Remake Conquest of the New World?
CardinalT
great game, in my opinion, though a little dry and slow at times. I think an
update that improved the graphics and interface, as well as spicing up the
gameplay itself a bit, would sell well.
'Course, what do I know? I think Diablo and Diablo II are pretty much junk
(i.e. "pretty junk?") and look how they've sold. My taste and the tastes of
the general gaming public apparently don't coincide.
--CardinalT
"...and, yea, he was therefore flamed unto death by the numberless legions
of Satan that crawl the earth..."
Michael J. Solomon
I liked it to! Magazines liked it. It got mixed reviews here though.
Those who did not like it hated the interface (too much clicking) and
the game's incredibly slow pace.
>'Course, what do I know? I think Diablo and Diablo II are pretty much junk
>(i.e. "pretty junk?") and look how they've sold.
I am still playing Diablo II and I bought it the day it came out. I
got my copy before the price tag was even put on the boxes!
Cyclonic
Historical setting and a ponderous pace: right up my street by the sound of
it :) It would keep me off the streets till EU comes out anyway.
Rich Goranson
>Historical setting and a ponderous pace: right up my street by the sound of
>it :) It would keep me off the streets till EU comes out anyway.
Conquest Of The New World was already remade once...repackaged as "Deluxe
Conquest Of The New World". Basically, the "deluxe" version is identical to a
patched version of the original with some prettier graphics. It was a
horrendeously buggy game and I can't imagine why you'd want to waste any more
time with this.
Did they fix the save game bug in the Deluxe version? The old save game files
were upwards to 25MB in size!
Rich Goranson (Lord Stephan Calvert deGrey)
Buffalo, NY (Barony of the Rhydderich Hael, Æthelmearc)
Diplomacy addict, F&E guru, Expos fan and medieval re-creationist
"I could have conquered Europe, all of it, but I had women in my life." - Henry
II
John Hornbostel
through the numerous versions that Quicksilver released, plus contains
expanded diplomatic and trade options) around--check bargain bins at
CompUsa, look for shovelware strategy collections, etc.
IMO, Conquest was one of the best games of the last ten years. Way more fun
than Colonization, I found it to be the true heir to 7 Cities of Gold...
The biggest problem with it is that it shipped buggy, including one near
show-stopper in the tutorial (not a good idea at all). As originally
shipped, it was also an incredible resource hog--I remember originally
having turns take hours on my 486-66. Quicksilver supported the hell out of
it, killing the bugs and speeding up play, the AI is decent, and graphically
it is still up to par--when released this was one of the most beautiful
games out there...How this same group did Invictus is beyond me.
CNW can't be too highly recommended.
Cyclonic <ma...@cyclonic.force9.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8p5gfs$c4e6t$1...@ID-45550.news.cis.dfn.de...
EPK
news:eqwt5.36$911....@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> I still see the CNW Deluxe Edition (the one to own, since it is patched up
> through the numerous versions that Quicksilver released, plus contains
> expanded diplomatic and trade options) around--check bargain bins at
> CompUsa, look for shovelware strategy collections, etc.
>
> IMO, Conquest was one of the best games of the last ten years. Way more
fun
> than Colonization, I found it to be the true heir to 7 Cities of Gold...
>
> The biggest problem with it is that it shipped buggy, including one near
> show-stopper in the tutorial (not a good idea at all). As originally
> shipped, it was also an incredible resource hog--I remember originally
> having turns take hours on my 486-66. Quicksilver supported the hell out
of
> it, killing the bugs and speeding up play, the AI is decent, and
graphically
> it is still up to par--when released this was one of the most beautiful
> games out there...How this same group did Invictus is beyond me.
>
> CNW can't be too highly recommended.
>
All of the bugs had been stomped by the time the Mac version was released,
over a year later (and, of course, at premium price). I couldn't understand
why more people didn't like it as much as I did, but it must have been
because of the bugs (or, memory of them) in the original versions for pc.
EPK
CardinalT
John Hornbostel <trigg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:eqwt5.36$911....@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> through the numerous versions that Quicksilver released, plus contains
> expanded diplomatic and trade options) around--check bargain bins at
> CompUsa, look for shovelware strategy collections, etc.
Electronics Boutique is a good bet if there's one nearby, too.
> IMO, Conquest was one of the best games of the last ten years. Way more
fun
> than Colonization, I found it to be the true heir to 7 Cities of Gold...
I agree.
> The biggest problem with it is that it shipped buggy, including one near
> show-stopper in the tutorial (not a good idea at all). As originally
> shipped, it was also an incredible resource hog--I remember originally
> having turns take hours on my 486-66. Quicksilver supported the hell out
of
> it, killing the bugs and speeding up play, the AI is decent, and
graphically
> it is still up to par--when released this was one of the most beautiful
> games out there...How this same group did Invictus is beyond me.
I have both the original and Deluxe and I don't remember every hitting any
show-stopping bugs (which nevertheless doesn't mean they weren't there). It
truly was slow as hell, though, after the first few turns of play. Of
course, that's become kind of a moot issue nowadays, given the speed of the
average gamer's computer.
I find it interesting that I disagree with you about the graphics, though.
Even in 1996 I wasn't all that impressed with them. I wonder if, when people
say nice things about the graphics, they're not really thinking about the
random map algorithm instead, which churns out incredibly realistic (and
thus "beautiful") game maps? Just a thought, since to my eyes the graphics
themselves have always been somewhat fuzzy and indistinct. Colorful and
attractive they are, I guess, but in a fuzzy and indistinct way.
> CNW can't be too highly recommended.
Hear, hear!
--CardinalT
John Hornbostel
EPK <kv...@purdue.edu> wrote in message news:8p6500$
> This explains something to me -- I got CNW when I was still on a Mac.
> All of the bugs had been stomped by the time the Mac version was released,
> over a year later (and, of course, at premium price). I couldn't
understand
> why more people didn't like it as much as I did, but it must have been
> because of the bugs (or, memory of them) in the original versions for pc.
> EPK
>
help sales. The original version (CNW 1.0) also ran *incredibly* slow,
which was patched by version 1.10 (which actually trucked along nicely on my
486). On my P400 nowadays, the game just flies...
John Hornbostel
CardinalT <g...@away.you> wrote in message news:FcEt5.126>
I find it interesting that I disagree with you about the graphics, though.
> Even in 1996 I wasn't all that impressed with them. I wonder if, when
people
> say nice things about the graphics, they're not really thinking about the
> random map algorithm instead, which churns out incredibly realistic (and
> thus "beautiful") game maps? Just a thought, since to my eyes the graphics
> themselves have always been somewhat fuzzy and indistinct. Colorful and
> attractive they are, I guess, but in a fuzzy and indistinct way.
Really? I thought they were cool--especially if you zoom in all the way to
watch the colonists work. Pretty pedestrian nowadays, but in 1996 it was
pretty cool eye candy. Plus, in the tactical battles, the Portuguese
Uniforms look so bitchin'!
> > CNW can't be too highly recommended.
>
> Hear, hear!
>
One other *very* underestimated reason for this game's genius is the fact
that you can play as Native American Tribes, with associated advantages and
disadvantages. After finally winning as a European power, playing as the
Tribes requires completely different strategy and tactics--it's essentially
like playing a different game.
Cyclonic
"Rich Goranson" <forl...@aol.complex> wrote in message
news:20000906145350...@ng-mf1.aol.com...
> Conquest Of The New World was already remade once...repackaged as "Deluxe
> Conquest Of The New World". Basically, the "deluxe" version is identical
to a
Sounds like it was a fix rather than a remake as the poster above wanted (ie
'CNW2'). Its not a good sign when the "Deluxe" version of something is
actually a euphemism for "the version that works" :-)
Even so, a lot of people seem to have liked it, and I've found you can still
order it. I played Colonisation to death, so I'll give it a spin.
Cyclonic
mike ramsey
3d map, decent combat system, it just too bad the gfx where (at least for
the terrain rendering) where bad. I remember pulling out many zoom levels,
so I didn't have to
see the hideous blown up bmps. Other than that - a damn enjyable and
addicting game,
maybe even more so then Colonization!
-Mike
"John Hornbostel" <trigg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:fAIt5.3044$%S5.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Martin Leslie Leuschen
: 'CNW2'). Its not a good sign when the "Deluxe" version of something is
: actually a euphemism for "the version that works" :-)
I had no problem running it on a 386 66, although it was slow.
The Deluxe version was a real upgrade, not a patch. It just
included all the patches that had already been released in
addition to new toys.
: Even so, a lot of people seem to have liked it, and I've found you can still
: order it. I played Colonisation to death, so I'll give it a spin.
Warning: You have to either
A: Like MM
or
B: Be able to let go and let the computer do your MM for you
to really enjoy the game IMHO.
Regards,
martinl
CardinalT
LShare7614 <lshar...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000907174152...@ng-fn1.aol.com...
>
> CNW was, IMHO, a mediocre game. Colonization had great potential but poor
> execution.
>
> Ideally I'd like to see a game that has the best features of both.
All squabbles about CNW's relative merits and demerits aside, this is more
or less what I had in mind when I suggested a remake. In my opinion,
publishers tend to give up too easily on promising games that are "almost
there," when just the tiniest of shoves might send them over the top into
greatness. CNW is one of those games.
EPK
> >why more people didn't like it as much as I did
>
early
> versions, but that wasn't the problem. Version 1.10 fixed the bugs, sped
up
> game play and was quite playable. DCNW added a few bells and whistles but
> didn't really change anything.
>
> The problem is, that after a while I found CNW boring. It may work well
> multiplayer, but I could only play it solitaire and the solitaire game has
a
> major problem: the politcal/diplomatic model doesn't work. Humans will
> respond appropriately to your actions, but the AI doesn't really respond
at
> all. Your relations with other AI players, before independence, follows a
sine
> wave pattern from alliance to war and back and there's nothing you can do
about
> it. After you independence, the relations are all neutral and will likely
stay
> there because you've basically won and are just marking time waiting for
the
> game to end. This leaves very little to do for a long part of the game.
After
> a while, CNW becomes boring. It also has sever problems of scale.
Now that you mention it, I do recall the micromgmt getting tedious even
for me, and that goes a long way -- in Capitalism, for example, I could
never just turn over the little stuff to a company president, and I never
use the city governeor in Civ or SMAC...
>
> This is in notable contrast to Colonization which has the best
> political/diplomatical model I've ever seen. Of course Colonization has
serious
> problems of it's own: hellish micromanagement and a broken combat model
and
> pseudo-random number generator.
>
> CNW was, IMHO, a mediocre game. Colonization had great potential but poor
> execution.
>
> Ideally I'd like to see a game that has the best features of both.
>
Yes, that would be nice. I don't know of many games with tolerable AI
diplomacy, and I can't think of ANY with a good one.
EPK
David Short
>It also came out within a year or so of Colonization, which probably didn't
>help sales.
No it didn't. Colonization came out in 93 or earlier and cotnw
came out in 96. They were direct competitors in the sense that
Moo2 will be compared to RFTS2, but they didn't leach each
others sales.
> The original version (CNW 1.0) also ran *incredibly* slow,
>which was patched by version 1.10 (which actually trucked
>along nicely on my 486). On my P400 nowadays, the
>game just flies...
Although I never got good performance out
of cotnw on a 486, this part is mostly true.
There was a lot to like about the game in cotnw, but it
even after the patches it didn't register well on the fun-meter.
It was a game that tought me that sometimes what we ask
for isn't what we really want.
I'm glad you enjoyed it and continue to play it. As for a remake,
After Quicksilver is done with MOO3 they can visit what they
want to do next.
dfs
Kilgaard
"David Short" <dsh...@nova.wright.edu> wrote in message
news:8pb0v9$p3k$1...@mercury.wright.edu...
> John Hornbostel wrote in message ...
>
> >It also came out within a year or so of Colonization, which probably
didn't
> >help sales.
> No it didn't. Colonization came out in 93 or earlier and cotnw
> came out in 96. They were direct competitors in the sense that
> Moo2 will be compared to RFTS2, but they didn't leach each
> others sales.
>
Fraid not. I played COTNW back in my Uni days, which makes it atleast '94 or
earlier, probably '93. (Unless Australia had a pre-release which I seriously
doubt.)
sgri...@carolina.rr.com
wrote:
Sorry, fraid not :) I didn't even have a PC then, so I couldn't have
played the game - but I did play the game. Just now pulled out my
old COTNW disk, and the copyright date on it is 1996. And yes, I
seriously doubt Australia had a "pre-release" 2 or 3 years before
being released in the US :)
Sorry, the previous poster is correct. Guess your memory is fading
quicker than you'd like to think :)
Grifman
Otara
>Sorry, fraid not :) I didn't even have a PC then, so I couldn't have
>played the game - but I did play the game. Just now pulled out my
>old COTNW disk, and the copyright date on it is 1996. And yes, I
>seriously doubt Australia had a "pre-release" 2 or 3 years before
>being released in the US :)
>
>Sorry, the previous poster is correct. Guess your memory is fading
>quicker than you'd like to think :)
Wasnt there a Windows95 version of Colonisation too?
If so, this means they would have been competing with each other to
some extent.
Otara
EPK
Otara <sp...@spammity.com.au> wrote in message
news:db2prss76rau5eb3h...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 04:05:56 GMT, sgri...@carolina.rr.com wrote:
<snip>
> If so, this means they would have been competing with each other to
> some extent.
>
> Otara
I didn't play either one near their release dates, but: based on the
graphics and interfaces of the versions of CotNW and Colonisation that I
have seen, I cannot believe that they were contemporary. CotNW looks like a
much later release.
EPK
idleeric
--
* * * * * * * *
Evil is even, truth is an odd number, and death is a full stop
- Flann O'Brien, At Swim-Two-Birds
EPK wrote in message <8pilhq$jv4$1...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>...
iirc, they were *less than* 12 months apart:
Colonization was way behind the graphics curve ... many reviews complained
about the Civ 1 pixiated appearance.
otoh, CotNW was cutting edge .... but likewise got mixed reviews.
At the time, I tried both .... CotNW has been unplayed for 3 years now.
I go back to Colonization every few months for a "buzz" .... never gets old.
>
Martin Leslie Leuschen
: Otara <sp...@spammity.com.au> wrote in message
: I didn't play either one near their release dates, but: based on the
: graphics and interfaces of the versions of CotNW and Colonisation that I
: have seen, I cannot believe that they were contemporary. CotNW looks like a
: much later release.
I'm positive CNW is about '96. Colonization is around'94, and is
prolly what the other poster was thinking of.
Regards,
martinl
John Alcock
wrote:
>
>Colonization was way behind the graphics curve ... many reviews complained
>about the Civ 1 pixiated appearance.
>
>otoh, CotNW was cutting edge .... but likewise got mixed reviews.
>
>At the time, I tried both .... CotNW has been unplayed for 3 years now.
>
>I go back to Colonization every few months for a "buzz" .... never gets old.
>>
>
I'm hooked on it all over again right now. What a great game.
I'd love to see Colonization 2.
--
John Alcock
Work: jal...@REMOVEwatson.ibm.com
Home: jal...@REMOVEearthlink.net
"It's a sobering thought that when Mozart was my age,
he had been dead for 5 years." -- Tom Lehrer
Rich Goranson
>>about the Civ 1 pixiated appearance.
>>
>>otoh, CotNW was cutting edge .... but likewise got mixed reviews.
>>I go back to Colonization every few months for a "buzz" .... never gets old.
And once again, superior gameplay beats out superior graphics! Nice to know
there are still people who have their priorities straight.
David Short
Rich Goranson wrote in message
<20000913073930...@ng-fh1.aol.com>...
>>>I go back to Colonization every few months for a "buzz" .... never gets
old.
I am also a closet colonization fan. Oldest game on my hard drive.
One of the first things I load every time I get a new system.
>And once again, superior gameplay beats out superior graphics! Nice to know
>there are still people who have their priorities straight.
Interesting comment, but I'm not sure it's true. I don't know exactly why
colonization is so successful in inducing gaming nirvana in me, but I
suspect a lot of it has to do with the music. As a game there is a lot
wrong with colonization, but I love to play it. As a game I really admire
cotnw, but I could never stand to play it for more than a day or so.
Frankly I find it odd that you can't accept the abstractions in
Imp2 yet seem to admire colonization.
dfs
idleeric
--
* * * * * * * *
Evil is even, truth is an odd number, and death is a full stop
- Flann O'Brien, At Swim-Two-Birds
David Short wrote in message <8pt98q$2ut$1...@mercury.wright.edu>...
>
>Rich Goranson wrote in message
><20000913073930...@ng-fh1.aol.com>...
>
>>>>I go back to Colonization every few months for a "buzz" .... never gets
>old.
>
>I am also a closet colonization fan. Oldest game on my hard drive.
>One of the first things I load every time I get a new system.
>
>>And once again, superior gameplay beats out superior graphics! Nice to
know
>>there are still people who have their priorities straight.
>
>
>Interesting comment, but I'm not sure it's true. I don't know exactly why
>colonization is so successful in inducing gaming nirvana in me, but I
>suspect a lot of it has to do with the music. As a game there is a lot
>wrong with colonization, but I love to play it. As a game I really admire
>cotnw, but I could never stand to play it for more than a day or so.
The music is great ... same effect for me as the cheesy Civil War tunes in
the Talonsoft Battleground series ... gets me in a "period" mood/rhythm.
The color palette works ... lot of primary colors, but muted by the basic
brown-green "colonial" bkgd
Lots of different simple but tricky micromgt decisions in the early part of
the game ... game bogs down from the middle on.
Rich Goranson
>>there are still people who have their priorities straight.
>Interesting comment, but I'm not sure it's true.
You don't think substance carries more weight than style? I think a lot of
people on this board prefer gameplay over spiffy graphics.
>I don't know exactly why
>colonization is so successful in inducing gaming nirvana in me, but I
>suspect a lot of it has to do with the music.
My sound has been broken for months...its not the music.
>Frankly I find it odd that you can't accept the abstractions in
>Imp2 yet seem to admire colonization.
In many ways, Colonization is a deeper game than Imp2. The city placement,
maintenance and construction is better fleshed out. There are also no odd
movement quirks like there are in Imp2...you can't go from one end of the map
to the other with no way to get there. The balance between money making, combat
production and infrastructure in Colonization is much better, IMHO. The biggest
problem in Col is the revolution (something that Imp2 doesn't even attempt to
simulate). The way to win the war with the mother country is to build artillery
and fortify your towns...something that was not done in the US revolution (but
it can be argued that that is the way it was done in the Chilean revolution).
Colonization just has a better feel to it, despite the inferior graphics. That
is why it still gets played while Imp2 and CNW are in my CD carrier gathering
dust.
Then again, Colonization didn't have the 25MB game save like CNW did.
David Short
FWIW this was about colonization and cotnw....
>>>And once again, superior gameplay beats out superior graphics! Nice to
>>>know there are still people who have their priorities straight.
>
>>Interesting comment, but I'm not sure it's true.
>
>You don't think substance carries more weight than style? I think a lot of
>people on this board prefer gameplay over spiffy graphics.
hmmm. No and no. I'm not convinced that your example holds
up. For me, a good bit of the appeal to colonization is in the style,
not the game.
FWIW I'm also not entirely convinced that csipgs readers
really want substance over style. I think there is lip service paid
to the idea, but it's very tough to seperate the two.
From here down everything is about col and imp2...
>>Frankly I find it odd that you can't accept the abstractions in
>>Imp2 yet seem to admire colonization.
>
>In many ways, Colonization is a deeper game than Imp2.
The tech tree/founding father's stuff is a draw. I'm not a fan
of tactical combat systems, but an edge has to go to Imp2
for that. Particularly for how well they trained the CP's to
recognize the advantage of suprerior weaponry. That's really
an admirable feat of programming and not something to discard lightly.
>The city placement, maintenance and construction is better fleshed out.
I'll grant placement. I think the other two are arguable. The constant
micromanagmenet of each citizen's role is unique and interesting,
but it doesn't scale well. Your mental willingness to do this limited
how willing you were to expand.
>There are also no odd movement quirks like there are in Imp2.
I guess that's true if you ignore the teleporting REF and CP movement
and the ability to shift troops at sea and form a daisy chain of ships.
>The balance between money making, combat
>production and infrastructure in Colonization is much better, IMHO.
Again I think this is arguable. One of the major complaints about Col
was the way the infrastructure was modeled demanded you to
micromanage the transportation system. Your mental willingness
to do this limited how willing you were to expand.
>The biggest
>problem in Col is the revolution (something that Imp2 doesn't even attempt
to
>simulate). The way to win the war with the mother country is to build
artillery
>and fortify your towns...something that was not done in the US revolution
(but
>it can be argued that that is the way it was done in the Chilean
revolution).
Don't forget the other trigger "event," the joining of two CP players when
the human player gets his rebel percent above %50 for the first time.
The CP's in Colonization don't even play close to the same game the
human plays. They still aren't there in Imp2, but they are a ton closer.
>Colonization just has a better feel to it, despite the inferior graphics.
We're in agreement here.
dfs
Martin Leslie Leuschen
<Very good post, mostly snipped>
: >The balance between money making, combat
: >production and infrastructure in Colonization is much better, IMHO.
: Again I think this is arguable. One of the major complaints about Col
: was the way the infrastructure was modeled demanded you to
: micromanage the transportation system. Your mental willingness
: to do this limited how willing you were to expand.
Also: the economic model in Col is FUBAR. Prices fluctuate in
an insane manner. One fur trapper can provide enough furs
to glut the euro market, and an effective economic trick in
the late game is to export *muskets* to europe.
: The CP's in Colonization don't even play close to the same game the
: human plays. They still aren't there in Imp2, but they are a ton closer.
Besides the exploration bonus, how were the CPs different than the
human? (Exclude selectable resource boni/penalties.)
: >Colonization just has a better feel to it, despite the inferior graphics.
: We're in agreement here.
I actually prefer Imp II, but Col does rock. It's a close call.
(Ironically, CNW is way below both of them, IMHO.)
Regards,
martinl
Rich Goranson
>an insane manner. One fur trapper can provide enough furs
>to glut the euro market, and an effective economic trick in
>the late game is to export *muskets* to europe.
The same is true to a certain extent in Imp2 but not to this extreme. There is
a serious disadvantage to the Imp2 power that has two unconnected old world
areas and doesn't have the infrastructure to get the goods home. The difference
is that in Imp2 you can only crush your enemies economically by sinking their
fleet...in land strength they're going to be ok. In Col you can actually catch
troops in transit with a naval screen, something that is impossible in Imp2.
>I actually prefer Imp II, but Col does rock. It's a close call.
>(Ironically, CNW is way below both of them, IMHO.)
CNW could have been sooo good. I'd love to see a Col2 but I don't think the
powers that be are interested.
Martin Leslie Leuschen
: >Also: the economic model in Col is FUBAR. Prices fluctuate in
: >an insane manner. One fur trapper can provide enough furs
: >to glut the euro market, and an effective economic trick in
: >the late game is to export *muskets* to europe.
: The same is true to a certain extent in Imp2 but not to this extreme.
Actually, I thought the econ model in Imp 2 was very sensible. Supply
and demand was important, but not rediculous like Col. Flooding the
market took a fair amount of stuff, and things like furs and silver
never went out of style.
: There is
: a serious disadvantage to the Imp2 power that has two unconnected old world
: areas and doesn't have the infrastructure to get the goods home.
It is somewhat strange that resources can't be used locally (beyond
town improvement). If you call that part of the economic model,
then it is a little wonky. However, it's wonky in a reduced MM way,
rhater than an extra MM way like Col is. :)
<snip>
Regards,
martinl
David Short
>David Short (dsh...@nova.wright.edu) wrote:
about imperialism2
>Besides the exploration bonus, how were the CPs different than the
>human? (Exclude selectable resource boni/penalties.)
The exploration bonus is selectable. Strictly speaking, the
only difference I know is that the CP's know your troop
disposition before he allocates his troops. That kind of
information is very valuable.
My suspicion is that there is some small fudging going on with
CP resources, bronze and horses, but I've not exhaustively
proven it to be true or false.
Despite all that, the Imperialism2 CP's provide a very, very
good game. I'm picking nits here folks on two very good games.
dfs
Martin Leslie Leuschen
: Martin Leslie Leuschen wrote in message <8qb0nv$i6i$1...@joe.rice.edu>...
: >David Short (dsh...@nova.wright.edu) wrote:
: about imperialism2
: >Besides the exploration bonus, how were the CPs different than the
: >human? (Exclude selectable resource boni/penalties.)
: The exploration bonus is selectable.
Yes, but IIRC, even the lowest bonus is better than the human gets.
: Strictly speaking, the
: only difference I know is that the CP's know your troop
: disposition before he allocates his troops. That kind of
: information is very valuable.
Could you elaborate on how exactly this works? I was under the
impression that the AI had no bonus here, and have been sucessfully
using strategies that exploit that.
: My suspicion is that there is some small fudging going on with
: CP resources, bronze and horses, but I've not exhaustively
: proven it to be true or false.
Hmmm. They certainly get big starting bonuses.
: Despite all that, the Imperialism2 CP's provide a very, very
: good game. I'm picking nits here folks on two very good games.
True enough. :)
Regards,
martinl
Neale Davidson
> the Talonsoft Battleground series ... gets me in a "period" mood/rhythm.
Well, as much as I should leap to the defense of stuff I worked on (albeit
minorly in the case of the Battleground series) I can't argue.. the music
was
quite cheesy. :)
-----------------------------------------------------
Neale Davidson
http://www.protoformproject.com
-----------------------------------------------------
David Short
Martin Leslie Leuschen <mar...@rice.edu> wrote in message
news:8qg3vl$nfi$1...@joe.rice.edu...
> David Short (David...@Wright.edu) wrote:
> : Strictly speaking, the
> : only difference I know is that the CP's know your troop
> : disposition before he allocates his troops. That kind of
> : information is very valuable.
>
> Could you elaborate on how exactly this works? I was under the
> impression that the AI had no bonus here, and have been
> sucessfully using strategies that exploit that.
The strategy guide stated the CP's know the exact
distribution of your troops on the previous turn.
I thought the CP's knew the exact distribution of
all your troops on this turn, but I've not been able
to confirm that and may just be having a premature
senior moment.
dfs
Martin Leslie Leuschen
: The strategy guide stated the CP's know the exact
: distribution of your troops on the previous turn.
OK, that is a twink, considering the rotten intel you get.
(I always laugh when it tells me the natives have arty. :)
: I thought the CP's knew the exact distribution of
: all your troops on this turn, but I've not been able
: to confirm that and may just be having a premature
: senior moment.
They certainly don't know what your moves this turn are.
(Unlike Shogun.) Faking out the CPs is pretty easy.
Regards,
martinl