Looking for a couple of players to try a map

[roninscg]

For now everything seems ok in my case,

Only now I had time to thoroughly look at and study map, I think the advantage on this map is on builders fraction sides, as far as momentum fraction, perhaps something like this would be called momentum forces on this map Uni/Morgan/Angel or Spartanian ;-) me opinion everything else loses on this map against the builder fractions. simply is too large distance between rival teams.

of course will play with these factions i have already chosen. I have an idea and want to try it :-)

to EM

[Earthmichael]

Houston, I think we have a problem.

1. I don't think we are playing on Transcendent.  ete, can you check this please?  I think we must be a couple of steps short of transcendent.

2. Roninscg, when I loaded the nopods version of your map, there are still tons of pods.  I must admit I did not check it after your initial upload.  When you said you removed ALL pods, that was good enough for me.  So, are we actually playing on a map with lots of pods, or with no pods?

3. University started with Industrial Base.  University is not supposed to start with that tech.  No harm, I suppose, since either of my other factions could easily give the tech to University.  Still, I thought you should know, in case you use these setting in a different context, where University would not be so easily able to get Industrial Base.  Still, I would rather University not have Industrial Base, since does not every tech a faction have, including starting techs, slow down research?

4. Finally, I though Yitzi's patch had a setting to avoid sidetracks (that let you research anything with perquisites).  I thought I saw this somewhere.  Was it a different patch, or did I just dream it?  I remember the UI was a little odd, because the screen showed so many tech options that only the titles were displayed, which is fine with me.  Does anyone else remember this?
Either way, I think we will have to remake the game to due to the fact that I do not think we are playing transcendent.

Meanwhile, I noticed a few things about the map that I want to tweak (on both sides for balance) to make some squares a bit more useful.  In particular, I noticed some arid squares that I would like to boost the water level 1 notch (not rainy, but so that with a farm, the square is workable for 2 N).  Otherwise, to me arid squares are only useful for forests, so it would allow some additional options.

But I won't do anything about water level tweaks until I hear about the transcendent and pods issue, and only then if tweaks to both sides meet your approval.

[roninscg]

2. Roninscg, when I loaded the nopods version of your map, there are still tons of pods.  I must admit I did not check it after your initial upload.  When you said you removed ALL pods, that was good enough for me.  So, are we actually playing on a map with lots of pods, or with no pods?

Weird, I checked again and there is no pod on this map. Here again as an attachment check again. Perhaps a bug.

[Earthmichael]

When I just redownloaded and opened your new map, and it still shows tons of pods.

I opened it first with the Yitzi patch folder we are playing in, and then with a totally unpatched gog installation.  Both cases, lots of pods.

Can anyone else open this map and chime in with what they see?

ete, what did you see in this map?  Pods or no?

[ete]

Are you guys playing with the save provided in my previous post?

[roninscg]

Yes,

[Earthmichael]

I wrote out several concerns in an earlier post, including whether we are actually playing on transcendent or not, and pods.  Can you check on these things, ete?

[ete]

Ah, okay, sorry missed this page of posts.

Houston, I think we have a problem.

1. I don't think we are playing on Transcendent.  ete, can you check this please?  I think we must be a couple of steps short of transcendent.

Will check.

2. Roninscg, when I loaded the nopods version of your map, there are still tons of pods.  I must admit I did not check it after your initial upload.  When you said you removed ALL pods, that was good enough for me.  So, are we actually playing on a map with lots of pods, or with no pods?

I removed all but the pods on the poles while making the map.

3. University started with Industrial Base.  University is not supposed to start with that tech.  No harm, I suppose, since either of my other factions could easily give the tech to University.  Still, I thought you should know, in case you use these setting in a different context, where University would not be so easily able to get Industrial Base.  Still, I would rather University not have Industrial Base, since does not every tech a faction have, including starting techs, slow down research?

I can change that, likely a result of the rush.

4. Finally, I though Yitzi's patch had a setting to avoid sidetracks (that let you research anything with perquisites).  I thought I saw this somewhere.  Was it a different patch, or did I just dream it?  I remember the UI was a little odd, because the screen showed so many tech options that only the titles were displayed, which is fine with me.  Does anyone else remember this?
Either way, I think we will have to remake the game to due to the fact that I do not think we are playing transcendent.

No such setting exists to my knowledge.

Meanwhile, I noticed a few things about the map that I want to tweak (on both sides for balance) to make some squares a bit more useful.  In particular, I noticed some arid squares that I would like to boost the water level 1 notch (not rainy, but so that with a farm, the square is workable for 2 N).  Otherwise, to me arid squares are only useful for forests, so it would allow some additional options.

But I won't do anything about water level tweaks until I hear about the transcendent and pods issue, and only then if tweaks to both sides meet your approval.

Changing the map more now would be possible, but unless it's of great importance it'd be simpler to just stick to current. I already consider your version of the map.. not really what I intended due to the vast increase in productivity of starting locations and landmarks, would prefer not to take it further away.


Will check the concerns and post a new turn 1 save.. likely later on today, but not certain.

[ete]

hm, I'm seeing the difficulty level and tech as wrong in the save, but in the scenario they appear to be correct so I'm not sure where that got mixed up. Sorry about delay, not much time for this right now, will figure it out and post new turn 1 save within the next day or two.

[roninscg]

Ok, thank ete :-)

[Earthmichael]

Does this have anything to do with playing with Yitzi's patch?

[ete]

Unlikely, but not impossible.

[ete]

Alright, after checking the initial scenario.. it has the correct technology (uni lacks inust auto), has both Transcend and force current difficulty level, and should be working correctly.. But I see the issues in the save, so I'll reset and test it properly. Last time I missed a train trying to set this up before I had to be away for a few days, so it was all pretty rushed as I warned.

[ete]

Strange, the uni has IB from the start in the save despite not having it in the scenario. Perhaps starting the scenario activates the uni's bonus and the AI picks a tech, which happens to be IB? If that's the case, I'm not sure how to avoid it. It's not there in the scenario file, but appears.

I checked the difficulty level though, and that's fixed, so if you're okay with playing as if you'd traded that tech to the uni you can play from the attached save. Same passwords, ronin first. If you want me to look into it further and do thorough tests, I won't be able to do that for a few days, but if you'd prefer to wait I'm happy to do them.

[Earthmichael]

It is OK to go ahead and play.  I would have refrained from trading the tech to Uni to improve research speed, but I don't think this minor optimization should stop us.  If the game is ready other than the tech, lets go ahead and play.

Did you find and fix the source of the level?  Are we playing at transcendent now?  That was the key issue.