Sevomod: Feedback [Archive] - Civilization Fanatics' Forums

Uri Torngat

Oct 05, 2006, 10:08 AM

I'm not sure if this is something you could change with your mod Sevo, I noticed the AI reacts in a pretty weird fashion in regards to how it feels about you in relation to their worst enemy thing.

Let me explain...lol

I've noticed this often during a game, I'll use my last game as example, I'll just drop the names as who's the AI isn't related to how things work.

I'm at war with a nation A and on very friendly terms with nation B (around +14). during that war time I trade with B for technologies and get out of it that B declares war on A.

Up to now all is fine, my friendliness points even go up to +17 and this stays for some time, then B signs peace with A, I loose the +4 points for a common military struggle, but still all is good.

Several turns later I sign peace with A and since I had already noticed the problem, I tried something to see if the AI would react differently. So instead of accepting, lets say 10 gold per turn for peace from them or anything else for that matter, I just accepted peace itself.

A turn or two later I notice nation B's friendliness points are down to +7 and I have -4 points for trading with their worst enemy. This shouldn't be, especially not after they signed peace, I could understand if I had dropped them with the war on their hands, but in that case there shouldn't be a penalty.

So my question is, can you fix that AI with your mod.....and if so thanks:)

Oh and ...amazing mod BTW, thanks for all the hard work.

rabber

Oct 05, 2006, 04:33 PM

Yes, the MI-26 i think. Its cargo space is too little to make it worth building. I would suggest 3-4 cargo space. And make it able to fly over coastal tiles (unless it does that already, I dont remember).

The MI-26 does indeed fly over coastal tiles. You can send it to small islands/continents that are connected by coastal tiles.:)

Snerk

Oct 05, 2006, 04:46 PM

The MI-26 does indeed fly over coastal tiles. You can send it to small islands/continents that are connected by coastal tiles.:)

Ah.. i see. Cheers;) Then only the cargo space issue.

LeperColony

Oct 05, 2006, 10:32 PM

Maybe it could be set to carry only foot units, then have its capacity increased.

AljayBoy

Oct 06, 2006, 02:54 AM

Maybe it could be set to carry only foot units, then have its capacity increased.

While that would be an improvement, I really only build them to load Artillery on, that way I have a stack of tanks etc and with my Artillery in the Mi-26's, my army can move at twice the speed, as the 1 move Artillery doesn't hold it back. The only pain being having to build an Mi-26 for each and every Artillery unit.

Another thing, I think the Religous Law civic is overpowered, in my current game I'm running in 100% research and still getting over 250 gold a turn, this is due to the +3gold for every specialist. I didn't realise this until I switched civics and my gold per turn went down to approx 10. I now run Religous Law regardless of the others for the extra gold. Maybe reduce it even to 2 incase my game is a one off for loadsa specialists, anyone else getting a huge bonus from this civic?

Arlborn

Oct 06, 2006, 03:25 AM

While that would be an improvement, I really only build them to load Artillery on, that way I have a stack of tanks etc and with my Artillery in the Mi-26's, my army can move at twice the speed, as the 1 move Artillery doesn't hold it back. The only pain being having to build an Mi-26 for each and every Artillery unit.

Another thing, I think the Religous Law civic is overpowered, in my current game I'm running in 100% research and still getting over 250 gold a turn, this is due to the +3gold for every specialist. I didn't realise this until I switched civics and my gold per turn went down to approx 10. I now run Religous Law regardless of the others for the extra gold. Maybe reduce it even to 2 incase my game is a one off for loadsa specialists, anyone else getting a huge bonus from this civic?

That is so true lol :P

strategyonly

Oct 06, 2006, 05:27 AM

May i suggest a few topics here: Changelog for next version/balance recommendations/what would you change if anything?/current version here/resources/promotions/building designs/screenshots/new civs/maps , just to name a few.

Taliseian

Oct 06, 2006, 12:12 PM

Hey Sevo!

Gratz on your forum!

Idea for Sevomod -- have you considered using Pakbuild?

I noticed with Keldath/MRGenie/TAFirehawk's Visa Mod that the Pakbuild version does load faster.

Just a thought.....keep up the good work!!

T

HourlyDaily

Oct 07, 2006, 12:48 AM

pay-t

Oct 07, 2006, 03:33 AM

I really love your mod:goodjob:

Although may suggest putting on another civ-leader instead of the current willem of oranje head (netherlands) because this head looks like our upcoming king instead of the well, should I say founder of the Netherlands wich looks more like Peter (of Russia) and the actual name of the founder is Wilhelmus of Oranje Nassau (and you can name the existing Netherlands leaderhead Willem-Alexander of Oranje Nassau). And I would also like to see more leaderheads to the existing country's, like people from the world war, or current leaders or founders, or even more well known leaders. for example: Ramses for Egypt, Lenin and Stalin for Russia, Hideki Tojo for Japan, Johan de Witt for Holland, Lincoln for the U.S. and so on. And the thing would Really love most of all, is editing the curren Earth map in a way, that every civilization in the game can be used on the earth itself

Titi

Oct 07, 2006, 04:57 AM

I really love your mod:goodjob:

Although may suggest putting on another civ-leader instead of the current willem of oranje head (netherlands) because this head looks like our upcoming king instead of the well, should I say founder of the Netherlands wich looks more like Alexander (of Russia) and the actual name of the founder is Wilhelmus of Oranje Nassau (and you can name the existing Netherlands leaderhead Willem-Alexander of Oranje Nassau). And I would also like to see more leaderheads to the existing country's, like people from the world war, or current leaders or founders, or even more well known leaders. for example: Ramses for Egypt, Lenin and Stalin for Russia, Hideki Tojo for Japan, Johan de Witt for Holland, Lincoln for the U.S. and so on. And the thing would Really love most of all, is editing the curren Earth map in a way, that every civilization in the game can be used on the earth itself
Actually, there's already some pedia for Johan de Witt... as for:

Mbatian (Maya)
Sejong (Korea)
Deganawida (Iroquois)
Mackenzie King, Trudeau (Canada)
Franz Joseph (Austria)But they don't show up. By the way, some Civs don't either:

Benin
Bretagne
Caribbean

pay-t

Oct 07, 2006, 05:18 AM

Aha I see, t

pay-t

Oct 07, 2006, 05:19 AM

Aha, I see

Hived

Oct 07, 2006, 07:26 AM

I've played now several games with your mod and have to say: It's great!!
There are so many new ideas included like the tech-leak or the partial gaining of tech, when conquering an opponent city... or that you first have to research tech, before seeing goodies...

...but I also have to say, that some of the new civics seem to me to be overpowered. Espacially barter and religious law seemed to be the 'must haves' in every game. I like it, when you really have to choose your civics, with all their advantages and disadvantages. That's why I put the +3 per specialist of RL down to +1... maybe it would be balanced too, if only priests would get +3... but even 'normal' citizens get +3 and with pyras/representation, they have +3 gold and +3 research... that seems too much for me.

Barter seems to have only advantages and can already be used with pottery (I don't count 'no-foreign-trade' as an disadvantage, when tech leak is on). It makes your capital to a "settler-spawn-machine" without penalty. I choosed to give barter a -50% trade in your capital (citizens have to pay in some way for the bartered food), to slow down your research power.
Now you should have to choose if you wanna have a smaller, more advanced empire or a bigger one that's technologically behind.

don't get me wrong it's a f***ing goood mod!!

To be honest, the best, I have ever played... just needs some more balancing, I think. Many thanks for having created it!! :goodjob:

________________________
P.S.: For all who want to change the civics my way: just open the

Mods\Sevomod\Assets\XML\GameInfo\CIV4CivicInfos

with any editor.
To change Religious Law
search for
TXT_KEY_CIVIC_ECCLESIASTIC
and just exchange several lines below
<SpecialistExtraCommerces>
<iCommerce>3</iCommerce>
<iCommerce>0</iCommerce>
<iCommerce>0</iCommerce>
</SpecialistExtraCommerces>
the 3 with a 1

To change Barter
search for
TXT_KEY_CIVIC_BARTER
and change several lines below
<CapitalYieldModifiers>
<iYield>25</iYield>
<iYield>0</iYield>
<iYield>0</iYield> <--insert here -50 instead the 0.
</CapitalYieldModifiers>

Arlborn

Oct 07, 2006, 09:46 AM

Barter seems to have only advantages and can already be used with pottery (I don't count 'no-foreign-trade' as an disadvantage, when tech leak is on). It makes your capital to a "settler-spawn-machine" without penalty. I choosed to give barter a -50% trade in your capital (citizens have to pay in some way for the bartered food), to slow down your research power.
Now you should have to choose if you wanna have a smaller, more advanced empire or a bigger one that's technologically behind.

Actually I disagree. Man, if you are playing a game that you are behind tech always of at least 2 CIVs or that you choose a path of tech that most of the AI dont choose and then you have different techs of the AI, the tech leak is a blessing!! And haveing barter on in this situation is, in my point of view, at least a not so good idea! But well, perhaps the +25% food in capital can be too much, but well, perhaps 15%? or 20%? But you can leave like that also! And dont forget that the foregn trade routes are the one who gives the most money!

And I agree about the religious law, could be nerfed a little bit, perhaps 2 gold for specialist..

Tulx

Oct 07, 2006, 10:30 AM

Snerk

Oct 07, 2006, 10:45 AM

Yup, your mod is just sweet:goodjob:

There is only one thing that keeps annoying me all the time. Could you make this all recouses hidden in the start optional. I would be really happy if you could do so:cool: . I think it would be more logical that they are not hidden because people should still see these recouses. They just dont know how to used them properly without these techs.

Anyway, its very great job:goodjob:

(3) Resource Ignorance -- if you want to turn off resource ignorance, open the folder /assets/XML/terrain/. Inside is a file called Civ4BonusInfos.xml. Delete it and rename the file Civ4BonusInfos_no_resource_ignorance.xml back to the original Civ4BonusInfos.xml.

There you go...!:goodjob:

Titi

Oct 07, 2006, 11:43 AM

(3) Resource Ignorance -- if you want to turn off resource ignorance, open the folder /assets/XML/terrain/. Inside is a file called Civ4BonusInfos.xml. Delete it and rename the file Civ4BonusInfos_no_resource_ignorance.xml back to the original Civ4BonusInfos.xml.

There you go...!:goodjob:
Better than deleting (in case you want to revert to the ignorance default): rename it to Civ4BonusInfos_Resource_Ignorance.xml

Hived

Oct 07, 2006, 12:22 PM

Actually I disagree. Man, if you are playing a game that you are behind tech always of at least 2 CIVs or that you choose a path of tech that most of the AI dont choose and then you have different techs of the AI, the tech leak is a blessing!! And haveing barter on in this situation is, in my point of view, at least a not so good idea!

In my games, I recieve nothing by tech leak, when a CIV has barter... (and most of enemy-CIVs have!)
So as long, as your mentioned 2 techleading CIVs have barter (what is very useful, when techleading), your change back to decentralism or some more advanced civic will be of no use...
...and in the start of game, when no foreign trade routes yet exist, Barter is definitly too overpowered, just by giving you +25% food in your capital for nothing!

Even 'later' in game, when you have discovered writing you can support two scientists in your capital much easier with Barter... afterwards getting code of law and caste system you can even support many more scientists... or you take bondage and produce units there much faster then normally.

The clou is, that CIV always (often?!) gives you one or two food ressources near the starting position, what strenghtens the effect much more.

I still take Barter with the -50% trade in capital... not so long of course, but still quite a while.

...maybe the AI won't take Barter that often anymore, when playing with my mini-Mod of the Maxi-Mod! :mischief: ...although I don't know the algorithm with that AI chooses Civics... is it randomly?! Does anybody know?!

monolith94

Oct 07, 2006, 10:50 PM

One cool think would be if building a university gave you +1 health from coffee.

Titi

Oct 08, 2006, 05:13 AM

One cool think would be if building a university gave you +1 health from coffee.
:lol:
Actually, it should be + 1 Tech and +1 Happiness (you sleep less, so study and party more ;)) but on the other hand - 1 Production and - 1 Health (exactly for the same reason :D).

Maatissi

Oct 08, 2006, 05:09 PM

The actual problem with the barter-civic is that there really ain't an option besides it. Next stop mercantilism, a heck long of a time to run through. Though the barter makes pottery a much more valuable discovery, which is quite right to my line of thought.

What worries me the most, is the top tech tree, compare it to the excellent tech tree of Civ III for an instance. Now there is a phenomenon of riflemen getting skipped, modern units appear in an unrealistic order. One king idea was the "alternative path of technological development", how about it ruining the entire game?

Assembly line, industrialization, and the techs required to build modern units, they seem to be totally screwed in comparison with the Civ III and it's great mods. And what is the catch of an IFV running without oil-based fuel? Biplane-monoplane-jet-development path is also a distorted one in the terms of timeline. Actually the realism is so wanting in the top tech tree that I would suggest remaking the entire ****.

I also think that the tech leakage should be revised, or at least the "tech exchange" problem that has been around since the very beginning of Civilization. Was there a modification on the tech paradigm? And why? Civilization I kept many game logic-problems simple, and by so doing made many points that Civ II-IV have forsaken. Or perhaps it is just this old fart with his critique messing around... :lol:

Please keep posting, brainstorming makes a mod, and a mod makes the game!

Mufin

Oct 08, 2006, 06:27 PM

rockinroger

Oct 08, 2006, 07:37 PM

@ Mufin, while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, i think you are missing the point. 1st of all this is a GAME, not a reflection of real world. 2nd right or wrong the afore mentioned people were influential world leaders. I certainly do not condone their behaviours, it was by far attrocious. Im sure that people probably felt the same way in their days of other leaders. Genghis Kahn and Mao are a few that comes to mind. Im sorry you may not like this mod, but you are entitled to your opinon, as are those of us who enjoy the mod. After all it is just a GAME.

Mufin

Oct 08, 2006, 08:24 PM

Rockinroger,

The main problem is Sevo classified them as "great people". This is all I mean. If he had added them as "dictators" I wouldn't be so disgusted. I don't know if you remember that Mr. Hitler has killed millions of Jews and has conquered the whole Europe, therefore calling him a "great person" (or "great statesman") is far from accurate - he was just a murderer and criminal (and possibly lunatic, which does not excuse him). All four men were dictators and not great people. Even in game (or anywhere else), we should not tolerate praising or admiring such evil people and one who admires Adolf Hitler is probably a fascist (although not always - he might be a fool) and fascists are dangerous for most people as their ideology is unfriendly for them. Of course, one person spreading such views is not dangerous, but this should not be tolerated as these views are sick and frightening.

Of course, there are also fools who admire Adolf Hitler, but not for his ideology, only for fact he is so hated. But I repeat: those four people were (and are) dictators spreading hatred for some kind of people, murdering people, starting wars, opressing people, they are fathers of regime so hated by most of us. Therefore, we should not tolerate men stating those dictators' views, and man who admires the dictator or calls him "great person" can be only a fanatic or a fool. And we know well, how dangerous can be fanatics (and fools of course).

rockinroger

Oct 08, 2006, 09:12 PM

Mufin, I agree with your views of the afore mentioned, people. My grandparents fought in wwII, I fought in Desert Storm to get Saddam out of Kuwait. All Im saying is that this is just a mod to a GAME. Not cause for social commentary. I for one enjoy crushing the above mentioned people in the game.

Mufin

Oct 08, 2006, 09:44 PM

The main problem is Sevo classified them as "great people". This is all I mean. If he had added them as "dictators" I wouldn't be so disgusted.

Even in game (or anywhere else), we should not tolerate praising or admiring such evil people and one who admires Adolf Hitler is probably a fascist (although not always - he might be a fool) and fascists are dangerous for most people as their ideology is unfriendly for them.

Sorry for quoting myself, but this is my opinion. Adding dictators as great people is incorrect and even if this is a game, we should not tolerate this.
Dictators are not great people, you wrote that you agree with that.
The main issue we don't agree on, is whether it is correct to show such views in game. You wrote:

All Im saying is that this is just a mod to a GAME. Not cause for social commentary

You see, I believe admiring Hitler is not correct even in the game. We should criticise people who praise Hitler even if they do it in the game. And such example is a case for social commentary, because this is very important to disagree with fascistic views anywhere(and admiring Hitler is in fact admiring his views), as they are completely incorrect - they are dictator's views.
I think this is what most people think.

zyphyr

Oct 08, 2006, 10:35 PM

Mufin... feel free to make your own mod without those people.

rockinroger

Oct 08, 2006, 11:11 PM

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=187684

Donkey Puncher

Oct 08, 2006, 11:23 PM

muffin chill dude like rockinrodger said its a game Sevo is not promoting hitlers views . Chances are he ran out of names and trhey are famous Or infamous . but as far as your views on the gameplay be consturctive in your critism of the mod dont just *****

Mufin

Oct 08, 2006, 11:51 PM

Rockingroger, this is all very beautiful, but I think you still don't understand me. Swastika is the symbol of the nazi germany and it is right to place it in your mod, but it is not right to claim it is the symbol of "liberators of the earth". This was an example. The same problem is here: if Sevo had placed Hitler as a "person", all would be clear. But he added him as a "great person". Haven't you understood me yet?

Uncle Anton

Oct 09, 2006, 02:29 AM

Adding Hitler in as a "Great Person" can be argued to be technically correct

From Wiktionary

Adjective
great (comparative greater, superlative greatest)

very big
very good
large scale
important
title referring to an important leader

Hitler was a pig and a monster. If he was alive and in front of me I'd take great pleasure in killing him slowly myself, prolonging his death over several days while I inflicted the maximum pain possible. Having said that, as a historical figure he is significant, thus can be said to be "Great" in that context. He looms as a large, significant figure in a period, albeit dark, of human history. Personally I don't think Sevo can be criticised too heavily for including Hitler as a "Great Person" in the mod because of the above fact. However, I would question Hitler's use as a "Great General". "Great Statesman" would be more appropriate, not because hitler was an adept politician, but rather because politics was more of Hitler's realm than the military if you look over the total course of his career. Stalin ditto.

Castro was largely regionally significant, but Cuba was at the centre of more than one significant episode of the larger Cold War, so he gets a guernsey for that reason I would think. Saddam as a "Great Person" (ie one of historical significance) I'm not so sure about. His influence in history has been largely regional, and it was more a result US foreign policy which has resulted in the focus in the Middle East than anything significant Saddam's done.

Yeah, in short. Mufin. Chill.

Edit: How this relates to Sevo's choices of content in mod, comments on the people Mufin mentioned.

Mufin

Oct 09, 2006, 03:56 AM

Uncle Anton,

Thinking in your "dictionary" way, your explanation is not acceptable, because the second meaning of "great" is "very good" and only the last is "title referring to an important leader". Furthermore, the word "statesman" is so explained in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English:

"a political or government leader, especially one who is respected as being wise, and fair"

"Especially" -this is the most important meaning. Hitler wasn't wise and fair, and that is the most important meaning. The most important meaning of "great" is "very good", so Sevo definitely meant it. So reasoning, we will reach absurdity. I hope you don't want to reach it.

Black Rose

Oct 09, 2006, 07:08 AM

:hammer2: :wallbash: :suicide:

Oh enough already. In a way I agree with both kinds of views. Having Hitler+++ as great people may tend to piss people off -this is the risk of including such people (thus a good reason for not including them).

Arguing like this, obviously by defining words and meanings to a litteral sense is completely pointless (and besides the point), and I do not think Sevo indended to go all nazi in his mod.

Not having these people in the mod will not make the mod any worse -there are plenty of alternatives to names for many great people. And it will tend to irritate less people by not having them, than to include them for the sake of completion (yes, real history would miss a "hitler" or "sadam hussein", but a game would not -it's just a game, right?). It's better then, to have people adding these names to their xml lists rather than have people remove them.

Remember, where one person has an opinion many others agree. So Mufin -you're not lost in your views, nor are the rest of you either. My opinion is this: This is a great mod regardless of great people names, so I don't really care. But I dislike the persons whose names are mentioned, and being a Norwegian I have good reason to hate Hitler (erasing my family tree is not nice at all, some were in the resistance during the occupation).

Let's drop the ball at that, or am I just silly?

Black Rose was here :king:

Arlborn

Oct 09, 2006, 08:29 AM

Dear Mr. Sevo,

I'm amazed. I'm amazed with good opinions your mod has collected. Well, I don't understand why people like your mod so much. I agree, it is good, but here are two points I dislike in your mod:
1. It is not "user friendly". Well, I could call it "user rude". Gilgamesh and few other leaders have offered me a deal with comment "something stinks in here". Also, they said that I could "use some beauty sleep".
2. Point two. Grave mistake you have made. I noticed four great people in this mod: Adolf Hitler, Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin and Saddam Hussein. I have two theories about this. You are a child who does not know who those people were. Or you have such sick views. If you do, it is a terrible mistake to show them in your mod. And as I said, I am amazed people find this mod good.

Wyz Sub told me you have just chosen some ideas from other mods. And here goes my third theory, these grave mistakes are just components from other mods. You have just foolishly chosen these ideas. I wish to believe that it is just your incompetence with choosing best fragments from other mods. And with this wish I would like to end this criticism.

Hi, XML, yes, bye.
Or
Hi, tutorial, XML, yes, bye.
Or
Hi, other mod, yes, bye.

Tibia? ..

CIV4 is a lovely game, if you(meaning everybody) dont like something of it, you can just change it with simple and easy commands, lovely isnt it?

Anyway 1 thing I gotta agree with you, Great statemen? Nah, too much, what about a new one, like lets say, Great People and History Manipulator? or Great Coward :P Just not sure about the bonuses of this Great people lol :P

AH and other thing, I Would say, considereing that this mod is one of the most succeful mods in this forum and that as far as I saw(I readed most of his forum in past occasions) you are the first one to complain(or whatever) about that, for you dont come telling him how childish or imcopetent or both he is, because as far as it goes, it seems that he knows exactely what he is doing. 1 more time, edit the names yourself if you feel so bothered :P

If you have any further interest in the process of putting polemic names of the history in CIV4, please use the search button up here and enjoy yourself with the 151367137 thread that there is in this forum about it.

Just one more flammer~, missed them(not) from tibia lol

Mufin

Oct 09, 2006, 11:58 AM

Black, Rose

That is what I said. This discussion Uncle Anton started is indeed absurd and pointless, therefore I don't want to continue it, although I stand firmly at my position.

(yes, real history would miss a "hitler" or "sadam hussein", but a game would not -it's just a game, right?).

No, it is not just a game, it is a game which is, too, as rockinroger said (well, not exactly said), a cause for social commentary. I repeat, I don't tolerate admiring Hitler, because Hitler is the last person to admire, as he has done many awful things. If this is not admiring Hitler, then this is just foolishness of Sevo to place these men in the mod, as many people and I hate them sincerely and don't want them in any mod or any other place as "Great Statesman" or "Great Person". In fact they weren't, and arguing whether "Great Person" means "very good" or "very important" is senseless because we well know meaning of this word.

Arlborn,

I'm glad you agree with me on that (you are the first person to), and I agree with you Sevomod is a good mod if not the best, but those "mistakes" makes the mod horrible and unable to play.
I'm sad I am the first person to complain, I didn't know our comunnity is so unconscious, but I am sure some people would agree with me. And I am sure some people just don't want to discuss with you about it, although they have the same view as me.
If Sevo exactly knows what he is doing, I would say he is provoking us. But no, I would rather say he is a fool.
I won't edit Sevomod, I prefer not to play it. I won't change the author's will.

zyphyr

Oct 09, 2006, 12:09 PM

I won't edit Sevomod, I prefer not to play it. I won't change the author's will.

Then what are you doing even looking at mods? They certainly alter the 'will' of the authors of the core game.

My money is on Troll.

Mufin

Oct 09, 2006, 12:17 PM

I haven't said anything about the authors of the game.

And I would encourage you not to be so impertinent.

Arlborn

Oct 09, 2006, 01:12 PM

Then what are you doing even looking at mods? They certainly alter the 'will' of the authors of the core game.

:)
Muffin,mwhy not changeywhen the own author says that you can use and edit anythinggin his modofor othersdmods? Iwdont getayourtpoint,aciv4 IS MADE by the owntFIRAXIS to be changedrand rechanged,oso golahead andldo :p

love subliminar msgs hehe

Mufin

Oct 09, 2006, 01:26 PM

Certainly, you don't get my point. And my point is, why should I make the effort to edit this mod, when there is better way, not playing this mod?
I'm disappointed with this mod and changing it would be highly inaccurate.
And in fact, I have no will to edit this, I am so disgusted.

Arlborn

Oct 09, 2006, 01:36 PM

Hi, other mod, yes, bye.

Sorry to quote myself :p

Black Rose

Oct 09, 2006, 03:00 PM

Dear Mr. Sevo,

I'm amazed.

Yes, so am I. I'm amazed that this pointless discussion still goes on. I think that what can be said has been said. Sevomod is the best mod, Sevo is a genius, and people (myself included) love Sevomod! As mentioned, although I find it peculiar that these names occur in the mod with respect to all those others that may be offended (those that are not myself, because I do not care enough), I find Sevomod to be both entertaining and wonderful in many wonderful ways.

Mufin, you say yourself that this mod is the best (or potentially so). Why not edit the xml file and remove the names? I'd be glad to do it for you if you do not know how to do this yourself. Because this way you'll be able to enjoy the mod too, and the more that plays Sevomod the better.

My sincere wish is that this discussion ends. Please, this thread is not meant for political debates (nor philosophical, theological, political, medical, military, or contradictive). And to sum things up -Hitler is not to be admired in any way, just as this discussion is not to be commented in any way. We are agreed - jippi!

Black Rose was here :king:

rockinroger

Oct 09, 2006, 04:14 PM

One thing Id like to see addded to this mod would be assasins (sp?). I personally think the spy unit is too weak and comes to late in the tech tree. So perhaps a unit that comes earlier. Like in realism mod, any thoughts on this? I remember in DYP for civ III something like this. They used to steal my workers and just be a pain in the arse. comments, feedback?

Mufin

Oct 09, 2006, 05:36 PM

This discussion is not pointless. I have a point. I want Sevo to delete these names from his mod so everyone can play it without being disgusted. And that is my point. As soon as he does it, I will play his mod, but not changing it myself by force. You wrote:

My sincere wish is that this discussion ends. Please, this thread is not meant for political debates (nor philosophical, theological, political, medical, military, or contradictive).

So it ends. But I stand at my position and I am not likely to change. Hitler is admired by adding his name as a "Great Person" and it is culpable to do this, therefore I want Sevo to change it. The same is with Stalin, Castro and Saddam Hussein.

Well, we discuss and discuss, but where is Sevo? Let him tell us what he thinks. I believe many people will play this mod as soon as those great people are erased from it. I repeat: this is culpable to place them. Sevo must understand his mistake and change it. And don't forget about computer insulting the players. This must be changed too. Those are my wishes. I hope they will be fulfilled.

PatrickDockens

Oct 09, 2006, 06:54 PM

hs1611

Oct 09, 2006, 11:44 PM

Dear Mr. Mufin,

I'm amazed. I'm amazed that you, one who talks so strongly against dictators and their supporters, seem to be one yourself.

Only a Dictator would presume to tell Sevo what he can or cannot do in his MOD. Keyword: his, meaning it is Sevo's right to decide what goes or doesn't go in, here we go again, his MOD. You want it different, you do it yourself. You don't want to have the trouble of modifying the MOD to suit your needs and don't want to play it as is, just don't play it. It's your choice just as it's his choice to do it as he likes. That's called Freedom, if you know what I mean.

Only a Dictator would presume to decide unilaterally what every other SEVOMOD player can or cannot play with (Sevo excluded because it is his MOD and his decision, although he does tend to consider SEVOMOD gamers opinnions). Who are you to tell me I cannot play with Hitler (just to name the most infamous one)?

Anyway, although I share your opinnion of Hitler, Castro, Stalin and Saddam, they indeed were Great Persons, in the sense that they were very Influential and Important People. I don't want to discuss Dictionaries, but let me explain to you that:

Adjective
great (comparative greater, superlative greatest)

very big
very good
large scale
important
title referring to an important leader does not mean that all apply but that one apllies, so it does not have to mean that Hitler was very big and very good and large scale and important and title referring to an important leader it means Hitler was very big or very good or large scale or important or title referring to an important leader.
Can you honestly say that he was not an important leader? His decisions resulted in the death of millions. That seems very important to me.

As for supressing Hitler's name and role in history, remember that "those that forget history are doomed to repeat it".

Enough said, let's just play the game, or not, it's your choice, and mine, never forget it, it's my choice also.

Dzhel

Oct 09, 2006, 11:44 PM

Really tough debate over certain great people. I can understand people feeling strongly against certain figures in the game but there's an inherent problem with this. In a game where the nations and leaders of the world are represented, there is plenty of blame to be had.

Most countries have committed atrocities at some point in history, wether small or large scale, especially since the game covers the entire span of human history. Does this mean Firaxis and Sevo should erase any civilization that has ever harmed the innocent? There'd barely be a game left if that were the case I believe.

My stance is that the game is intended to reflect the world and therefore reflects good and evil. It's my humble opinion that perhaps this game is not meant for people who wish to enjoy a game that this aspect is not a part of.

pine

Oct 10, 2006, 12:43 AM

Mufin..
I am sure you will understand this, I have a condition that whenever I eat mufins I get an allergic reaction that results in a severe anaphylactic reaction. As such I find your choice of name disturbing....... This must be changed . Those are my wishes. I hope they will be fulfilled.
Thanks.

Mufin

Oct 10, 2006, 01:10 AM

Mr. hs1611

Oh, this was supposed to be the end of the discussion. You make me so sad.

I'm amazed. I'm amazed that you, one who talks so strongly against dictators and their supporters, seem to be one yourself.

I seem to be a dictator, oh really? Well, I've never thought I am a dictator. :)

And seriously, I am not telling Sevo what he must do.
I wrote:

Those are my wishes. I hope they will be fulfilled.

I think it is not clear for you. Read it sometimes and I hope you will understand soon.

Who are you to tell me I cannot play with Hitler

I tell you you cannot play with Hitler? Where do I tell you this? Please point me it. In fact my intent is much different. I want Sevo to change it so people can play it without being disgusted. I do not care what you play and who you play with. Next time think about your questions and do not state absurd sentences.

does not mean that all apply but that one apllies, so it does not have to mean that Hitler was very big and very good and large scale and important and title referring to an important leader it means Hitler was very big or very good or large scale or important or title referring to an important leader.

Really :)? I do not know what think about you. You are either very funny or either verry foolish. And maybe both. Anyway, I'm so thankful for that lesson.

As for supressing Hitler's name and role in history, remember that "those that forget history are doomed to repeat it".

I do not want to forget history. I have no strength to reply same thing again and again. Quoting myself:

The same problem is here: if Sevo had placed Hitler as a "person", all would be clear. But he added him as a "great person".

Well, hs1611, you brought the smile back on my face. Next time think well what you write.

Dzhel,

You wrote:

Does this mean Firaxis and Sevo should erase any civilization that has ever harmed the innocent? There'd barely be a game left if that were the case I believe.

You all do not understand me. Read the above.

Donkey Puncher

Oct 10, 2006, 01:18 AM

Fine take him out as a "great person". but on a serious note dont they have an animated leaderhead for Hitlersevo should put this in as a leader for Germany how cool would it be to play as Isreal and kick his arse

Donkey Puncher

Oct 10, 2006, 01:25 AM

yes Please please ,please add assins that was one of the reason I played TR more than sevo was just that . Also give them the ability to steal worker and such just like the dyp on civ3 that would be awsome

Spartan117

Oct 10, 2006, 01:49 AM

And seriously, I am not telling Sevo what he must do.
I wrote:
I think it is not clear for you. Read it sometimes and I hope you will understand soon.

Those are my wishes. I hope they will be fulfilled.

Or I will say this...

I have two theories about this. You are a child who does not know who those people were. Or you have such sick views.

You have just foolishly chosen these ideas. I wish to believe that it is just your incompetence with choosing best fragments from other mods.

I am confused:confused:

You really need to calm down and stop with the name calling. FYI It is not very productive and is not really tolerated in these forums. Regardless of whether you think what should or what shouldn't be in the mod, you are in no place to start verbally attacking the creator of that given mod.

Just to play devil's advocate, Hitler's policies did allow Germany to get out of depression and mass unemployment.;)

That said

@Sevo

an ETA on the release for warlords?:goodjob:

Mufin

Oct 10, 2006, 02:05 AM

Spartan117,

Maybe you are right, I was to harsh for Sevo, although I think this is culpable to place Hitler as "Great Person", but well, you know that. Those are my wishes and not demands.

Dzhel

Oct 10, 2006, 03:55 AM

Mufin,

I did take your point a little off I think. I thought it was more about what they represented as opposed to what they are labeled.

I'm not even sure if you can add or change anything besides a "Great Person". Is that name hardcoded? If it is, then if you add them at all they'll be labeled as a "Great Person".

AljayBoy

Oct 10, 2006, 04:21 AM

. . . . anyway, back to the important point, anyone else think the Mi-26 should have it's cargo capacity increased?

Hived

Oct 10, 2006, 07:22 AM

I hope it is over now *g*
I have not yet played with the Mi-26, mostly I lead the game already before getting in modern Era ...or I am so far behind, that there is simply no chance anymore, to win. But in my opinion the cargo space should be increased... let's say by about 3 or 4 ;-)
That reminds me another problem in Civ-games:
You always come to a point, where you know, that you have won or lost the game... this often happens very early, when you have rushed an opponent or, on the other side, are enclosed by some Civs and have no early metal-ressources... or are on an island without coastal access to other islands.
When you know, you have lost, that should be no further problem. You just start a new game or finally leave the computer alone for some hours/days.
But when you know, that you will win the game, it becomes boring (espacially when it's a military victory), because you just have to 'finish it'. In Civ II, when trying a space-victory, the AI suddenly came with diplomats or spys, stealing the key-tech, when not yet having it... ok, that was a bit like cheating, but it brought back some action.
In Chess for example you can, although nearly having won the game, accidently loose your queen, so the game turns again...
but in CIV4... I don't know to 'fall back' in CIV4 again :-/

P.S.: Hey, AljayBoy: what is your opinion about the Barter-Civic?!

Hived

Oct 10, 2006, 07:29 AM

The actual problem with the barter-civic is that there really ain't an option besides it. Next stop mercantilism, a heck long of a time to run through. Though the barter makes pottery a much more valuable discovery, which is quite right to my line of thought.
Yes, that's why I made Barter more 'balanced'. There should be no 'must-have' civic and you should always be able to choose the better option.
In my case (barter gives -50% trade), you have to choose, if decentralism might be even better... then you simply have to wait for mercantilism... when being spiritual it may be also great to switch from decentralism to barter and back...
But when there is no negative effect about Barter, no one will even think about keeping decentralism.

Arlborn

Oct 10, 2006, 08:29 AM

. . . . anyway, back to the important point, anyone else think the Mi-26 should have it's cargo capacity increased?

Me!

And as a feedback note to Sevo regarding the already over discussion: No, my opnion and feedback is Not to take out Hitler and other bad guys from the game, as somebody already pointed out, if you gonna to take all people and things that made bad things in real life from the game, well, there will be no game :P

And keep the insults in diplomacy! They are funny! If you could, I would love if you even added more of then, specially the sarcastic ones!! :)

Ah, forgot to say, can you please add the "unit statistics" mod component? Its nice :)

sidwannabe

Oct 10, 2006, 09:11 AM

Sevo - for Gods' sake don't make any changes to this MOD just because one person is shrieking about it. Maybe one day, 2 or 3 years down the road, you can work on a 'no bad guys' MOD. Jesus, 2.5 pages of unreadable drivel...what a freakin' turnoff...

If ever somebody should be banned to being only a lurker...

Anyway...I was wondering if with all the 'work' you do on this MOD, do you ever get to play? ;)

Sidwannabe
and you can quote me on that...

Mufin

Oct 10, 2006, 02:11 PM

Dzhel,

No, it is not hardcoded, it can be just erased from "Great People" list.
This is what I want to achieve.

I see Sevo prefers to "sit and watch" than just fix his mistake.

sidwannabe,

Jesus, 2.5 pages of unreadable drivel

Ah I see :). I suggest you to read it and then comment. Maybe then you will understand something.

. . . . anyway, back to the important point, anyone else think the Mi-26 should have it's cargo capacity increased?

Oh I did not know how ignorant our community is. Truly horrible.

Grave

Oct 10, 2006, 03:13 PM

Dzhel,

No, it is not hardcoded, it can be just erased from "Great People" list.
This is what I want to achieve.

I see Sevo prefers to "sit and watch" than just fix his mistake.

sidwannabe,

Ah I see :). I suggest you to read it and then comment. Maybe then you will understand something.

Oh I did not know how ignorant our community is. Truly horrible.

This is absolutely ridiculous. Sevo doesn't have to change a damn thing with his mod. If you don't like "Adolf Hitler" listed as a Great Statesman or what ever he is, just open up the XML doc in WORDPAD and fix it yourself. Or is that too difficult for you? :mad:

I think just because of you, Mufin, when I get around to releasing my new Add-On mod for Sevomod, I'm going to add the Adolf Hitler 3D Leaderhead and make him a new playable leader of Germany. :eek:

99.9% of people on here don't have a problem with it... I don't see why YOU have to practically Spam this thread for 2+ pages now and criticize Sevo's mod so much.

I think alot of people on here are forgeting the fact that Sevo is NOT obligated to make the mods that he does. He doesn't get paid for making anything. All his mods are a labor of love, and all he wants to do with these mods is make the Civ4 gaming experience a little more enjoyable for the rest of the modding community, by offering expanded gameplay options.

I for one am sick and tired of this petty nit-picking over a stupid name tag in the Great Person code. If you don't like it DON'T PLAY IT.

Sorry to vent in your thread Sevo, but this $h#t really pisses me off. :mad:

Donkey Puncher

Oct 10, 2006, 03:48 PM

amen brother,if you cant give something constructive to this forum GO AWAY
stop pissing and moaning,and for godsakes give it a rest this forum is here to make the gameplay better . It is not for nitpicky BS. If you have political statements to make Garretsidzaka has a political debate thread in his second revolution forum please go there to make your political statements

Sevo

Oct 10, 2006, 04:33 PM

Hi guys. Sorry--real life got busy for a bit there. Had to work over the weekend. Also, I'm developing one more component for this mod that's pretty much complete and I hope to get out quickly.

Anyway, lots of good ideas above. I agree that Religious Law is overpowered. I balanced as best I could but honestly, the best feedback I get is from you all. I'll nerf it down a bit. Barter will need to be decreased a bit as well, perhaps the -50 or -25% gold or some such thing.

Also got the notes on Pakbuild, nuke plant, AI not bombarding enough...what else...hmm...what else has been discussed in the mod? I feel like I'm missing something...what could it be? Oh, yeah, I was busing "sitting and watching":

This discussion is not pointless. I have a point. I want Sevo to delete these names from his mod so everyone can play it without being disgusted. And that is my point. As soon as he does it, I will play his mod, but not changing it myself by force.

Uuuummmmm...No. Guess you'll have to not play my mod. :rolleyes:

I find your trolling tiresome and your inflammatory manner adolescent. I'll ignore your further commentary and I encourage the rest of you folks to do the same.

(Oh, and thank you all for the support and understanding in the face of all that horse$#!t. What a wad.)

<MUTE>Mufin</MUTE>

Mufin..
I am sure you will understand this, I have a condition that whenever I eat mufins I get an allergic reaction that results in a severe anaphylactic reaction. As such I find your choice of name disturbing....... This must be changed . Those are my wishes. I hope they will be fulfilled.
Thanks.

Pine--did I ever tell you my muffin joke? Two muffins are sitting in an oven. One muffin turns to the other and says, "Hey, is it me, or is it getting hot in here?", and the other muffin cries out in suprise, "Oh my god! A talking muffin!"

I still love that joke. :)

Grave

Oct 10, 2006, 05:53 PM

Pine--did I ever tell you my muffin joke? Two muffins are sitting in an oven. One muffin turns to the other and says, "Hey, is it me, or is it getting hot in here?", and the other muffin cries out in suprise, "Oh my god! A talking muffin!"

I still love that joke. :)

That reminds me of the joke Uma Thurman told in Pulp Fiction:

Three tomatoes are walking down the street- a pappa tomato, a mamma tomato, and a little baby tomato. Baby tomato starts lagging behind. Poppa tomato gets angry, goes over to the baby tomato, and smooshes him... and says, Catch up.

:lol:

Titi

Oct 10, 2006, 06:11 PM

Yes, that's why I made Barter more 'balanced'. There should be no 'must-have' civic and you should always be able to choose the better option.
:D
Tried a few of the other options, and yes barter as it is now is too "powerful": I was at 50% science, then went to mercantilism, to find out that I had to decrease science to 5 or 10% to keep some funds! (actually, I've now quit barter: with "Representation", "Free Market" and "Pacifism", I make more money ;) -- but it's true I kept "Barter" most of the time!)

Snerk

Oct 10, 2006, 06:45 PM

Sevo, how about adding this one:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=187622
I really like the idea...

Aaaand..:mischief: , any news on the warlords release?:drool: :drool:

rockinroger

Oct 10, 2006, 08:17 PM

@ donkey puncher, i hope we can get that added, the assisns used to torment me silly in DYP. used to piss me off royally, lol. @Aijayboy yes i think troop capacity should be upgraded. now back too playing the GAME,GAME, GAME, hint hint hint

Mufin

Oct 10, 2006, 08:30 PM

Sevo

Oct 10, 2006, 09:23 PM

Sevo,

At least, you have replied. It is clearer now. Now I understand. You are not a fascist. You are just a fool thinking adding Hitler as a "Great Person" is normal and reasonable. I am disappointed with you and our "knowing" community (or rather your royal guards). I am disappointed with your reply.

I know I said I was muting you, but I'll give you the courtesy of a more complete reply before I do so. I wasn't going to as I had assumed you were a troll of some kind as others have suggested, but I went through and looked at the other threads you've started and posts you've made and you seem to only have a problem with my mod. I had expected to find only more hostility and insults, but it appears that you've reserved that for my mod and the other posters here, who you have no qualms about attacking. I stand by my assertion that your language is inflammatory and juvenile, but I will dignify you with the reason why I'm not going to change things before I drop this.

You take the term "Great people" to be synonymous with "Good people". It is not. As others have pointed out, a great person for the sake of the game is a guy (or gal) who changes the course of history. Maybe he's Saint Augustine, maybe he's Freddy Krueger--good, bad, he/she left a mark on the world in the space and time in which they lived.

Now, certainly, I didn't have to choose to include Stalin. Or Hitler. Or Saddam. But to deny that they changed the the period they lived in would be a bit naive, no? The world that we've come to live in has been sculpted as much by the horrors and atrocities as by the kindness and progress. So they stay. To deny the evil in the world is to deny the possiblity of good.

Honestly, if we're going to have Genghis Khan as a leaderhead and you're okay with THAT, my inclusion of Stalin shouldn't be too much to handle. Really, most of the leaderheads in the game spilled far more than their fair share of blood.

And it's the same reason I kept Gazprom despite the complaints. Gazprom is a Russian juggernaut that manipulates half the countries in Asia and Europe, wielding it's oil and natural gas as a political and financial weapon. The company isn't exactly what you'd call socially responsible. But they are powerful, one of the most powerful corporations on earth and a good representation of what a gas "wonder" could be. So I keep it.

I'm not going to lose any sleep over disappointing you. That's your issue. I love this game and this mod and working on it is an ongoing source of enjoyment for me, and I've met some incredible like-minded folks here to share all the fun with. As long as that stays true I'll keep playing Civ and I hope they do, too. If you aren't enjoying it, then walk away. No one is twisting your arm there, Mufin. You won't be the first person who didn't like the mod and you won't be the last. That's my "foolish" opinion.

Now, I've answered you politely and completely and this issue is at an end from my standpoint. I'll ask you politely to refrain from further insults directed at the mod, members posting in the forum, and myself. It's just not necessary or polite.

Uncle Anton

Oct 11, 2006, 12:00 AM

Sevo, you're more than welcome for the support from all us guys, and I think you've been more than reasonable, mature and responsible in the measurement of your response to this situation.

What is reasonable is something easily talked about, yet not so easily practised it would seem. If anything, regardless of whether you're within the context of this online community or between various countries and demographics, you're going to get great people and also unfortunately smacktards pretty much no matter where you go. I think we can all agree this has been amply demonstrated.

I don't think anyone can reasonably make a case for offense at your mod, regardless of whether they agree with the choices you've made. As has been so adeptly said prior, if there's something here that someone doesn't like, they can always make their own version.

I only hope that the ramblings we've seen don't drown out posts of genuine feedback... In the meantime, well done, and keep up the good work.

vitalie

Oct 11, 2006, 01:51 AM

And it's the same reason I kept Gazprom despite the complaints. Gazprom is a Russian juggernaut that manipulates half the countries in Asia and Europe, wielding it's oil and natural gas as a political and financial weapon. The company isn't exactly what you'd call socially responsible. But they are powerful, one of the most powerful corporations on earth and a good representation of what a gas "wonder" could be. So I keep it.

Hi Sevo

I'm the one who complained about Gazprom :p

At the moment I am waiting for the Warlords version (with LAN 100% supported - I only play with my wife), so haven't played in a while. I just wanted to ask re: Gazprom - is/will there be a -1 diplomacy factor from having it?

Vit

PS: loved that m***n joke!!!! :lol:

Arlborn

Oct 11, 2006, 03:48 AM

Good answer Sevo! He really didnt want to understand us :P

What about the unit statistics?(It is in Amras mod, as well as VISA and I guess Composite XL) This thing is really funny specially when you rename your units according to the top10 xD

Amd Vitallie, I think -1 in diplomacy for ALL civs is a bit a lot no? :P What about a new system? Like if Civs has specifics civics on like pacifism or the other one that I-cant-write-unless-I-see-about-the-ecology, then they will have -1 in diplomacy for you about some wonders or national wonders that you built like this one? Or dunno, it just seems to much -1 diplomacy with ALL civs :P

AljayBoy

Oct 11, 2006, 04:02 AM

P.S.: Hey, AljayBoy: what is your opinion about the Barter-Civic?!

Yeah thats also overpowered, I don't think I changed from it once during my last game. Although if Religious Law gets changed then Barter won't seem as valuable, as you will definately have to trade more to replace the huge amount of gold lost from when Religious Law gave you +3 per specialist.

P.S. Oh, while everyone else is making requests for Mod Add Ons, put my vote down for the Revolutions Mod, seems to me what Civilisation should be about, however I imagine it would be a killer to incorporate though.

Bursk

Oct 11, 2006, 04:08 AM

For Barter, how about changing it to +20% food and -33% gold? Does that seem like a good balance?

Isod

Oct 11, 2006, 05:32 AM

You guys rock.

1. Definitely agree w/ increasing the MI heli transport capacity (at least for infantry units)

2. Definitely agree w/ adding an early game assassin/ninja or spy-type unit (espionage/ intel has been too important in interstate relations over the course of human history to have it relegated to the late game). Like the idea where they steal workers.
Bacon's Assassin - http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=158213

3. Definitely believe that guys who try to use big words and constantly use them incorrectly sound like a Muppet

4. Definitely agree that relig law and barter need to be balanced

5. Stone should be appear waaaay more frequently than it does (stones for God’s sakes- they are everywhere!)

6. Would love to see forts that fire on passing enemies and/or enact REAL zone of control (ala units in civ 1). Love the fact that you can build forts outside your territory, don’t like the idea I’ve read where they spread culture. Jeckel’s ZOC Forts - http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=181921

7. Would love a sniper unit with the advent of rifling or later mil techs (better chance of staying invisible with promotions) TheLopez's Sniper - http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=169665

8. I think guys that communicate in bullets are almost as annoying as guys in # 3.

9. Love the idea of random events happening in the single player game (forget where I read it). Some thoughts:
a. bad weather decimates a coastal city/ town improvement, or an earthquake/tornado/ wildfire an inland one. (do earthquakes ever happen in CIV 4)?

b. a plague breaks out in diseased cities and spreads to connected cities (causing you to quarantine by pillaging trade routes to that city;
maybe a new medical unit to help end the plague)

c. resources go bad for a few turns and offer no benefit (to represent the potato famine, redtide, foot and mouth disease, etc.)

d. pirates can land and/ or conduct amphibious assaults (no penalty) directly on cities. There are a lot of benefits from coastal towns, like external
trade routes, an abundance of water resources and an almost impossible to disrupt resource network between two costal towns (very important in the early
game w/ raging barbarians ripping up your roads). this would make you think twice about building a coastal city without adequate naval protection.

e. foreign travelers (only in the early game) and not attached to another civ. Think of them as a goodie hut that comes to you. They show up (via a pop-up) and ask to speak to the leader. You choose the effect or it is randomly chosen. They offer things like ancient secrets (help research), share maps, some type of gold benefit, or to join a city. Or you can forgo the benefit and enslave them (rush production or turn them into slave units). If you accept the benefit, you run the chance of them spreading a disease or starting a plague (or maybe they are con men and can swindle you out of money some how). Random foreign visitors are very rare. Someone else's idea, but i forget who.

This mod makes this game sooo much better (been playing since CIV I). Thank you so much for all your hard work. I’ve had Warlords for 2 months and I haven’t installed it yet (waiting for that big day where Sevo causes my GPA to take a nose dive and I fail out of grad school).

Thank God that other thing is over; kudos to all for taking the high road.

Isod

mqrt

Oct 11, 2006, 05:43 AM

I hope it is over now *g*
That reminds me another problem in Civ-games:
You always come to a point, where you know, that you have won or lost the game... this often happens very early, when you have rushed an opponent or, on the other side, are enclosed by some Civs and have no early metal-ressources... or are on an island without coastal access to other islands.
When you know, you have lost, that should be no further problem. You just start a new game or finally leave the computer alone for some hours/days.
But when you know, that you will win the game, it becomes boring (espacially when it's a military victory), because you just have to 'finish it'. In Civ II, when trying a space-victory, the AI suddenly came with diplomats or spys, stealing the key-tech, when not yet having it... ok, that was a bit like cheating, but it brought back some action.
In Chess for example you can, although nearly having won the game, accidently loose your queen, so the game turns again...
but in CIV4... I don't know to 'fall back' in CIV4 again :-/

although I think it s a civ issue rather than sevomod; I do think this is something sevomod might solve ...

tech leaking goes some way; but i understand choosing the right civic completely blocks this ?

maybe if the lead becomes to big, have some sort of leaking regardless of civic?

and offcourse some good old spies might be cool too...

Titi

Oct 11, 2006, 06:08 AM

tech leaking goes some way; but i understand choosing the right civic completely blocks this ?
Right: free market, barter and mercantilism.

Grave

Oct 11, 2006, 07:21 AM

Sevo, how about adding this one:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=187622
I really like the idea...

Aaaand..:mischief: , any news on the warlords release?:drool: :drool:

Say, that IS a mighty fine idea! :cool:

vitalie

Oct 11, 2006, 08:20 AM

Amd Vitallie, I think -1 in diplomacy for ALL civs is a bit a lot no? :P What about a new system? Like if Civs has specifics civics on like pacifism or the other one that I-cant-write-unless-I-see-about-the-ecology, then they will have -1 in diplomacy for you about some wonders or national wonders that you built like this one? Or dunno, it just seems to much -1 diplomacy with ALL civs :P

Actually I like your idea. If wonders have some negative impact with other civs, it may somewhat balance down those Civs that build a lot of wonders - at some point building another one will cost too many negative diplomacy points and you'll have to decide what you want most. I guess Chichen Itza or whatever wonder gives bonus defence would be the easiest choice :)

Or an alternative could be: you get negative diplomacy points for gazprom, but get a gold and/or happiness bonus.

Is it possible to have not -1, but -0.5 or -0.25 diplomacy at all?

Anyway, having some way of a maintenance cost for wonders (I don't mean money, but for example diplomacy), brings another interesting aspect into the game. I am not sure about the game balance though :sad:

Thanks for reading

Man I am still laughing at that muffin joke :lol:

Vit

Sevo

Oct 11, 2006, 11:06 AM

For Barter, how about changing it to +20% food and -33% gold? Does that seem like a good balance?

Probably a good balance. (At least a step in the right direction!).

@Vitalie: -1 diplomacy would work for the AI, but the problem is that is doesn't work for human players. I'm not sure if that makes a big difference or not. But it could be done.

Also, I wish I had a reason for the LAN problems. I've tried a few times to fix it and it's frustratingly resistant to resolution. I'll keep cracking at it.

@Isod: Stones. I've noticed that as well. Most world maps have like...1 set of stones. They're rocks! For the love! Hm...

And ZOC forts is another idea I've liked. My concern (as always) has been whether or not the AI could be properly taught to USE the forts. I think they could, but I'll have to look into it again. Perhaps after the warlords release.

@MrQT: I have another mod I'm almost done with (that will go into this) and hopefully help balance that "I've won this game and now I have to waste time" issue. I'm hoping it will keep the game interesting to the very end.

Hived

Oct 11, 2006, 01:47 PM

Jepp, +20% food and -33% gold sounds better for the first...
-50% gold seemed to be too hard...
@sevo: May I ask, how you balanced Religious Law?! Would it be hard to implement, that only priests get the +3 bonus?!
In my games priests were always the worst specialists, when not having Angkor Wat... Scientists seem to be overpowered (all in CIV not especially in Sevomod). If Religious Law gave the +3 only to priests, that would maybe balance this circumstances.
...on the other hand, on this way it seems to be easier to build up a technologically backward empire with many priests and getting the majority of your science by tech-leak.

The major problem about implementing special units with special abilities is in my opinion, that it is f***ing hard to teach the AI how to use them. Nice, if they work, but unbalanced, if the AI doesn't have a clue what this unit is for.

btw.: I can't await your "Dunno-if-I-have-won-this-game-yet"-Mod ...and I'd love to know how you manage it!!!

Zorn

Oct 11, 2006, 04:28 PM

I think forts are fine as they are.
When Monty attacked me, he killed my whole army in a city.
I reloaded, buildt a fort and was able to repell his attack easily.

Let me add a few opinions on units:

Ancient/classic:
Great balance.
The only worries I have are horse archers in the hands of a human. With flanking promotions, they can get a retreat possibility of more than 100%, making them effectively immortal. After you got that, start stacking attack promotions for total killers.

Mediveal/renesaince:

Also very good, except that muskets still suck. Knights of an agressive civ stacked with attack promotios seem a little overpowered - even pikes with formation have a hard time.
The art of artillery: Brutal thing. Bronze cannons rock, maybe too much. With right civics, barracks and westpoint or war academy you can get them with 3 promotions from the spot. This means that even the first one has "good" (>30%) chances against a strong city defender - and it gets easyer every time. In the open it`s not even a contest. The AI doesn`t use them much, but in the hands of the player they can be gamebreakers.
This without considering the new bombardement rules wich make artillery even stronger.

Industrial/modern

Not so sure about the MarkV tank. Whats it`s point? It is weaker than infantery.sure, it has a bonus vs gunpowder, but so has inf, and the movement of two - it`s nice, but just doesn`t cut it. It´s window of use is also very small.
Motorized infantery: The bread and butter unit of the late game. Excellent all rounders. Citygarrisons, assault troops or just stack defender - they do the job. Even when IFVs are available, I often still build motorized inf for taking cities. Quite realistic, and I really like it.

A10: The concept of needing a small wonder to build a certain type of unit is great (I´d love to see this in earlier ages more (besides AoA)). Maybe Fairchild is a little too expensive for what it does (also you need a lot of techs for it), but I build quite a lot of A10s when games last that far.

Mobile SAM: Ugh. The worst unit in sevo mod. It just has no purpose. First, it comes waaaaay too late in the tech tree. Second, the national wonder is way, way, way too expensive for what it does (and you run out of good cities to put national wonders in it). Third, it can do very, very little - stop a few planes, that`s it. For that, you need just a couple of them - again not worth the nat. wonder. And last, what it does can be done by IFV, wich are just a much better investment of hammers.

The F117

This one is a quite interesting unit, but again it comes quite late, and you will be hard pressed to have enough time left to build enough of them to make the inverstment for Lockheed worth while. Wich is also much too expensive, imo.

Nuclear submarine: Awesome unit, but has the same problem as the horse archer. Gives the AI a hard time (btw, did you know that transported gunships defend against ships?)

UUs: I don`t know all UUs yet. Just some observations:

Teewana: Very strong. Circumnavigation in the ancient times.

Mohawk archer: Gaining woodsman II but losing the hill bonus. Seems like bad trade to me, making this UU weaker than the unit it replaces.

Woomerang wielder: For crying out loud, it`s a joke. I mean - has anyone ever had an animal attack a worker?

Besides these few nitpicks, the unit balance in Sevomod is incredibly good, considering how many units were added.

Alkemift

Oct 11, 2006, 05:19 PM

Hi. Why not to add :
1. Hot springs
2. a function for a worker- A distillery (Whyskey)
On a patch of wheat
3. An English early unit: yeoman (bowman).
4. A French cavalry unit: Dragun(Ulan ?)

Quiet Man

Oct 11, 2006, 06:38 PM

... I go away for a couple of months because Sevo says 3.0 is "the last update" and I take that at face value being totally content to immerse myself in 3.0 and what happens?

New site
New version
New patch
The Hitler thing resurrects itself ...AGAIN!

I haven't checked all of the posts; did anyone complain about whether or not tanks could/should or not capture a town, or has that finally been put to bed?

So, Sevo, while I'm waiting for 3.2 to finish downloading, thanks yet again for doing what you do for Civ IV.

Regards,:goodjob:

Quiet Man

bryanw1995

Oct 11, 2006, 08:02 PM

It's good to see that hitler is still having a positive impact on society. I've always wondered if civ would introduce him as a "great" leader, and I've wondered even more about the reaction that would commence. I did notice last night that the ethiopians built "adolph hitler", and that was my excuse to invade and assimilate them. I must admit that it is rather humorous to me that hitler is the ultimate bogeyman in our society these days, while stalin, castro, genghis khan, etc are considered to be mainstream enough that few eyebrows are raised at their inclusion in civ 4 or other similar (albeit inferior) games. Stalin probably killed more people than hitler did, but he had more to do with hitler's failure than roosevelt or churchill. The best thing about Genghis Khan is, um, well, he doesn't have a lot of redeeming features, does he? He was what hitler could have been if there had not been others to stop him. Why is Khan or Stalin ok but hitler not?

Dr.Oak

Oct 11, 2006, 08:59 PM

I am currently in a game in 1300 AD (turn 664/1200), Monarch level on a huge map.

The A.I., Kubla Khan managed to get to industrialism and can now use WWII tanks and Battleships without having combustion. This seems very odd and unbalanced to me, because you need combustion for destroyers. And that same rule should apply to battleships and probably to the tanks as well.

I have been doing well throughout the game and pretty certain I am gonna win, cause K.K. is now my perment ally. I had been researching railroad when I signed him on and saw how very advanced his research was. I could backtrack our reasearch and go for the infantry and old tanks I suppose. Not!
I am going for combustion so I will have some destroyers to escort those batlleships and troop transports.

The rest of the civs are now patheticly outmatched. Which before the signing they were gonna be a little tougher. Now, I am gonna roll in with WWII tanks, destroyers, marines , SAM infantry and battleships over the opposing cavalry, grenidiers and riflemen.

This is a great mod though and really enjoyed playing it, I am itchin to play a Warlord version of this mod, keep up the good work!

Arlborn

Oct 12, 2006, 03:54 AM

I think forts are fine as they are.
When Monty attacked me, he killed my whole army in a city.
I reloaded, buildt a fort and was able to repell his attack easily.

Almost never used 0.o

Mediveal/renesaince:

Also very good, except that muskets still suck. Knights of an agressive civ stacked with attack promotios seem a little overpowered - even pikes with formation have a hard time.

But knights supposed to be the strongest unit then, not?

The art of artillery: Brutal thing. Bronze cannons rock, maybe too much. With right civics, barracks and westpoint or war academy you can get them with 3 promotions from the spot. This means that even the first one has "good" (>30%) chances against a strong city defender - and it gets easyer every time. In the open it`s not even a contest. The AI doesn`t use them much, but in the hands of the player they can be gamebreakers.
This without considering the new bombardement rules wich make artillery even stronger.

I dont build much military wonders anyway..Only used them once and worked fine but didnt seem overpowered for me..

Not so sure about the MarkV tank. Whats it`s point? It is weaker than infantery.sure, it has a bonus vs gunpowder, but so has inf, and the movement of two - it`s nice, but just doesn`t cut it. It´s window of use is also very small.
Motorized infantery: The bread and butter unit of the late game. Excellent all rounders. Citygarrisons, assault troops or just stack defender - they do the job. Even when IFVs are available, I often still build motorized inf for taking cities. Quite realistic, and I really like it.

MarkV? I always build some of them, put colleteral damage promotions and use and abuse of the blitz(atk more than 1 time in same turn) lol, if they go far in promotions, I can even add 1 more moviment point and then they can atack 3 times in same turn 0,o
Love motorized infantary as well!

A10: The concept of needing a small wonder to build a certain type of unit is great (I´d love to see this in earlier ages more (besides AoA)). Maybe Fairchild is a little too expensive for what it does (also you need a lot of techs for it), but I build quite a lot of A10s when games last that far.

Too expensive the wonder, never built, normally Im busy with other thingsd in my main cities..

Mobile SAM: Ugh. The worst unit in sevo mod. It just has no purpose. First, it comes waaaaay too late in the tech tree. Second, the national wonder is way, way, way too expensive for what it does (and you run out of good cities to put national wonders in it). Third, it can do very, very little - stop a few planes, that`s it. For that, you need just a couple of them - again not worth the nat. wonder. And last, what it does can be done by IFV, wich are just a much better investment of hammers.

Man, I really agree lol, built them 1 time to se how it was, what a waste :P

The F117

This one is a quite interesting unit, but again it comes quite late, and you will be hard pressed to have enough time left to build enough of them to make the inverstment for Lockheed worth while. Wich is also much too expensive, imo.

Too late and too expensive, never built..

Good points guy :P

Snerk

Oct 12, 2006, 04:03 AM

I second that too, the national wonders with UU are too expensive. I find it simply not to be worth building them.

Uncle Anton

Oct 12, 2006, 08:06 AM

Um, while we're at it...

I've had just enough to drink this fine eve to feel the need to complement Sevo on his choice of Pedia entry for "Mounted Infantry"... :clap:

I mean, there's any number of fine Australian regiments he could've chosen to include as the descriptor - I guess considering the quality of the mod, I should've automatically assumed being the genius that he is that he'd choose the finest of the Australian Light Horse regiments as a natural inclusion...

*Cough* 10th Light Horse *Cough* :p

Not biased or anything :D

:cheers:

[ Ex-TPR, A Sqn, 10 Light Horse (RECON) ]

Coopa

Oct 12, 2006, 01:59 PM

Can I request:

Route Pillage!

Pretty Please :D

Sevo

Oct 12, 2006, 02:45 PM

Um, while we're at it...

I've had just enough to drink this fine eve to feel the need to complement Sevo on his choice of Pedia entry for "Mounted Infantry"... :clap:

[ Ex-TPR, A Sqn, 10 Light Horse (RECON) ]

Of course. That was totally on purpose...

I think forts are fine as they are.
When Monty attacked me, he killed my whole army in a city.
I reloaded, buildt a fort and was able to repell his attack easily.

Zorn: Great points, indeed. Many of them I agree with heartily. I do leave Mark V in only because they have blitz capability and as was subsequently described they can be used to make mulitple rapid attacks, if that's your style. But the mobile sam is definite crap at this point. I'm considering just deleting it. Also, I plan to extend the late game stages so that we get a little more time with those late units and techs.

Great points, great analysis. Thanks.

... I go away for a couple of months because Sevo says 3.0 is "the last update" and I take that at face value being totally content to immerse myself in 3.0 and what happens?

New site
New version
New patch
The Hitler thing resurrects itself ...AGAIN!

I haven't checked all of the posts; did anyone complain about whether or not tanks could/should or not capture a town, or has that finally been put to bed?

So, Sevo, while I'm waiting for 3.2 to finish downloading, thanks yet again for doing what you do for Civ IV.

Regards,:goodjob:

Quiet Man

Hey, QM. Good to hear from you. No, the tanks/towns issue seems to be at rest for the moment; I'm fairly happy with the current penalties and as Zorn pointed out the mobile infantry are more or less the bread and butter unit of the late game, as I had intended.

Good feedback all. How am I ever going to get through warlords if I can't even catch up with all I want to do with just vanilla?? :crazyeye:

Bursk

Oct 12, 2006, 04:17 PM

Sevo, I've been using my suggested Barter changes for a couple of lengthy games, and they seem to work quite well.

There may be a better mix of +food and -money, but 20% and 33% seems to be okay. This definately makes Barter better than the starting civic, but not too overpowered IMO.

Oh, and thanks for finally including the option to remove the hidden resources.

Maatissi

Oct 12, 2006, 06:32 PM

I already posted in this thread regarding the tech tree, but I fear my post got lost in that retarded Hitler-debate... :rolleyes:

I understood that Sevo already noticed my early-thread post on nuclear plant price, and the development of the area-power idea.

Zorn and Dr. Oak made good points about modern units, and I would also like to pinpoint a few things myself:

1. As Dr. Oak mentioned, the prerequistice for modern naval units is a bit odd, but this is also a tech tree problem, there seems to be something utterly wrong in the tech tree between physics/rifling-level and industrialism-flight-level. I remember the good old Civ II Fascist Patch in which mr. Strayer included his Dreadnought coal-burning old battleship as a successor for ironclads (or ship-of-the-lines). Then evolved battleships and cruisers, and finally the destroyer-class vessels as picket screens for ASW, AA.

2. Missiles, Infantry-SAM's appeared in 1950-60's... Where's the good old flak peppering the sky with black puffs? And how fast does the technology run from a Spit to an F-16? Mi-26 appearing too early, also. Even Hook is a very late toy compared to a propeller fixed-wing aircraft.

3. Positive add-ons so far: the Biplane and the Mark-V-tank, excellently filled the gaps in logical tech tree advance... Though we must all admit that in the first mod version they were published, they were utterly misplaced and unrealistically early achieved. This has been mostly corrected, and now we have a nice set of early modern equipment.

Of course I understand that there was a king idea of "alternative paths of development" in the original Civ IV and why not even in the mods... But has'nt there been a great deal of choice in technical development path since the very first Civ already - the very choice of "what to research next?" itself!

(I just played a game of Civ III where I mastered the Theory of Gravity before Magnetism and Metallurgy) - in other words: "Isaac Newton drafted his theory and we didn't know how to build cannons and frigates"... This is acceptable I think, just as it was in the original Civ possible to master Copernician Astronomy without developing hardcore mechanical sciences. (Bit like the Maya did in the *real world*)

As in Civ IV, I can accept a logic Artillery -> Rocketry as alternatively skipping Flight, but many units don't follow the same logic, unfortunately. It would be so helpful if Civ IV (sevomod) would display the tech tree like Civ III did, era per era, showing what leads to what. Then we could perhaps pinpoint the very problems in the late game logics.

The early tech tree in contrast, offers a marvelous number of choices to develop your civilization in an alternate way and strategy. (I guess there is more sensation of good gaming because of the religions and many detailed cultural aspects in Civ IV compared to the earlier versions.) The tech paradigm oddities are really a problem in games, where players are isolated beyond a body of ocean, as the tech leak corrects the "natural advancement of society" (even in the areas not emphazised by the player's choice). After all, all tech tree-systems are a construction of definitions and schemes in which we simulate the certain amount of "knowledge" the Civilization has mastered. So at a certain point even in the detail level, the modelling of societies' advance becomes a very semantic question - rather than one of realsim. ;)

I think that in the future there should be a healthy peek into the tech trees of earlier Civ's, especially to the one in Civ III Conquests. The good old ideas of Strayer's Civ II mods should be also reviewed; the legendary zeppelins, dreadnoughts, Korean War era jets etc. units filling the gaps. (Where the heck is the cruiser? Repeating the tragic error of the Civ III again... :confused: )

Tactical nuke was a nice idea too... actually also coincidentally implement by me in my Civ III mod a long time ago, inspired by the Civ II missile-launching submarines. (And by some weird phenomenon, there seems to be a very similiar line of thought following all Civ-designers and mod-builders when they modify their rulesets. The mod-builders very often add something that is then also added by the official designers. Anyone else experienced this funny coincidence repeating itself in every area of the game regardless of version?) I guess it is just a sign to boost our great discussions here in Civ forums. The love of the game. ;)

And when we come to it: where are the bombers carrying free fall atomic bombs? :cool:

And for the completely irrelevant great person-debate, I have to say: keep the historic statesmen as statesmen... too many times I see listings where they are regarded as generals. Generals are those guys like Guderian, Rommel, Patton (especially), Hannibal and Scipio Africanus... The line has to be drawn somewhere, even as difficult it is. Of course there are tough cookies to decide like ie. Eisenhower, Tokugawa, Voroshilov, Mannerheim... Well, you got my point, someone should really brainstorm more great person names, adds a lot of atmosphere and even sensation of realism to the game. Could the list be optimized so you would get the great persons in correct chronological order? (No ancient Guderians, I mean...) For the sake of realism! ;)

Thanks to Sevo for the enormous effort of making this truly great mod!
And of course also thanks to all you Civ-freaks out there for playing out so vigorously and posting ideas. Keep up the good work! :cheers:

Alkemift

Oct 13, 2006, 06:14 AM

Alkemift

Oct 13, 2006, 06:28 AM

:
hi. Israeli unit shoudn't be talking Arabic. More like Hebrew:)
2. The Hasmonean dinasty used a lot of greek mersenaries, so I thing you may replace Hypiatis unit for Macedonian Mersenary. And delete cathaphractii for Israeli empire cause they probably used mersenaries also.
3. Try to arm Macabei with a warhammer. It's more historically true.
4. If you don't mind. I would reccomend adding Alexander Yanai to Solomon. His should be: Agressive, Expantionist.
5. Modern Armor = Merkavah IV.
6. Navy seal=(commando paratrooper) Lokhem Egoz.
7. Don't add Ariel Sharon!
=============================================
1. An Arab civ:
a) Knight = if you let me, I'll try to sent you the picture of they early medieval army(7-12 cent)
b) Great Persons: Muhammad Al-Tabari(historian), Najib Makhpuz(writer), Khalid b. Al-Walid(general), Jamal Al-Apghrani(stateman),Ahmad Urabi(general)

Tulx

Oct 13, 2006, 08:22 AM

(3) Resource Ignorance -- if you want to turn off resource ignorance, open the folder /assets/XML/terrain/. Inside is a file called Civ4BonusInfos.xml. Delete it and rename the file Civ4BonusInfos_no_resource_ignorance.xml back to the original Civ4BonusInfos.xml.

Better than deleting (in case you want to revert to the ignorance default): rename it to Civ4BonusInfos_Resource_Ignorance.xml

Really thanks:goodjob: Im not a modder myself so i had hard times trying to find the right thing:p Thanks again!

Tulx

Titi

Oct 13, 2006, 09:43 AM

I found it was a pity privateers had only an exploration ability.

So, since historically they were used to attack and seize the cargo of enemy ships to disrupt commercial routes (even though they were not belonging to the Navy - they had a letter of marque to show their opponents they were not pirates!), I added a plunder ability: when they win a fight against caravels or galleons, they give you some gold:

An enemy galleon has been looted! 61 [ICON_GOLD] pillaged!

:D Of course, the same is likely to happen if it's an enemy privateer that sinks your vessel:

Your caravel has been looted! 58 [ICON_GOLD] pillaged! :lol

seady

Oct 15, 2006, 01:51 PM

Why is Khan ... ok but hitler not?

You should ask Captain Kirk. "Khan!!! Khaaaannnnn!!!"
:D

Seriously tho', people get way too caught up in these things. I mean, I don't see the point. The romans did shocking things too (starting a major religion as a byproduct) but you don't see people arguing for the removal of them as a player race. I mean, i called my guinea pig John Herod and no-one objected.

Meanwhilst, back in reality land, North Korea is building nuclear weapons, south korea and japan are thinking of responding in kind, and the destroyers of my country are steaming off to blockade it, which North Korea has announced is "an act of war". Although technically they've been at war with us continually since the Korean War was declared. :nuke:

Some people really need a sense of perspective. :rolleyes:

Shigga

Oct 16, 2006, 03:59 AM

Sevo,
kudos again for your latest release, implementation of Dale's Combat Mod really kicks ass!
There are several lengthy suggestions so I'll try to keep this as short as possible.

1.)
As Soren Johnson states in his presantation, success of a game is partly dependant on killing unfun elements. There is one things I still find vastly annoying:
Spreading your religion. You can only have 3 missionaries at a time atm. This is very cumbersome, since you have to go back to the city were you Alt+built them and change the queue, then when you used a missionary, change again (especially annoying if the missis take only 1 turn to build...).
The stronger your religion(s) get(s), the easier it should become to spread it/them.
Why not give a +3 on the max number of missis for every hindu manir/christian cath/confucian academy etc. you build, say, to a max number of 9? Since you can only build them when you have a certain number of temples, they are a measure of the influence of your rel, and at that point you put quite resources in it to reach that.

2.)
2 small (?) fixes to the cities advisor screen: When I click on a city and then on "view", it goes to the city detail screen- but of a seemingly random city. Is this a bug or do I do sth wrong? Why does double clicking not open the city detail screen directly?

The other thing: Implement a pop-up that shows the chances for the different types of great people when you mouse over the gp-points of a city in the list. As it is now, if I want to decide where to build a wonder to support the generation of a certain gp type, I have to go to city detail screen, switch from city to city and mouseover the gp bar in each. Or is there another way?
Again, this is a small thing but very helpful.

Oh, and P.S.: The smartmap script works again with Sevo 3.2. It also fixes the stones issue, in my current game there's stones all around!

Arlborn

Oct 16, 2006, 05:16 AM

Shigga

Oct 16, 2006, 07:37 AM

I was refering to the city listing in the overview when you klick the little "house"-button in the upper right corner. Sorry but I just can't remember what it's called atm ^^ And sorry for all the typos! :s

Titi

Oct 16, 2006, 07:43 AM

Why does double clicking not open the city detail screen directly?
:confused:
It works for me, and I understand it's also working for Arlborn.

Shigga

Oct 16, 2006, 07:54 AM

Hm. Dunno what the problem is with my sevomod, but it doesn't work, neither in 3.2 nor in 3.1 or 3.0 -strange. When I doubleclick on a city name on the list, it only performs a single klick (the build queue beneath the list switches onto the city), but it does not open the city detail screen. If it works for you, this seems a problem with my civ only, so you can scrap that suggestion! :)

Titi

Oct 16, 2006, 08:11 AM

Sorry, I misunderstood your initial post! It works when I click on the city bar (with the name, the population status and the production status) directly on the map... I never tried from the list.

Shigga

Oct 16, 2006, 08:42 AM

Oni

Oct 16, 2006, 07:35 PM

.... warlords.... warlords.... warlords....

I miss sevomod.... but I refuse to give up my great generals

Hived

Oct 17, 2006, 01:57 AM

I found it was a pity privateers had only an exploration ability.

I added a plunder ability: when they win a fight against caravels or galleons, they give you some gold:

An enemy galleon has been looted! 61 [ICON_GOLD] pillaged!

:D Of course, the same is likely to happen if it's an enemy privateer that sinks your vessel:

Your caravel has been looted! 58 [ICON_GOLD] pillaged! :lol

Yeah, sounds good to me!
...but where does this gold come from?! Have you also implemented a loss of gold on the opponents side? In my opinion that should be implemented that way.

Another thing I dislike in all the CIVs, is the wrong use of galleons. In history, they were used as trade- or "native-treasure-hook"-ships. In CIV you only use them to carry troops. This was solved much more realistic in Colonization or other older games like Imperialism (II), where you had two types of fleets:
The trade-fleet and the war fleet.
I still miss the blocked harbours in CIV. You simply can still trade over sea, if you have built no single battle ship and your enemies armada is blocking the coast squares around your capital!
How can this be solved?! :cry: :(

AljayBoy

Oct 17, 2006, 05:44 AM

.... warlords.... warlords.... warlords....

I miss sevomod.... but I refuse to give up my great generals

http://http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=189065 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=189065)

Thats a link to the thread Sevo started to get ideas on what to change in Warlords, sofar it's the vassal states which seem to be popular for getting tweaked.

Post ideas to make sure the 1st Warlords Sevomod is as complete as possible!

AljayBoy

Oct 17, 2006, 06:25 AM

Yeah, sounds good to me!
...but where does this gold come from?! Have you also implemented a loss of gold on the opponents side? In my opinion that should be implemented that way.

Another thing I dislike in all the CIVs, is the wrong use of galleons. In history, they were used as trade- or "native-treasure-hook"-ships. In CIV you only use them to carry troops. This was solved much more realistic in Colonization or other older games like Imperialism (II), where you had two types of fleets:
The trade-fleet and the war fleet . . .
How can this be solved?! :cry: :(

I think we all agree the naval aspect of all Civ games has lacked that special something, but I think you may have found the answer.

Having a Merchant Navy as well as a Military Navy would open up a lot of new options: diplomacy, having overseas trade agreements but no open borders and vice versa; militarily, needing escorts for the Merchant Navy and being able to target your enemies; and also in making the overseas trade networks more realistic buy having to build the actual merchant ships and choosing where and whom to trade with.

To accomplish this I'd scrap the automated overseas trade network with other nations and instead be able to build merchant ships through the ages. Perhaps starting off with a "Merchant Galleon" which, in the same way to automate a work boat to go to the nearest resource, you can automate, or specify, your Merchant Galleon to trade with another nation's coastal city.

In order to keep the numbers down (as one ship per coastal city would be too many units on the screen, and would most likely melt my pc's hard drive after 10 minutes!) you could code in that Nation A can have 1 merchant unit to trade with Nation B, but Nation B also has a merchant unit which trades with Nation A, meaning there are 2 merchant ships providing commerce or gold to both Nation A and B when it docks with our coastal cities.

I think the main problem with this though (not including the actual modding which I'm a novice at and would imagine to be a killer!) is that on a map with just 10 civs this could lead to the creation of 90 additional units, not including escorts.

However it's what I thought of when I read Hived's post, and I have typed my ramblings as they came to me but I hope my main points are clear enough.

sidwannabe

Oct 17, 2006, 08:39 AM

To accomplish this I'd scrap the automated overseas trade network with other nations and instead be able to build merchant ships through the ages. Perhaps starting off with a "Merchant Galleon" which, in the same way to automate a work boat to go to the nearest resource, you can automate, or specify, your Merchant Galleon to trade with another nation's coastal city.

Thats not a bad idea - I was thinking that if there was a 'trade' command for one of those ships, like when you put a caravel on explore - the ship would then automatically travel to all ports where you have an open border agreement. As long as someone didn't splash your merchant ships in war or by a barbarian vessel, you owuld get the trade/gold benefit. And maybe you couldn't trade commodities with another civ without that ship and the agreement either. I don't see needing one ship for each tradeable civ though. Maybe just one for each agreement - no ship available, no trade ability..

Titi

Oct 17, 2006, 08:51 AM

Yeah, sounds good to me!
...but where does this gold come from?! Have you also implemented a loss of gold on the opponents side? In my opinion that should be implemented that way.
;) Yep, that's how it works! I sent the modified code to Sevo.

Another thing I dislike in all the CIVs, is the wrong use of galleons. In history, they were used as trade- or "native-treasure-hook"-ships. In CIV you only use them to carry troops. This was solved much more realistic in Colonization or other older games like Imperialism (II), where you had two types of fleets:
The trade-fleet and the war fleet.
I still miss the blocked harbours in CIV. You simply can still trade over sea, if you have built no single battle ship and your enemies armada is blocking the coast squares around your capital!
How can this be solved?! :cry: :(
I agree!

PatrickDockens

Oct 17, 2006, 09:05 AM

Another thing I dislike in all the CIVs, is the wrong use of galleons. In history, they were used as trade- or "native-treasure-hook"-ships. In CIV you only use them to carry troops. This was solved much more realistic in Colonization or other older games like Imperialism (II), where you had two types of fleets:
The trade-fleet and the war fleet.
I still miss the blocked harbours in CIV. You simply can still trade over sea, if you have built no single battle ship and your enemies armada is blocking the coast squares around your capital!
How can this be solved?! :cry: :(

I do like the idea of being able to blockade someone, but the need to create merchant ships for trade, if its done and kept simple to manage, it'd be OK. I remember the need to manage carravans in the old Civs getting tiresome.

Titi

Oct 17, 2006, 10:11 AM

Please do so and tell me if it works for you... I use the list quite often, even more so in the late-game stage where the number of your cities is really large. It gives you a lot you need to know on a glance but could use a little tweaking like I described to make it even more useful :)
OK, tried it:

click on a city name on the list and then on the "view" button below: works as expected (the correct city screen opens)
double-click on a city name as the same effect as a single click
btw the "house" button is the F1 key - the domestic advisor.

Titi

Oct 17, 2006, 10:28 AM

I do like the idea of being able to blockade someone, but the need to create merchant ships for trade, if its done and kept simple to manage, it'd be OK. I remember the need to manage carravans in the old Civs getting tiresome.
Why not something like the way it was handled in CTP? The caravans needed to be built, as in Civ 2, but it was not a unit. In the commercial screen, you could see the number of caravans built, and the number of free caravans (to be used to create another trading route).
So you basically needed resources AND caravans to create a trading route (plus of course an origin and a destination!)

Shigga

Oct 17, 2006, 11:16 AM

OK, tried it:

click on a city name on the list and then on the "view" button below: works as expected (the correct city screen opens)
double-click on a city name as the same effect as a single click
btw the "house" button is the F1 key - the domestic advisor.

Thank you. I tried again, too.

to #1: have you tried changing the sorting of the list, then highlighting and clickinig on view? Bc when I DO NOT change the sorting it shows the correct city. When I sort, for example, by culture rate, click on a city and on "view" it does not show the correct city. I suspect it shows the city that was on the same spot in the initial sorting, but I have to check again. Has anybody else encountered that phenomenon? :)

to #2: What is the effect? It shows the "production"-part of the city detail screen below the advisor list, right? So why doesn't double clicking open the whole city detail screen? I use the list a lot and I mean A LOT and I keep on stumbling over this because it contradicts the intuitive usage... very annoying.

to #3: Yeah I looked that up thank you :) The word "domestic" just slipped my mind ^^

It would be so great if this could be solved along with the gp-chances-pop-up inclusion. Actually Sevo, if you achieve this i give you my word I will actually send you a beer via mail ^^

PatrickDockens

Oct 17, 2006, 11:28 AM

Why not something like the way it was handled in CTP? The caravans needed to be built, as in Civ 2, but it was not a unit. In the commercial screen, you could see the number of caravans built, and the number of free caravans (to be used to create another trading route).
So you basically needed resources AND caravans to create a trading route (plus of course an origin and a destination!)

I never played CTP, but this sounds like a good option. But when you say resources, do mean trading resources like stone, iron, etc? Would this take the place of the trading in the diplomacy screen or would a caravan be required to be on hand to make such a trade?

Or would caravans be used just to increase gold, like the trade routes that cities get now do?

Hived

Oct 18, 2006, 02:13 AM

I never played CTP, but this sounds like a good option. But when you say resources, do mean trading resources like stone, iron, etc? Would this take the place of the trading in the diplomacy screen or would a caravan be required to be on hand to make such a trade?

Or would caravans be used just to increase gold, like the trade routes that cities get now do?
Yep, Titi is right.
The way CTP solved it, wasn't that bad... although it was too easy to pillage this trade routes!

For all who didn't play it: In CTP the idea of trade routes was, to build up monopolies: For the first ressource elephant, you had in a city, this city got +10 trade. For the second +20, the third +30... so it was the best to send all your elephants in one city, to get maximum of cash. This monopoly stuff is ,

...but the idea of setting up trade-routes just by lines on the map sounds interesting.

BUT in CTP it was f***ing easy to pillage such a trade route: You just had to send a unit on the 'trade-line', click the pillage icon and the route was gone.
I got two different ideas how to make it tougher in CIV:
1.) You first have to discover an enemy trade-route. After you have found it (maybe by having a unit standing on this route), it works as in CTP.
2.) You always see the routes, but the ship/caravan is of course not on each square! If you TRY to pillage such a route, you maybe have a chance of 1/5 to really pillage it.
3.) got another idea: You can send ships/units on such a route and, like workers, have to leave them there (maybe 5 turns), until they have finished their business.

The escort thing could be managed by setting up a "sea-trade-capital" (maybe a small nat. wonder, 50 hammers to build) and give all naval units there a new escort button. If a route is now pillaged, the computer divides the number of your trade-routes through the number of 'escort-ships'. If it is >1 a escort-ship battles the pirates (and wins or looses), the route remains. If it is <1 the computer first checks if a escort-ship is near the attacked imaginary trade-ship (example: 4 escort-ships, 5 trade-routes -> 80% of interception).
The nat. wonder-thing could maybe also be avoided by leaving ships in cities, the trade-route goes through... but in this case, your programming would have to guarantee, that the routes are set up, through such coastal cities....

At last this whole ideas are really hard to implement... dunno, if anybody feels capable doing it... and if, also finds it worth to do... if not, we will still have safe harbours and trade-routes in CIV4 without building any ships :(

Shigga

Oct 18, 2006, 03:24 AM

Hm sounds far too complicated and bloats management unnecessarily.
Why not give spies the ability to disable trade routes in a city and it's connection to the trade network for a certain number of turns for a start? An option labelled, for example "sabotage city trade". This should be easier to implement, easier to use and it gives additional importance to spy units which suffer a pretty meaningless existence since they lost most of their abilities they had in civ3. Just my 2 cents :)

EDIT: Additionally, to adapt parts of your concept, spies could have the ability to move onto an enemy resource and "block" it from use. The unit has to remain on the spot to uphold the block. Differing from the regular blocking with your troops, a spy block can only be lifted by another spy. This way you can effectively block strategic resources without having to pillage them just to have to rebuild the mine after you captured the city. And you can evade detection with the spy and sabotage strat recs deep in enemy territory.

Hived

Oct 18, 2006, 06:06 AM

Sounds good too, but doesn't solve the problem with the 'unblockable' coastal cities! I can imagine, that both variants can work side by side.
Another idea, much easier to program (I hope), is, if your enemy has more ships in your territory than you, all your seatrade-network will be broken, until you are in peace with the guy or until your ships outnumber the opponent's ones.
To regard the effect of technology, you can also count the strength of the ships, so a frigate will count more than a caravel.
Pirateships maybe could have this 'blocking-ability' also in peacetime!

This version will be more global, so english colonies in America will suffer the same problem (can't trade with each other if they have no road-connection), if the spanish armada lies in the North-Sea (and vice versa)... but easier to program and to handle in game!

What do you think?!

Shigga

Oct 18, 2006, 06:34 AM

Sounds good too, but doesn't solve the problem with the 'unblockable' coastal cities! I can imagine, that both variants can work side by side.

Like I said, give the spies the ability to disconnect a city from the trade network. Technically it does not matter if it is a coastal city or inland. So when you disconnect a coastal city the connection via harbor to the network is disabled too, naturally.

Hived

Oct 18, 2006, 07:05 AM

Yes, could be a kind of solution... but:
1.) spies come into game a bit late, while coastal-city-trade already is established with sailing (for nothing!!)
2.) it seems for me a bit too tough, because:
2a.) in that way, you can disconnect the opponents main cities systematically and he can nearly not react on your attacks
2b.) spies also work in peacetime
2c.) spies can use enemy infrastructure (roads/railway)

The only solution on this would be, to let you pay the spy in gold for disconnecting, but then, this ability seems (depends on the amount of gold of course) to be to weak again.

About the ressource-blocking: In my opinion the ability of spies to destroy improvements represents this blocking already. To let the AI know, what's up with the ressource and how to react against it may also be tough to implement.

Shigga

Oct 18, 2006, 08:52 AM

1) Jep. Strange since the espionage buisiness is not a modern concept but quite ancient...
2a) Yes he can. By building his own spies. Who said he is not notified of the block? Also, those actions are handled with the same system of chances for failure or success that handles steal map etc., so it is not sure you will be successful in your attempts. You could also gradually lessen the chance of success the more spy units the adversary has at the ready/and or certain city improvements or national wonders like CIA or the like. Plus, you could make it a one-timer, meaning the unit will disappear after a sucess. And who said the block will be permanent? 5 to 10 turns seem realistic. :) There are multiple ways to balance this.
2b) The function should cause a war with your opponent by x% chance (namely th chance that your enemy discovers you are behind the whole thing)
2c) What's the problem there? If you nerf this ability, you will only have useless spies again.

I agree it's hard to teach the AI the use of it.

Also you could swap the block tile since a spy can already destroy tile improvements and only give him the block trade mission.

Titi

Oct 18, 2006, 09:25 AM

have you tried changing the sorting of the list, then highlighting and clickinig on view? Bc when I DO NOT change the sorting it shows the correct city. When I sort, for example, by culture rate, click on a city and on "view" it does not show the correct city. I suspect it shows the city that was on the same spot in the initial sorting, but I have to check again.
No, I admit I didn't. I'm gonna try that later tonight.

to #2: What is the effect? It shows the "production"-part of the city detail screen below the advisor list, right? So why doesn't double clicking open the whole city detail screen? I use the list a lot and I mean A LOT and I keep on stumbling over this because it contradicts the intuitive usage... very annoying.
You're right, double-click has no effect here, and that's confusing.

to #3: Yeah I looked that up thank you :) The word "domestic" just slipped my mind ^^
;)

It would be so great if this could be solved along with the gp-chances-pop-up inclusion. Actually Sevo, if you achieve this i give you my word I will actually send you a beer via mail ^^
Hmm... Maybe I'll check what I can do then! :lol:

hs1611

Oct 18, 2006, 10:31 AM

(...)

to #2: What is the effect? It shows the "production"-part of the city detail screen below the advisor list, right? So why doesn't double clicking open the whole city detail screen? I use the list a lot and I mean A LOT and I keep on stumbling over this because it contradicts the intuitive usage... very annoying.

(...)
I believe it also works like that in vanilla cIV, so it looks like it's a(nother) vanilla cIV issue and not Sevomod.

solanacea

Oct 18, 2006, 11:37 AM

This mod is awesome. Thanks a lot Sevo and everyone involved. :goodjob:

My suggestions:
1. how about giving great statesman the ability to dramatically improve your relations with another (or maybe all other) empires? a great statesman that ends a war you are about to lose or gets you elected supreme leader would be real cool.

2. The catapult is way overpowered. Historically, they were extremely inaccurate and I dont know any field battle where catapults played a major role. They were useful for sieges which is I think well simulated in vanilla civ. Also, ranged bombard for the catapult is so unrealistic. their range was no longer than a tank! Actually, ranged bombard only makes sense for radar artillery/MRLS type of units. Direct attack+collateral damage+chance to withdraw simulates artillery better because even the most advanced artillery is susceptible to counter-battery fire. It is too overpowering to be able to attack without risk of retaliation.
I admire the time spent to write the code for this, but it feels like a step backwards.

3. I am not a huge fan of attack/defense promotions. With the defense promotion there is little need to pick the cool arctic/desert combat type of promotions.
4. Also, it is not very realistic to have units ultra-specializing against some particular type with the extra promos in the mod. Axeman with shields would be better against archers (+25% maybe), for sure, but I just cant imagine how they would be invincible against arrows(25+25+30 %) but very vulnerable against the sword. Sometimes more is not better.

5. In vanilla civ the more religions you have always the better. I think this is unrealistic. How about a happiness penalty for having multiple religions wtihout their proper temples? maybe religions you founded should be excluded for this rule. If this makes managing happiness too difficult a few luxury resources may be added for balance.

6. Airforces mod by theLopez is a great idea! How about being able to arm your planes with laser guided bombs promo(+150% bombard damage)? :)

Nexushyper

Oct 18, 2006, 11:56 AM

Other than the already mentioned missing text(Some wonders ect have no info on mouse over) I like this mod.

I recommend looking at and using (perhaps with some modification for balance):
AirForces mod
Military Bases Mod
Route Pillage Mod
And most mods by TheLopez.

Good Sauce

Oct 19, 2006, 01:00 AM

On trade routes and the importance of a navy

This was an idea I put forward awhile back, but I don't remember sevo commenting on it, so maybe it got lost in the thread. Alot of the previous ideas are good, but I think we can get the same result in a much simpler way. My idea is to give all combat naval units a "Blockade" ability. It would only require one ship, and the ability would last as long as the ship didn't move. A blockaded city would losr 50% of it's NET commerece. This means the total after all percentages are added in. The math would work like this:

You are at 70% science rate. Your only coastal city is your capitol. It's base commerece is 100 (it's a very nice city, covered in gold mines or something) so 70 of that goes to scince and 30 to gold, due to civics and buildings this gets increased by 100%. the final total is 60 gpt your capitol is earning you. Then the blockade hits and that total figure is cut in half. Now, because you didn't keep up a coast guard you're losing 30 gold every turn.

Obviously I inflated the numbers a bit for easy math, but it's not impossible for a city to have 100 base commerece. And this was only one city, imagine the effects on three or four cities. If you're running your economy tight even 10 gpt can be back breaking. A navy is no longer an option!

hs1611

Oct 19, 2006, 02:57 AM

I agree with the previous post, except if it's too dificult to implement. In that case leave it be.

The same should happen when a city has enemy combat ground units in its cultural borders or in its 20 surrounding production tiles.

Is there any way to separate land earned commerce from sea earned commerce? If there is, ships would only blockade sea commerce and ground units would only blockade land commerce.

Shigga

Oct 19, 2006, 03:02 AM

The same should happen when a city has enemy combat ground units in its cultural borders or in its 20 surrounding production tiles.

Yes it always struck me as strange that city trade is not affected by enemy units in the fat cross.

@Titi: Please do because it will be german beer which means the best ;)

Titi

Oct 19, 2006, 09:37 AM

@Titi: Please do because it will be german beer which means the best ;)
:D
You just gave me motivation! (although we may disagree on the best origin for the beers ;))

@Good Sauce
Nice idea! I like it!

Shigga

Oct 19, 2006, 09:51 AM

Ah, now you got me curious...

What country can beat germany, with it's "Reinheitsgebot" (precept of purity) of 1516 and it's 1200+ different breweries today, on the quality of beer? :D

(sry for the little highjack ^^)

doompigeon

Oct 19, 2006, 06:10 PM

This is the best mod. Don't get me wrong. It's amazing. Every other mod adds more, but they always add so much more that you end up with waste (useless units) or confusion of another sort...

The only problem (different from lack of genius... there's always further improvements that can be made...) that I see is the global market civic because it removes every other tile improvement as useful projects

There's no longer a reason to use any strategy other than universal-suffrage/free-speech/global-marketting and building cottages on every square that will support them (including grassland/hills)

The AI seems to have noticed this as well... my automated workers build nothing but cottages and I think the other civs do it too

with this one exception... it's amazing :-D

Arlborn

Oct 20, 2006, 03:17 AM

mqrt

Oct 20, 2006, 03:44 AM

about ships; you might want to check out this thread:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=185604&page=2

Its from the total realism mod; but imo sevomod is also missing a ship type between ironclad and battleship.

oh and shigga; he wants Belgian beer ofcourse, ... what else ? :D

Arlborn

Oct 20, 2006, 05:09 AM

By the way, I think Trade Routes shouldent be changed. But if its to change something, maybe you need to make a ship(or caravan unit) to get a trade route, but after you make the trade route in other city(the cities of your own empire dont need it) nothing changes from the normal civ4..Maybe and just maybe if a enemy is around your city(right in the sqms around your city, because if he is more far, Im sure that a trader from this city knows more about this territory than the soldiers, and then he still can go out of the city) then your trade routes cease for time being, but then it would be a big hit in a already bad economy affected by war...Or maybe only 1 trade route ceases...

And the system of CIV CTP was about RESOURCES TRADE, this thing of trade routes even without resource trade is new and there is only in CIV4 I guess..At least not in CIV CTP...

solanacea

Oct 20, 2006, 11:29 AM

Two more suggestions:

1. Ataturk's (Turkish Leader) portrait needs some change. He shouldnt have a beard! How about using TAM style two dimentional portraits? I totally admire the great work that goes into making these animated portraits but having a stylyzed picture of the real leader would be cooler than another generic roosvelt portrait for Ataturk.

2. Battleships have always been overpowered in civ. They looked menacing but other than the fact that Japan surrendered on the Missouri, they played almost no part in our planet's history. In WWI thay were sank by mines and cannon fire in Gallipoli, in WW2 there was the battle of Jutland, a skirmish between battlecruisers. And that's it, none were built after WW2. Again, they look menacing but they ve been this useless.

Titi

Oct 20, 2006, 12:09 PM

oh and shigga; he wants Belgian beer ofcourse, ... what else ? :D
:)
How did you know?

doompigeon

Oct 20, 2006, 05:40 PM

Are you useing the last patch?? You prob are useing the one with the +1food bonus for the cottages no?? Download the last patch(patch d?)! He changed it to a +25% food to all cities! Then it dont overpower the cottages ^^

Thanks :-D

However I've foudn one more question... Isn't progressive essentially a toned-down version of spiritual? Or is the description wrong?

It certainly seems to make leaders such as Wang Geon seem fairly useless... spiritual/progressive

It's probably me that's being stupid again, I'm sure.... I just like to know these things

Hived

Oct 20, 2006, 07:59 PM

Progressive has not only the advantage of only one turn of anarchy, but also gives you for each city with size 8+ a additional free specialist. But your right the description is wrong, the specialists are not mentioned :-/

So in my opinion progressive and spiritual isn't that bad combo. I think it would run really good, if you can catch 2 or 3 religions, spread them and build up temples and monastries everywhere (both buildings cheaper with prog.+spirit.). With spiritual you can then switch between your religions, so you always can choose, with which neighbour you want to be friends. Later, you switch to religious freedom and have the happiest citizens you can imagine :-)

Okay, sounds a bit risky this strategy, especially to get all the religions and spread them without loosing time (missionaries aren't cheaper :-/ )... and according to the changes (upgrades) of the other 'leader-abilities' (spiritual seems not to have changed, both don't give free unit promotions...) this combo seems really to be underpowered... but maybe on a prince-game without floodplains in the beginning really challanging!

richieelias

Oct 21, 2006, 04:21 PM

Ahaha! Portugals music makes it seem like Alfonso is hitting on you with the faces his George Washington model makes.

Also I'm loving all the tribal music for the older civs. And is there any chance of adding more flavor units to the mod?

And actually, Battleships did play a very important role in the planets history. They were Sea-based artillery platforms which meant massive mobile firepower for a few miles inland. And before torpedoes could be used effectively they were quite effective at keeping nations without battleships trapped in their own ports.

doompigeon

Oct 21, 2006, 05:45 PM

All right. I'm done complaining, because I can't find anything more to complain about. There are no errors.

At this point, all that can be done is make it better.

First on that list, I think, Sevo is surely already aware of. When will the mastery victory, a brilliant idea, find it's way into sevomod?

solanacea

Oct 21, 2006, 05:55 PM

And actually, Battleships did play a very important role in the planets history. They were Sea-based artillery platforms which meant massive mobile firepower for a few miles inland. And before torpedoes could be used effectively they were quite effective at keeping nations without battleships trapped in their own ports.

Theoretically true! Can you name an actual conflict where this played a major role? Couldnt find one in wikipedia. Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship#The_Dreadnought_era_.E2.80.94_.22All-big-gun.22_battleships

The fact is the era of the battleships lasted a mere 50 years from 1890s to WW2. In civ4 and Sevomod battleships defeat nuclear submarines and AEGIS cruisers which is totally absurd.

richieelias

Oct 21, 2006, 06:34 PM

Oh I'll definitely agree that battleships shouldnt still be effective past nuclear subs. In fact, they should appear earlier and start diminishing in effectiveness shortly after carriers and bombers.

Just beacause no single battleship singlehandedly turned the tides of war didnt make them any less effective. Just think how WWI would have been had Germany been able to move their fleet out to sea at will to wreak havoc on british shipping from the start of the war.

Also, keep in mind that 50 years is quite a long time. Ironclads (as used in civ4) werent around for that long but theyre still in the game.

Sevo

Oct 22, 2006, 01:55 PM

On trade routes and the importance of a navy

...

I like this idea, actually (the 50% loss with a "blockade"). Easier to understand and less complication for gameplay. And since trade routes become a major part of gameplay you could cripple economy with a good blockade. Getting the AI to use it might be tough...but I'll think about it and see if there isn't some way to make it work.

Theoretically true! Can you name an actual conflict where this played a major role? Couldnt find one in wikipedia. Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship#The_Dreadnought_era_.E2.80.94_.22All-big-gun.22_battleships

The fact is the era of the battleships lasted a mere 50 years from 1890s to WW2. In civ4 and Sevomod battleships defeat nuclear submarines and AEGIS cruisers which is totally absurd.

Yeah...I guess that's prolly true. Battleships played roles in major land bombardments, but not so much sea-based battles. I'm allowing some liberties on this one I guess.

Thank you. I tried again, too.

to #1: have you tried changing the sorting of the list, then highlighting and clickinig on view? Bc when I DO NOT change the sorting it shows the correct city. When I sort, for example, by culture rate, click on a city and on "view" it does not show the correct city. I suspect it shows the city that was on the same spot in the initial sorting, but I have to check again. Has anybody else encountered that phenomenon? :)

to #2: What is the effect? It shows the "production"-part of the city detail screen below the advisor list, right? So why doesn't double clicking open the whole city detail screen? I use the list a lot and I mean A LOT and I keep on stumbling over this because it contradicts the intuitive usage... very annoying.

to #3: Yeah I looked that up thank you :) The word "domestic" just slipped my mind ^^

It would be so great if this could be solved along with the gp-chances-pop-up inclusion. Actually Sevo, if you achieve this i give you my word I will actually send you a beer via mail ^^

This sorting problem has been around for a while. I'll look into it--I don't know that I ever really tried to fix it.

mqrt

Oct 22, 2006, 03:43 PM

People;
don't forget, battleships were what nuclear weapons are today: hardly used but a great deterant.
so they did play a major role in the worlds history; mainly as Britains means to keep their role as leader in the world; and later as Germany's way to break the gridlock; not by actually fighting; but by threathning Britain supremacy of numbers and firepower ...

@ Titi

doesn't everbody knows Belgian beer is the best? ;)

well apperently not Our Eastern neighbours ...

:p

sidwannabe

Oct 22, 2006, 07:27 PM

I get the feeling that another added resource would be welcome...hops! Of coursed adding 1 health and 1 happiness per brewery, maybe with a production penalty for having too many of them...:crazyeye:

Kaenash

Oct 22, 2006, 08:03 PM

I like that Coffee was included as a resource. I can't think of a war over coffee, but I know it is an important resource. However, if you want to add a good resource, how about Tea?

The British Empire without Tea?

They didn't call it the Boston COFFEE party. ;)

Instead of just making it more of the same, why not establish some dependence on it? IE: When you build a certain structure it requires the tea resource, if that resource goes away then that structure starts costing you productivity, representing your dependence on it AND giving the user an advantage when they do have it..

richieelias

Oct 23, 2006, 05:50 PM

Just a couple more suggestions. I think he's right that Battleships and destroyers should come around at the same time. Also subs should be able to take out unescorted battleships, battleships should cost even more, all bombers and fighters should get bonuses vs sea units but especially battleships.

I think this way it would be a little more realistic. Battleships are king of the seas when they first arrive, and quickly become obsolete when WW2 era fighters are discovered.

And the main reason there were so few massive battleships battles is that they were SO expensive that it was always a huge hit to a nations morale if one was lost. Essentially, if one nation had more battleships than another, the nation with fewer battleships never let them leave port and the nation with more battleships owned the seas. The lesser nation had to rely on submarines or other fast craft to harrass shipping, but thats about all they could do. Once the more manouverable fighters were introduced, there was no longer an effective way to defend those gigantic expensive sitting ducks, so, nobody wasted money on them anymore. We only kept one to use as a special case "cheap" artillery platform (those cruise missiles are freaking expensive), and even thats gone now.

So yes, battleships are worthless today, but they still served their purpose in that 50 year period.

Shigga

Oct 24, 2006, 02:30 AM

I respectfully disagree on the costs of Battleships. If you make them even more expensive, nobody will use them anymore and all you get is a "dead" unit.

Agreed on the bonus of planes vs Battleship. THey effectively ended the superiority of Battleships.

solanacea

Oct 24, 2006, 08:44 AM

... subs should be able to take out unescorted battleships, ... all bombers and fighters should get bonuses vs sea units but especially battleships.
... Battleships are king of the seas when they first arrive, and quickly become obsolete when WW2 era fighters are discovered...

I totally agree.

Arlborn

Oct 24, 2006, 09:58 AM

The thing in CIV4 is, first gameplay and then History. Do what is possible to make it looks more like the real life BUT IF WILL SCREW UP THE GAME, DONT DO.

That is my humble opnion...

Kunkku Kenkku

Oct 24, 2006, 10:18 AM

..

2. The catapult is way overpowered. Historically, they were extremely inaccurate and I dont know any field battle where catapults played a major role. They were useful for sieges which is I think well simulated in vanilla civ. Also, ranged bombard for the catapult is so unrealistic. their range was no longer than a tank! Actually, ranged bombard only makes sense for radar artillery/MRLS type of units. Direct attack+collateral damage+chance to withdraw simulates artillery better because even the most advanced artillery is susceptible to counter-battery fire. It is too overpowering to be able to attack without risk of retaliation.
I admire the time spent to write the code for this, but it feels like a step backwards.
..

I still think that the change that Sevo made - after reducing the city "%" defenses the continued bombarding causes (small) collateral damage to the units themselves in the city - was a good change and also realistic.
Also, as it is, the catapults/cannons are susceptible to counter-fire, both normal and collateral, depending on unit. As should be.

But perhaps the catapults etc should have lower defence power than attack power, as it was the case in some earlier Civ versions. So thet left alone undefended they would be rather weak, as is realistic.

KK :king:

Shigga

Oct 24, 2006, 10:33 AM

Sevo,

did you look into Blake's work over at poly? He's done some serious AI tweaking.

Nannasin

Oct 24, 2006, 04:57 PM

we need to get rid of einstein. He had a big hand in creating the atomic bomb. It killed hundreds of thousands of innocent japanese. There are japanese people that firmly believe (not saying they are right or wrong) we did an unspeakably evil thing by dropping those bombs. Your point of view muffin is your point of view. This is a game. We could argue all day on what is evil and what isn't, the bottom line is he was a person that had great influence on the shaping of our world as it is today. Trying to avoid his name does no one any good..if anything we should be forced to remember as often as necessary so history never repeats itself. Don't put your head in the sand and hide from the truth of things. You just get your a$$ kicked.

Harrier

Oct 25, 2006, 09:58 AM

Sevo,

did you look into Blake's work over at poly? He's done some serious AI tweaking.

A lot of those AI tweaks are going to be included in the official Warlords patch. So will be in the Sevo warlords version of the mod.

Nannasin

Oct 25, 2006, 10:34 AM

I have been playing monarch level games lately. I am not sure I like the way catapults on up work since on of the latter patches. Let me rephrase. I love the way they work, I just think it makes war too easy. I create 7 or 8 catapults or whatever my latest flavor is, protect them with another 4 or 5 units of almost any type, and send them to any town on the map I can reach. Bombard the town and units down over a turn or two and the city is easily taken over by even inferior units. Send in a couple archers or infantry to protect it and move to next town. You don't even have to take any deaths. You are unstoppable as long as you are able to defend your cities from any counterattack the AI might try.

Is this what everyone sees?

I love playing this MOD it is all I play now just that I think the artillary line is out of balance now.

Nannasin

Oct 25, 2006, 10:41 AM

oh ...one more thing i just thought of. When an AI comes to you and asks you to stop trading with someone, is there a way to see what trades you have going with that other person before agreeing or denying? I can't seem to do it if not.

Shigga

Oct 25, 2006, 02:14 PM

Just hit the F Key for Foreign Advisor, the window will show up despite diplomacy being open.

Nannasin

Oct 25, 2006, 02:20 PM

cool. I figured there must be a way.

Bursk

Oct 26, 2006, 10:08 AM

*blah*

Is this what everyone sees?

That's exactly how my games are going. I'll build 8-10 cats then go around taking any enemy city I want.

I think I'm going to start forcing myself to use cats the old way. Maybe it wouldn't be so unbalanced if the AI turned up at one of my cities with 8-10 cats, but that's never happened.

On a different subject, I was wondering if anyone thinks Cop's Observatory is unbalanced? I'm not sure myself, but +100% Science (only in one city, obviously) seems huge, especially considering that the Civ who builds it is likely to be ahead in Tech anyway. Giving this Civ an extra 100% Sci (prob in their Super Science City) will make them even harder to catch.

Thoughts?

Wipperwill

Oct 26, 2006, 08:45 PM

Sevo, how about including Blakes AI mod in your vanilla version? Its at apoly if you want to look it up.

Arlborn

Oct 27, 2006, 01:31 AM

Sevo, how about including Blakes AI mod in your vanilla version? Its at apoly if you want to look it up.

Was going to say the same! They even added in the official warlords patch! Looks good!

Nannasin

Oct 27, 2006, 12:33 PM

F doesn't seem to work ..is it maybe shift F or something like that?

solanacea

Oct 27, 2006, 01:56 PM

...
Also, as it is, the catapults/cannons are susceptible to counter-fire, both normal and collateral, depending on unit. As should be.
KK :king:

When you attack with any unit, the enemy defends itself and there is a chance that you may lose. When you use ranged bombard you absolutely cannot lose. That is what I meant by "without risk of retaliation".

Giving catapults 5 strength (same as axeman) plus ability to lower city defenses plus ranged bombard ability plus collateral damage makes it totally unnecessary to built any other type of unit in the late ancient era. Forget about realism, this ruins the gameplay. :(

Snerk

Oct 27, 2006, 07:19 PM

I think the solution could be simply to lower the strength of all siege units...

Arlborn

Oct 28, 2006, 05:25 AM

I like the retaliation idea..Each time a siege unit uses bombardment it has 10% of chance of get retaliation and if it gets retaliation, it has 50% of change of lose 50% of its health and 50% of chance of just get destroyed..

Something like that would be nice yes...But reduce the bombardment power would also do...Althogh the AI uses a lot of bombardment on me in my games! Last game i went with my troops to try to get a Holy City of Ukranian and what a big surprise I got when I saw inside a city a stack of about 15 trebuchets! And he didnt suicide any of them! Only used distance bombardment! I had to send a 2nd stack of units there or I was doomed! That is why I prefer the retaliation idea above put less power to them..

The thing that piss me off is the AI in UN chooseing stupid initial game civics -.- You Really should forbid them to vote the inital civics in the UN...

ecc

Oct 28, 2006, 02:04 PM

where is everyone? i don't get it. as soon as the thread is moved to project & mod development, everyone disappears. or maybe i'm not looking in the right place :crazyeye:

Arlborn

Oct 29, 2006, 02:58 AM

where is everyone? i don't get it. as soon as the thread is moved to project & mod development, everyone disappears. or maybe i'm not looking in the right place :crazyeye:

It always happens..Altough its not that bad here right now, we are haveing posts here everyday..

Feedback for Sevo: Bump your thread in the main forum...

Kunkku Kenkku

Oct 29, 2006, 06:51 AM

Inflicting collateral damage from distance - and so at relative safety- is the basic ability that catapults/cannons had. So it would not be realistic to take that ability away.

But the weakness of classical bombarding machines was that they were heavy and slow. Because of that, when close-attacked they were very vulnerable. That is why I suggested that they should have lower *defence* value in the game -I don't know if that is technically possible. That would mean also that you would have to guard them even more than now by other units.

The classical catapults/cannons were of course not used to actually storm the cities, but there were other types of units for this. Only in modern times the big gun and mobility was combined.

As an example, think of the siege of Constantinople in 1453. The Turks had very heavy metal cannons shooting huge stone balls, and they inflicted damage both on the city towers and walls and the defenders on these or near them. They were not used to storm the city and even imagining that would be humorous.

People playing in different styles and levels obviously have different game experiences. Everybody's opinion counts. Game balancing is not easy, but please do it without lowering the level of realism of the simulation. That is an important aspect of the Civ experience.

peace and prosperity (or fear my catapult)
KK :king:

Sevo

Oct 29, 2006, 11:28 AM

I think the solution could be simply to lower the strength of all siege units...

Reasonable solution. It will fix a lot of the perceived problems. I'll give it a try. I also added some significant tweaks to the AI so that they attempt to use the bombardment units more effectively. We'll see.

A lot of those AI tweaks are going to be included in the official Warlords patch. So will be in the Sevo warlords version of the mod.

I haven't been to 'poly in a while--I found their site a pain in the butt to navigate well and the file sharing system was non-intuitive, thus I'm sure I've missed some of the good stuff over there. I'll check out his AI tweaks--they must be good if they're being included in the official patch.

Bursk

Oct 30, 2006, 03:55 AM

Reasonable solution. It will fix a lot of the perceived problems. I'll give it a try. I also added some significant tweaks to the AI so that they attempt to use the bombardment units more effectively. We'll see.
Cool. I don't know what the answer is to the bombard 'problem', but something needs to be done since it's made playing on Monarch really, really easy.

All you need are some good defensive units, a healer, and a huge stack of cats. Sure, you won't be able to hold every city you take with that stack, but you will be able to take every city.

Shigga

Oct 30, 2006, 07:41 AM

Shigga

Oct 30, 2006, 07:56 AM

F doesn't seem to work ..is it maybe shift F or something like that?

lol... only just read it... I didn't mean THE F key, but F6 or wherever diplo is binded to (can't look that up atm sry)

Arlborn

Oct 30, 2006, 11:11 AM

Yeah SoD is back ^^ I was stunned when I bombarded the first time with a huge stack o' cannons- They practically blew the defending units away and my Rifleman marched in without a single enemy unit remaining. And it doesn't even lessen the pop of a city. It lessened the war experience considerably since there's no more fighting to be done before taking a city, meaning no more promotions and it's just a matter of impatiently waiting for your stack to reach the next enemy city. I then divided it in several parts just to have a little more resistance to fight ^^

EDIT: How about limiting the damage a unit can take by artillery fire? Like the strength can only be reduced to a min of 1 or .5... after all, even in real life warfare you can weaken an enemy unit considerably with arti fire, but you can't destroy it completely...

I like that idea as well(I prefer the retaliament idea, but prob its too hard to implement :P), just like the airplanes. You should put something like 25% or so as the minimum health a unit can be to take bombardment damage.
But then again I have to say that I dunno if its just me, but the AI uses siege units a lot against me, specially defending cities.

osvatha

Nov 01, 2006, 12:40 AM

Hi!

I really love Your mod!

Could You integrate some more european civs?
Hungarian (I found this: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=143879)
for example..... ;)

ecc

Nov 02, 2006, 01:01 AM

Hi!

I really love Your mod!

Could You integrate some more european civs?
Hungarian (I found this: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=143879)
for example..... ;)

Wow! Isn't 50 civs enough? I'm still trying to go down the list playing each one for a short game to see the advantages and disadvantages work out.

-Ryan (*ahem)

doompigeon

Nov 02, 2006, 12:53 PM

Knowing me, you've probably already added it... but I'm curious when the mastery victory option which I love oh-so-very-much will make it to sevomod?

Sevo

Nov 02, 2006, 08:06 PM

Arlborn

Nov 03, 2006, 02:39 AM

Mastery was just added.

I'm releasing what will constitute the "final" version of vanilla Sevomod. From here on I'll be working on the Warlords upgrade. Of course, I'll patch up any major problems with the mod that are found, but I won't be adding any "new" content.)
Version 3.3

-Added Mastery Victory mod

-Dropped biplane unit, bazooka, mobile sam
-Modified AI to increase probability of bombardment
-Decreased catapult, trebuchet, cannon, artillery power by 60%
-Added Byzantines Civ, beautifully done by Amra
-Theodora (traits: Seafaring, Scientific)
-Basil (Seafaring, Spiritual)
-Changed Woomera wielder: dropped combat values; worker unit is now invisible to other units instead.
-Deleted building: Raytheon defense systems
-Decreased horse archer withdrawl chance to 25% native (no more > 100% w/drawl)
-Nuclear Submarine, same
-Decreased cost of Fairchild rep., Lockheed Martin
-Decreased cost of nuclear power plant by 35%
-Mohawk archer: increased mov't to 2, strength to 7
-Increased transport capacity of Mi26 to 2
-Barter: Now +20% bread in capital and -30% gold in captial
-Religious Law: Now +1 gold per specialist (and still +1 happy in cities with state religion)
-Grocer now +10% food (in addition to commerce and health bonuses)

Sounds really good!!!! But, when you say yuou dropped the power of the siege units by 60%, you mean the bombardment power or what? That is a lot 0.o, it igive more collateral dmg then if I just suicide then? But I gotta try before say something hehe. And a HAIL for Mastery victory :D Looking forward to see when you will add something in there for the UN! And lovely the change for barter and religious law! twaked a LOT, great becausee the game Im finishing now, I have a big grassland area, so I made almost all my cities as farmers cities lol, I got like 100 specialists! Now imagine the gold Im getting from religious law?? LOL, I had 30000 gold begore starting spaceship and 800 gold +- per turn 0.o, Im sabotageing mansa musa to hell :>> And also bribeing a lot of AIs into wars lol(and even then I may still lose to mansa lol)..Lovely as well the decrease cost of that military wonders! And what you mean about "dropped bazooca, biplane and mobile sam"?? You took off of the game them or decreased their power??? I think bazocca is important to the game 0.o
Ps: It is not released yet is it? xD

Gotta play to see ^^ Annd Im waitnig for WARLORDS VERSION!

KyLu

Nov 03, 2006, 05:52 AM

Hello :) I just want to ask is there a possibility to play as barbarians or (when not) could U make it possible or will it be possible in new "sevolords" wersion ?:)
sorry 4 my english :)

Shigga

Nov 03, 2006, 01:09 PM

Nice Sevo! :)

I hope this will work with multiplayer again :)

Scorpion II

Nov 04, 2006, 09:02 AM

Hi Servo,

First thank you for this great mod. I have enjoyed many hours of play. I am about to start another very long game. Do you expect to have the final vanilla version available soon. Again thank for all your hard work and efforts.

Tunch Khan

Nov 04, 2006, 05:47 PM

Thanks for the great mod. If you get a chance, could you please change the name of the Turkish leader to "Ataturk" instead of "Attaturk". It's a simple typo. Also it's bit funny to see him in archaic costumes, when Ataturk was a 20th Century leader. FDR of even Nappy variations would look more right, but of course it's your artistic choice. Thanks again.

Ben E Gas

Nov 08, 2006, 12:24 PM

discolando27

Nov 08, 2006, 03:04 PM

Ben E Gas

Nov 08, 2006, 03:26 PM

excellent idea.

James009

Nov 08, 2006, 09:54 PM

Hey Sevo,

1) Could you add the 3.3 changelog to the download thread and maybe the changelog thread
2) Could you make a thread about Sevomod ... mods? I can't find any of them.

Also, is Warlords worth getting for an average gamer? I was thinking of getting it ONLY because of the release of Sevomod Warlords version. I guess what I'm asking is Warlords good on its own. My impression was that it just added a few little improvements.

Thanks and Sevomod rules!

War_Lord

Nov 10, 2006, 02:50 AM

I just started playing the new vanilla version 3.3. Can anyone tell me what the 'Mastery Victory' is? How exactly do you win with that victory condition? I couldn't find it explained anywhere.

The only explaination I found was this:
"0) Mastery Victory -- The Mastery Victory condition has been included. Win a more complete victory and play a more challenging game than before!"

Mastery Victory assigned point values to the different things you can do in the game (ie, % land & population, founding and spreading a religion, launching the spaceship, etc). It's a pretty neat idea really. Because of the way it works, the other victories are disabled if you enable mastery. Sevo has a seperate thread that can give you more details here.

solanacea

Nov 11, 2006, 04:34 AM

Has anyone thought of something for counterbattery fire( a technique used for artillery)? I just got through a war novel where a fortified position had artillery brought up against them, but they had had several weeks/days or whatever to setup and properly range test the surrounding area so that when the advancing artillery showed up, they were able to counterfire it and very quickly spank the enemy arty into the ground.. possibly rather then shutting down the strength of arty you could give arty a bonus vs say other arty when it's been stationary for a period of time to simulate this?

Actually, this is quite well simulated in vanilla civ 4: Arty units have to attack, they have a chance to withdraw but they can also be killed (by counterbattery, cavalry charge, ambush, whichever way you imagine). I am advocating a return to vanilla civ rules for catapults and cannons; battleships and a new MRLS/radar arty unit should retain the ranged bombard ability to simulate their massive range. If catapults have a range of a civ-square(probably corresponds to more than 100 miles), tanks should have a 3 civ-square range which would be ridiculous for gameplay.

Remulak

Nov 16, 2006, 12:45 PM

I have just upgraded to 3.3. I had played with an older version for quite a while and was waiting for the final version before upgrading.

I love the changes. A great Mod is now a fantastic Mod.

I bought WArlords, but I am not even loading it until Sevo does his magic.

Isod

Nov 18, 2006, 12:18 PM

Hello,

I've noticed slight unbalance w/ the "Attack I,II,III," promotion line (+ 15% strength, minus 15% defence for all terrain).

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think this promotion was designed to give units an attacking advantage while suffering a defensive penalty. But b/c the overall strength of the unit is so high, the defense penalty doesn't seem to make that much of a difference.

Theoretically, a unit with two of these promotions, should suffer a large defensive penalty, and therefore be easier to kill if left undefended. But b/c their strength is so high, it seems to override the defensive penalty.
I've noticed that the AI will jack up their early naval units (and sometimes land units) with a few of these promotions and this makes them hard to kill. Even a wounded naval unit with "Attack II" requires a strong unit in order to kill it.

I think it would make more sense to change the promotion so it acts only on the offensive, (like the Hypaspist's 50% attack bonuns vs. axeman/ swordsman), to balance it out. This will allow for a truly specialized promotion line.

Maybe I'm losing it, but I really think this isn't doing what it was supposed to do. Something to think about for the Warlords version.

Love the 3.3 changes, Sevo. Thanks for the great playing experience.

Isod

zyphyr

Nov 18, 2006, 01:00 PM

Hello,

I've noticed slight unbalance w/ the "Attack I,II,III," promotion line (+ 15% strength, minus 15% defence for all terrain).

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think this promotion was designed to give units an attacking advantage while suffering a defensive penalty. But b/c the overall strength of the unit is so high, the defense penalty doesn't seem to make that much of a difference.

That promo series was created that way because the game doesn't inherently support a general "only while attacking" bonus. It only supports conditional attack bonuses (attack vs Mounted, attack vs city, etc).

When you attack you get the +15% strength.
When you defend you get the +15% strength and the -15% defense penalty, working out to a net 0%.

This provides the intended effect : an increase in offensive strength without any increase in defensive capabilities. A net defensive penalty is not what was intended - if it was the penalties would be higher than the bonus.

ecc

Nov 19, 2006, 09:21 AM

edit: I'm on dial-up its hopeless. I need a burned copy of v3.3.

LeperColony

Nov 19, 2006, 03:01 PM

That promo series was created that way because the game doesn't inherently support a general "only while attacking" bonus. It only supports conditional attack bonuses (attack vs Mounted, attack vs city, etc).

When you attack you get the +15% strength.
When you defend you get the +15% strength and the -15% defense penalty, working out to a net 0%.

This provides the intended effect : an increase in offensive strength without any increase in defensive capabilities. A net defensive penalty is not what was intended - if it was the penalties would be higher than the bonus.

In that case, do you think there might be room in the promotion system for an even stronger attack bonus with a corresponding decrease in defensive ability?

doompigeon

Nov 20, 2006, 05:20 PM

I'm just... curious... Grocers provide +10 food... which seems... strange... It seems that something like a +10% bonus would be more logical... I'm not ruling out the possibility that there's a patch I haven't downloaded or I did something else wrong... but is this intentional?

Arlborn

Nov 21, 2006, 08:57 AM

Elmar

Nov 21, 2006, 09:08 AM

It supposed to be 10%..Are you with 3.3?

I play with 3.3 and I have the same feature. It's not plus ten percent food but plus ten bread units, which is pretty useful for cities in unprivileged areas.

Basso

Nov 23, 2006, 07:50 AM

Hello and welcome to my first post :)

Well finally i am trying to put together all ideas i had durning those years playing this game wchich could (or couldnt =) ) be useful to use in mod

IDEA 1

There is one thing i do miss in game and this is all kind rocketry weapons (not ICBM), its such a nice thing to use, not too expencive great for attack, i think you are always one step ahead carrying those, it could be carried by some types of land sea or air units or launched form cities etc, and what im thinking about, (its of course rough idea), is to be able to build for example 3 or 2 types of rockets (with different range) on wchich you would be able to install different types of weapons, whether its kind of explosives, or maybye chemical weapons wchich i also do miss in the game. Depends from ideas, those - lets call it short range missles, with explosives or chemical stuff could be carried by land and air units being used in batle etc. Then there could be a mid range mislles ( more expencive o course ) carried by for example sea units only and you could install small nukes, more explosives on it or so, making it more deadly. Well finally there comes ICBM as a global range so we know whats that =) .
so basicly you have to build 2 weapons wchich is rocket + explosive or chemical stuff or whatever idea is, and put it together.How ? well to be honest i havent worked that out so i hope you can =). I belive that those rocketry idea could add a new view, to all warfare in the game , and make it more - well like it is today

I understand that behind this idea comes of course mod balancing etc etc, as well as introducing new stuff to the game, and im aware that it may be completely stupid idea screwing mod up, so all criticism is highly welcome =)

i have couple more ideas - of new, or maybye new stuff which could be used in mod , which i will be posting from time to time, i prefer to write 6 shorter posts than 1 long large and bornig =)

PS sorry for my english , i know it could be better ,all i can is to hope i made myself understood. with that rocketry idea- if not i try to explain that better i promise =)

Sevo

Nov 25, 2006, 02:53 PM

I've posted a new patch from Titi -- he's worked really hard on this one to fix fonts and text mistakes throughout the mod. The patch is on the first page.

Update: My new project (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4630769&postcount=1)

Sevo

Nov 25, 2006, 02:53 PM

I've posted a new patch from Titi -- he's worked really hard on this one to fix fonts and text mistakes throughout the mod. The patch is on the first page.

Also, a personal update: My new project (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4630769&postcount=1)

Titi

Nov 26, 2006, 03:43 AM

The patch also adds a plunder ability to privateers (before the sink galleons or caravels - but only those ships - they loot them for gold!)

Arlborn

Nov 26, 2006, 04:07 AM

The patch also adds a plunder ability to privateers (before the sink galleons or caravels - but only those ships - they loot them for gold!)

Do you have enough ability to convert tihs GREAT mod to Warlords????

Just asking xD

Titi

Nov 27, 2006, 12:59 AM

Do you have enough ability to convert tihs GREAT mod to Warlords????

Just asking xD
I'm afraid Sevo has put the modding requirements level too high for me! Besides I don't have Warlords...
Anyway I think Keldath is not far from having done so already.

puglover

Nov 29, 2006, 04:24 PM

I just played my first game on Sevomod. It was great fun, and I see all the buzz about it was justified. I especially like all the new civs and leaderheads. They even had their own diplo music! Even Firaxis didn't go that far! ;)

Excellent, excellent work. :D

EDIT: Does anyone know how to turn Tech Trading on with Sevomod enabled? I'm not sure how.

rf900

Dec 04, 2006, 08:15 AM

EDIT: Does anyone know how to turn Tech Trading on with Sevomod enabled? I'm not sure how.

If I remember correcty you need to research Guilds to be able to trade tech. I am not sure in which version this was changed, but if you don't like it, it shouldn't be too complicated to modify it.

BergyB24

Dec 07, 2006, 01:11 AM

puglover

Dec 13, 2006, 11:51 AM

If I remember correcty you need to research Guilds to be able to trade tech. I am not sure in which version this was changed, but if you don't like it, it shouldn't be too complicated to modify it.

Thanks. That confused me for a while. :)

Duken

Dec 15, 2006, 12:24 PM

Is there a way to have it randomize the colors of the civs better without picking what civs you want to play against? Hubby and I are playing a game in hotseat with 12 other comp players and there are 4 different shades of green civs and 4 diff shades of red. I know Christmas is not too far away, but that's a little crazy! Other than that we love the Mod! *points and laughs* Seriously I havn't had the problem that bad, but pink next to light red is annoying.

@Sevo:
The mod's great, and the default startup when I play. The one(err, three) things I would like to see would be the option of the top three UN resolutions in the game setup menu. So those of us who detest having to deal with the UN every 5 turns could get the open borders/one currency/no nukes at the start.

BergyB24

Dec 15, 2006, 06:58 PM

The island Hubby is on have 1 other comp civ and they are the exact same shade green and him, so the borders just blend together, even though they are 2 diff civs.

jimmygeo

Dec 16, 2006, 09:07 PM

Are there any maps that are compatible with Sevomod? Maps that have all the extra resources and at least some of the new civs?

jimmygeo

biggamer132

Jan 22, 2007, 01:25 PM

Hey, I'm wondering if there's a map of Earth available with all of the new resources that come with SevoMod.

vicdad999999

Feb 12, 2007, 08:09 PM

Been searching for maps too. Great mod. Thank you.

jimmygeo

Feb 17, 2007, 10:23 AM

Hey! what's gong on with this mod? I can't seem to win. Playing as the Persians at warlord level, I got to 75% of land and pop. in the 1940's, was elected Sec'y Gen. of the UN in the '60's, launched the spaceship in the early '90's and eliminated my last rival in 2003 ... and I STILL haven't won!!! This is a good mod, but it's getting BORING not being able to win and not having anything much to do but wait for a time victory.

jimmygeo

yotta

Feb 17, 2007, 05:31 PM

Hey! what's gong on with this mod? I can't seem to win.
...

jimmygeo

It sounds like you're playing for a "Mastery" win. Check your options. Mastery has some nice features, but unfortunately has no early-out win.

jimmygeo

Feb 19, 2007, 12:21 AM

It sounds like you're playing for a "Mastery" win. Check your options. Mastery has some nice features, but unfortunately has no early-out win.

Thanks. I think I may well be playing 'Mastery'--damn:( I have seen a mastery score on the victory screen, so maybe that's what I'm playing although I didn't want to. How does one select 'regular' victory conditions?

jimmygeo

Titi

Feb 23, 2007, 08:08 AM

How does one select 'regular' victory conditions?
When you start Civ IV, select the fourth line of the first screen (customized game or something like that) and on the following page, uncheck "mastery".

jimmygeo

Feb 23, 2007, 11:14 AM

When you start Civ IV, select the fourth line of the first screen (customized game or something like that) and on the following page, uncheck "mastery".

Thanks, Titi. I'll try this the next game.

jimmygeo

MusX

Mar 19, 2007, 02:37 AM

you definitly should add support for foobar2000. ok winamp is most popular player but the foobar2000 is definitly the best music player!
www.foobar2000.org (http://www.foobar2000.org/)

and of course sevo for warlords should be released ;)

phantom59

May 01, 2007, 05:08 PM

Minmaster

May 06, 2007, 01:49 AM

uhm...i had a defensive pact with another civ and they sneaked attacked me while the pact was active. is this supposed to happen?

purplexus

May 21, 2007, 05:24 PM

ANYONE CARE IF I UPDATE THIS MOD?

Maybe put it into a plug and play format?

Donkey Puncher

May 21, 2007, 11:43 PM

please do so sevo is not coming back and if possible make it warlords comp.the community would be grateful

Titi

May 22, 2007, 01:50 AM

Yes, you're welcome to do so!

Bananadine

Aug 20, 2007, 12:49 AM

Well it's too bad that Sevo is gone because I just read that whole thread before putting in my piece. :) Oh well, it's not such a big deal anyway, and the thread was interesting. So here I will spout off anyway.

I like the mod a lot and the only problem I had with it was with the Mastery victory condition. It's not explained anywhere within the mod, so you have to find out the hard way what it means, which can be unpleasant, especially when you get stuck in the loophole that it opens: Whereas other victory conditions will sweep you out of the game just when you're past your climax, Mastery requires that you finish even if you know you're gonna win. Sure, comebacks are generally possible, but they aren't universally possible; in my one game with SevoMod I struggled to the top of the heap and gained such power that I knew I could stop anybody from building a spaceship or trying to conquer a significant portion of my land; there just was no question. But there were still eighty-some turns left! Maybe it should be like in baseball, where you HAVE to play until time runs out... unless you are winning by a ridiculously high margin, and then you get to stop, instead of having to retire in disgust like I did.

That is all. :)

Scoottr

Sep 08, 2007, 09:44 AM

I installed this patch and my whole Civ4 game stopped working. Anyone else have this problem while having SEvo or does Sevo work with new patch??

Brancaleone

Jan 12, 2008, 04:27 AM

The hungarian leaderhead freezes the game on me. Fun!

:(

Titi

Jan 12, 2008, 04:41 AM

I installed this patch and my whole Civ4 game stopped working. Anyone else have this problem while having SEvo or does Sevo work with new patch??Not sure, but the mod was created when the latest version was 1.68
So it's likely it won't work with 1.74

donkeyimage

Aug 09, 2008, 02:35 PM

uhm...i had a defensive pact with another civ and they sneaked attacked me while the pact was active. is this supposed to happen?

This happened to me too. I think the AI may just be too aggressive, I have been at war about 80 percent of the game and I only started a short one in the beggining of the game... Every civ has made demands from me and when I finally got my relation high enough with a civ to make a defensive pact... they sneak attacked me. Also, I can't make demands for technology or cities because it's turned red, but they can make outrageous demands! Is there a way to unlock them in the diplomacy screen?

Ukilamiback

Mar 02, 2010, 12:33 PM

I don't know if this post will get read as it seems I'm about a year and a half behind.

I just played the mod for the first time last night and I was the Phoenicians and was rockin' with just 5 cities. There was a slight problem though. My capital was having unprecedented growth. Growth that was uncontrollable. I'm at the Renaissance Era and my capital is burgeoning on a population of 30+. I have slavery and have reduced the population time and time again as a means of controlling the population but it doesn't seem to do much. I haven't looked too hard into controlling the population of the city, but it is astronomically high. I've been playin' Civ4(game of the year edition) for the past few years and have been wishing for a city to have a population like this, but now I really find it annoying and useless.

Is this an anomaly? Have others mentioned this? (sorry I didn't really feel like sifting through 11 pages of feedback) Maybe I'm just a noob that doesn't truly know his way around Civ.(probable)

Besides that the mod is great! I feel there was some lack of using other Civ leader heads to create new Civ leaders, but that is merely a footnote within the context of the modpack as a whole. I hope the team that worked on this has fun modding Civ5, when things get there, probably round mid-late 2011.

Thanks Sevomod team.