I've noticed Hungary and Panama are both misspelled and not working. I've also been thinking about enabling by default the setting which makes players start with their first city settled. That would allow me to add the civs I left out because they would have started too close to others. What do you guys think? I'll fix those two typos anyhow.
#2 Updated by David Fernandez (bard) about 1 year ago
I personally like the idea of enabling "first city settled". It will ensure that capitals are properly placed and properly named. If you upload the patch, I'll try to test it.
At this point, you probably know more about this scenario than anyone else, so if in doubt, I suggest to do it the way you see best.
#4 Updated by Rhue of L about 1 year ago
2.5 or 2.6? I thought my version had gone live with the 2.6 beta? I'd also like to move the Aborigines to another spot in Australia in the first update for the sake of balance, Australia/Aborigines tend to become the most powerful nation because of the amount of uncontested land they can settle (1 civ for an entire continent, with the Outback in the middle, but still).
It might also be a good idea to slightly enlarge the Outback.
#7 Updated by Rhue of L about 1 year ago
There you go - typos fixed, startcity enabled, the Aborigines moved north and has a starting position for the Poles, as requested previously (though they still get squeezed by surrounding Hungary, Germany and Lithuania if they all are in-game, which isn't likely with few players as per freeciv-web rules).
Thanks, David, for your willingness to test the scenario, although there's nothing to test here as of now. I don't know about adding all of the other civs - without the algorithm to spread the civs out uniformly that you've guys been talking about it would make the situation worse. Sadly, also when two civs get spawned close to each other with their capitals settled the land is not distributed evenly, but one will steal most of the other one's territory. It's a lot of work to map them all, too, but maybe in the future I'll do it.
#9 Updated by Marko Lindqvist about 1 year ago
- File 0006-Update-large-Earth-scenario.patch 0006-Update-large-Earth-scenario.patch added
- File 0009-Update-large-Earth-scenario.patch 0009-Update-large-Earth-scenario.patch added
- S2_6 version: Extra space after startcity setting line removed
- S3_0/master version added
#11 Updated by David Fernandez (bard) about 1 year ago
I tested 2.6 version, and I liked the option to start with the first city already built.
I'd just suggest to reduce the max number of players to be equal to the number of nations from the core set that has a defined starting position.
For example, in the small earth map I created 50 starting positions, but there were only 39 nations from the core set, so the max number of players was set to 39. This way, you can start a game with any number of players, and the randomly selected nations will never appear out of place. If the max players were set to 50, a game with 50 players would place 39 players in the right spots, and the rest 11 players would get nations from the core set with no start position defined, and they would appear out of place.
An alternative would be to keep the max players at 91, but to change the default nationset to "all" nations.
#12 Updated by Rhue of L about 1 year ago
Nice, thanks! I'm not sure how to change the default nationset, but yeah, absolutely, all is better. If you try to start a game in the client it will tell you anyhow there aren't enough core civs to fill all the player slots. So I would change it manually when playing the scenario. In freecivweb the problem doesn't exist.
The other idea I don't really like, I think it's nice to give the player the ability to play with all of the mapped civs if they so wish.