could change the xml to match the current object names at some point. Usually the xml define does belong to same science area (Invention/Alchemy, Pesticides/Agricultural Engineering, Miniaturization/Manufacturing etc...) and it's this way because at first tech revisions the tech names matched the xml modifiers but after some thinking I've found better (more general) name for that tech so I've only changed the object name from gametexts.
 
Yeah, I know there's few of those and it's true - they're there only because I wanted to save some time when designing the tech tree. I guess I could change the xml to match the current object names at some point. Usually the xml define does belong to same science area (Invention/Alchemy, Pesticides/Agricultural Engineering, Miniaturization/Manufacturing etc...) and it's this way because at first tech revisions the tech names matched the xml modifiers but after some thinking I've found better (more general) name for that tech so I've only changed the object name from gametexts.

hey all zap has been doing a great job with this VERY time consuming thing for all of us to enjoy....with this said maybe some of you modmodders can do the revisions to make match as you come across these instances and let zap continue to improve/work on what he is alrdy doing..it'll save him a lil time and get 2.9 in our hands a lil sooner.......not a typo
 
hey all zap has been doing a great job with this VERY time consuming thing for all of us to enjoy....with this said maybe some of you modmodders can do the revisions to make match as you come across these instances and let zap continue to improve/work on what he is alrdy doing..it'll save him a lil time and get 2.9 in our hands a lil sooner.......not a typo

That would just cause more problems than you can imagine. Let's say I rename all the Alchemy references to Invention. Then, I would have to give my update file to Zappara, would have to merge all of the changes. If he forgot, or didn't have time by the next release, all of my modmod's would give errors, because in my version the XML was changed to Invention, but in the real version, it would still be Alchemy.

Anyways, there's no need to be harsh. I said I was just nitpicking, and I know I do the same thing some times.
 
Unless you're odds are above 96%, you'll lose a lot. That's what I've learned while playing, that's why I refuse to fight unless my odds are over that.
Anyhow, that's just my experience.
 
Unless you're odds are above 96%, you'll lose a lot. That's what I've learned while playing, that's why I refuse to fight unless my odds are over that.
Anyhow, that's just my experience.

Actually, your odds are, exactly that. Your odds. If you have a 50-50 shots at winning, half the time, your going to lose. I know some players always think the game is rigged, or out to get them, but a while ago, someone did a test of 100 battles with 50-50 odds, and the result was within the first confidence interval.
 
THen how does that explain how I lose if my odds are ever less than 96%? :)
There's a difference between logical odds, and what always happens. :)

All I know, is that if you're playing at less than 96% odds, there's a much higher chance than normal of losing. That's always been the thing for me.
Also, how exactly do scouts survive axeman attacks? Because mine always do.

Also, that Wikipedia link is in Ancient Sumerian. :(
 
THen how does that explain how I lose if my odds are ever less than 96%? :)
There's a difference between logical odds, and what always happens. :)

I don't think you understand statistics and odds very well. Theoretically, if you had 100 battles at 96% odds, you would win 96 battles, and lose 4. However, in practice it would not be at all statistically surprising to see 10 losses and 90 wins. Or 100 wins and zero losses.
All I know, is that if you're playing at less than 96% odds, there's a much higher chance than normal of losing. That's always been the thing for me.
In fact, if you are playing a difficulty level lower than noble, the human actually has a slightly higher chance of winning that the AI. Higher difficulty levels are all fair.

Also, how exactly do scouts survive axeman attacks? Because mine always do.
Does the scout have any promotions, and/or on a forested hills tile? Those bonuses help.
Also, that Wikipedia link is in Ancient Sumerian. :(
??
 
no, you did do something with it. you wrote that tic-tac-toe program with a minimal GUI. if only you could find that 5.25" disk it was on... priceless... :cool:

Hah, got one better. Back in '96 or so I wrote a QBasic memory game in high school with a half-decent (ie. half-assed) GUI but a bunch of manga babes on the cards :mischief: Thank God I had a friend that got me that image load code off the nets. And I even managed to get it in under 1000 lines of code with a bit of finagling. :king:
 
Back
Top Bottom