The Huns for BtS!
v1.1

Leader: Attila
Traits: Aggressive and charismatic
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3295/2830538798_0c63909866.jpg?v=0


UU: Tarkan (replaces horsearcher)
strength: 6
movement: 2
cost: 40
Immune to first strikes
Doesn't receive defensive bonuses
can withdraw from combat (20% chance)
+50% attack vs. catapult
flank attack against catapult, trebuchet
starts with shock
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3035/2830538640_d28879f8ee.jpg?v=0


UB: Hunnic barracks (replaces barracks)
+2 :culture:
+1 experience for mounted units
uses same graphic as mongol ger, therefore no picture

Citylist:
Szeged
Great Bulgar
Pliska
Kutmichevitsa
Veliki Preslav
Madara
Sofia
Plovdiv
Varna
Ruse
Stara Zagora
Pleven
Sliven
Dobrich
Bourgas
Rousse
Shumen
Montana
Vraca
Zalaegerszeg
Haskovo
Kazanlak
Gabrovo
Veliko Tarnovo
Chalons
Rheims
Mainz
Strasbourg
Metz
Cologne
Trier
Worms

All civilopedia entries in! Will support hungarization of civ4 / all new texts (if I haven't forgot one) have been translated to hungarian.

Added white flag fix, for users that see a white flag only. Instructions:
- overwrite the Hun_f.dds in the mods files with Hun_f.dds from white_flag_fix folder; you can then remove the white_flag_fix folder

DOWNLOAD (http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=10815)

Thanks to:
- Ekmek for the animated LH
- strategyonly for the files the flag and the button are based on and for finding that horrible bug
- Aranor for the units the tarkan is based on
- Terror666 for the units' sounds

corresponding thread on the hungarian forum (civ4hun.road2us.com) here (http://civ4hun.road2us.com/uj-civilizaciok-f15/btsa-hun-civilizacio-t81.htm)

nice work again cool3a2! congrats!
újabb szép munka :)

Looks good, but could we have some screenshots? :please:

Leader: Attila
UU: Hun Horse Archer, same as Keshik, replaces Horse Archer
UB: Ger, same as mongol Ger, replaces stable

Because I won't have much time for modding during the next 2 months and magyar mod is still not finished, I think I can not update the mod in near future (this is also the reason why you can't see any screenshots here). So feel free to update the mod if you think. If you want you can post the update here. Feel free to make suggestions, maybe I can go after them later.


I moved what i did to another thread of mine.:p(Future)

Looks good!

1. Rename the Hun Horse Archer as "Tarkan" and make it have +2 strength against cities.

2. Add Bleda the Hun.

3. Make the Unique Building Unique, not Mongol. I recommend Stable (Replaces Barracks and provides +5 exp. for new cavalry units).

I agree that the UB shouldn't be the same as the mongols. Hmm perhaps a version the stables that gave all mounted units created in the city City Raider promotion?

As with the UU, not the same as the mongols either. I imagine a slightly cheaper of the horse archer, little actual change, but supercheap, enabling one the spit out a real barbarian horde.

both those UU and UU change suggestions above sound reasonable.

But simply a cheaper horse (50 hmmr) would just make it a better UU than the Keshik. Cheaper /weaker doesn't make much sense either.
The Numidean gets a melee bonus/starts with Flanking but no ignore terrrain.
Maybe the Huns could have a ignore terrrain and Shock.

How about using the somewhat more Turkish/Hunnic looking Eurasian Horseman as a replacement for the chariot. The art is already included in BTS. Look for ART_DEF_UNIT_HORSEMAN_EURASIAN in XML/Art/CIV4ArtDefines_Unit.xml

I like all these ideas, keep them coming.

1. Rename the Hun Horse Archer as "Tarkan" and make it have +2 strength against cities.

2. Add Bleda the Hun.

3. Make the Unique Building Unique, not Mongol. I recommend Stable (Replaces Barracks and provides +5 exp. for new cavalry units).

:thumbsup: Great leaderhead! Interesting suggestions by medwarth100 and troytheface as well. (I remember the Tarkan from Age of Empires.) The shock promotion seems like a good choice. No need to change the name of the UU building though; Huns and Mongols are related tribes, reportedly.

@Wyz_sub10: are there any plans to include this one in CIV Gold 4.0?

@Wyz_sub10: are there any plans to include this one in CIV Gold 4.0?

Yes, the Huns will be included.

:) Great!!! (I feel a scenario coming on...)

How about a Str 8 Tarkan? It'd essentially be an elephant with 2 moves and no bonus against cavalry, which doesn't require Ivory.

Maybe replacing elephant

I am glad to see that a lot of people show interest for this mod / civ and even make suggestions to improve it. As I said before I haven't much time right now. I think I can start to mod again in march only. But nevertheless I'd like to give some statements. Firstly I have to say you are right about the UU and the UB. It's a bit boring that they are the same like the mongols. I'd never really planed to keep this. It's just that I wanted to finish a first version so that there is something to start with for possible other modders and of course to begin some kind of brain storming. So I thought I use the Mongols stuff for the moment, because they are the closest culture to the Huns. The Hunish leaders are maybe more problematic. The animated leaderhead fits very well to the picture I've choosen for him, although it looks european. Actually I found 3 different pictures of him. One were he looks european, a second in asian look and the first is the one that came with the original version of the mod where you can't decide if he looks european or asian. Since non of us know him personally, it's okay to keep him european, I think. Maybe he could be a bit younger (don't think he was very old when he died) and have dark brown hair. But these are minor problems, maybe somebody has the necessary time and wants to make some changes to the skin. A second leader for the Huns is maybe more difficult. I didn't have the time for reading a lot about Hun leaders, but I think Rua / Ruga / Rugila (maybe we could decide for one version of the name) was more important than Bleda, who wasn't too old when he died. Bleda simply had not enough time to reach something. Although some sources say Buda (part of Budapest) originally got its name from him. But anyway who we would decide for: we have no picture from them. I've already done a search for that some weeks ago, but all I could find was Attila. Ideas?
Lastly maybe we could do some work on the flag. Actually I am not satisfied with one of these two flags. The style of the flags are both okay, but I don't like these colours. You know: brown isn't far away from black, and yellow isn't from white. For me it isn't easy to recognize what the flags show (yeah... my eyes aren't very good, that's right). Don't know how it would look if we change the yellow from the second flag to brown or green...

It is the European Hun Empire Flag.

see third flag down: http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/tr_imp.html#buy

Maybe you can offset the white a bit and add some gray. Even if it makes it historically inaccurate.

Or maybe use a bit darker yellow...

BTW: Connection between Turks and Huns? That's new for me...

Well this looks promising.

I added my attila to the rar that strategyonly posted and made a few xml changes.

I added my attila to the rar that strategyonly posted and made a few xml changes.

Thx for posting and changing the LH i really like the Dark Attila, here i have changed the Flag and button to a darker background (gray), that way you can see the flag better.

Nice to see something is going on here. Hope I can take time for this mod during next days... What I want to do is...
- adding the unit I've mentioned,
- taking a look at the flag; I know strategy already did, but I always thought on darken the yellow a bit
- I will use a horse archer (Tarkan) as UU, a knight seems to be unrealistic to me; in the 7th century, when the hun empire stated to disappear, there were no knights
- I will use an european or maybe middle east unit artstyle; according to most sources Attilas black huns were more turkish than mongol; they may have been mongol when they started their long journey to europe, but they became turkized (if this word exists), this is also why I have requested Attila to be turkish, not asian
- I haven't decided what unit language I will use for the huns; there are two possibilities for me: turkish or hungarian; I guess Romanians would rather like to see turkish :), but according to this source (http://www.federatio.org/mi_bibl/AlfredToth_Hun_Avar.pdf) it might be not so unrealistic and it would sound more unique (at least for those who don't have a Hungarian mod installed)

Nice to see something is going on here. Hope I can take time for this mod during next days... What I want to do is...
- adding the unit I've mentioned,
- taking a look at the flag; I know strategy already did, but I always thought on darken the yellow a bit
- I will use a horse archer (Tarkan) as UU, a knight seems to be unrealistic to me; in the 7th century, when the hun empire stated to disappear, there were no knights
- I will use an european or maybe middle east unit artstyle; according to most sources Attilas black huns were more turkish than mongol; they may have been mongol when they started their long journey to europe, but they became turkized (if this word exists), this is also why I have requested Attila to be turkish, not asian
- I haven't decided what unit language I will use for the huns; there are two possibilities for me: turkish or hungarian; I guess Romanians would rather like to see turkish :), but according to this source (http://www.federatio.org/mi_bibl/AlfredToth_Hun_Avar.pdf) it might be not so unrealistic and it would sound more unique (at least for those who don't have a Hungarian mod installed)

How about letting the UU replace the War Elephant?

Also, there is an existing Turkish horseman available in BTS (see screenshot below), which was used for the Ughyurs in the Warlords Genghis mod. It would definitely do for the "white huns", but I still would prefer a Tarkan with a furry hat.

http://img60.imageshack.us/img60/8830/civ4screenshot0104xj3.th.jpg (http://img60.imageshack.us/my.php?image=civ4screenshot0104xj3.jpg)

How about letting the UU replace the War Elephant?

Also, there is an existing Turkish horseman available in BTS (see screenshot below), which was used for the Ughyurs in the Warlords Genghis mod. It would definitely do for the "white huns", but I still would prefer a Tarkan with a furry hat.

http://img60.imageshack.us/img60/8830/civ4screenshot0104xj3.th.jpg (http://img60.imageshack.us/my.php?image=civ4screenshot0104xj3.jpg)
I like the idea of replacing the War Elephant with another horse unit (Str-8, moves 2, requires horse instead of Elephant... maybe one other bonus... Drill-1 perhaps for the extra first strike?).

Also, I like that unit you have in the picture... I actually haven't seen it before.

Hungarian as the language would be nice and mostly unique, but it might upset Ekmek with all his Turkish theories! :lol:

I like the idea of replacing the War Elephant with another horse unit (Str-8, moves 2, requires horse instead of Elephant... maybe one other bonus... Drill-1 perhaps for the extra first strike?).


yeah this is a great idea.


Hungarian as the language would be nice and mostly unique, but it might upset Ekmek with all his Turkish theories! :lol:

I can live with it...on second thought I can edit the xml myself ;). bytheway where do you do the language stuff?

We'd like to include this in CIV Gold 5.0 when ready.

And yes, Fierabras and I are both "back to work".

of course! I think the huns would b a nice additioin. And I think attila does qualify for the terrible pack :D

yeah this is a great idea.
On replacing the Elephant with a horse-based UU, my suggestions sound good, but you'd also have to consider the Elephant's other "natural" ability which is 50% bonus against horse units... would that carry-over, or be changed to something else?


I can live with it...on second thought I can edit the xml myself ;). bytheway where do you do the language stuff?
Selection sounds are chosen for each civ in the CivlizationInfos.xml... the sounds themselves are defined in the XML "Audio" folder... but you do have to have access to Hungarian language MP3s which isn't default... you'd have to get those sounds out of a custom mod (which do exist).

On replacing the Elephant with a horse-based UU, my suggestions sound good, but you'd also have to consider the Elephant's other "natural" ability which is 50% bonus against horse units... would that carry-over, or be changed to something else?


i don't know. maybe the tarkan should start with some city attack bonuses.:confused:

i don't know. maybe the tarkan should start with some city attack bonuses.:confused:
Well, let's review:

Default Elephant:
Str: 8
Mov: 1
Bonus: 50% vs Horse
Requires: Elephant
Tech: Construction

Hun UU:
Str: 8
Mov: 2
Bonus: CR1 and probably flanking like other horse units
Requires: Horse
Tech: Construction

Is that about right, too much or not enough? If you think it's not enough, I'd add Drill-1, but that might be too much for a UU... I think the above sounds about right.

sounds about right. maybe medic I as well. but you can probably get that if you have a stable.

sounds about right. maybe medic I as well. but you can probably get that if you have a stable.
I don't see "Medic" at all for this unit... doesn't make sense... if you wanted to go that route, you'd have to consider "March", but that's a pretty powerful promotion (essentially a double-promotion on it's own). If you wanted one more promotion, I'd consider Drill with it's extra 1st-strike chance, but I don't see medic at all.

This UU is getting a doubling of the movement, and depending on what you value +50% vs Horse, it's getting CR1 and Flanking in it's place.

Consider the French UU gets a +1 to movement and call it a day for a UU, I think the +1 to movement and the swap-out of 50% vs Horse to getting CR1 and Flanking in it's place is fair enough for a UU... the purpose is to make it slightly better then what it replaces (in this case the Elephant), not a one-unit wrecking crew.

but it might upset Ekmek with all his Turkish theories!
Not necessarily. Hungarian is very similar to Turkish. Same gramatical structure (agglutinating), similar words... There are several people that believe Hungarian is a turkish language, not a finn-ugric.

Why do all users want to replace the war elephant? Then there would be two types of horsearcher, isn't that overrated? Maybe you think elephant units don't fit to the Huns? Who knows what would have happened if they knew elephants? I don't like this idea...

Thank you for your suggestion about the unit, but I think I have a good unit:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2213/2459812610_6aa6a7423d.jpg?v=0
(I thought on the horsearcher unit on the picture of course)
It is based on Aranors Scythian and on an other unit of him and I think it fits very well to Aranors LH.

white huns
AFAIK Attilas huns are the black huns.

I don't see "Medic" at all for this unit... doesn't make sense... if you wanted to go that route, you'd have to consider "March", but that's a pretty powerful promotion (essentially a double-promotion on it's own). If you wanted one more promotion, I'd consider Drill with it's extra 1st-strike chance, but I don't see medic at all.

This UU is getting a doubling of the movement, and depending on what you value +50% vs Horse, it's getting CR1 and Flanking in it's place.

Consider the French UU gets a +1 to movement and call it a day for a UU, I think the +1 to movement and the swap-out of 50% vs Horse to getting CR1 and Flanking in it's place is fair enough for a UU... the purpose is to make it slightly better then what it replaces (in this case the Elephant), not a one-unit wrecking crew.

thats why I said:

sounds about right. maybe medic I as well.


the maybe was because the huns would run around deep in territory with a logistic structure no where near the romans. the medic I would simulate this ability. but that maybe was conditioned on seeing a medic I instead of drill. I don'tthink we need either. your stats look good. but will it cost the same as the elephant?

Why do all users want to replace the war elephant? Then there would be two types of horsearcher, isn't that overrated? Maybe you think elephant units don't fit to the Huns?
1) Because there's already 4,321 UUs that replace the Horse Archer in Civ4, not to mention the Mongols, and having 4,322 UUs that replace the Horse Archer, and have yet-another UU that's just like the Mongol UU wouldn't really feel all that "UUish" or special if everyone else has a special Horse Archer already.

2) The Hunnic Empire is pretty far from any known sources of Elephants... further then Europeans and Turks even!

3) I think only the Khmer have a UU for the Elephant (and it's kinda lame), so making a unique UU for the Hunn based on the Elephant replacement is not a bad idea.

4) A Str-6 horse unit, a Str-8 horse unit and a Str-10 horse unit... for a civ well-known for it's horses, that's really not much different then a Str-4 melee unit, a Str-5 melee unit, a Str-6 melee unit and a Str-8 melee unit.

About the only other thing I would consider here is perhaps actually REVERSING the UU's of the Huns and the Mongols... maybe give the Mongols a horse-based UU replacing the Elephant and give the Huns the Horse Archer as it's UU. That would make the UU of the Huns preceed the UU of the Mongols... kinda like the first horse-borne scourge was the Huns followed by the horse-borne scourge of the Mongols... of course, that would be larger then the scope of this mod, but something I may consider for a total mod like my own Wolfshanze Mod.

For once, I agree with Wolfshanze :lol:

Having an elephant unit would be the greatest idea since...that Mongol UU idea :lol:

For once, I agree with Wolfshanze :lol:
I think that's actually twice you've agreed with me (the other concerning the HRE).

I'll make a mini-wolf of you yet someday! :lol:

Well, but if you have two horse archer units for one civ that isn't UB then as well. On the other hand if the huns wouldn't have decided to travel to the west but to the south it would have been possible that they have elephant based units. This is like in europa universalis I and II, don't know if you know that game. There it was needed to reach a high tech level to build ships / units that can enter unknown areas, but nations with naval traditions (like Portugal) had special units that could do the same without any tech. That gave them an unfair bonus. In this time (15th century) Hungary had a port as well. What if they would decide to invest in navy? Maybe they (or a similar country) would have discouvered America. Who knows? But the game doesn't allows this. For civ4 this will mean the following: if the huns have no access to horse then there will be no tarkan, but other nations that have no horse can build elephant units. This is simply unfair. I also find it boring when there are two horse archer units.

Anyway, here is an other screenshot with the horse archer unit I've already posted and my version of the flag:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3016/2723024529_cf6bffaaaa.jpg?v=0

Well, but if you have two horse archer units for one civ that isn't UB then as well.
Who said they'd get two "horse archer" units?

Do you consider the Elephant a Horse Archer? Do you consider the Knight a Horse Archer? Do you consider the Cuirassier a Horse Archer?

No... they get a Horse Archer and a UU replacement for the Elephant, which will happen to be a horse-unit, like a Knight or Cuirassier is also a horse unit but also not a Horse Archer.

If it were a Horse Archer, it would get the stats of a... well... a Horse Archer... it won't... it will get completely different stats then any other horse archer in the world... in fact, it would get stats similar to, but stronger then that of a War Elephant... or do you consider War Elephants just another Horse Archer?

cool3a2 can you mod units? if you can get the rider from your horse archer picture to replace the knight. it could be skinned to a tarkan. I may try this weekend but my luck with unit modding has been..well bad (probably because I'm so used to LH)

@wolfshanze: So you say using a horse spearman as UB? In my opinion this wouldn't fit. Huns were famous for there Horse archers, not spearmen. We could replace the default horse archer by a horse spearman and make the UB a horse archer. I still don't like this, because it would change the default system of units in civ4 (I mean: Huns would have a horse spearman while others have a horsearcher, this is confusing and ugly, even if the units stats are the same and the only difference is the graphic) and my main point still remains: Huns would depend to much on the horse ressource.
As you said in the leader request thread, Huns disappeared very early in history. So for later units the whole mod will be "what if" based. I don't see any reason why not keeping the same method when it is about the elephants.
If the Huns are too much like the mongols or any other steppe nation, then simply only take one of them for your game. You even disliked the idea of including the huns to civ4, so simply do not install this civ. There still can be a difference between the steppe nations in the UB. I'd rather like to discuss on this topic. I also want to create a vanilla and a warlords version of this mod, so a building is required that works not only for BtS.
If this sounds roughly: sorry. It wasn't meant to be. Thank you very much for the Tegetthoff you have created, wolfshanze, but in this point I have different opinion.

@Ekmek: I tried it recently, but I had no success. I wanted to create a magyar (hungarian) horsearcher for my other mod, but the unit became distorted. But for what you requested Sceneviewer would be enough, I think. Do you only want to use the knight's graphic for the tarkan or do you mean the UU should replace the knight? As I said before, I don't think this is good idea either (sorry guys). At the time knights appeared there were no more huns. I don't say don't let them have a knight, but we should not make a UU out of it. EDIT2: This is more or less important for modding the unit. If the UU should be a horse archer based unit, I only have to replace the horse of my horsearcher with the knights. If it should be a Knight, then I have to replace the rider of the knight graphic with the one of my unit. Same if it should be a horse spearman. I need to know this before I start modding it, because I am too lazy to create 4 different units, one for every case.
EDIT: I can remember I have done something like this, but it looked ugly. The problem were the reins. I'm not sure if I used the knights horse or another one that had reins. Sure, you can remove the reins and I did, but it didn't looked good. Nevertheless I will try it.

IMO a War Elephant replacement makes perfect sense. As mentioned, the Huns were not near sources of elephants. They also were very mobile, something Elephants are not.

Giving them a movement 2 "Elephant" (which happens to be a horse), is fine.

Well, they didn't know elephants, and? They didn't know planes, tanks, nuclear bombs... You don't want to replace one of this, right? Why do you want to replace the elephant? This whole mod is a "what if", well: what if the huns would traveld to south, not to west, and entered and conquered india? If you are not playing a scenario, you won't play on a map representing the earth. In this case simply everything is different from what happened historical. For me there remains the problem that the huns would be in serious problem if they wouldn't have access to horses. What kind of units do remain? Bowman, swordsman and axeman. All of them are very slow units. Never built elephants yet, but I'd say they are faster then foot units and they sincerly have any advantage. In the case of a war this would be a serious disadvantage. Don't know why nobody can see this... Not to mention again that two horse based units for the same civ in the same era would be boring...

EDIT: Okay, I've checked it: it is not faster than foot units, but it is much stronger. If there are no horse and elephant units, the strongest unit is 5 or 6. That's a difference, it is even stronger than horse archers. Elephants are also good against horse units. All this advantages would miss for the huns.

I the the argument is to have it replace something that isnt the Horse Archer. The Mongols (another Central Steppes empire) has a horse archer replacement. That and the fact Attila and Genghis will probably "act" similar. Why include the Huns at all? sounds to me like you have 2 civs that are pretty much identical, except for a few visual differences between the LH, UU, etc.. That to me is more boring than 2 Horse Units in the same age.

I really dont see a problem with having it replace the War Elephant.
The War Elephant is a strong (but slow) unit for its age.
Replacing it with a "Tarkan" with +1 movement, yea you got 2 "horse units" for the age, but they have 2 completly different skillsets. Also the Huns were known for their Horsemanship, why not give them 2 horse units?

Horse Archer can Flank siege
Tarkan will take over cities. (which makes sense to me because isnt that what the Huns did? Weren't they one of the first "Empires" to compete with the Roman Army, conquoring 70 cities of the Eastern Roman Empire?
Its not like the Tarkan will have the Flanking vs Siege like the Horse Archer. All the Huns would be getting is a faster War Elephant.

I can see your concern about not having access to a horse, but I am fine with it. Thats the luck aspect of the game. I can't remember how many times I havent started near a crucial resource. Or in the later game find out my empire that consumes 1/4 of the world, for one reason or another does not have oil. If the Huns dont start near Horses, I am fine with that. Macemen are just as strong and just a few techs after.

but whatever, each his own.

Also concerning the Unique Building Why not make it a "Yurt"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yurt

I can see your concern about not having access to a horse, but I am fine with it. Thats the luck aspect of the game. I can't remember how many times I havent started near a crucial resource. Or in the later game find out my empire that consumes 1/4 of the world, for one reason or another does not have oil. If the Huns dont start near Horses, I am fine with that. Macemen are just as strong and just a few techs after.

but whatever, each his own.

Also concerning the Unique Building Why not make it a "Yurt"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yurt

I was thinking about a unique building. I think (in my mod at least) I'm going to just have the terrain imp Pasture be the graphic for a UB pasture. it will be a stable replacement for the Huns but instead of giving +2 promotion for horse units, I'm going to make it produce 1 horse unit - like how hollywood does. yeah this may lead to a ton of horse unit resources but not sure it will be that unbalancing except giving them permanent access to horses. if too unbalancing i may make it a Unique nation wonder (nothing says those cant have UB replacements). when i get a game going i'll try it out and report back.

who knows how to swap unit stuff from one nif to another. for some reason it doesn't work the same as i do leaderheads. attached is an export of a tarkan i did. i didnt finish skinning (I tried making the spear a torch) but cant get it in game to test. :mad:

I was thinking about a unique building. I think (in my mod at least) I'm going to just have the terrain imp Pasture be the graphic for a UB pasture. it will be a stable replacement for the Huns but instead of giving +2 promotion for horse units, I'm going to make it produce 1 horse unit - like how hollywood does.
This may actually be a cool idea... you don't need horses to build the pasture, it's just your UB, and when you build it, you get the horse resource. This means you will always have access to your UU... and if the Hun UU is the Elephant Replacement (which requires the Horse), you'll have what you need for Horse Archers and the UU (you'd still need Iron for Knights though, so could be deprived of that).

I think it's a good idea.

As for having "too many" horse resources... I don't think that's a problem... think about it this way.

If you want horses, talk to the Hun guy... he always has some to spare (sounds reasonable).

Also, maybe you won't trade them with anybody (why would I allow Civ-X to get horses and turn them against me in the form of horse units?). I usually go all game without ever trading Horses or Iron to anyone just to keep them from getting good stuff to turn against me.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

@Ekmek: maybe I'll take a look at it at the evening (european time, which means then it should be afternoon in the us), but I have a problem with my unit project as well. Interestingly my unit is based on this horsearcher as well... If you are interested in that topic, please read this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=284116).

EDIT: Sometimes Sceneviewer crashes when working on nifs. Usually you only have to open the unit you want to add the parts to and add the other unit the parts are from. Then open the node you want to add the new part to and move the part there by drag'n'drop. If this doesn't work you can try either bone transplantation (see sceneviewer tutorials) which doesn't help for every purpose, or do it via nifskope.

The idea sounds interesting.

Say you give them the "Hun Pasture" Improvement, able to be built on a grassland, then give it a %chance to "discover" a horse resource. Similar to how Mines can "discover" Gems, Gold, Silver, etc...

If fact, you can theoretically call the new Improvement "Yurt", give it the ability to discover horses (as mentioned above), Then the worker has to build a pasture over the Yurt to gain access to it.

Giving them the ability to "discover' vs automatically giving them the resource might help eliminate them having an insane amount of Horse Resources floating around.

I can try it when I get home and report back. Also for what its worth, I recoded Attila. The code for his personality, was making him a peace-lover. If you want that I can upload it.

yeah please post the more aggressive attila

yeah please post the more aggressive attila
If you want a good AI code for Atilla, why not copy the LH code for Montezuma? Seems Monty is well regarded as the biggest crazy war-monger in Civ4.

i think so. i was hoping that maybe someone that knows the personality code could also make him less reckless and more likely to raze cities all the time.

I was thinking of mixing Genghis with Montezuma for personality. Genghis has

<iRazeCityProb>75</iRazeCityProb>

compared to Monty's 50.

75 may be good. may be even 95. It would be interesting to play against a player that if you went to war with and he took your city, you know its gone for good.

Are you kidding? Attila's gotta be a full 100! For aggressiveness, gotta be 100, for production, only military units. This guy has to be the ultimate warmongerer with no other benefits.

sounds good to me :D

Attila Personality (http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=e301b5b7249600731686155677bb2685007c5e59 4f8c0918)

Here is what I have been expiramenting with., The personalities are one thing I have been "studying" alot recently, in preparation of this Leaderhead modpack I have been silently/slowly working on (incidently it uses a number of your LHs). The goal was to get most of the civs up to at least 2/3 leaders per. i.e. adding Francis to HRE, Cleopatra to Egypt, Selassie to Ethiopia, etc.. I sure someone will beat me to the punch. Anyway, I didn't like "copying" the personalities of others. I would prefur to make a truely unique LH.

This was only the first "go round" with Attila, I had to play a few more games vs him to get it right.
(incidently, Attila has a trait called "Tactical", this is a trait I have which gives +25% construction to Siege Units, it was ment to be given to the "general/military minded LH's, like Attila, Tamerlame, Patton, and a few others.)
I included the Chart wth all the leaders in it, so you can compare.
I also included a redone flag (the one you had, was stretched out. I also redid the color combination so it was the same as the button.
Finally I fixed the Pedia entries for a few things.

I hope I didn't overstep my bounds.

bounds? there are no bounds... i'll check it out. thx for the help.

Its the old Flag, dont want to use that one, need the one that Cool has, how about it, cool?
How ya doing on units, i think i have a few to add?

I can always need good units. Till now I always wanted to use the default units of civ4, because we don't know how a hunnic musketeer would look like.

I will upload the flag later, at the moment I have to do some things because I will travel to Hungary on friday. But you will sincerly get it before I will be away.

About Attilas traits... I don't know, but I have a different opinion again. You all draw a babarian picture of him, but the truth is that he lived in the roman empire for a while and knew them very well. He also had good contacts to the western roman empire, at least at the beginning. He wanted to stabilize his empire and make it able to survive in europe. Of course he went into war, but who didn't at this time? He was a strategist, not a bloodthirsty barbarian. AFAIK Attila was also a fan of culture and wanted to copy the roman empire.

Although I find Ekmeks suggestion about the UB interesting, because it would solve the problem with elephant vs. horse based UUs, I don't like the idea giving the Huns endless horses. I wouldn't trate them either (so in this context it wouldn't be an advantage), but I think it is still overrated. I can remember that when I was in war in early times, my first target were always the enemies horse ressource to take them away the chance to start a fast counteroffensive against me. Against the Huns it would be very hard to win a war. This could be interesting, but also disappointing. Finaly I don't think this wouldn't be too realistic. Don't believe the Huns had mass breeding camps for horses. Unfortunately I have no own idea for a UB at the moment, but I will think about it a lot. Damn UBs, it took a lot time till we found one for Hungary...


Please load button and flag from HERE (http://www.adrive.com/public/d3f57f17a14924a190bf431ebffcabb1c1c0f02007cca3709e 652e2f976219bc.html).

I just saw Ekmek's Attila and I can't wait to get the new changes.

Good news: I almost finished this mod. I think I can upload it tomorow. Last thing to do are civilopedia entries and sounds. All I'll need is help with translations / foreign language versions. You'll see when you take a look at the finished version tomorow...

However, I am quite sure that Wolfshanze won't like the mod... Yes, the UU is a horsearcher unit, but I think I gave it some strong and unique properties. Hope the unit is not overrated. UB is a cheaper stable that gives 3 experiences (more then the standart stable, but less then the mongolian). It uses the graphics of the mongolian UB and I called it hunnic stable.
Last thing to mention is, that I spend some time on Ekmeks LH. I changed the background and the light to make Attila less devilish. You'll see...

EDIT: Vanilla version is almost finished as well and warlords' is planned.

so where is it? :D

OK its past the tomorrow now?? LOL I need it for my new mod, if thats ok, thx.

Yeah, I said yesterday... :sad: All civilopedia entries are ready, everything works fine - except the units sounds. You can find the complete description of my problem here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=289847). Unfortunately nobody gave me a hint how to fix this. Since I don't want to upload the mod without the unit sounds I can't say when it is finished. All I can give you are some screenshots. But now I am hungry, so wait an hour.

EDIT: I forgot to download the new leader properties posted in this thread (by fiebras?) and link is already dead. For the moment Attila has the same properties as in my first version of this mod. If anyone has a copy of the new properties, please post it again.
EDIT2: First post is updated with some stats about leader, UU and UB.
EDIT3: Another update to the first post: pictures are up now.

UU: Tarkan (replaces horsearcher)
[QUOTE]Strength: 6
Movement: 3
Cost: 50
1 First Strike
Doesn't receive defensive bonuses
Ignores terrain movement costs
Can withdraw from combat (20% chance)
+50% attack vs. catapult
+50% attack vs. trebuchet
flank attack against catapult and trebuchet
starts with shock, march and blitz

why don't you just move down 1 level instead of playing with this UU. you could also make Attila Imp/Cha or Agg/Cha instead of such an unbalanced UU.

Well, I thought on changing Attilas traits, but since I have bigger problems with this mod then this, I didn't spent much time on it. However, the traits you are suggesting are interesting. But what do you mean with "unbalanced"? Sorry, I can't imagine how a unit can be unbalanced... I wanted a unit that is fast in movement and conquer, is good in close combat and has a minimum of losses. Maybe it is too strong, I've mentioned that some posts above. To be honest: I haven't played that civ yet because I am searching for the cause of that bug I mentioned. However, it would be more of help if you would make suggestions instead of only critize the unit. For example you could suggest to make the unit somewhat cheap instead of very strong. I thought on that as well. Huns would then have an impressive army of horsearcher. That would be possible...

Sorry, if this sounds somewhat harsh, but I am frustated a bit with that bug. I am searching for the reason since two days...

Some UUs have one extra movement point (Musketeer) and that's their only bonus...

Some UUs have one good promotion or two weak promotions (Navy Seal, March or Oromo Warrior, Drill-1 & Drill-2 respectively) and call it a UU.

You gave this unit the equivalent of THREE (or more) UU's bonuses... +1 movement, two strong and one weak promotion... that's rolling three and a half UU's combined into one.

Why not just rename the unit "Superman" or something?

Seriously... compared to other UU's, that's way overpowered... it's supposed to be a small, minor improvement over the default, not an end-all, be-all one man wrecking crew. Panzers don't even have a default movement of three plus Blitz... Blitz isn't even around until the early industrial age, and you're giving an ancient unit three movement points (unheard of until modern times) the blitz and march (plus shock)... simply too much.

Man, Wolfshanze, I already said it is maybe too strong TWO times. But seriously: I have bigger problems then the UU. Have you noticed? There is no download link at all (besides of the old one if I haven't deleted it). So if camarilla doesn't like the UU, it's okay; I just said he should have make suggestions instead of only critizising. I never said this unit is a dogma.

First of all I have to apologize for the following thing: I have accidently based the UU's stats on the Keshiks stats, this was never planned. I have corrected this now. Furthermore I have thought on the UU and this is my new suggestion:
- strength: 6
- movement: 2 (edited)
- cost: 40
- Immune to first strikes
- Doesn't receive defensive bonuses
- can withdraw from combat (20% chance)
- +50% attack vs. catapult
- flank attack against catapult, trebuchet
- starts with shock

Let me explain this a little. I decided for shock because Huns used parthian shot. This tactic allowed them to bring enemy unmounted units in disorder and thus made them an easier target. I decreased the cost of that unit, because horse archers were almost the only unit Huns used and I want to reach that the AI produces a lot of horse archers as well. I increased the movement, because without it the UU would have no advantages against other mounted units and it seemed to be to weak this way.
So, what do you think?

I also thought on the traits camarilla suggested for Attila. The problem is, that Cha conflicts with vanilla (there was no Cha). I also took a look what advantages Cha would bring. It would mainly increase moral, which doesn't fit to Attila. At least I don't know about that Huns were happier when he was the leader then in other times. When I thought this would be a good idea, I thought this would influence foreign politics somehow. This would have fit, because Attila had a talent for negotiations, I think.

EDIT: Or we could decrease movement to 2 (I have recognized that even tanks have only 2 [I think this is really underrated...])

Okay, mod is up. See first post for download link. We can still discuss on the UU. I would post an update if necessary.

Strategyonly offered me further unique unit graphics, but they are asian style. I'd like to use eurasian style graphics, feel free to make suggestions.

I will also post this in the hungarian forum, maybe they have more ideas about problematic stuff.

Man, Wolfshanze, I already said it is maybe too strong TWO times. But seriously: I have bigger problems then the UU. Have you noticed? There is no download link at all (besides of the old one if I haven't deleted it). So if camarilla doesn't like the UU, it's okay; I just said he should have make suggestions instead of only critizising. I never said this unit is a dogma.
No problem... UU's is something I always tweak anyways, but I just thought I'd point out some other examples of UU's... I try and consider other UU's when making/altering my own...

Press on.

DL isnt working for me

No problem... UU's is something I always tweak anyways, but I just thought I'd point out some other examples of UU's... I try and consider other UU's when making/altering my own...
Okay, no problem. I was a bit frustated because of that bug, so maybe I was a bit too harsh.

DL isnt working for me
Really? Hmm... You are the first one that has problems with adrive. I don't know... I could try another server, but I don't really want to. Could you please describe your problem a bit more detailed?

In the hungarian forum they told me they know tarkan as a military rank, not a unit. I only copied that name from this thread without checking this. I will check this now, maybe we have to find a different name.

However, it would be more of help if you would make suggestions instead of only critize the unit. For example you could suggest to make the unit somewhat cheap instead of very strong. I thought on that as well. Huns would then have an impressive army of horsearcher. That would be possible...

sorry, if i've been rude. but it was a reaction not for this one but also for most mods people create
anyway, to be more of help i can say wolfhanze replied just like i shoudl in post 68. so yes i agree it's a superman.
so much boosting of a unit was really unfair.
*it moves 3 (weird and unfair)
*it has march and blitz (these are promotions which are hard to achieve and you give them free??)

if you used even only one of these 3, the unit would still be overpowered and these 3 together is unfair, plus there is also shock.
anyway, let's talk about CHA trait little. i see you are getting CHA trait just with its happy cap. the main adv of this trait is -25% XP for promot. happy cap is the second feature for me.

and let's critice your new UU a bit. your new UU is weak IMO. i know HUNS are horseman guys but i find horse archer UUs weak. bec i don't like the idea of having archery and HBR techs early. so i will try to focus on a different kind of UU.

here are different ideas from me for HUNS:

UU :tarkan (replaces axeman)
property: free city raider 1 promotion (plus normal axeman)

i think this is a very strong unit and also it is not overpowered.

UB: shaman house (replaces courthouse)
property: +1 free priest (plus normal courthose)

HUNS: start with the wheel and mining
And Attila traits: CRE/CHA (this combo is not in BTS, so that's why i chose it. ORG/CHA came into my mind first but it could make Attila overpowered, so that's why CRE/CHA is better)

i believe this combo would have great synergy. early rushing, warmongering and SE is encouraged

Attila is CRE/CHA? WTF?

i think one of Attila's traits MUST BE Aggressive! The other one can be discussed, but I think this one is undisputable...
My second pick would be Charismatic...

Attila is CRE/CHA? WTF?
Well, I think this wouldn't really fit as well. I agree with Kabcsi on the traits. On the other hand people in the western usually think Huns were barbarians. This isn't true either, it's more roman propaganda then reality. Sure, they often were in war, but you can say the same about the Romans. So what I want to say is: please don't use phrases like "WTF" when we talk about this, okay?

Your idea for the UB is interesting, but I am not sure if religion was that important for the Huns. All I have read about the Huns that had something to do with religion, was that Attila was maybe a christian king (believe it or not). I also don't find priests that important in civ4, maybe I have a different style of playing it than you? Where did you get this idea for the UB? Can you serve with a source?

I also thought that mystisicm isn't a good start technology, but your suggestions seem to be very strong (especially mining). On the other hand I can't see how the Huns get their food if not by hunting. Huns were nomads, even when they settled down in europe, they haven't started agriculture or fishing AFAIK. The only way to get food would be raids, but that isn't enough for an empire. So what I want to tell you, is giving them hunting as starting tech. I also don't see what Huns have to do with wheels, but this may be due to may leck of knowledge.

According to the sources I have read, Huns didn't really used other units than horsebased ones. If this is true (well, that isn't necessarily the case, because I made the experience that german sources about Huns are poor; however, I can't serve with a source unless you speak / can read german...), then the UU has to be a horse based one. On the other hand, Huns had a great empire. They needed fast troops and they have simply overrun the Balkan. For these things nothing else then mounted units were needed.
When I play civ4 (always with Hungary), I used to research horsearchers early. That's not a problem. Other civilizations get their UU much later. But you may be right when you say the UU is weak at the moment.

I also think that Huns need a horse-related UU...

I have uploaded the mod to a second server for people that have problems with adrive. Simply use download link 2 from the first post.

Well, I think this wouldn't really fit as well. I agree with Kabcsi on the traits. On the other hand people in the western usually think Huns were barbarians. This isn't true either, it's more roman propaganda then reality. Sure, they often were in war, but you can say the same about the Romans. So what I want to say is: please don't use phrases like "WTF" when we talk about this, okay?

Your idea for the UB is interesting, but I am not sure if religion was that important for the Huns. All I have read about the Huns that had something to do with religion, was that Attila was maybe a christian king (believe it or not). I also don't find priests that important in civ4, maybe I have a different style of playing it than you? Where did you get this idea for the UB? Can you serve with a source?

I also thought that mystisicm isn't a good start technology, but your suggestions seem to be very strong (especially mining). On the other hand I can't see how the Huns get their food if not by hunting. Huns were nomads, even when they settled down in europe, they haven't started agriculture or fishing AFAIK. The only way to get food would be raids, but that isn't enough for an empire. So what I want to tell you, is giving them hunting as starting tech. I also don't see what Huns have to do with wheels, but this may be due to may leck of knowledge.

According to the sources I have read, Huns didn't really used other units than horsebased ones. If this is true (well, that isn't necessarily the case, because I made the experience that german sources about Huns are poor; however, I can't serve with a source unless you speak / can read german...), then the UU has to be a horse based one. On the other hand, Huns had a great empire. They needed fast troops and they have simply overrun the Balkan. For these things nothing else then mounted units were needed.
When I play civ4 (always with Hungary), I used to research horsearchers early. That's not a problem. Other civilizations get their UU much later. But you may be right when you say the UU is weak at the moment.

well. i know about hunnish history very well and agree with you about your issue on the term barbarians.
huns have turkic root and believe in shamanism in that ancient era like most Turks before Islam.

+1 free priest every city is good. this means 1gold, 1 hammer and 3 beakers (with repr) for each city. why i thought of such a UB was for compensating the traits of Attila. i think everyone agree that Attila should have at least 1 warring trait, so as to suit his military skills good. so a UB helping economy could be fine.
if he would have 1 warring trait, then CHA is better than agg. especially if his UU would be a mounted one, CHA is much better ;) if you would give him AGG/CHA, this is a good combo but it is hard about economy in high levels.
if you insist on a mounted UU, then chariot replacements would be better. sth like immortals maybe. a chariot with a free cover promot and a little less cost for ex. what about this?
or a scout replacement with free medic 1 promot? what do you say? it would be strange and useful with CHA, right?

it is your civ but i believe CRE/CHA would be very good for him.

i was very busy while writing my previous message so i will continue now.

Well, I think this wouldn't really fit as well. I agree with Kabcsi on the traits.
i didn't fuss about which trait would suit his characteristics best as there are already some leaders like him in the game. Genghis etc. But if you want to have a different kind of leader than the others (instead of just using Shaka's traits) Cre/Cha is an example.
If you would try to arrange traits about his true historical personality then the traits should certainly be IMP/CHA. IMP because he was a hortizontal expansionist more than a vertical expansionist (EXP) and CHA because he leaded western huns while the eastern huns stayed in Mid Asian flatlands and founded an empire in East Europe. So he leaded a large community (with small seperations from the group only) from Asia to Europe and this proves his leadership skills.

Your idea for the UB is interesting, but I am not sure if religion was that important for the Huns. All I have read about the Huns that had something to do with religion, was that Attila was maybe a christian king (believe it or not). I also don't find priests that important in civ4, maybe I have a different style of playing it than you? Where did you get this idea for the UB? Can you serve with a source?
Yes, you are right. Religion was not that important in Hunnish daily life. So if you are talking about historical fact as being a source, no i don't have.
But as i said earlier, in higher difficulties supporting a large army is very hard so he would need a little help for economy. it would bring 1G,1H (and thus 3 beakers) like an assigned priest. but i was not talking about a permission for assigning priest there.Obelisk has that ability. I was talking about a free priest specialist like Salon gives a free artist.
If you mean a CODING example by saying "source", then you examine the codes of French salon edit it. Russian UB is also similar, giving 2 free scientist.

Similarly, if you want UB to be related with true history, i would suggest a UB helping increase the free supported military units. what about this?
Because all hunnish man were warriors and fighting was common for them. they used to fight much in mid asia with other mongol and turkic tribes, chinese etc. so as they are a mobile and warrior community, some free support military units would be sensible.

* Replaces Barracks
* +2 free military units for each barracks (for coding example, you can look at Feudalism, giving free units)
* -25% war weariness in this city (can be edited from police state or like jail)
* -25% less turns for anger duration after DRAFT in this city (can be edited like Sacrificial Altar)

So this is not a direct gold like a free priest but this will help the player only when he will fight ;) I mean, all 3 give a little INDIRECT help to economy, support your economy only when you are warring. So this encourages warring, right?
You can use all 3 or a combination of 3.
well, i'm just trying to imagine different UB kinds that doesn't exist in the game.

I also thought that mystisicm isn't a good start technology, but your suggestions seem to be very strong (especially mining). On the other hand I can't see how the Huns get their food if not by hunting. Huns were nomads, even when they settled down in europe, they haven't started agriculture or fishing AFAIK. The only way to get food would be raids, but that isn't enough for an empire. So what I want to tell you, is giving them hunting as starting tech. I also don't see what Huns have to do with wheels, but this may be due to may leck of knowledge.
Well, if you all agree on a mounted UB, then starting with "the wheel+agriculture" or "the wheel+hunting" is better.
for a copper related UB, starting with mining would be sensible. and the wheel helps for roading of that resource to capital. you should start searching BR working and settle near that resoruce early. IMP would help much for that.
Similarly for mounted UBS the wheel and one of hunting and agriculture would help for early Animal Husbandry. But i still believe it shoudl be a CHARIOT replacement instead of a horse archer one, if it should be a mounted UB.
If you want to talk according to history again, yes hunting should be the way to go. i'm not sure about the second tech.

According to the sources I have read, Huns didn't really used other units than horsebased ones. If this is true (well, that isn't necessarily the case, because I made the experience that german sources about Huns are poor; however, I can't serve with a source unless you speak / can read german...), then the UU has to be a horse based one. On the other hand, Huns had a great empire. They needed fast troops and they have simply overrun the Balkan. For these things nothing else then mounted units were needed.
When I play civ4 (always with Hungary), I used to research horsearchers early. That's not a problem. Other civilizations get their UU much later. But you may be right when you say the UU is weak at the moment.

as i said you are right. Hunnish warriors were horse archers and horseriding swordsman (not knights, w/o armor)

1 more example from history.
People in Mid Asia have some games played on horses. Turks, Mongols, Afghans etc. Throwing javelins, trying to take away a bunch of thing (dead animal maybe?) from each other while riding.

This gives me an idea of a UB similar to Hippodrome. I mean a UB like following
* Replaces Stable
* Gives +2 Happiness with Horse
etc etc

well, that's enough for now. i shall not post any more until someone replied :)

Oh men, these are a lot of ideas. I am glad to see you take a lot of time thinking about this and share your ideas.

+2 free military units for each barracks (for coding example, you can look at Feudalism, giving free units)
It really sounds like a good idea, but I am not sure if it is that easy. The properties you can give an object depends on what kind of object you are working. In easy words: that I can give +2 free military units to a tech, doesn't necessarily mean that I can do the same with a building or a unit. But it doesn't necessarily mean that it is impossible. I haven't checked this now, so I can't tell you if this is possible only via XML (with Python it should be, but I am an NOOB although I believe I could learn it very fast since I am familiar with C++; AFAIK C++ and Python are very similar).

This gives me an idea of a UB similar to Hippodrome. I mean a UB like following
* Replaces Stable
* Gives +2 Happiness with Horse
That sounds very good to me, althoug I don't know if +2 Happiness with horse is possible. I'll check the Hippodrome if it increases happiness with a certain ressource. If it can, then your suggestion is certainly possible. We could also make it a bit cheaper. If the UU would be a horse related unit, it would have even a stronger effect.

If you mean a CODING example by saying "source"...
Well, I actually meant historical / scientific sources about the Huns. But by telling me about similar buildings, you help me much, too. I don't have all buildings stats in mind (because I haven't checked all and I actually mod civ4 more then I play it, so experience is missing), so this would save me time.

If you want to talk according to history again...
This and your suggestions remind me to a situation we had with the magyar mod not long time ago. At first we had some problems with Hungarys UB as well, so we collected different suggestions what the UB could be. At the end our idea was to boost Hungarys research, because we thought for a that small country Hungary had a high influence on technological progress (I won't go deeper in this topic here, I'll only name some people: Ede [Edward] Teller, János [John] Neumann, Ányos Jedlik, László József Bíró; so if you are interested in this, google for these names). The only idea we had was a unique university, but it didn't really fit since there is nothing special about hungarian universities. I already started to create a 3d modell and almost finished it when a Chem named guy vetoed in the hungarian forum. He said that this UB wouldn't fit to Hungary and suported the idea of the végvár. He also said if somebody doesn't likes this UB (the végvár) then he should play another civ or do whatever he wants. But if we would give the university UB to Hungary the civ wouldn't really be Hungary. I wasn't pleased at first (mostly because I feared my efforts on the 3d modell appeared to be wasted), but after I thought about what he said, I found he was right. However, this isn't a dogma, it is only an opinion. We can discuss on that. If we decide for making this civ like the original Huns, we have little scope, because the Huns died out very early as you all know. Maybe we should agree on this point firstly. If we decide to make this civ like the Huns have been, this doesn't mean necessarily that we should avoid that Huns can build units they didn't knew in reality (this means replace an elefant unit by a horse related UU as proposed). I have made my point of view about this clear previously. So what is the opinion of the community?


EDIT: damn, my post got quite long again :) I shouldn't do that, because people could get too lazy to read it...

I forgot to write one more thing about UU. As I like original and different types of UU/UB, what about this UU?

* Replaces Settlers
* Cost: 240 Hammers (instead of 300)
* Power: 2 (can only defend)
* +100% vs Animals
* +100% vs Melee
* Power: 3 (can only defend) when supplied with HORSE+IRON (I don't know whether this one is possible. but not so critical)

The reason for this; well it is obvious. Huns were nomads. They were half ready to move their houses all time. That's the reason for decreased cost.
And they were also half ready for wars during their journey. Remember, they moved from mid Asia to Europe.


If you like the idea, we can discuss about the combat odds.Your suggestion on Tarkan still seems to much Mongol-ish to me. Just try to do sth different than Mongols.

Off. I've written one more post but accidentally replaced with the previous one. It was shortly about a UB idea on increased power rating.

You know walls increase power rating.
A barracks UB increasing power rating would be cool. Barracks is better bec it doesn't get obsolote.
Increased power rating would effect your chance on getting tech after capturing cities, getting tribute in peace times, chance on capitulization etc etc. And it will discourage AIs to attack.

You can examine the codes of walls about how it effects the power rating. I don't know clearly.

If you would do that you should test it good. Because it should not be too much or too less strong.
Roughly let's say, it should double your chance on getting tribute.

About Huns, well they are famous with their appearance before BC. So univesity seems a late UB for them. An early and militaristic UB seems to fit them better. And as economy is the main drawback of warmongering, a little INDIRECT economy is cool for warmongers. Decreasing war costs or decreasing unhappiness during wars or increasing chance to get tribute. These are ideas coming to my mind.

Huns were not dead after 1BC. They just continued with different and smaller empires. And they got hybrid with local nations by time. Still, most historicians believe today's Magyars and Bulgars are relatives of Western Huns.

Huns were not dead after 1BC.
I am a bit confused now. Of course they didn't disappear after 1BC. Attila died in 453 (AD) only (AFAIK his deathday was on last weekend) and I am actually don't know if Huns already were in europe in 1BC.

Still, most historicians believe today's Magyars ... are relatives of Western Huns.
Well, I have read a lot about Hungarians / Magyars early history. My sources came from different regions: there were english, german and hungarian. My readings show me that your statement isn't right. Most german and official hungarian sources strongly deny that Magyars and Huns are really related. However, "inofficial" hungarian sources try to prove the relation between Huns and Magyars. English sources varying in his point. So I'd call the relation between Huns and Magyars "disputed". I for myself believe the fin-ugric theory is too dogmatic, at the moment it doesn't seem to be clear if Magyars are related to Huns or not.

Your suggestion on Tarkan still seems to much Mongol-ish to me
I know, it's a problem indeed. But I think a horse archer would be the most realistic unique unit. We could make it more unique by giving it unique properties. And Huns wouldn't be the same as Mongols if leader and / or UB would be different although UU is similar.

So univesity seems a late UB for them
It seems to me that my example was confusing. My intention was to give an example for giving a civ a UB that is unrealistic. To do this I described the first UB of Hungary (in the usual sense, in an other word: Magyars [not Huns]), he university that have been replaced later. I didn't want to suggest giving the Huns a university as UB. Sorry, if it sounded this way.

It seems to me that my example was confusing. My intention was to give an example for giving a civ a UB that is unrealistic. To do this I described the first UB of Hungary (in the usual sense, in an other word: Magyars [not Huns]), he university that have been replaced later. I didn't want to suggest giving the Huns a university as UB. Sorry, if it sounded this way.
Yeah yeah, i know what you meant. i just wanted to say an earlier UB is more sensible.
By the way, you didn't comment on my settler UU :)

I am a bit confused now. Of course they didn't disappear after 1BC. Attila died in 453 (AD) only (AFAIK his deathday was on last weekend) and I am actually don't know if Huns already were in europe in 1BC.
yes, you are right. I just talked roughly about dates. By saying before 1BC, I meant about ancient times/classical age. Huns appeared after 1AD in Europe. Near to the decline of Rome.
Attila's tomb is -according to legend- said to be in 1 of the branches of Tuna river. That can be any of tens of branch of Tuna River in Romania. And it is said to be buried with a lot of gold :) Come on, let's go!
Well, I have read a lot about Hungarians / Magyars early history. My sources came from different regions: there were english, german and hungarian. My readings show me that your statement isn't right. Most german and official hungarian sources strongly deny that Magyars and Huns are really related. However, "inofficial" hungarian sources try to prove the relation between Huns and Magyars. English sources varying in his point. So I'd call the relation between Huns and Magyars "disputed". I for myself believe the fin-ugric theory is too dogmatic, at the moment it doesn't seem to be clear if Magyars are related to Huns or not.


Well, some theories can easily be exaggurated by racist historicians, I know about that. And I can't say what I say about Magyars is the truth but by looking at early Hungarian states (the ones earleir than Austria-Hungaria dnasty especially), I can also see too much resemblence to Huns and Avars.

But anyway, forget about Magyar/Bulgar relation with Huns. But let's talk about common knowledge, shortly.
*huns came from Mid Asia. Huns (aka western huns) were a part of Xiognu (aka eastern Hun) dynasty before they moved to Russian flatland.
*Before Xiongnu (aka Eastern Huns), Avars (aka Juan-Juans) ruled mid Asia. Avars are also a Turkic/Mongolian tribe. Avars moved to Europe as well, togetehr with others.
*After Xiongnu; Göktürk, Uyghur and Mongolian empires ruled mid Asia, in order. Besides these larger ones, many other smaller but still large Turko/Mongolian empires existed in mid Asia.

The above 3 is shortly the issue with Eastern Huns. So nowadays' Eastern Turks and Mongols are relatives with Eastern Huns.

*About western Huns, most of them deny their roots but still some call themselves as Turks. Huns were the ones who moved to northwest from Mid Asia.

*There were also many tribes moving every direction. Towards Siberia to North, India to south and/but mainly towards Southwest.

*The large part moving towards southwest was called Oghuz Turks. And many mid age empires mid-east and Persia are Oghuz empires. And nowadays' Oghuz Turks are Turkey, Azeris, Turkmens etc.

more details can be found in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_peoples
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns

The above links seem to support Fin-Ugric theory (in your terms). But sure, each source will have a (at least half) subjective beginning. You cannot find any pure objective source about such early nations. Remember that the history is written by winners, always.

Still, we are lucky that we have some old and true historicians like Herodot.

OK, whatever. I like history. I like searching about any nation's history. I would gladly read any nation's legends if I had enough time.

This gives me an idea of a UB similar to Hippodrome. I mean a UB like following
* Replaces Stable
* Gives +2 Happiness with Horse
I checked this, it should be possible to create an UB like this. Maybe it could also be a little bit cheaper. I'd say this one is a good idea. Just one point: stables need horses anyway, so it isn't needed to give the moral bonus only with access to horses.

Attila's tomb is -according to legend- said to be in 1 of the branches of Tuna river
Didn't you mean the Tisza?

Come on, let's go!
Yeah! AFAIK a hungarian musician is already searching for the tomb. It could be interesting. According to the Gesta Hungarorum the house of Árpád (Hungarys first dynasty) us descended from Attila. The right hand of Szent István, an Árpádian, is still existing. So if Attilas body would have been found, they could examine their genes and find out if their is a relationship between Huns and Magyars and even if Szent István was a great-gret-...-great-grandson of Attila...

By the way, you didn't comment on my settler UU
Sorry. Well, I think it would be really unique, but I don't know if it would be a useful UU. From my experience I'd say it is quite seldom that I capture a settler or that one of mine gets captured. It's more likely to capture a worker than a settler, I think. Well, one could build a horde of settlers as defending units :) Just kidding. So it would be a really unique unit that fits to the Huns, but not very useful - at least not for me or better said for my style of playing civ4.

Allow me another offtopic question: When my parents traveled to Turkey they had a tourist guide who told them Turks speak a fin-ugric language. AFAIK there are approximatly 1500 words that are similar in Turkish and Hungarian and the grammar is also similar. But I never read or heard that Turkish is a fin-ugric language before. So is that position common in Turkey? And do scientisc share it also or is it a popular believe?

I checked this, it should be possible to create an UB like this. Maybe it could also be a little bit cheaper. I'd say this one is a good idea. Just one point: stables need horses anyway, so it isn't needed to give the moral bonus only with access to horses.
Yeah, but stable gets obsolote. so I'm not sure if it would be good although you liked. Still, it could be very good for earlyu game.
Didn't you mean the Tisza?
Well. The river between Romania and Bulgaria, going north to Hungaria and Vien. I didn't know the exact English name. Tuna is the Turkish one.
Sorry. Well, I think it would be really unique, but I don't know if it would be a useful UU. From my experience I'd say it is quite seldom that I capture a settler or that one of mine gets captured. It's more likely to capture a worker than a settler, I think. Well, one could build a horde of settlers as defending units :) Just kidding. So it would be a really unique unit that fits to the Huns, but not very useful - at least not for me or better said for my style of playing civ4.
The main idea was about being able to settle near a far away resource, without any need of escorting. This would be very useful for early game. If you don't have copper nearby, you can go settle near a far away copper and the copper will be yours after sailing, assuming it is far away to build road to capital.
As stronger units require resource (all except archers), this settler would help a lot. Just automove him and he will go settle. Still, he is not overpowered and can be beaten with a long archer or swords or even spears if you are unlucky.
Most warmongers start researching with either BR working or An husbandry.

Giving workers strength, i also thought about. But this would be only to defend them, so it will be useless. Instead, having the chance of settling the 2nd, 3rd cities far away is a very good beginning.

And about using these units for defense, I just guessed, you would make such a joke and I'm right. No! Noone would do that because it will stop growing for long time :)

EDIT: 1q here. Do you play barbarians disabled? And what difficulty do you play on? I was surprised you underestimated the UU. someone can even believe it IS overpowered.

Allow me another offtopic question: When my parents traveled to Turkey they had a tourist guide who told them Turks speak a fin-ugric language. AFAIK there are approximatly 1500 words that are similar in Turkish and Hungarian and the grammar is also similar. But I never read or heard that Turkish is a fin-ugric language before. So is that position common in Turkey? And do scientisc share it also or is it a popular believe?
It's not a so much wide-spread belief. In fact, there are many similar beliefs. Some look sensible and some don't.

Talking about your language example; according to Turkish language social science, our language is considered to be in Ural-Altai language family. But on the other hand, most historicians believe Ugric tribes (living in Inland and North Russia) are of Turkic root and some believe we also have some relation with the Finnish.
Moreover, there are some guys believing some small parts of the Turks have passed the Berring Channel during great migration and therefore mixed their culture with native americans.
Most guys agree Turks are cousins/close relatives with Mongols. And some believe Korean and Japanese people are of Mongolian root.
Because that Turks have dominated the Balkans for many centuries, there are many Turkish words used by Serbs and others as well. But AFAIK, Turks had Hungarian territory for a rather shorter time (1century maybe), so I don't think so many words have remained in that culture. If there are any similar words, it should be because of Magyar's old old relation with Turks. I mean, the relation which might have been in times of Huns, not later Ottomans.

Well, in fact a nation's culture takes effect from religion more than the race it coems from. That's why, it's hard to believe a relation of Magyars with Turks. But I believe there is a relation somehow. And there are also some smaller Turkish cultures believing Christianity as well, who also agree that they are Turks.
Similarly, I believe Georgian and Armenian peoples may have some relation with old Persians maybe but as they are Christian, people would laugh at at this idea.
Most generally, small parts of the tribes sharing different religion than the otehr larger part, generally denies its relation with larger part, by time. And they make wars with the other part. And after centuries passed, this becomes a rule. If we didn't have enough science to tell our today to later generations, I'm sure, people would laugh at the idea that Pakistan and India
come from the same race.

The river between Romania and Bulgaria, going north to Hungaria and Vien.
Then it's the Danube river you are thinking of. I could have think on that earlier since its hungarian name is Duna. However, the Tisza is mentioned as well in this context (that it contains the tomb of Attila).

EDIT: 1q here. Do you play barbarians disabled? And what difficulty do you play on? I was surprised you underestimated the UU. someone can even believe it IS overpowered.
I play with barbarians enabled but on a low difficulty level. So it's easy to build the great wall. From this on you have enough units that aren't needed and can be used to escort settlers. So you can say I am not a very good player. As I said: I am modding civ4 more than I play it. It's possible that I underestimated it.

A stable UB would get obsolete, but i don't think that's a big problem. It gets obsolete in later times only. Other civs have a UB that comes very late, like Germany (they have some kind of factory, if I am informed correctly). They can't use it much longer than the Huns a stable UB.

Would be interesting if others would share their thoughts on camarillas suggestions, too. It appears that we have some kind of dialogue here.

Thank you for your explanations about the turkish point of view :goodjob:

So, nothing is going on here, huh?

In my opinion the UU is okay as it is. As UB I could imagine to give the current UB a moral bonus of 1 and lets say +10% on landunit production. Instead of this we could add these two bonuses to barracks. No matter which, I would change the obsolete property of the UB as none of the UBs seem to become obsolete.

So, nothing is going on here, huh?

In my opinion the UU is okay as it is. As UB I could imagine to give the current UB a moral bonus of 1 and lets say +10% on landunit production. Instead of this we could add these two bonuses to barracks. No matter which, I would change the obsolete property of the UB as none of the UBs seem to become obsolete.

I am pretty certain that the:
Egyptian Obilisk
Ethiopian Stele
Native American Totem Pole
Spanish Citadel
Mongolian Ger

all become obsolete. for its worth, I dont have a problem with UB's becomming obsolete. As long as it makes sense.

Oh, yeah. I only pointed with my mouse on the symbol in the corresponding civilizations civilopedia entry. Then I have missed the red texts... Sorry. So, any suggestions for or opinions on a UB.

Oh, yeah. I only pointed with my mouse on the symbol in the corresponding civilizations civilopedia entry. Then I have missed the red texts... Sorry. So, any suggestions for or opinions on a UB.

you haven't commented on my UB suggestion; UB with a higher power rating

SO as each castle, eaach walls add to your power rating, a UB would add to your power rating; helping you to have a little more effect on otehr AIs, better diplo relations and better disincline skills, better chance of getting tributes etc etc.

Another suggestion is my example about free units. This is the best help to a warmonger. If it is possible, you will multiply number of UBs you have with 2 or 3. So assuming you have 10 cities, you will have 20 free units plus number of free units presented thru civics.

As in civ4, there is no unit belonging to a particular city; each unit belongs to the country. So you will just multiply the number of UBs you will have.


If this number of free units feature only applicable to civics, if they are not applicable to UBs then you can apply this skill to a particular civic, to let it work

For ex: vassalage gives 10 free units (original civic property) + 2 free units times number of UBs you will have. So that property of vassalage will only work for that UB, in this case the HUNS.

And you can apply the same thing to another civic. For example, see the following;

number of UB*2 free units (with vassalege)
number of UB*1 free units (with bureacracy)

I will check if your suggestions can be realized with XML. I will report tomorrow. To be honest: your free unit suggestion sounds very complicated, at least if it includes the current civic. Anyway, I'll check it.

I have checked your suggestion about the free units. Buildings don't have a free-unit-property and I can't see how it could be possible to link a civic with a certain building type, at least not for this purpose. I hope I really understood your suggestion (version B): you thought on giving the UB a variable number of free units and that variable number depends on the current civic, correct? Well, as I said I couldn't find a way how to realize this.

As about your strength suggestion, I can't see a value in the game that represents this. I believe there is something like this internally that tells the AI "Oh, be careful with this guy, he is pretty strong." but I can't see how to influence this (by XML). Maybe there is something like this that I have missed. I will look at this, too, somewhat later.

If you want you can look for this...
... here (http://civ4.wikidot.com/xml:civ4buildinginfos) (buildings properties)
or here (http://civ4.wikidot.com/xml:civ4civicinfos) (civics properties, interesting for your first suggestion). There is an explanation in clear words which property can be influenced and how.

For all users: It would help, if you could format and emphasize your suggestions about the UB (or UU) inside your posts in future. This way it is easier to review them later. A name or a number could also help, so it would be easier to tell you or someone else which idea I was thinking of. It's not needed that you do this for your previous suggestions / posts (if you have any).


EDIT: Got it: iPower is used to calculate the players strength. There are a lot of things having something to do with Power, but in sense of energy (see nuclear power plant), that must be the reason why I missed it. However, with this I could realize your suggestion. The problem is, that I don't know what an adequate value for this property could be. Tomorrow I'll check again if this property can be seen from inside the game, but I don't think so. In this case the player wouldn't see what's the unique on this building. And it could cause the following: what if you have a lot of this UBs, but only few and / or weak units? Your opponent would recognize you as powerful (because he is stupid) and start a war "until it is too late". In this case the higher power rate could be a disadvantage. Don't know if this is a realistic scenario. Maybe it is also a question of the right power value... And what if we could create an adequate power rate for ancient times? Would it be still okay for medieval times or would it be too weak? In this case the UB could loose it's importance very soon. Has anyone tried on this?

If you want you can look for this...
... here (http://civ4.wikidot.com/xml:civ4buildinginfos) (buildings properties)
or here (http://civ4.wikidot.com/xml:civ4civicinfos) (civics properties, interesting for your first suggestion). There is an explanation in clear words which property can be influenced and how.
I know about general philosophy of programming well as I program PLCs, but this is a different kind of programming than the coding that IT guys do. So I don't have much XP on these.
It would be really very enjoyable to be a modder but unfortunately, I don't have any time for this.

EDIT: Got it: iPower is used to calculate the players strength. There are a lot of things having something to do with Power, but in sense of energy (see nuclear power plant), that must be the reason why I missed it. However, with this I could realize your suggestion. The problem is, that I don't know what an adequate value for this property could be. Tomorrow I'll check again if this property can be seen from inside the game, but I don't think so. In this case the player wouldn't see what's the unique on this building. And it could cause the following: what if you have a lot of this UBs, but only few and / or weak units? Your opponent would recognize you as powerful (because he is stupid) and start a war "until it is too late". In this case the higher power rate could be a disadvantage. Don't know if this is a realistic scenario. Maybe it is also a question of the right power value... And what if we could create an adequate power rate for ancient times? Would it be still okay for medieval times or would it be too weak? In this case the UB could loose it's importance very soon. Has anyone tried on this?

Yeah, I'm aware. I also impressed on that it should be tested when I first suggested this.

For testing, you can go into worldbuilder and then build 15-20 citieis in standart size or 50-60cities in huge sizeworld. I think this is the greatest numebr of cities that can be build in those sizes.
After that put that UB in every city and try to see how much it effected.
In order not to make an overpowered and unbalanced UB or not to make a UB with very small effect, it should have been played for a few 10 turns. Faster speeds are good for such trials.
I know these would be long to test and decide about how much the ipower parameter should be boosted. I just assume you are curious about such things and like it and also have the time for these.

Many guys (me as well) build the walls and castles in every city, even if it would never see a war, it would still increase the power rating. Once (maybe half a year ago) I learned that such building increase a parameter helping power rating and discouraging AI (and I learned that it is ipower from you, thanks), after that I started building such buildings in every city.

One more UB suggestion:
* replaces theatre
* free naomiii kwatts every city :crazyeye:

oh no, I think I lost my mind

EDIT: Got it: iPower is used to calculate the players strength. There are a lot of things having something to do with Power, but in sense of energy (see nuclear power plant), that must be the reason why I missed it. However, with this I could realize your suggestion. The problem is, that I don't know what an adequate value for this property could be. Tomorrow I'll check again if this property can be seen from inside the game, but I don't think so. In this case the player wouldn't see what's the unique on this building. And it could cause the following: what if you have a lot of this UBs, but only few and / or weak units? Your opponent would recognize you as powerful (because he is stupid) and start a war "until it is too late". In this case the higher power rate could be a disadvantage. Don't know if this is a realistic scenario. Maybe it is also a question of the right power value... And what if we could create an adequate power rate for ancient times? Would it be still okay for medieval times or would it be too weak? In this case the UB could loose it's importance very soon. Has anyone tried on this?

Regarding the Power question. It really depends on the AI you are fighting. I believe some AI will try to "take you down" if you are indeed "too strong", while others will fear you. So it all depends on the situation.

Anyway to answer your question as to values
of the Non-Wonders
8: Scotland Yard
6: Military Academy
4: Ger
3: Barracks, Citadel, Dun, Ikhanda,
2: Assembly Plant, Castle, Dike, Drydock, Factory, Forge, Industrial Park, Levee, Mint, Stables, Wall
1:Shale Plant, Totem Pole and Trading Post

As you can see. The only buildings with a power rating, are in 1 way or another associated with the Military. All of the "Production" type buildings (Factory Forge, Industrial Park, Drydock, Levee), and their coresponding UB (Mint, Assembly Plant and Dike) are all "2'. I believe they are all "2" because production is basically "liquid" military. More Production in a city = quicker you can pump out a unit.

That leaves buildings that are considered "Military" by nature and UB's that give a little boost to military. All of these give +EXP, or a promotion to Units, thus making them stronger when they are produced.
*note the exception is the Shale Plant, which I am guessing gets a +1 bonus because of its increased production over the Coal Plant.

To Sum Up:
1: Shale Plant, Totem Pole and Trading Post are all UB's, their "normal" version does not have a power ranking. I am guessing this is due to the increased production, exp, or free promotion.
2: Walls & Castle (their UBs get a +1 bonus to "power", the Dun and Citadel) Again the Dun probably got its bonus because of the free promotions, and the citadel because of the extra EXP, and likewise with the Ger (see below)
2: Stables (its UB, the Ger, gets a +2 bonus)
3: Barracks & Ikhanda are both 3. Now because the Ikhanda does not give an extra bonus to anything military related, it does not get a bonus.
6: Military Academy
8: Scotland Yard (I think this is a mistake, The other National Wonders that were military related (Heroic Epic and West Point) are 8's, Scotland Yard was probably an 8 because in pre-BTS it gave the civ the ability to produce spys. It was probably mistaked to bring it down, since now all it does is give a big boost to espionage, which doesn't seem to give any significance to "power". As it shouldnt because espionage should not be known to other civilizations.

The power ratings to me seem to be pretty straight forward. They are a product of the bonus. Not simply the Bonus. If you were to make the Power rating part of the actual bonus, it would have to be significally higher than its base building to justify. So it has the desired effect. Which is "Oh Here comes Atilla, he is really strong, give him what he wants, etc..)

Lastly, on a side note, I made excel "databases" for pretty much all of the XML values, so it was in an easy to read format, for just this instance. i.e. wanting to make a new building, unit, leader, etc... and wanting to compare it to existing items for balance, or whatever reason their may be. In addition, I tried to put all assemble descriptions for all the XML tages, (so I knew what they did). I also tried to test extreme values of these to determine how great of an effect they had on gameplay. If you want them, just let me know and I can send them to you. I know I have files for Buildings, Leaders, Units, Terrain (resources, improvements, etc..) and there is 1 more wich "extras" (specialists, and a few other things)

Thanks for enlighting me, Edgecrusher. I'd really like to have your files. You could send them by pm or, if camarilla is also interested, post them here. I tried it the way camarilla suggested it. I placed 15 cities and the UB (for this test I gave it a 10 as iPower instead of 2) and compared the points displayed above the minimap. Well, it doesn't makes a difference if I have the cities with or without that UB, so I guess this rating has nothing to do with iPower. Unfortunately I couldn't continue this test because the population in all cities starved... and with this the rating got lower. Well, I would have to give them what they want to keep the population constant or even growing. On the other hand this test got useless as we've seen that the rating displayed in the game has nothing to do with iPower.

So, according to what you said, edgecrusher, all these UB you've mentioned have an other advantage, too. Maybe we should give our UB a second bonus, too. So let's say 4 or 5 for iPower (I have totally invented these values, no reason to really use them) plus increasing either moral or culture. If we would take culture the cities radius would grow faster, thus the land controlled by the Huns would grow as well. That would fit, I'd say. But what could it be?

Well, now that you told me all this, I should do some changes to the UB of my magyar mod, too, since it is some kind of castle...

EDIT: I requested a graphic for this mod here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=171898&page=26) already 2 weeks ago. It could be used for the UB, too (but of course not for replacing the palace). Unfortunately nobody answered on this request and it is too hard to do it by my own (although I already did some graphics).

iAsset will increase the points (in the lower right corner)
iPower I get the felling is just there to give the AI a "feel" to how strong you (or other AI's is). and thus because all the mentioned buildings affect the Military, they have a higher iPower. Its not really a "bonus", the way that the Spanish Citadel gives all siege units +5 XP points over a standard Castle. Its more of an effect of the other bonus. Because the Citadel makes the Spanish Military stronger over say the Babylonian. All other things being equal, a 3rd AI will view the Spanish as "stronger" vs the Babylonians and will make adjustments in their foriegn policy accordingly. Weither it be attacking the weaker, giving in to the demands of the stronger, etc...
You, I, or another human can look at enemy cities and make an estimate on their relative strengh. If we see a Barracks, Forge, Walls and Castle in every enemy city, we are going to think. "Holy crap, not only is there alot of defence in that city, but the Barracks will make their units stronger, and forge will make the quicker. They might be a problem".
The AI (I could be way off base here) cannot make that assumption without a "value" assigned to each building. That is all the iPower is.

I dont think you need to change the Vegvar for the Magyar (assuming it is also 2). The Castle/Vegvar would be the same, (because the additional benefits of the Vegvar are science, if I recall correctly). As mentioned, the Citadel's is higher is because the Citadel gives the Spanish +5 EXP to Siege Units.

Also regarding those files. I will zip them, and upload them here when I get home. just so you know. There is alot of "crap" worksheets in the excel files with various notes I have make. I think 1 worksheet was a list of all the art that had been made here. So If I needed something I could see if it was made, then get it. But I stopped updated that a whole ago.

hmm good to know these. posts 100 and 102 were really fine. Thankie...

then if you really want that power rating idea to work, iasset and ipower must be applied together.

it seems a #2 increase of UB according to the repalced building type is what the ger already has. so the UB must have much more boosting than 2. of course this is, if you want to make it the only bonus.
on the otehr hand, giving a small bonus to ipower and iasset (etc. whatever effects how much strong the AI considers you) and giving anotehr bonus else seems a better idea; just like cool3a2 said.

for example: let's say ipower is 5 and so is iasset, with a small bonus.
and plus 1culture, 1 happiness, replacing barracks
hmm did i make it too strong, what do you think? Yes, too strong but existing Huns need it. Because I believe, the traits are bad and UU is also mediocre.

AGG/EXP is -IMO- a very bad combo, when considered alone. And I consider the Ikhanda within the top 5 strongest ones. So I feel, as long as you give Attila AGG/EXP traits, I hardly will agree that the Huns will be as strong as Zulus. If you are sure on AGG/EXP, then UB must be super to compensate it.

I am playing civ4 with my magyar mod only and I used to take Árpád as leader who has AGG/EXP. I don't felt he's weak. Anyways, it's okay for me to take CHA/AGG like Kabcsi suggested.

So maybe we could do the UB as follows:
- +2:culture:
- 4 or 5 for iPower/iAssets (I'd like to take a look on edgecrushers file to make a real suggestion)
- replacement for barracks or stables, like you want it
What we would need, is a name and a civilopedia entry. Is anybody volunteering?


As for the Magyars UB (Végvár), science bonus is small and it is also increases the cities defense. To rebalance it, I made it a bit more expansive than ordinary castles. So what I mean is, that I should give it a higher iPower/iAssets value... But this is a bit offtopic here.

I am playing civ4 with my magyar mod only and I used to take Árpád as leader who has AGG/EXP. I don't felt he's weak. Anyways, it's okay for me to take CHA/AGG like Kabcsi suggested.

So maybe we could do the UB as follows:
- +2:culture:
- 4 or 5 for iPower/iAssets (I'd like to take a look on edgecrushers file to make a real suggestion)
- replacement for barracks or stables, like you want it
What we would need, is a name and a civilopedia entry. Is anybody volunteering?


As for the Magyars UB (Végvár), science bonus is small and it is also increases the cities defense. To rebalance it, I made it a bit more expansive than ordinary castles. So what I mean is, that I should give it a higher iPower/iAssets value... But this is a bit offtopic here.

well. if you would make him AGG/CHA, that would be very good really. then a monument repalcement with extra XP coudl also be fine: like the totem pole UB. CHA gives 1 free happiness and 1 mroe happienss with monument and 1 culture of default monument as well.
A little power rating and XP on new traiend units. That woudl maybe be overpowered already.
If you will adobt a mounetd UU, CHA/IMP is betetr than AGG/CHA.

In the "Huns" mod I made for my own personal use. I made their unique building a "Yurt", as mentioned in a previous post. A Yurt i belive is best described as a portable home for the pastorial nomads in the central steppe in asia. (Mongols, Huns, etc..).

Since the leader of the Huns is a military mind, the UU is strong, I think it would be overkill to give them a building that is also military related. It is making them very one dimentional. Originally I thought the UB should focus on the "Nomadic" aspect of the Huns, make the building the same as the standard version, jsut "cheaper". Also the Huns are an ancient/classical civ, so the UB should appear in the early part of the game. Anyway, long story short. I made the Yurt a repacement for the Barracks, with a +1 Happiness bonus and made it 25% cheaper. My reasoning was
1) A Yurt is a home, Barracks are homes for solders. I didnt want it to replace the Stable because the Mongol's, a similar civ already had that and didnt want to similar of civs.
2) Made it cheaper because Yurts were by design a "quick" home, similar to a Tent. A home a family (or army) could put up relativly quickly.
3) The Happiness Bonus was there balance out the armys conquest. The Huns conquored and then assimilated neighboring tribes. the +1 Happiness will counter the unhappiness attributed to being under foriegn rule that some cities have.

Note because its "cheaper" I didn't make Attila Aggressive. I made him Expansive and Imperialistic (this was in Warlords when the combination wasnt used.) In BTS I made another trait called "Tactical" and made him Imperialistic/Tactical.

I dont feel any bonus should be game breaking, and I also dont think they should be numerous. Most of the buildings have 1 bonus. giving them a whole list just unbalances the game. The bonus should be small. a nice compliment, but not one that if you do not get, your game is ruined.


The File
Link (http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=8852ac34c5100bf9ab1eab3e9fa335ca28837cf4 ff8d52e2)

let me know if you have any questions on how to read it. There is alot of extra "crap" i.e. buildings where art was created that I am not using, although I put some ideas next to them, when I get around to it, to incorporate. etc..

@edgecrusher
"yurt" means "homeland" in Turkish. It's also used as a word meaning buildings with apartments reserved for students and orphaned children etc etc in Turkey. shortly it is always related to settling for sure. it might be possible.

on the otehr hand, a CHA leader already has 2 happiness bonuses in early game, so i don't think 1 more happiness will help so much.

as considering the nomadic property of the Huns, i still think the settler repalcement will be the best candidate for Huns. Of course if higher defense abilities are possible in the game.

granted its wikipedia and I take everything there with a grain of salt.

Yurt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yurt).

It does say that Yurt is turkish for "Dwelling Place" in the sense of a homeland not a specific building, but over time evolved to mean an actual building.

I just couldnt think of anything that screamed "Hun". Anything that one uses would be a stretch, specifically because they didnt leave very many lasting pieces of their culture.
I don't discount a settler option as a UU, I just dont think it would be very valuable. If you gave it 2 strength, then in the early game you just didn't have to escort it. Big deal, you save the use of 1 warrior/archer to be put somewhere else. In fact I would still bring an archer with a settler to be used as a defender, while the city grows. If you really want to use the nomadic aspect, you should just get rid of the settler and give the Huns the Mongol Camp Code to make it "spawn" units. (Archers, Axeman, Settlers, Workers and a Horse Archer) but that would require python code to be included.
That will create a truely unique game playing experience. The Huns wont start with a city. instead they get a unit that will spawn other units in its stead and they are forced to conquor their way. Although still give the camp the ability to spawn settlers. The Huns did produce some cities along the way.
I always wanted to incorporate "the camp" to be attached to certain leaders, make it attached to a trait. Attila of the Huns, Arpad of the Magyars, a pre-Genghis Mongol Leader, and maybe an Aztec/ Pre-columbian. Say if it was attached to Arpad and not Lajos for the Magyars, you have 2 totally different experiences playing the same civ.

hmm i just heard about camp mode, now. not strange for me, as i never played any of the mods.

the settler with 2 defense, plus boost vs animals and boost with copper etc will help you build cities very far away than the capital. very useful for 2nd, 3rd, 4th cities. a very good beginning.
do you want to early rush someone? you can go settle near the strategic resoruce even if it is far.
and I also adviced that settler repalcement to be cheaper than normal settler, making Attila a little quarter Imperialistic. well, it would suit the Huns very well.
similarly, you can go settle near the stone and build early 3 wonders in a cheap way. very good beginning. especially much better for a SE.

and about the UB, well. I don't know much about culture of Huns. But mid Asian Turkic Empires were famous wqith their ancient manuscripts called "Orkhon inscriptions".
Those inscriptions enlightened that age very well.

As Huns have a simialr culture, that might be might be given the name for the Hunnic UB as a monument replacement.

EDIT: the inscriptions consisted of monument like stone columns with writings on them. the original name is "Orhun Yazitlari"
"yazit" in the meaning script

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orkhon_inscriptions

Well, I think CHA/AGG (for BtS version) is really okay. And I also think that the UU should be a mounted unit. As I said before mounted units where the one and only type of unit the Huns knew. The only unmounted units they had in battles came from their vassals. And because of the parthian shot the shock bonus of the current UU fits very well. On the other hand I also don't think that a settler UU would be that useful, although it would be unique.

The UB Edgecrusher suggested, maybe with a culture boost instead of a moral bonus. This way the hunnic territory would also grow faster. Because this would be a military UB, a minimal iAssets/iPower bonus (let's say 1 more than usual baracks) would also fit. A monument doesn't fits that much IMO, because it is not known that the Huns built something like that. It wouldn't be that realistic.

For me this sounds realistic and unique (because of the UB, which wouldn't get obsolete then, the Huns would be even different from the Mongols).

A little thing about the yurt you where talking about before:

Yurt and Ger is the same thing and if the huns had Yurt as UB they would have the same UB as the mongols when it comes to what it is.


Gurra09

Yeah, you are right: the name would be the same. The difference between them could be that the hun version replaces barracks whereas the mongols yurt replaces stables. And the properties would be different. I say "could" because we haven't really decided on that yet. If we decide to replace the barracks, the only thing would be to find another name. Maybe another synonym, or simply "Hunnic yurt" since the Huns also lived in yurts AFAIK.

@cool3a2, ok yurt is still fine. culture is a very good boost.

but i still cannot understand why you don't make the tarkan a replacement of chariot.
if your tarkan had a great boost than HBR+archery could be valuable for reseraching early. but with the following weak UU, i don't think i would reseacrh HBR until elephants. and if i don't have ivory, then i would even wait until guilds. HBR doesn't have anything of value until elephants/knights.
i mean no offense, but really. what is the boost on this UU? i think it is only the decreased cost and the shock.

strength: 6
- movement: 2 (edited)
- cost: 40
- Immune to first strikes
- Doesn't receive defensive bonuses
- can withdraw from combat (20% chance)
- +50% attack vs. catapult
- flank attack against catapult, trebuchet
- starts with shock

honestly, i would really prefer even the simple axes instead of this unit.
at least, it would have the tiel defense and 50%to melee. and it would be free without HBR+archery. you need bronze working for chopping anyway. so why waste early beakers for HBR?