xUPT

[Valkrionn]

We'll also be releasing the source files for the launcher and pedia reader; Other mods are free to use them (Would need to change the images, remove/change the website link, remove/change the blog reader, and change the default paths... I THINK that might be it), with one, and only one, stipulation.

Credit must be given to the RifE team, and principally ArcticNightWolf. Don't do that, and we shall be incredibly annoyed. I mean, really; Part of what makes the civ community so awesome is people don't get uptight about others using their stuff. Because, for the most part, people give credit.

 

[Jester Fool]

We have done our best to keep people interested in our work in the meantime

A++ on that (especially the banter and teasing - it is entertainment after all).

created a Blog in the process

Go Opera! (loved your first blog)

Valkrionn is a mean posting machine answering every question in the forum. Valkrionn reads everything, in, I think, all FfH related forums.

At the rate he is going, he will have over 12,200 posts by the end of the year (not complaining, just jealous ).

Hopefully our players will enjoy the work we have put into 1.3

Most assuredly (just please pay special attention to stability issues). I love RifE already (but that nasty WoC issue in 1.23 prevents me from playing).

 

[Afforess]

that nasty WoC issue in 1.23 prevents me from playing).

Outsider here:
Out of curiosity, which issue is that?

 

[Jester Fool]

Outsider here:
Out of curiosity, which issue is that?

"Waiting on Civilizations" forever at the start of the turn (AI looping issue of some sort). Valk says this issue is most likely fixed (IIRC) in 1.3.

 

[Afforess]

"Waiting on Civilizations" forever at the start of the turn (AI looping issue of some sort). Valk says this issue is most likely fixed (IIRC) in 1.3.

Oh yes. The SDK modders worst nightmare.

 

[Baleur]

Sounds awesome, but definetly should allow more garrisoned troops in a city than troops "in the field".
I'd love to use a value of 5 myself, 10 units in cities or forts, 5 units per stack in the field. Sounds like a very good compromise

 

[Afforess]

Sounds awesome, but definetly should allow more garrisoned troops in a city than troops "in the field".
I'd love to use a value of 5 myself, 10 units in cities or forts, 5 units per stack in the field. Sounds like a very good compromise

But then how could you ever capture cities? The defenders of cities already have the city defense advantage, why stack it even more in their favor?

 

[Divvu]

By stationing more stacks, surrounding the city. Up to 8 stacks can be placed around a single tile, and, incidentally, this makes cities surrounded by sea/peaks actually more defendable...
That said 5/10 is too low for me... I think I'll go for a 10/30 initlially and tweak it up from there (just an opinion)

 

[Valkrionn]

A++ on that (especially the banter and teasing - it is entertainment after all).Go Opera! (loved your first blog)At the rate he is going, he will have over 12,200 posts by the end of the year (not complaining, just jealous ).Most assuredly (just please pay special attention to stability issues). I love RifE already (but that nasty WoC issue in 1.23 prevents me from playing).

It will be far more stable, yes. And faster. And have better AI. All of that is already in, for that matter.

Sounds awesome, but definetly should allow more garrisoned troops in a city than troops "in the field".
I'd love to use a value of 5 myself, 10 units in cities or forts, 5 units per stack in the field. Sounds like a very good compromise

I'm thinking of either a flat bonus in cities, or allowing the player to configure the city amount just as you can the standard amount.

But then how could you ever capture cities? The defenders of cities already have the city defense advantage, why stack it even more in their favor?

If a city could only be attacked from one tile, I'd agree with you. However, that is most certainly not the case; You have up to 8 tiles to attack from. I certainly like the idea of encouraging surrounding a city, to be able to capture it.

By stationing more stacks, surrounding the city. Up to 8 stacks can be placed around a single tile, and, incidentally, this makes cities surrounded by sea/peaks actually more defendable...
That said 5/10 is too low for me... I think I'll go for a 10/30 initlially and tweak it up from there (just an opinion)

Exactly. Though I'd be going with 8/16 or 8/24, personally... Want to make sure you can't have all unitcombats in the same tile.

 

[Divvu]

Want to make sure you can't have all unitcombats in the same tile.

Interesting concept sir... Very interesting! Also this goes well with the idea of expanding unitcombats, I'm sure I've readen somewhere that in one of the post 1.3 updates we'll get an overhaul of units, with entirely new classes added, right?

 

[Valkrionn]

In 1.5, yes. We have the design ready already, even.

 

[A Moon]

Is there a way to vote for yes and pie?

That's kind of a mean thing to do Valk.

"Hey, are you gonna vote in the elections?"
"Well of course! Democracy is finally coming our nation!"
"Are you going to vote for {Shiny party of happiness}?"
"Probably..."
"Why not have this pie instead?"
" I love pie!... But... I need to show my support for {Spoh}"
"But... Pie."
""

 

[Baleur]

I suppose the surround bonus could be increased when attacking cities to somewhat balance it or make it more viable to capture a city without a huuge 4x5 stacks armies.

Sort of like this;

Surround bonus (with 3 stacks or whatever the exact numbers will be for that)
30% bonus to strength (for normal combat in open fields)
20% bonus to city attack (to make city sieges more viable with less than a total ultra-surround)

So 30% strength for normal combat, 50% strength for city attacks.

 

[Grey Fox]

Sorta like the flanking bonus that Civ5 will have?

 

[Baleur]

Yeah, Civ5 is looking more and more like FFH2 lol.

 

[Afforess]

By stationing more stacks, surrounding the city. Up to 8 stacks can be placed around a single tile, and, incidentally, this makes cities surrounded by sea/peaks actually more defendable...
That said 5/10 is too low for me... I think I'll go for a 10/30 initlially and tweak it up from there (just an opinion)

If a city could only be attacked from one tile, I'd agree with you. However, that is most certainly not the case; You have up to 8 tiles to attack from. I certainly like the idea of encouraging surrounding a city, to be able to capture it.

Not true. What about a worse case scenario, where a city is surrounded by peaks or inland sea on 7/8 tiles. Then it would be unsiegable.

 

[Grey Fox]

Well that would be a matter of closing the city in while you conquer the rest of that civs cities, eventually you'd be able to take that city too. 7 out of 21 tiles being useless for production means it will have less production, and you could put units on the rest of the tiles shrinking it to a size 1. Then it will be hard for the city to recuperate losses. Eventually your siege is bound to be successful.

Might be a reason to include 2 range for some ranged units too.

With IDW you might have taken the tiles around the city too, so you might be able to have access to the roads, then you could move in fresh siege every turn to wear the stack down.

 

[Cyrusfan]

"Impassable" tiles aren't as much of an issue in RiFE. Lots of civs have flying units, and a couple can just walk over mountains. Pretty much everyone else can eventually put summoners who grant extra movement to their summons 2 and 3 tiles away and swamp a city with fresh troops every turn.

 

[Sjru]

Better could be "stack strenght limiter" so a stack could have a sum of unit that do not pass X strenght, with a minimun and a maximum.
And a global unit cap by streght could be a good idea, so a player can have a sum of unit that do not pass X strenght if summed together, and a minimun, to ensure they have enough unit to defend themselves. That way, you could speed a bit the game, don't you think?

 

[arcticnightwolf]

hmm ... i was pessimistic about this xUPT at the beginning, but i'm starting this idea more and more ...