Version 9 is released on August 22, 2008. Please put feedback for this version or any newer version in this thread.

Now that I think of it:

David, there's always a 'runtime' text document and 'unitcount' csv file when I run your mod. I reckon the mod creates and needs these files for keeping tabs on units, but is it possible to let those files be generated within the mod itself instead of in the C:\ drive?

I got sent a message about the new version, but the link to the changelog didn't work: anywhere else it can be found?

The changelog is linked from the first post in the welcome thread. It is at this link (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7168599&postcount=30).

David, there's always a 'runtime' text document and 'unitcount' csv file when I run your mod. I reckon the mod creates and needs these files for keeping tabs on units, but is it possible to let those files be generated within the mod itself instead of in the C:\ drive?

In version 9, the unitcount.csv file is no longer created. I should probably disable the runtime.txt file for release, it is mostly useful during development. But, I am pretty sure some people keep their "program files" directory read-only when playing; so putting it inside the mod area may be worse. The best approach is probably to write this information into the existing civ log files. I could probably figure out how to do that.

Won a Capitol victory as New Australia, at my usual level, Noble. Only the Aquarians founded another capitol, although this could be mostly because I refused to trade Diplomacy with anyone. The Aquarians didn't seem that aggressive about countering the spread of my capitol's advocates, though.
I'm going to start another game as Peter, shoot for something a bit more warmongering.

Won a Capitol victory as New Australia, at my usual level, Noble. Only the Aquarians founded another capitol, although this could be mostly because I refused to trade Diplomacy with anyone. The Aquarians didn't seem that aggressive about countering the spread of my capitol's advocates, though.
I'm going to start another game as Peter, shoot for something a bit more warmongering.

Does it seem easier or harder than the previous version? Because Christoper gets advocates for half cost, it may be easier to get the capitol victory.

I played a bit - only about 100 turns into one game... Not enought to try everything new... But some observations...

* The new pillaging animals are great. For the first time i relly felt like i
need more than one defender per city. They really force to have good defense
(and some spare troops in the cities). I hope the AI does know...

* I noticed a very stupid AI behaviour on workers - i snagged 7 in 100 turns, which is not my personal record, but still pretty good - they don't (they could) retreat even with a hostile military unit (My, and not right after declaring the war) right next to them. I did not notice this on previous versions...
I recon it was a known issue on some BTS versions... Not sure about 3.17... What version is the DLL based upon ?
(In this context - a while ago we had a discussion about AI doing poor in economy - and one theory was it might be die to loss of workers... Had you collected some statistics on this ?)

* Roaming Horses should pop at random (and possible more than once) when
entering the plot. Right now they allways seem to come the first time you
enter.
So enter, kill, send unprotected workers...

* Popped Small Arms from the hut... It would have been 32 turns worth of
research at that point.
Doesn't seem right... Leaning to think, that no tech's
should be popped from Hut's at all.
Maybe replace by "Knowledge of a elder living in the Survivor Village helped our
researchers" (Converted into some :science: for the current tech.)

* Forests should be good for something (I think i might have moaned about this before - sorry if i am repeating it...)
No Chop-:hammers: is fine. But... Maybe +1 :hammers: on the plot from working them (as per normal game)
or/and possible "Hunters Lodge" improvements...

* Cities "Accidentally" built on oil make the ressource invalid ? Or will that pop trucks ?
Maybe a building, that can pop a truck ? Availably only if the city is actually on the oil ?

* How does animal spawn wark ? My impression is - there is a few turns nothing,
then on the same turn a lot of them do pop everywhere... Then again a few turns
nothing... This one i had on my list from my previous games on past versions as well, so it's not just from todays 100 turns...

Feedback from first game of version 09:


I like the reduced movement speed on highways for animals. None of my early units got surprise ganked by wolves, etc coming at me from the fog. My first survivor scouts miss the extra movement bonus from traveling pre-war highway stretches, but the change is logical. Highway speed bonuses for vehicles only is a good change.
Some of the leaderhead art could stand to be improved, but it's coming along. The new leaderhead background images are really great. They enhance the thematic feel. /clap
only had one Deathclaw come into my borders to sack a farm. Was hoping to see more invasive barbarian animals, but it was cool to see this new feature is indeed working. Will see if it is more frequent in next game. Hope so.
enjoying the themed city names. Very cool to control Sing Sing and Alcatraz.
still had a good amount of tanks popping for me, but not so many as before. They were a "bonus" only. Using more and more units that I previously haven't.
got the Tankbuster hero. Thought that was a very cool addition. Look forward to getting some of the others to check them out.
got two cargo trucks (nice!), but the civilpedia entry on the bonus they give could be more specific. I feel like I essentially wasted one of them (food truck), and the other while good I should have used elsewhere (medic truck). First time for me to get either of those, so lack of familiarity with them didn't help.
fuel trucks were perfect with two refineries. I didn't have enough to support vehicles waging war from coast to coast, but I had enough to strike at my closest enemies. This is the first game where I didn't curse about fuel truck spam or even delete a single fuel truck. My first two were used as scouts though. :) /thumbs up on finding the right balance
I like that guardian tech was pushed back a little. Got more use out of crossbowmen than in any previous game although I can see a lucky hut making them obsolete before you even make your first one. Edit: If you can disable small arms tech from being popped via a goody hut it would help keep the starting arms race balanced. Good idea for early game flavor (makes beginning monsters and punks more of a threat, which actually is the fun part of starting a new game).
I didn't miss the early appearing low-tech punks on choppers, I rarely built them myself, but maybe if they had better weapons (souped up machine guns?) they could be reintroduced to a later stage of the game for that touch of savage road punk Mad Max flavor they brought? Edit: Don't even have to change the crossbow graphic. Call them harpoons or ballistas instead :) and up their attack strength
looked like everyone had a pretty good starting position. Nice to start on more even playing fields. In previous version, some starts really hosed my or an AI players chances. Also, preexisting radiation didn't seem as bad this time around. Did I just get lucky?
opened up the world builder and looked at the world map. Cried inside to see two beautiful islands capable of supporting 2-3 cities with untouched goody huts on them. If I hadn't opened the WB though I wouldn't have known they were there. :D
for such a Utopian idealist, Brandi sure is a b!tch. She invariably makes more demands of me than any other civ. This isn't something new to 09, just something that has stood out for awhile now. Why is she such a demanding cow? Of all of the leaders, I think she should be the most peaceful and willing to share a granola bar. Instead, she wants all of your granola bars and your tofurkey sandwich too. Edit: I should have guessed she was based on Catherine the Greatly Annoying. I hated Catherine and her face slapping in vanilla Civ. I very rarely was able to maintain peaceful relations with her, and invariably had to take her out because of all of her demands. The only other leader who was as annoying for me to deal with was Isabella when we followed different religions.
enemy vision spread pretty fast among the AI players. Faster than before. It was incentive to start an earlier war on them than I would have previously. Not necessarily bad, maybe even a strategic enhancement.
UTE graphical upgrades just made cool even cooler
the horse icon is rather unhorse-like. What is that really a picture of?
why no commerce bonus (1 coin) for plots along river edge? I don't think this is new, but something I noticed especially today as I had good river access in most cities
I am confused by wild horses. I thought if you attacked them and won you captured wild horses. These could then be relocated and dropped somewhere within your borders to create a horse resource node. Instead, they just died when I attacked them or defended against them. What is their purpose? Are they just another barbarian creature spawn like any other?

Saturday afternoon, where hast thou gone? I had fun trying v09. Thank you.

Edit: about Refar's comment concerning workers and dumb AI behavior... I was bombarding an AI city and the AI sent out a worker right beside my attack stack. Dumb? In this case, yes.

Does it seem easier or harder than the previous version? Because Christoper gets advocates for half cost, it may be easier to get the capitol victory.

It was actually a bit too easy. The Industrious half of his traits also meant I could, by aiming for Diplomacy from turn 1 and not trading it (or its prereqs, for that matter) get the first Capitol. Sure, I had to kiss Mick's toes every few turns and throw him some gold... but with my influence spreading across the world, it was a small price to pay.

Downloaded v09 but have been too busy to play it through properly yet. One discrepancy, more from a flavour persective than a gameplay/balance one, Education enables you to build Safety *and* Research, but schools are available at Civic Projects?!? I'd be tempted to move School to Education, Safety to Civic Projects and have Archives (+10% Science) at Bureaucracy for the early science boost.

I think the techtree needs a complete revamp - i don't like these mega expensive techs right from the start, nor a single tech giving multiple bonuses (like unlocking multiple civics, terrain imporvements, etc.) - It would be better from the gameplay point of view to have two or 3 cheaper techs instead, making techtree progression more smooth, looking cooler (because a big techtree is just cooler than small one :p) and at the same time retaining the somewhat slow progress (because you would have to tech multiple techs to get the same...)

Brandy AI is certainly weird. She did that in every game i played since 0.7 (not allways to me). And right now she is somewhere across continent (i didn't even know exactly where, before i got city visibility from Vassal) and she does not even like me... Gandhi AI i a guesing... He can be a PITA about demanding/asking stuff as well....
http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/1681/clipboard02xo7.jpg

Brandy AI is certainly weird. She did that in every game i played since 0.7 (not always to me). And right now she is somewhere across continent (i didn't even know exactly where, before i got city visibility from Vassal) and she does not even like me... Gandhi AI i a guessing... He can be a PITA about demanding/asking stuff as well....

In my first game, which I'm still playing, she did this to me as well, and I'm playing Tinker and am not the strongest player, just the one with the most points.

Have a question to ask. Is there any play where I can learn how to change the info on the leaders, what they say, their names and most importantly their city names? This used to be a snap in Civ III. Plus, for a person with almost no graphic skills, how hard is it to create the flags? Any wiki or cheat sheet on this? I ask because I'd like to (for my own use) to use leader names, city names and the like from different SCA (that being Society for Creative Anachronism) Kingdom names for different Civs and then use all the barony & shire names for the cities. Plus I thought it might be cool (if possible at my entry level of experience) to try to make their civ symbol to be the kingdom's coat of arms.

That and I want to change the Aquarian's info. As a neo-pagan, I tend to hate it when non-neo-pagans try to do people liker her up as they tend to over-state certain believes or understate others. Although I like how she's imperialistic since this can make sense. "We cannot allow the world to retraced the steps that led to the Doom of Man(tm)...we will show them a better way...by force if necessary."

Brandy AI is certainly weird. She did that in every game i played since 0.7 (not allways to me). And right now she is somewhere across continent (i didn't even know exactly where, before i got city visibility from Vassal) and she does not even like me... Gandhi AI i a guesing... He can be a PITA about demanding/asking stuff as well....

Catherine, actually. If you look at this link (http://jendaveallen.com/fury-road/leaderheads), you can see which AI is used for which LH. The only change I made was to bump up the "likelihood to vassalize" by 10 points for all the LH except Viktor.

Is there any play where I can learn how to change the info on the leaders, what they say, their names and most importantly their city names?

Plus, for a person with almost no graphic skills, how hard is it to create the flags? Any wiki or cheat sheet on this?

City names are a snap. Please see file Fury Road/Assets/XML/Civillizations/CIV4CivilizationInfos.xml. Edit this in a plain text editor like notepad. Make a backup copy. Then search for the civilization you want to change, such as CIVILIZATION_HOPEVILLE. Under that search for "<City>". The first city is the capitol. All the other cities are listed underneath. There are some civs which have "default" city names. For your purpose, this doesn't make any difference, you can just replace the names like TXT_KEY_CITY_NAME_FOO with My City.

For leader names, see file Fury Road/Assets/XML/Text/FuryRoadLeaders.xml (not .txt). Search for the leader name in upper case like this:

<Tag>TXT_KEY_LEADER_CHRISTOPHER</Tag>
<English>Christopher</English>

You can just change "Christopher" to whatever you want.

For flags, it is a little more involved. I learned from this link (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=150275) with more general references found from this link (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=236836). Depending on how well you can figure out the file structure and use a tool like Photoshop, this may be easy or hard.

That and I want to change the Aquarian's info. As a neo-pagan, I tend to hate it when non-neo-pagans try to do people like her up as they tend to over-state certain believes or understate others. Although I like how she's imperialistic since this can make sense.

That is interesting. Stevie of the Aquarians is one of the few remaining LH *without* any background apart from "hippy" city names. If you could suggest a more detailed background which would be "reasonable" neo-pagan, that would be helpful.

It was actually a bit too easy. The Industrious half of his traits also meant I could, by aiming for Diplomacy from turn 1 and not trading it (or its prereqs, for that matter) get the first Capitol.


I have found that many of the civs start building capitols around turn 180. If I am well on my way to a capitol victory by then, I may be impossible to stop; but by turn 200, say, my percentage is almost always dropping due to the other capitols. What turn was your victory? It may be that "organized" is too powerful, maybe 2/3 cost instead of 1/2 cost for advocates would be better. On the other hand, if you can get similarly easy victories using other traits, the whole capitol victory may need to be adjusted.

* The new pillaging animals are great. [...] I hope the AI does know...

Good point. I have not done anything specifically about that. But I doubt the AI allows barbs/animals to just wander around in friendly territory.

* I noticed a very stupid AI behaviour on workers - i snagged 7 in 100 turns

I know that one of the bullet points about 3.17 was better threat detection for workers. I had not done any side by side comparisons in vanilla, let alone in Fury Road. I assume the DLL I am using is based on 3.17, but I don't know how to tell. I will double check with jeckel. I have not yet collected any statistics about AI workers lost to animals -- that's still on the to-do list.

* Roaming Horses should pop at random (and possible more than once) when entering the plot.

Yes, I was aiming for a predictable effect like "the villagers are hostile!". I was not aiming for a repeating problem, just a one time nasty surprise.

* Popped Small Arms from the hut... It would have been 32 turns worth of research at that point. Doesn't seem right... Leaning to think, that no tech's should be popped from Hut's at all. Maybe replace by "Knowledge of a elder living in the Survivor Village helped our researchers" (Converted into some :science: for the current tech.)

I haven't dug into how goody huts work very much. Maybe Small Arms is too powerful to pop, that is an easy change. I do not think the goody hut can directly give points towards a tech. Of course it can be done by rewriting the goody hut stuff in python instead of using the default engine, but that is more work. If I turn off bGoodyTech for Small Arms, does that help "enough"?


* Forests should be good for something (I think i might have moaned about this before - sorry if i am repeating it...) No Chop-:hammers: is fine. But... Maybe +1 :hammers: on the plot from working them (as per normal game) or/and possible "Hunters Lodge" improvements...

(Still) on the to-do list.

* Cities "Accidentally" built on oil make the ressource invalid ? Or will that pop trucks ? Maybe a building, that can pop a truck ? Availably only if the city is actually on the oil ?

You are right, this is a bug. The code specifically hunts for oil well improvements, and a city on an oil resource doesn't count. It should.

* How does animal spawn wark ? My impression is - there is a few turns nothing, then on the same turn a lot of them do pop everywhere... Then again a few turns nothing...

You may be able to tell how it works if you turn on the "full view" (ctrl-z) before your first turn, on a tiny map. Also the key alt-c produces a one line message with some statistics. At the end of each turn, the code counts how many animals are present. Then it counts how many unowned squares there are and divides by iUnownedTilesPerGameAnimal (GameInfo/CIV4HandicapInfos.xml); this gives the "desired" number of animals. If there are too few animals, they are added. So at the end of turn 1, a full set of animals spawn. Thereafter, in each turn when animals are killed, a few more animals are spawned. So except for the first turn, there should be no "bursts" of animal production.

Fast feedback from first game of version 09:

Thanks for the detailed feedback! It sounds like I have achieved a lot of my goals for tuning things up.

Some of the leaderhead art could stand to be improved, but it's coming along. The new leaderhead background images are really great. They enhance the thematic feel. /clap

This is the first release where I have put in the animated LH by default. I have removed the "least post-apo" LH, but a few of them still look "medieval". I think Tinker is probably the worst now. Which ones do you think could benefit the most from a graphical update?

got two cargo trucks (nice!), but the civilpedia entry on the bonus they give could be more specific. I feel like I essentially wasted one of them (food truck), and the other while good I should have used elsewhere (medic truck).

I'll look into making the civilopedia clearer. The various buildings are listed in the Wonders tab, but maybe the name of the cargo trucks do not link clearly enough to the buildings. The food truck is a good idea, but it's only worth "half a refugee", more or less. Is there some different effect I could give for finding a cache of food?

The horse icon is rather unhorse-like. What is that really a picture of? [...] I am confused by wild horses. I thought if you attacked them and won you captured wild horses. These could then be relocated and dropped somewhere within your borders to create a horse resource node. Instead, they just died when I attacked them or defended against them. What is their purpose? Are they just another barbarian creature spawn like any other?

The icon is a pretty psychotic-looking biting horse. It's kind of a subtle clue that the horses may hurt you on the first encounter. It works just like a goody hut encounter with hostile villagers: the barbarians (horses) pop up, attack you on their turn, and then move away if they survive. After that the horse resource is normal. It's just supposed to be a nasty one time surprise ... Geez! Nothing out here is safe!

why no commerce bonus (1 coin) for plots along river edge? I don't think this is new, but something I noticed especially today as I had good river access in most cities

I should add a motorboat tech to enable trading on rivers and better food yield on coastal plots. That is getting to be the most popular request.

You may be able to tell how it works if you turn on the "full view" (ctrl-z) before your first turn, on a tiny map. Also the key alt-c produces a one line message with some statistics. At the end of each turn, the code counts how many animals are present. Then it counts how many unowned squares there are and divides by iUnownedTilesPerGameAnimal (GameInfo/CIV4HandicapInfos.xml); this gives the "desired" number of animals. If there are too few animals, they are added. So at the end of turn 1, a full set of animals spawn. Thereafter, in each turn when animals are killed, a few more animals are spawned. So except for the first turn, there should be no "bursts" of animal production.I will check using these tools.

WOW!!!!! This is awesome! So far from the original version its scary. The graphics are amazing and really add to the feel.

A couple of notes/suggestions:

Make Copper a requirement to build the Ammunition Factory (brass is copper, tin, and zinc; but mostly copper).

You need a way to scrub fallout, maybe a late game tech that allows that action.

Need UUs for each civ...

I didn't see any chopper units? I thought the barbs had them?

I'm playing "Children of the Fire" and I built my Capitol but I didn't found any Vision. Looking in the Civolopedia, there doesn't seem to be a way to found my Vision.

This does seem to imply that I'm in for a tough time trying to win a Vision victory. :nuke:

UPDATE: I even went into the WorldBuilder and flagged my city with it's already built capitol as having the CoF Vision and it didn't take.

Make Copper a requirement to build the Ammunition Factory (brass is copper, tin, and zinc; but mostly copper).

You need a way to scrub fallout, maybe a late game tech that allows that action.

Need UUs for each civ...

I didn't see any chopper units? I thought the barbs had them?

I agree with this as well as the previous comment about boats being a popular request. Think the 'river port' building from Rise of Mankind mod would be really good.

As for making copper a requirement, I'm not sure. I've pointed out a few times that a lot of this depends on the scale of the game, both in time and in size of units.

If the game scale is short (turns seem to be 1/2 a year? now) and any given unit is small (2-20 vehicles, 50 or so infantry and 30 or so Cavalry) then I think there is plenty of copper left in wires and the like. As most people know these days, there are wires in all sorts of things which metal thieves are stealing from like light pools and the like.

However, I could see this game having a bit of a reverse of the standard game in time in that later game might shift to having longer timed turns to represent that the civilization is getting back on it's feet and is able to start doing more large scale projects that take more time and are field units that are larger. If this is the case, I would think that many of the later units/weapons might have a resource requirement since you've already scavaged up the resources in the early game and now with larger units, you need more natural resources to get by.

I also believe that the food to city size might need to be tweak, if possible to show that for the early part of the game, the way cities would expand would be mostly by refugees coming in, brought in by the lure of safety. I mean if every turn is a 1/2 year, then it takes 30 turns for a baby to go from birth to a 'decent' breeding age of 15 so while food is important to feed a growing population, time constrains how fast your cities are going to grow naturally beyond that of refugees coming in.

Again this probably more work than it's worth, but it might be worth it because it works to help players who are trying to win via a more pacifistic approach. I mean a player who works to grow his culture and build defensive works (since they're not going to focus on aggression) the side-affect is that refugees will hear about their culture due to the culture boast and would want to stay due to the high safety. Thus they would grow faster. The flip side of this would be aggressive cultures would have a bit harder time just cranking out nothing but combat units since they would have small cities.

Once again, I really feel that different paths to victory need to be viable. Obviously in this mod, combat is important, but it seems to me that there should be a penalty for just focusing on combat. I mean even Despots have to worry over time about restless peasants. So, can you keep your empire together long enough to get an army big enough to take the cultured, but safe Civ next door?

I'm playing "Children of the Fire" and I built my Capitol but I didn't found any Vision. Looking in the Civolopedia, there doesn't seem to be a way to found my Vision.

That is odd. It seems to have worked for other players. If you still have the save game, could you go into the capitol (religion) screen and see which capitols exist? There is no specific popup or announcement when you found a relgion. You get a turn of anarchy, and it shows up in the capitol screen. If it's there, then what I need is some kind of popup so it's harder to miss.

If it's not there, I may be able to learn something from the save game. It's also possible you had some funny python error. I assume you don't have python exceptions or logging, so I couldn't investigate that. If a few people report this type of problem, I will investigate more.

I really feel that different paths to victory need to be viable.

I agree. I think most players will have to do something towards a capitol victory, even if it's only defensive. A domination victory is possible, especially if you get a lot of civs capitulating to you. I hope a safety victory is possible, given the new buildings in version 8, but I don't think anybody has tried it yet. If you have some other suggestions about "peaceful victories", it's something we could explore further.

That is odd. It seems to have worked for other players. If you still have the save game, could you go into the capitol (religion) screen and see which capitols exist? There is no specific popup or announcement when you found a relgion. You get a turn of anarchy, and it shows up in the capitol screen. If it's there, then what I need is some kind of popup so it's harder to miss.

If it's not there, I may be able to learn something from the save game. It's also possible you had some funny python error. I assume you don't have python exceptions or logging, so I couldn't investigate that. If a few people report this type of problem, I will investigate more.

I'll check it tomorrow as I've turned off my game machine. However, I built my capitol really early in the game and when it was finished nothing happened. Since I like to play a new version without really reading the changelog a lot (so I can be sort of surprised) I didn't think much of it. Yet much later in the game (about when I was about 1/2 way through the Broadcast of the Wastelands) the Hopeville people created their vision and a few turns later the New Romans did. I went to the religion screen at first and Hopeville was listed as was CoF, but CoF was listed as not having a Capitol. :rolleyes:

If you have some other suggestions about "peaceful victories", it's something we could explore further.

Well FfH has a Defender leader trait that I wouldn't mind seeing. I Cre/Def leader would play like I do, focus on culture and defense until my large cities can really bring me up in having enough of a tech lead that I can go on the offensive with better units.

I just don't like to play aggressive because early in the game that means building mostly combat units. If I wanted to do that, I'd play Command and Conqueror and not Civ. So I think having city growth limited early on shifts focus more on needing refugees to boast up your cities. This fits in with the reality of a post-apocalyptic world as there are lots of survivors (4.5 billion people are hard to kill) but they are spread out and trying to find a place to call home. If given a choice (which slavery Civs/Warlord Civs won't) the refugees would like a place that is safe and has something resembling what they use to have. So the Civs with a higher culture & Safety would reap this benefit which would allow them to grow their cities faster so they could build the defensive works and thus might be able to stave off the AI who is mostly just pumping out UTE's.

I mean sometimes the AI is just crazy. I was just playing a Rise of Mankind game on a randomized Real Earth Map where on AI Civ in what would be China build up an army of about 30-40 units (like 15 catapults) and march them all the way to the Middle East to attack me in Africa. Never mind I doubt in the 'real world' anyone would allow this many troops through their territory, especially since the Civ who did was the 2nd most powerful Civ! So sometimes I think more peaceful Civs are at a disadvantage with the Civ IV AI.

If you have some other suggestions about "peaceful victories", it's something we could explore further.

Well FfH has a Defender leader trait that I wouldn't mind seeing. I Cre/Def leader would play like I do, focus on culture and defense until my large cities can really bring me up in having enough of a tech lead that I can go on the offensive with better units.

I just don't like to play aggressive because early in the game that means building mostly combat units. If I wanted to do that, I'd play Command and Conqueror and not Civ. So I think having city growth limited early on shifts focus more on needing refugees to boast up your cities. This fits in with the reality of a post-apocalyptic world as there are lots of survivors (4.5 billion people are hard to kill) but they are spread out and trying to find a place to call home. If given a choice (which slavery Civs/Warlord Civs won't) the refugees would like a place that is safe and has something resembling what they use to have. So the Civs with a higher culture & Safety would reap this benefit which would allow them to grow their cities faster so they could build the defensive works and thus might be able to stave off the AI who is mostly just pumping out UTE's.

I mean sometimes the AI is just crazy. I was just playing a Rise of Mankind game on a randomized Real Earth Map where on AI Civ in what would be China build up an army of about 30-40 units (like 15 catapults) and march them all the way to the Middle East to attack me in Africa. Never mind I doubt in the 'real world' anyone would allow this many troops through their territory, especially since the Civ who did was the 2nd most powerful Civ! So sometimes I think more peaceful Civs are at a disadvantage with the Civ IV AI. That and I'd like to see the logistics of THAT. Sometimes I think that the game needs a tweak that will allow small level of units through their territory under an open agreement, but won't let large units to transit through to attack another Civ unless that Civ itself is also at war. I mean do you really think US citizens would be okay if Canadian troops where traveling through to attack Mexico and had to forage on the way? :p

I noticed that there are different Utes in the civlopedia and in game, I guess depending on the civ? Or maybe on the promotion (like weapons mount)?

I would change some of them to "Technical" and make them buildable. Give them strength 12 instead of 8 and really differentiate them. Make Utes upgradeable to Technicals instead of having a weapons mount promotion. Then Heavy Technicals with armor instead of armor mount.

I would require buildings to build them like a Garage and Ammo Factory for Technicals, and also a Repair Yard (needs to be added) for Heavy Technicals.

Ute (8 Str) -> Technical (12 Str +50% vs Melee/Crossbow, + 25% vs Utes/Choppers/Cavalry, 1 1st Strike -> Heavy Technical (instead of armor) (16 Str +100% vs Melee/Crossbow +50% vs Utes/Choppers/Cavalry 1 1st Strike)

Also, I would add a cavalry unit with guns after the Ammo Factory is built.

I tried a "capitol sprint" victory using Children of the Fire, 5 players, noble difficulty. This was definitely too easy. I researched administration, agriculture, diplomacy, construction, combustion and then some other stuff which ultimately didn't matter. As soon as I got diplomacy I built the capitol at home, then put both cities to cranking out pairs of utes and advocates. I won on turn 117. I did check the capitol screen after I built the capitol, and my capitol showed up correctly. Apart from animals and barbs, I never fired a shot.

Looks like for version 10, I will stretch out the tech tree and maybe require a second, larger tech to actually get the win. During that time, presumably the other players will build capitols so keeping the capitol percentage high will be harder.

I noticed that there are different Utes in the civlopedia and in game, I guess depending on the civ? Or maybe on the promotion (like weapons mount)?

This is nowhere explained in the game, which is a problem. To answer your question, the different utes are only different artwork based on promotions. If you have "heavy armor" promotion (which requires the Armor tech) then you get a variant art with armor. If you have the "weapon mount" promotion (which requires the Small Arms tech) you get a variant art with mounted machine guns. If you have the "antitank" promotion (which requires Heavy Weapons tech) you get a variant art with a TOW (bazooka like thingie).

The reason for putting such large improvements as promotions is to give the feeling of an elite unit which has been through a lot and can now take on anything.

Also, I would add a cavalry unit with guns after the Ammo Factory is built.

Good idea.

If you want to keep the promotions and Utes they way they are, then I would add or change buildings to grant the promos automatically...because they are really upgrades with equipment not promotions.

Why can't be a promotion be a equipment upgrade ?

I think the notion is, htat these Technical units are kind of scavengers - when they move along defeating enemies they scavenge what they need to improve the truck. This translates in promotions with new equipment.

these Technical units are kind of scavengers - when they move along defeating enemies they scavenge what they need to improve the truck. This translates in promotions with new equipment.

What he said.

Good point

But, they could also be purpose built that way. Perhaps there is a way to do both? You could have another or multiple buildings that grant either the promos or XP to vehicles?

Scrap Yard +5 Hammers, Free Armor promo for Utes
Repair Yard +25% healing (repair) for vehicles, +25% Vehicle Construction, requires Garage and Scrap Yard, Free Weapon Mount promo for Utes
Mechanic (early game) +10% Vehicle Repair, +3 Hammers, leads to Garage
Auto Factory +100% Production of Utes - Found like Depots, etc.

I know you didn't want to add alot more buildings, but I think you should. Stretching out the tech tree would allow that. Probably another thread should be started for that...

Another thought, what about rewards from searching ruins? In addition to survivors in "bunkers", some ruins could contain supplies or weapons. It would need another graphic. Plus, you could use the cargo truck graphic and they have to take it to a town to use it.

Examples would be:

"You find guns and ammo in the ruins" = Free Guardian Unit

"You find food and medicine" = +1 Population and +1 Health

"You find science books" = +250 beakers

"You find an old truck in the ruins" = Free Ute

"You scavenge parts and building supplies" = +100 Hammers

The mod looks great - very different feel from the original game.

However the victory types spoil the fun a bit... I played two games lost both to Vision around turn 200~250 :cry:

It is true that new players may not realize about the capitol (was "vision") victory. There are popups which come at 25% and 50% to warn you about this, and there is information available about the victory in the civilopedia. However, it seems like it is not enough information.

How can the game give you more, relevant information about the victory so that you do not lose by surprise?

Maybe what is really needed is info/tips on how to fight the Vision victory (loss) ?

I myself for example barely build missionaries in my unmodded games - i just let a AI do the work converting me... So while it might seem obvious, that spreading your own vision would help, it might be something some players are unused to do.

Also a pointer about not putting off the Diplomacy tech / capitol for too long might be in order - the way the tech tree is set up now, bypassing Diplomacy might seem the right thing to do with some strategies.

Perhaps including a few of these in the tips that show up while the game is loading, would help ? (It might be just me, but i actually do read these, while waiting for a game to start / savegame to load)

I agree the hints are a key place to get information. The only hint in the game about this so far is:

Beware of enemy advocates converting your cities to support their capitol. Send your own advocates afterwards, to remove their influence.

The key place I want the player to look for information about this is in the civilopedia, Fury Road Concepts tab, item "2. Capitols".

So first question, does that section explain enough? Or is it too long/irrelevant?

Second question, how can I make sure new players read that? Maybe I could change the text in the "25% capitol victory popup", so it specifically points to this section of the civilopedia. Is there a way to put a button into a popup, which specifically brings up that civilopedia entry?

Also, I would add a cavalry unit with guns after the Ammo Factory is built.

I would think that using some basic form of the base Civ IV "Cavalry" unit would work here since they are guys on horses with guns. I would think all that would be needed is to just change the uniform a bit.

Why can't be a promotion be a equipment upgrade ?

I think the notion is, htat these Technical units are kind of scavengers - when they move along defeating enemies they scavenge what they need to improve the truck. This translates in promotions with new equipment.

I totally agree. In regular Civ, you have the full power of a Civ backing up and providing for your army so looting the bodies isn't worth it. In Fury Road, every enemy you kill means more goodies for you. I mean unless you catastrophically destroy an UTE, it's still a gold mine of parts.

In fact, I would think that the mod should be tweaked so units get promotions faster to reflect this or, if it's possible to do it, have certain promotions allowed depending on the unit you killed.

I was thinking about increasing the promotion rate a bit as well. Should be fun, but might need more promotions first.

Second question, how can I make sure new players read that? Well... getting people to actually read the documentation you provide is one of the most difficult tasks...

Maybe I could change the text in the "25% capitol victory popup", so it specifically points to this section of the civilopedia. Is there a way to put a button into a popup, which specifically brings up that civilopedia entry?I dont know how to add a button, but perhaps just a hint to look in the pedia would be enought ?

I was thinking about increasing the promotion rate a bit as well. Should be fun, but might need more promotions first.

Another idea is that in some variants of Civ IV, I've seen that when you've taken a Barbarian city you get a message, "You do not find any technology of interest" that implies that early enough in the game, these barbarians might have a tech that you don't and you'd might steal it. So somewhere there is some game code that allows for gaining technology from taking cities.

While I have said before I don't believe that any event should just give you a technology, perhaps if you take a enemy city and they have a tech you don't, you have a good chance of getting a % scientific boast toward that tech.

Of course that is one function of the game "Europa Universalis" that I wish Civ IV had: if you shared a border with another civilization and they had a tech (say writing) that you didn't have, you'd get a bonus toward developing that tech since people using it are right next door and your traders would be picking up tips in the process. Obviously in Civ IV terms I'm sure you'd need an open border agreement for this to work.

I would think that using some basic form of the base Civ IV "Cavalry" unit would work here since they are guys on horses with guns. I would think all that would be needed is to just change the uniform a bit.

From the art standpoint, I agree. But from the unit role standpoint, I am not sure. A cavalry unit would require small arms, have movement 2, and some strength greater than 12. That exactly describes the jeep, except the jeep also requires gasoline. So we need some way to differentiate the jeep from the cavalry. Any suggestions?

In Fury Road, every enemy you kill means more goodies for you. I mean unless you catastrophically destroy an UTE, it's still a gold mine of parts.

In fact, I would think that the mod should be tweaked so units get promotions faster to reflect this or, if it's possible to do it, have certain promotions allowed depending on the unit you killed.

Regarding the "gold mine", I had an idea a while back about "wrecks". You can see the details at this link (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7051924&postcount=3).

Regarding promotion speed, I have actually made the promotions slightly bigger. For example, Combat I is +15% vs +10%. So after a few promotions, the unit is more powerful. I'd want to undo that, if we lowered the XP required for each level.

There is also a related question which has been debated, about whether to raise or lower the "barb XP cap". There are some votes on either side. In vanilla, and in Fury Road today, if a unit has 10 XP it gets no additional XP from killing barbs or animals.

Making promotions have a little less impact, but have more increments and lower XP cost per promotion might be worth a try.

Overall in Fury Road we have less units than in a normal game, so it would be nice having those somewhat "personalized" - developing a unit via a interesting promotion tree could give a - liiitle bit - rpg level up feeling.

On the XP cap from barbs i somehow have mixed feelings...

I had lucky Survivor killing his 3-rd deathclaw while already at 10XP... On such a unit i wish the cap wouldn't exist - after all killing a deathklaw is by no means easy for a survivor unit, at it should make him cooler.

Then again there are "military" line of units... for those most barbs are a easy pushover... so i wouldnt want them to milk barbs for XP...

Unless we can have different XP caps for different units (AFAIK we can not) i am in favor of keeping the XP cap.

From the art standpoint, I agree. But from the unit role standpoint, I am not sure. A cavalry unit would require small arms, have movement 2, and some strength greater than 12. That exactly describes the jeep, except the jeep also requires gasoline. So we need some way to differentiate the jeep from the cavalry. Any suggestions?

Well I just did too big posts on road and railroads and in it I point out that today's science shows that after a post-Apocalyptic event, most roads are unusable in 20 years (i.e. at the beginning of the game) and even major highways are gone by 50 (turn 120).

So I think that, as discussed previously, cavalry is pretty easy to create since horses occur 'naturally' and since after the Apocalypse, a lot of the areas that are still habitable will be rural areas where you'd have a lot of horses available. Plus, since the game is 20 years after the fact, you'd have more interest in acquiring/breeding them.

Personally, I don't think that horses should be a resource in that unless you have a horse resource you can't build them. This isn't 4000 BC: you find horses all over these days. Instead I think these tweaks should be needed instead.
* Stable: Needed to represent all the cost associated with caring, housing and training of horses for combat. Farm horses do instantly become war horses without training.
* Pasture: While I don't believe you have to have horses as a resource, I think that since horses eat every day, that there should be a limit on how many you can have. Say perhaps for every pasture you build, you can have 2-3 Cavalry units. Then the pasture represents just that, land that exists only to feed horses. So cities in food poor areas might not be able to afford the loss of food and thus couldn't create Cav units.

The flip side of this would have to be another issue that has been bandied about and that is since roads suck and running around off-road really is hard on vehicles, that UTE's and Jeeps and the like should either take a modicum of 'damage' for traveling off road or they should have a chance to break down and would require a mechanic unit to fix them before they could move again. (This gives another reason for railroads: quickly move your mech units to the battle zone and they'll be 'fresher' than those that had to travel there under their own power). So while Jeeps are superior in combat power to Cavalry, one might want more Cav units if you want to build units that can travel through bad terrain without danger of breaking down or needing oil, not to mention being able to build them very early on.

From the art standpoint, I agree. But from the unit role standpoint, I am not sure. A cavalry unit would require small arms, have movement 2, and some strength greater than 12. That exactly describes the jeep, except the jeep also requires gasoline. So we need some way to differentiate the jeep from the cavalry. Any suggestions?

I think you need more rock paper scissors type bonuses, as well as perhaps lowering "melee" cavalry to 9 or 10 and then making "gun" cavalry 12-13.

But I was thinking, that gun units should have free 1st strikes, and that Vehicles should have bonuses against foot and horse units. That would be due to the protection offered by the vehicle, plus they can run over them.

From a unit standpoint, it would be silly not to have "gun" cavalry since that means guys on horses for some reason eschew the use of guns. Thats not just stupid its suicidal. From a game perspective and real life perspective, horses offer advantages over vehicles. 1) They don't require fuel 2) As mentioned by Arkham in relation to roads they can go places vehicles can't.

Perhaps Utes and Jeeps are penalized off road unless they have off road promotion (or 4 Wheel Drive) thus making "gun" cavalry useful. Or especially usefull to civs with no oil...

Honestly, I would get rid of the Jeep and have an upgunned Ute or SUV instead. I'm not sure where the Jeeps would come from in the real world, so it always seemed a little off to me. I would also up their strength to 16.

I think you need more rock paper scissors type bonuses, as well as perhaps lowering "melee" cavalry to 9 or 10 and then making "gun" cavalry 12-13.

But I was thinking, that gun units should have free 1st strikes, and that Vehicles should have bonuses against foot and horse units. That would be due to the protection offered by the vehicle, plus they can run over them.

Another thing to think of is that in the American Civil War, Cavalry was used mostly as recon and destroying stuff behind enemy lines. When they went into serious combat, they dismounted and fought like traditional infantry. So really Cavalry is just the first 'mech infantry' so yes I agree the idea of guys running around on horses with sabers or lances when the infantry they're attacking having shotguns and the like is silly. The horses are transports; Cavalry are not Knights.

I mean the reason you'd have Cavalry is that while they're more expensive that infantry (horses eat too) they have the speed advantage over 'straight leg' infantry. Once a Civ gets enough infrastructure to crank out reliable vehicles (gas/oil/steam - it doesn't matter) then the only reason you'd need Cavalry for is to get through certain terrain.

I mean after 20-40 years, trying to drive a vehicle through a forest should be impossible without roads.

Several people have commented that the jeep, being open, should have lower strength than the ute. I think the humvee unit works well for the "top of the food chain" in buildable vehicles. I guess I need to rethink the jeep, ute, and rifle cavalry "mid range" of the vehicle chain.

Several people have commented that the jeep, being open, should have lower strength than the UTE. I think the humvee unit works well for the "top of the food chain" in buildable vehicles. I guess I need to rethink the jeep, ute, and rifle cavalry "mid range" of the vehicle chain.

Yeah, but what is a Jeep these days. I've commented before, the Jeep shown in the graphic is from WW II and there just aren't that many around. I mean they're older than VW bugs! For the most part I see them representing SUV's while the UTE's represent trucks. While trucks can have enclosures as well, SUV's are generally built that way from scratch and thus tougher.

As for Humvee's, while they are FANTASTIC as an off-road vehicle, their gas consumption makes them a marginal unit at best. You'd be better off finding a 5-ton or even better the older 2.5 ton truck still found in Guard Armories since while bigger vehicles, they actually get better gas mileage, haul more and after 9-11 are getting retrofitted with armor.

What about armored buses and large vehicles like dump trucks and tractor trailers? Unusual but they probably would exist (there was one in the Road Warrior). Maybe as National Units? It might require higher end tech to produce one.

You could modify they like Utes, but have multiple weapon mounts and even transport Infantry

Which leads to another thought: Couldn't Utes, SUVs (Jeeps), etc transport one foot infantry?

In the Toyota War (Chad vs Libya) troops piled into toyota pickups and rolled out to war. In Somalia the technicals (military name for Utes) frequently have a squad of infantry riding on them...

What about armored buses and large vehicles like dump trucks and tractor trailers? Unusual but they probably would exist (there was one in the Road Warrior). Maybe as National Units? It might require higher end tech to produce one.

You could modify they like Utes, but have multiple weapon mounts and even transport Infantry

Which leads to another thought: Couldn't Utes, SUVs (Jeeps), etc transport one foot infantry?

In the Toyota War (Chad vs Libya) troops piled into toyota pickups and rolled out to war. In Somalia the technicals (military name for Utes) frequently have a squad of infantry riding on them...

Well I've posted pictures on this thread of my time in Afghanistan where the main vehicle of the army is an LTV which is basically a technical.

As this mods resident steampunk pest, I've pointed out that steam engines are easy to make and when easy to use if the fuel is propane. Even if it is an older engine using something like wood or coal, using a big vehicle like a tractor or dump truck becomes viable.

As for transport, from what the mod creator says, while land transport is an option in Civ IV, most modders don't use it because the AI isn't smart enough to use it and it gives the human player too much power. After running in with 4-5 BTR's with 2 infantry in them apiece that can attack on the turn after they dismount just demolish the AI, I understand that reasoning.

This is playtest feedback, sort of, but it's about Fall From Heaven. If you read all my posts, you know I had been avoiding playing FFH because I was afraid it would be a big time sink. Well, in the US this is a three day weekend and I decided to download it and start playing.

Boy, it will be a huge time sink. I love how each civ will give a completely different play experience. So far I've tried Grigori (thanks for the recommendation, jabie!) and Sheaim.

As Sheaim, I crushed one neighbor but the rest of the map was blocked by Clan of Embers, so I kept Open Borders with him in order to reach the remaining player, Malakim. I was busy working away on him when I suddenly lost! It seems that CoE had been sending a bunch of missionaries and all my cities had converted to Fellowship of Leaves. Since between me and CoE we had more than 80% of the population, he won a religious victory.

I found it amusing that as a new player of FFH, I had an unexpected religious loss. So it's not "just" Rury Road that has this problem. I have done a few things to make fighting back possible in Fury Road because I have gotten a few complaints, but FFH can do the same thing.

I will just go back like 100 turns in my save games, found my own religion, and make sure to convert all my cities. I can't stop his missionaries because I need the open borders to reach the other player; but at least he won't get above 80% this way.

I have put warning popups into Fury Road, but I could have used them in FFH as well.

This is playtest feedback, sort of, but it's about Fall From Heaven. If you read all my posts, you know I had been avoiding playing FFH because I was afraid it would be a big time sink. Well, in the US this is a three day weekend and I decided to download it and start playing.

Boy, it will be a huge time sink.

Welcome to my world. I would be interested to know how you feel, after playing FfH a bit more about my idea of switching the Armageddon Counter (AC) to something like a Cultural Counter (CC or what ever it would be called) to represent the 'light of civilization' coming back on. So when Civ's do 'bad' things (raze cities, enact slavery, perhaps start using blood/death sports as entertainment) the counter would go down and perhaps this would provide certain advantages to certain Visions and give disadvantages to others. I mean it's okay if Hopeville is pushing for A Better Tomorrow(tm) and the Gaians...uhm, I mean Aquarians are pushing to rebuild Earth. However, it would be harder to convince people of the possibility of this Vision coming to pass when the bulk of the other Civ's are burning, looting, taking slaves, and feeding people to the lions for fun and entertainment.

On the other hand, if the CC is high, it would work the other way around. As cultural levels go up and people feel like the Period of Darkness is ending, Civs who do 'bad' things would be looked down upon as only barely a step up from the roving barbarians.

Plus as I've said, perhaps certain buildings could only be build if the CC was at a certain level to show that until that point, it wasn't safe enough to enact them. Of course, it might be that the CC would apply only to your civilization. Thus what ever course you take, up or down the CC ladder, would open or close certain doors.

Plus, taking the time to build cultural things to raise the CC might be another way players who want to go the less martial route might use to help hinder the aggressive Civs. Of course the danger in that is if that aggressive Civ comes in and burns down a lot of your stuff, the CC would take an enormous hit and then you'd be the one in trouble!

Oh, in deference to Refar, I'm not saying that this would turn Fury Road into a good versus evil battle. I'm just stating that this counter would represent that actions most civilized nations would consider 'bad' would lower the counter and those that would be considered 'good' would raise the counter. However, these are hard times that require hard choices. Can your civilization survive if you cling to the morals and laws of a modern world?

On the other hand, if the CC is high, it would work the other way around. As cultural levels go up and people feel like the Period of Darkness is ending, Civs who do 'bad' things would be looked down upon as only barely a step up from the roving barbarians.

Another use for this CC might be the idea of eras. As has been posted before, unlike eras based on Ancient, Classical, Medieval and the like, you would have Era of Survival, Era of Restoration, Era of Rebirth or something like that. I would think that these era's could be trigger once the CC goes past a certain point for a certain amount of turns. So say the CC goes past 50 and stays there for a year, this would then trigger the new era. However, you could also have a 'special' era screen showing "Dark Age" or something to show that if the CC suddenly goes down past that era's threshold for maybe 2 years, then you revert back to the previous era.

So maybe you'd have.
Age of Tyrants - Did I mention that I'm anointed by God and not fully mortal?
Age of Despots - I love it when they say, "We who are about to die salute you!"
Age of Warlords - Hmm, laws are for sissies
Age of Survival - Basic start of the game with CC at 0
Age of Rebirth - Things getting better
Age of Restoration - Things getting a lot better
Age of Civilization - Good times are here to stay

To bad that there isn't the old Civ III graphics that had your leader's outfit change with the era's. It would be fun designing Fury Road versions of outfits for these eras.

[QUOTE=arkham4269;7182982]I mean the reason you'd have Cavalry is that while they're more expensive that infantry (horses eat too) they have the speed advantage over 'straight leg' infantry. Once a Civ gets enough infrastructure to crank out reliable vehicles (gas/oil/steam - it doesn't matter) then the only reason you'd need Cavalry for is to get through certain terrain.QUOTE]

You could show this by giving Calvary low attack (say 7-9) and give them the off-road promotion (which is already in the game) at the start. This would show the fact that they have the advantage on rough turain.

Another use for this CC might be the idea of eras. As has been posted before, unlike eras based on Ancient, Classical, Medieval and the like, you would have Era of Survival, Era of Restoration, Era of Rebirth or something like that. I would think that these era's could be trigger once the CC goes past a certain point for a certain amount of turns. So say the CC goes past 50 and stays there for a year, this would then trigger the new era. However, you could also have a 'special' era screen showing "Dark Age" or something to show that if the CC suddenly goes down past that era's threshold for maybe 2 years, then you revert back to the previous era.

The "positive" side of the Culture, or maybe "Safety" counter, is the effect that eras have in vanilla. I haven't spent much time yet investigating the three new tech trees that have been submitted for Fury Road (sorry guys!) but when I revamp it, I will definitely include eras. We have the technology to mix non-ruined buildings into the city and village graphics, so switching eras would show graphically how much progress you are making in rebuilding.

The "negative" side is an interesting idea which I have not seen done before. Basically, if you try, you can push civilization "further down" by introducing slavery, torture, etc. Some AI LH could try to do this by default.

I guess there is no reason we can't use the idea of eras for that also; it would be a weirdly shaped tech tree, but it may be possible. In vanilla, we can put the eras in an obvious order: ancient classical medieval renaissance modern future. You start at ancient, and then the game keeps track of moving you "up" in eras. If you started at medieval, say, it should be possible with python to push you "down" into classical.

Combine this with enough variety in the city building nifs, and you could get a cool graphical "look". I'll try out switching eras along with reviewing the tech trees.

I guess there is no reason we can't use the idea of eras for that also; it would be a weirdly shaped tech tree, but it may be possible. In vanilla, we can put the eras in an obvious order: ancient classical medieval renaissance modern future. You start at ancient, and then the game keeps track of moving you "up" in eras. If you started at medieval, say, it should be possible with python to push you "down" into classical.

I'd be the first to admit I don't know how going to a different era affects the game other than a change in graphics of certain units. However, that being said, since the scale of time of Fury Road is only 100 years, I would think that the Eras shouldn't be based on technology since it's how you use it is going to affect the overall safety level of the game. I mean does it really matter (except in severity) if you are pillaging and plundering using cavalry or the "latest" in bio-diesel Humvees with armor? The net result is destruction.

I'm still thinking that certain eras might cause advantages or disadvantages for certain Visions as well as maybe giving bonuses for certain types of buildings. I mean if the CC is high, your bloodsport arenas will still give happiness in your cities, but might increase the negative feeling other more 'civilized' Civ's have toward you. Plus I would think as the CC went up, your citizens would demand more stuff. In Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, the Civ Morgan Industries had a big bonus in production but the flip side was that their people wanted lots of creature comforts. While that was shown more with the civics, it might be added tweaked here.

Plus, I don't know, maybe depending on which civic you switching to may affect your anarchy time depending on the CC. If the CC is high and you're switching to a "lower" civic, your people probably wouldn't like it.

I remember reading posts saying that moving down eras was impossible or at least non-trivial (perhaps because the necessary update methodes in the sdk do not work in reverse.)

Aside from the obvious things like unit / city art (i.e. on cities it might be cool to gradually replace the ruines with somewhat more habitable building as the game progresses) the ERA do also affect certain AI bonuses (AI getting more bonus as the game progresses)

Davidlallen while on the subject of eras you may want to note how adopting a religions effect the cities and surrounding improvements in FFH. They do this by linking your adopted religion with the era code. This could be useful in your mod in some way...

Maybe the scale shouldn't just be 100 years? What would a civilization that "starts over" and has different experiences develop? Without the usual government restructions and in a more desperate environment?

100 years is a bit arbitrary, so it probably soed not need to be "exactly 100". But i think at any rate the sclae should remain short... Going back to like 10 Years per turn would feel off in a "future age" game.

I haven't dug into how goody huts work very much. Maybe Small Arms is too powerful to pop, that is an easy change. I do not think the goody hut can directly give points towards a tech. Of course it can be done by rewriting the goody hut stuff in python instead of using the default engine, but that is more work. If I turn off bGoodyTech for Small Arms, does that help "enough"?


FFH2 Fall Further has this mechanics, you can try to look there.
It's much more balanced.

100 years is a bit arbitrary, so it probably soed not need to be "exactly 100". But i think at any rate the sclae should remain short... Going back to like 10 Years per turn would feel off in a "future age" game.

I was thinking to keep the same turn scale, but make the endgame open. Thus allowing more techs and more advanced tech growth...

Speaking of Small Arms, one thing bothers me about the game. When you defeat a gun unit, how come you don't pick up their guns? I mean would you say to yourself, well thats a mighty nice gun and it kills people from a distance, but I think I'll leave it lying on the ground and stick with my machete.

Shouldn't survivors wielding machetes who are lucky enough to defeat a gun unit pick up their weapons to use? Or other units collect guns to give to them?

Also, shouldn't you be able to upgrade survivors and crossbowmen to gun units once you can build them?

Another suggestion; add in the food from animals modcomp. It also allows you to get hammers from units as well. That way you could scavenge stuff from animals, barbs, and enemy units.

Possibly add in the ability to capture vehicles through combat. If you had a running Ute and you killed the crew and only damaged the Ute without destroying it, wouldn't you haul it back to be repaired?

When you defeat a gun unit, how come you don't pick up their guns? [...] Possibly add in the ability to capture vehicles through combat.

The issue with capturing guns is tracking ammo. In version 9, there is an ammo factory building which is required to construct a gun unit. If you capture guns but don't have small arms yourself, you would have no way to resupply them.

Limited ammo is a possibility, but one of the original design goals was to require some micromanagement for fuel trucks first, and then if people still had interest in micromanaging ammo, I could add that second. Maybe it is time to explore that. How inconvenient do you find it to micromanage fuel trucks? If you had to similarly micromanage ammo, would that make the game less fun?

There are a few cases where a unit could upgrade by capturing weapons. If you have an ammo factory, and your survivor defeats a guardian, an upgrade could be possible. Survivors upgrade to guardian. But if a cavalry defeats a machine gunner, where there is no upgrade path, it should not be possible to upgrade.

With some additional complexity, I could create a promotion which represents the machine guns, and the winning cavalry unit could carry the promotion around and transfer it. Then you might be able to upgrade a survivor unit in the same plot with this machine-gun-carrying cavalry. There are already examples of promos that can be carried and transferred that way; the promotion "drops" in the plot where the combat happened, so if you kill one unit in a stack of defenders, the remaining defenders get the drop.

I had proposed a mechanism for "wrecks" of vehicles in this post (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7051924&postcount=3). It is on the list of things to do.

As usual, the hard part for either of these enhancements is getting the AI to use them effectively.

Actually, my feeling is, that MM-ing ammo might add a lot more to the gameplay than Fuel... For example because there would be units like Crssbows, that do not require ammo - so limited ammo on Firearms would actually allow these units to coexist.

I think the current solution for AI fuel truck use is acceptable as well (tho there is still space for improvement), so adding the ammo concept wouldnt cripple the AI too bad.

Another possibility would be not to split up fuel and ammo, but to use a single concept "Supplies" instead. (This probably would require to add supply counters to Trucks - so rearming a single Guardina does not use up a whole truck)...

The issue with capturing guns is tracking ammo. In version 9, there is an ammo factory building which is required to construct a gun unit. If you capture guns but don't have small arms yourself, you would have no way to resupply them.

More to the point, just because you have an ammo plant, you can't be sure that every Civ has decided to build the same type of ammo. I would think (don't quote me here, I'm speaking w/o full knowledge) it would be a long time before you could build ammo (other than shotguns) that would really work well with a lot of the modern weapons. So Civ's are going to back up a bit and use earlier guns. Now the question is would the go back as far as the late flintlocks used in the ACW or would they start with guns equivalent to the Lee Enfield or Mauser? Either way, different Civs might choose different calibers. One Civ might go the .303 route, another the .45 route.

So even if you grab the weapons and have ammo for you own weapons, you can't be sure they'd fit your opponents weapons.

Another possibility would be not to split up fuel and ammo, but to use a single concept "Supplies" instead. (This probably would require to add supply counters to Trucks - so rearming a single Guardian does not use up a whole truck)...

Wasn't there a Scenario for Warlords or BTS set during the Crusades or something where you had a "Supply Wagon" that you needed while in enemy territory or bad things started to happen supply wise? I mean you can live off the land to some degree, but gas and ammo doesn't grow on trees so you have to carry it with you and that always slows things down for the attacker.

Of course, that being said, one could say if a supply unit was created, that units raiding cottages and the like would have a chance of creating such a unit. One of the main uses for Cavalry in the ACW was to go behind enemy lines and go on raids to capture food and provisions to keep an advance going. Not only a supply unit could be found, but perhaps something like the 'magic healing potion' of the Fall Further mod which represent a one-shot medical boost to help heal your troops. (This one-shot would represent medicine and other creature comforts that help your unit get back to scratch.)

The Supply Train from Chalemagne is just a medic unit - not really usefull for our purposes, tho we are using similar AI settings.

The supply train in the crusades scenario is the only way to heal units. They don't heal at all without it. EDIT: rats, I did not type fast enough, refar beat me to it.

I'm not so sure about combining fuel and ammo into the same supply unit; foot units would need ammo supplies but not fuel. I put "limited ammo" on the back burner so long ago, I never really thought about how to do it.

Good point that different civs may rebuild using incompatible ammo calibers, so using civ A's guns with civ B's ammo would not work. That does add complexity onto limited ammo. I hope it is still safe to assume that gasoline is gasoline, we don't need to worry that civ A's gasoline can't refuel civ B's trucks! That would spoil the whole idea of fighting over tankers, which is one of the original key concepts.

I wouldnt split up different ammo types - if limited ammo is going to be added. Sure there are meny different - sometimes exotic - calibers. But since we assume the mod set in somewhat limired area - like one continent or something - we can count on "prevalent ammo types" - sure sometimes you will find a gun you cant use. Nuts. But most of the time some standard issue calibers will be used.

Plus - refitting a gun to another caliber of ammo is quite simple. (As long as it is similar ammo of course - you cant refit your sidearm to fire Tank shells)

I wouldn't split up different ammo types - if limited ammo is going to be added.

Of course this brings up something for an event or from a goody hut: "pre-Apocalyptic ammo" - finding some could either be used as a one-shot power-boost or gives the unit a promotion that increases their strength.

However, I think that Civ's would have to start making their own firearms and ammo pretty quickly. I would think that even the most frugal Survivalist would have used up most if not all of their modern ammo in the 20 years prior to Turn 1. I mean you look at "The Road Warrior" and almost no one had guns; all had more of the makeshift weapons, which is what you'd expect until any Civ could get ammo production up. From what I understand of firearms, it isn't the gun that is the production bottle-neck, it's the ammo. Plus, in combat, you use a lot of ammo. I can tell you from personal experience that you can blow through 7 magazines with 25-30 rounds pretty fast and not even being on semi-auto.

Plus, unless you are lining up and blazing away like they did up through the ACW, most shots fired are not shot with the intent to kill; they are shot to keep your opponents head down so your buddy can close and kill them. In Vietnam it was estimated you had 3,000 rounds fired for every casualty.

Obviously with the small unit size and the need to get much closer, this ratio would go down, but even if it were something like 1,000 to 1, this means you have to be able to produce a LOT of ammo.

I saw the ammo factory more as a reloading plant then really manufacturing ammo per se. There should be tons of used brass lying around after the world falls apart.

Part of my problem with the conceptualization of limited ammo is that in the US, there is probably enough ammo to kill everyone in the world a thousand times over.

That not withstanding, there are really only 3 main types of ammo used in the world, .223 (5.56mm), 7.62mm (Warsaw Pact), and 7.62mm (NATO) or .306 (also used in hunting rifles). The most common weapons in the world are AK-47s and M-16s or knockoffs, plus the dozens of rifles that are similar in style.

I personally own a Bushmaster (M-16 clone) and an SKS (predecessor of the AK-47) and have friends that own the same. At gun shows they sell ammo for both by the thousands, and sporting goods stores have boxes and boxes of it.

Part of my problem with the conceptualization of limited ammo is that in the US, there is probably enough ammo to kill everyone in the world a thousand times over.

Two problems with this. First, this mod is notionally set in Australia. Second, much of that ammo is going to be stored in military sites that will be destroyed in the War. Much of the civilian ammo will be destroyed in the War as major cities are nuked. Thirdly, and I think most importantly, there is 20 years from the War to Turn 1. 20 years is a long time for ammo to last when you have to fight to stay alive as well as probably using a lot of ammo for hunting to provide food.

That not withstanding, there are really only 3 main types of ammo used in the world, .223 (5.56mm), 7.62mm (Warsaw Pact), and 7.62mm (NATO) or .306 (also used in hunting rifles). The most common weapons in the world are AK-47s and M-16s or knockoffs, plus the dozens of rifles that are similar in style.

Actually I think you'd find that the 9mm round is also very prevalent. However, the amount of weapons you'd expect in the rural communities expected to survive would be more hunting rifles with a lot of .303 and .22 caliber.

I personally own a Bushmaster (M-16 clone) and an SKS (predecessor of the AK-47) and have friends that own the same. At gun shows they sell ammo for both by the thousands, and sporting goods stores have boxes and boxes of it.

While this is very true, remember that prior to the game there was War and then the Time of Disorder so there would be lots of uses for that ammo and people would be fighting for supplies. Plus having an AK-47 is fine, but can you make new ammo for it? Are you willing to bet your Civilization on whether you can make new ammo for it before my Civ decides to back up to ACW flintlocks with their solid shot or Minie Ball? Again, as I said before, many of the modern firearms are not that hard to make: metalworkers in Peshawar are hand-making copies of the .303 Lee Enfield and the AK-47, but they aren't making the bullets.

[QUOTE=arkham4269;7208995] Plus having an AK-47 is fine, but can you make new ammo for it? QUOTE]

If you police your brass and were able to manufacture gunpowder (sulfur, charcoal, and nitrates) you could reload your rounds. Most hunters, gun enthusiasts, etc; possess the necessary equipment and know how to do so. I agree that making "new" ammo would be difficult, but if you already have the gun, wouldn't you try making the ammo for that rather then making new guns?

Youre right about 9mm and even .45s (I have a Glock 21 as well) but since the game only has graphics for shotguns and assault rifles I only gave the assault rifle ammo as an example.

If you police your brass and were able to manufacture gunpowder... Something easier to do on the range but not in combat, unfortunately.

I agree that making "new" ammo would be difficult, but if you already have the gun, wouldn't you try making the ammo for that rather then making new guns?

It's all about sustainability. Turn 1 has your Civ starting out after 20 years after the Doom of Man(tm). So your people are going to be a mixed bag of survivors, most of which will have a wide variety of weapons. Plus, but turn 80, you'd have about 2.5 generations of growth so you might now have more people than old firearms to arm them with.

Plus think of it in terms of scale. If you have to produce machined brass cartridges, you will have to secure the brass, have the equipment to machine the brass as well as make the gunpowder for the rounds. Now you might be able to make gunpowder pretty quickly, but machining cartridges in large numbers might take some time, especially when there are a lot of other pressing needs. Plus you need a lot of quality control to mimic ammo needed for modern weapons.

So why go through the trouble when you can make your own Minié ball ammunition that use lead? First off, depending on your equipment, what ever size Minié ball you make, you adjust your rifle production to match the caliber you choose. Again, making a copy of a ACW US Army Springfield isn't that hard for anyone who knows how to make metal. Since this is 'old' technology, it is easier to find how to make it, especially with the popularity of blackpowder firearms as well as reenactors. (Do they have any of those in Australia?)

Another factor is simply time. As I said earlier, there are people in Peshawar in Pakistan that are making hand-made copies of the Lee-Enfield rifle so you could easily make a Springfield. These same machinist could also make the ammo for it unlike the AK-47's they also make by hand.

Not to mention, if you went back further to flintlocks, your men can make their own lead shot, even in enemy territory since it's just about melting some lead, pouring into the mold and cleaning up the next morning. So as long as your gunpowder supplies hold up, ammo isn't the problem. I wouldn't want to go on a attack into enemy territory with modern weapons that I couldn't reload unless back at home. That's setting yourself to get wiped out but a bunch of guys just using crossbows.

I imagine that machining cartridges for automatic weapons would be a pretty high priority, especially if it gave you tactical superiority.

I agree that its easier to police brass on a range rather then in combat, BUT you make the point that all of the existing ammo would be used up already. If thats the case then there would literally be used brass everywhere.

Also, I know a number of people who have the gear at home to reload and/or make their own ammo. The gear is out there and other tools like those in a high school metal shop could be adapted for it pretty easily.

Why use "old" tech if you don't have too? Afghanistan is a fairly backward country to begin with. Its not like 1st World countries who would have advanced machinery and equipment lying around to be rediscovered or scavenged.

Why use "old" tech if you don't have too? Afghanistan is a fairly backward country to begin with. Its not like 1st World countries who would have advanced machinery and equipment lying around to be rediscovered or scavenged.

After a cataclysmic war, 20 years of anarchy, the entire world is now backward.

In regards to stuff being all over the place, remember that a lot of weather effects, scavaging and the like can happen in the 20 years that take place prior to the start of the game. You're going to have refuges streaming out of what's left of the cities, all hungry all desperate. You have weather in monumental change due to the nukes thrown around. Things in the outlying rural areas will last for a bit but after the first winter, you're going to have starvation, disease and worse, roving groups of people intent on taking instead of asking.

Turn 1 represents the groups who survived this process through having Vision that attracted enough followers to survive past a base subsistence level and now are ready to reclaim their world via their Vision.

There should be very low populations in the first 20 years after the apocalypse - most survivors probably hiding in some bunkers / occupieng very small areas. The industry af a metropole like Sydney with millions of peoples (now) is a whooole lot to scavenge for like 20.000 surviros... It could hold for centuries.

Also from experience of past world wars, disaters and hiroshima - stuff is much more resistant to destruction than you would think. Sure the chance to scavenge a working PC or something might not be too good after 20 years. But cars, bulldozers, heavy machines are known to work after a lot more than just 20 years - even when beeing exposed to nature. Not to mention scrap metal, pipes, engine and supension parts.... there will be planty of all of this.

Also from experience of past world wars, disaters and hiroshima - stuff is much more resistant to destruction than you would think. Sure the chance to scavenge a working PC or something might not be too good after 20 years. But cars, bulldozers, heavy machines are known to work after a lot more than just 20 years - even when being exposed to nature. Not to mention scrap metal, pipes, engine and suspension parts.... there will be planty of all of this.

Which is why I've advocated that while there wouldn't be much in the way of fixing a lot of pre-modern stuff unless it had been maintained during the Pre-Game period, there is lots of stuff to use for a lower tech level. The point I've been making about steam engines is that a car left out for twenty years won't be too usable in the sense of just putting in a new battery and gas (the seals and gaskets will be toast) the basic frame of the vehicle should be fine, especially if it was in a garage. So you pull out the engine, refurbish it a bit with new tires, thrown in a steam engine to get use out of the vehicle while you send the old engine off for either parts or refurbishing if possible.

Plus, as an ex-military mechanic and logistics clerk (for about 5 years) I can tell you that it's the seals and gaskets & tires that rot with time, especially if the vehicle isn't moving. We would blow wheel seals almost every time we'd drive to our big annual training event in Germany while I was there simply because our officers couldn't understand that vehicles need to be 'exercised' and if you just leave them immobile for months at a time, the seals become brittle and they rupture with amazing ease. Not to mention even if you find a car in a garage buried by rubble, the tires will be warped from the years of supporting the weight of the car. Replacing car wheels is another nightmare for a Civ. I mean galvanized rubber isn't the easiest thing to make, but at least tires are almost impossible to destroy and if you have the right equipment are almost 100% recyclable.

It would be easier to fix the original engine - provided there is fuel available.

I have seen a car rot in our courtyard for 18 years without even a garage - when my grand father finally decided to put it in the grage to fix it - he put in a new battery, and it worked. It wasnt pretty, the tires were bad indeed and it made noise a car usually shouldn't, but you could drive it.

After a cataclysmic war, 20 years of anarchy, the entire world is now backward.

In regards to stuff being all over the place, remember that a lot of weather effects, scavaging and the like can happen in the 20 years that take place prior to the start of the game. You're going to have refuges streaming out of what's left of the cities, all hungry all desperate. You have weather in monumental change due to the nukes thrown around. Things in the outlying rural areas will last for a bit but after the first winter, you're going to have starvation, disease and worse, roving groups of people intent on taking instead of asking.

Turn 1 represents the groups who survived this process through having Vision that attracted enough followers to survive past a base subsistence level and now are ready to reclaim their world via their Vision.


You actually are making my point for me. If the survivors are only interested in "surviving", ie food and shelter, then they are ignoring machine shops, garages, tools, etc; because they are not of immediate use. I would argue that Turn 1, the start of "vision", or looking beyond survival; is when people would start trying to find those kinds of things.

You could find tools in peoples houses, garages, schools, Home Depot (not sure if they have those in Australia), etc. Some would still be packed in their original packaging or in sealed rooms, ready to be used. You don't need alot of them, there aren't that many people left.

You actually are making my point for me. If the survivors are only interested in "surviving", ie food and shelter, then they are ignoring machine shops, garages, tools, etc; because they are not of immediate use. I would argue that Turn 1, the start of "vision", or looking beyond survival; is when people would start trying to find those kinds of things.

You could find tools in peoples houses, garages, schools, Home Depot (not sure if they have those in Australia), etc. Some would still be packed in their original packaging or in sealed rooms, ready to be used. You don't need a lot of them, there aren't that many people left.

I'm not doing anything of the sort. The point you are missing is that 20 years has gone before the game has even started. No factories are churning out replacement parts or new products. Mechanized farms aren't churning out food and there is no chemical plants producing rubber tires, gaskets or even seals for Mason Jars to store food in.

20 years is a long time when you can't replace stuff. In fact, if anything, Turn 1 could easily represent that enough time has passed where the different groups of survivors have gotten to the point where they know what they have (knowledge wise) and what they need. At a certain point, things are going to break down and can't be replaced. People are going to have to stop living on scraps and start making 'new' things even if those new things are of a older tech.

Which goes back to our discussion over modern guns to older guns. Can I fix a modern gun? Is it worth the time and tools to machine out the parts to replace and fix modern stuff? Or maybe I start making my own guns that not only can I make at will, but since they're of an easier tech, they can be repaired in the field since the soldier can carry spare parts. Sure an M-16 is great versus a bunch of guys with Springfield knock-offs, but what happens if the guy with that M-16 falls of his horse and bends his barrel? He can't fix it unless he can find a replacement and as I've said, 20 years before the start of the game is a long time and things like this happen all the time.

Plus, when it comes to stuff to loot, a lot of that is/has been looted by the barbarians which represent people living a nomadic life, living off the carcass of the old world. By the time of turn 80 (40 years after the War) or so, these pickings would be mighty slim which is why they'd have to start attacking the main Civ's since they're the only ones with stuff.

If you police your brass and were able to manufacture gunpowder (sulfur, charcoal, and nitrates) you could reload your rounds. Most hunters, gun enthusiasts, etc; possess the necessary equipment and know how to do so. I agree that making "new" ammo would be difficult, but if you already have the gun, wouldn't you try making the ammo for that rather then making new guns?


The mechanics of most modern assault rifles (gas operated) would make them poor candidates for use with black powder ammunition. Black powder is much more corrosive and "dirty" than modern smokeless powders, and would probably destroy or quickly render unreliable an assault rifle, IMHO.
Both submachineguns (the easiest automatic weapons to build low-tech) or heavy machineguns, use much simpler actions (blow-back or recoil operated) that would adapt better to black powder.
Perhaps Guardians should be armed with muzzle-loaders (rifles or double-barrelled shotguns), with a somewhat more powerful, submachinegun armed assault unit for offensive use.

Sure an M-16 is great versus a bunch of guys with Springfield knock-offs, but what happens if the guy with that M-16 falls of his horse and bends his barrel?This is a problem of making your guns out of plastics... There are plenty of good "old shcool" guns which are reliable, durable and simple to handle and operate.

At some point the survivors certainly will start to re-manufacture the stuff, which will elad to further development. But i dont really see a way - nor the need - to model the development. Down the line a gun is a gun.Black powder is much more corrosive and "dirty" than modern smokeless powders, and would probably destroy or quickly render unreliable an assault rifle, IMHO.Yes, it leaves significant residue wich can make the gun jam or become unsafe to operate. I am quite certain no one is coing to use the simple Sulfur/Charcoal gunpowder ever again.
But i think with some knowledge of chemistry, it should be possible to recreate the more advanced mixtures.

This is a problem of making your guns out of plastics... There are plenty of good "old school" guns which are reliable, durable and simple to handle and operate.

At some point the survivors certainly will start to re-manufacture the stuff, which will lead to further development. But i dont really see a way - nor the need - to model the development.

In real terms, the big difference between the firearms of the pre-ACW era as that you pretty much had to be standing up to fire them since you had to use the ram (and cleaning) rod to load the weapons. The advent of things like the Spencer rifle allowed people to be able to be more flexible in using the terrain. Not that you couldn't do it before, not very feasible if you have to get up every time to reload.

The second big advance didn't come to about the time of the Boar War when the introduction of 'smokeless' powder was introduced. You can always tell people who have no concept of early firearms when they smugly think the British were 'so stupid for wearing those bright red coats' when the fact of the matter is EVERYONE back then had uniforms that had some form of bright color in them because after the battle got going, you needed that color to tell who was who. Anyway, so in an ambush, you'd get one volley and then the smoke would give your position away as telling as waving a flag. The 'smokeless' power gave the defenders a big boost since now, unless you saw the muzzle flash, it was much harder to tell where an attack is coming from.

Now, a typical ACW rifle could still out fire a crossbow, had more stopping power and those wounds were hard to cure back then. Plus, their rate of fire was still pretty impressive and as I've posted before, they would not be hard to make.

Considering the firearms that would be made, the big question is when can they make a reliable cartridge? Because in many respects it is not the soldier level weapon that is important, but the belt-fed squad automatic weapon that is going to be the big one, especially since they would be much more effective on the more modern vehicles then they were originally when they were first lugged around like artillery.

So in game terms, getting the resources to make gunpowder, building the facilities to do so (especially since making it is VERY dangerous) is the big stumbling block of firearms. Once that happens, it's just a matter of being able to reach a machining tech of around 1900 or so when you can build the cartridges for machine guns.

As I've also said before, I believe ammunition production would be the biggest and most continuing problem for the survivors. Even when you get your gunpowder going, it'll take a bit to build enough ammo plants to field a lot of units. Then when you get to the next step, you'd need an 'advance ammo' plant to crank out even more ammo, even more so because the belt fed/magazine fed weapons shoot more ammo and their would be more soldiers by the time the tech is online so you'd need even more.

In game terms, it's too bad there probably isn't a way to track units with a certain promotion, since it would be nice to be able to limit the number of units with a certain promotion to the number of something like amount of ammo plants built.

Last thought guys (sorry for long post) Unlike vanilla Civ where it's common (and stupid) to see spearmen long into the gunpowder age, the scale of this mod and the scarcity of resources might be that you'd still see lot of the early tech units simply because there are not enough resources around to field everyone. We must not forget there is a big difference between a modern nation (even small ones like Portugal or Holland) could produce from 1812 thru 1917 compared to an area wracked with climate change, constant warfare and the like. Not everyone can have the good toys. :p

I like the idea of limited ammo. I think that anyone who has owned a gun and knows how to take care of it would rather use that then make a new older version of it. Working assault rifles would be like treasured heirlooms. And I would think the guy who figures out that he can make ammo, would realize he is "rich" off of it. The ammo would be in high demand, and economics being what it is, he would make more. People wpuld try to learn that tech to make "money" and gain an advantage. There should be (in the US at least, I believe private gun ownership is illegal in Australia though) lots of guns lying around after the ammo runs out. An AK-47 can be buried in the muck for twenty years, pulled out, the bolt kicked open , and still fired. M-16s or clones would be still stored some places. You wouldn't need alot to arm small bands of survivors.

If you had a choice between an M-16 and an M1 rifle, which would you pick? Yes, its easier, apparently, to make a bunch of M1 rifles; but in a battle for supremacy/survival I'm going to spend the extra effort to make my M-16 work.

So I propose creating a building before Ammo Factory that allows shotguns & ammo to be repaired/manufactured since shotgun shells are easier to manufacture and could use black powder. Then move Ammo Factory later into the game. Put an intermediate unit between crossbow and Guardian. And add in a limited ammo function to the mod. Maybe add a Gunsmith building that needs to be built before you can produce gun units?

If you had a choice between an M-16 and an M1 rifle, which would you pick? Yes, its easier, apparently, to make a bunch of M1 rifles; but in a battle for supremacy/survival I'm going to spend the extra effort to make my M-16 work.

The point is never which gun is better, the point is that if your Civ insists on trying to rebuild the capacity to field M-16's, the chances are you're going to get over-run by my Civ who didn't. The Tech tree is built like that. You're Civ would spend way to much time trying to get advanced techs, techs that would also require some hefty buildings. In the mean time, I've built up my early ammo plants and started cranking out units with the 'early firearms' production as well as things like canons. Sure a 1812 field piece might seem corny...until you have to attack into them while their firing canister or grape-shot.

Plus, a multi-magazine weapon isn't a wonder weapon. On more political blogs, I've argued that if your are paranoid about the "Guvmint" taking over, the last thing you probably want is an assault rifle. No, you'd probably want a good bolt-action rifle with a scope. Most sniper rifles were all built from these. In a fight with a better armed enemy, don't play their game, make them play theirs. That's why 'low intensity conflicts' with insurgents like Iraq and Afghanistan suck so bad. The bad guys play to their strength an not ours.

Personally, I think most of the modern weapons would be kept for the "Presidential" Guard or other very elite units that stay back and protect the leader, especially if that Leader is more of a warlord and enforces his/her Vision by force.

^^ Here i have to agree with arkham.

You can see it in modern worls as well - the 3 most widespread assault rifles - AK47, FN-Fal and HK G3 - these are by far not "the best" in the sense people would expect (like precision, handling) - but they are durable, easy to manufacture and reliable in almost any environment.

I'm not arguing about making assault rifles, I arguing that the survivors would have either kept or gain access to guns and that its about making ammo. I would think that anyone with a gun after the apocalypse would keep it as their most treasured possession and pass it down to their kids. They would hoard ammo and spare parts. Probably the people who do survive would be those with guns.

I do support the limited ammo concept. Ammo would be precious until more could be made, which I would think would be a primary goal. However, in the meantime crossbows and melee weapons would be used to avoid wasting precious ammo, especially if your enemy can be killed without using a gun.

I'm not arguing about making assault rifles, I arguing that the survivors would have either kept or gain access to guns and that its about making ammo. I would think that anyone with a gun after the apocalypse would keep it as their most treasured possession and pass it down to their kids. They would hoard ammo and spare parts. Probably the people who do survive would be those with guns.

I have no problem with this idea either. However, in game terms, this would mean that the benefit of being a defender in a city would be higher since if things were really getting out of hand, the defenders would be breaking into their "Break Glass in Case of Emergency" ammo and so would be able to potentially make it that much tougher on the attacker.

The point I've been making is that for new units, fielded during the course of the game, the bulk of their items would either be things like crossbows or firearms made afterwords to a lower tech level. If the insurgents in Afghanistan are any historical indicator, your weapon would be a sign of your status; the higher up the food chain, they better your weapon. I had a Special Ops sniper say that's how they would pick their targets; find the guy with the most modern gun and take him out first. Again, I'd bet that a lot of officers and the like would have things like a 9mm modern pistol, but in terms of game mechanics, it wouldn't have much effect. On his ability to lead (and keep order) in the context of the Fury Road theme, that's a different story.

Beeing the defender is allways beneficial - and a part of it is having supplies at hand.

Beeing the defender is allways beneficial - and a part of it is having supplies at hand.

Well like I said, perhaps the bonus for defending in a city should be raised by 5-10% more than in vanilla BTS to reflect this.

Plus another problem is while defenses may not be up to medieval standards, you can do a lot with ditches, wire and bulk anti-vehicle obstacles like the 'hedgehog' which is just some I-Beams welded together. While these are primarily anti-ship weapons (you see them in the first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan) they are also effective against vehicles. Anyway, the point is that taking a city should really be hard in the early part of the game simply because of the 3-1 rule. In warfare, it is almost a rule of thumb that you need a 3-1 advantage to carry a fortified position. You need enough troops to pin the defenders with fire, you need enough troops to be able to attack at multiple points so that the defenders cannot mass their troops only at one point...and you need more troops because you're going to loose lots of them.

I don't think early in the game, you'll really have the mass of troops to do this. Plus, I think that every Capitol at the beginning of the game should get a some sort of 'Capitol Defense' for free. This is the city that withstood the 20 years prior to the beginning of the game and I don't think it's right that you end up with one Survivor that can get taken out be a Deathclaw if you're unlucky enough to have one spawn early next to you.

If that idea doesn't work, you could have a "presidential guard" unit that you start the game with and it cannot move. Or maybe (if game mechanics allow it) it only can be in the capitol so if you move your capitol, the Guard moves with you. This way, you have a game feature that shows the capitol isn't something easily taken out.

In addition to limited ammo, what about limiting the number of gun units as National units? Maybe by number of cities? 3 per city?

Because the main problem with my argument is that you can produce limitless gun units given time. My argument was that there would be some guns left over, but not an unlimited amount.

OR, make them items that are carried like in FFH, and they are dropped when the unit dies. They could be found in ruins or goody huts, or produced/repaired in limited amounts in a city. Change the graphic when a unit activates the item to reflect that they now have guns. This way there are limited guns and they are valuable assets.

Crossbows = +2 Strength, +1 1st Strike Chance
Shotguns = +4 Str, +1 1st Strike Chance, +25% vs Melee
Rifles = +4 Str, +1 1st Strike, +10% With
Automatic Weapons = +6 Str, +2 1st Strike Chances, +5% Collateral Damage

This is a idea i like - i had suggested it some earlier. However there are a few technical issues - most notable - the number of possible national units does not depend on nothing - it's fix, so you cant make it "Number of cities" or something.

The North American mod for Vanilla I think, had a fixed number of units based on the # of cities you controlled. Would it be possible to recreate that and also make it by unit type?

Only played this for a little bit (since like the first release, this is my first time playing version 9-seems like it's coming along really well, hell at this point it feels polished and good). I think you should look into jdog's Minor Tribes code. It makes it so that there is no diplomacy--basically you are at war (but the AI just treats you like a barb city, so it doesn't sacrifice early production or anything on it) with everyone until you discover writing. And at the point you discover writing you get the basic introduction diplo screen only with other civs that have discovered writing. Makes the early game a bit more intense, and makes it much, much harder to worker steal. As the AI defends it's workers better, and treats your aproaching units as hostile.

Just had a start where I'm close to two other civs, and I'm in the corner of the continent, so not really worried about barbs, they aren't really spawning near me. And it allowed me to worker steel from one of the close civs pretty easily. I think it would be cool to implement minor tribes until the discovery of Diplomacy Tech. It just seems like until these survivor groups re-institute basic diplomacy rules, they'd be treating any massed armed groups as hostile anyway. So this would make sense.

I can think of two cons though. First, I'm pretty sure it's SDK (you'd have to ask jdog) and I know you are trying to stay away from that. However it is already coded, so all you'd be doing is copying source code and recompiling. Second you might prefer allowing diplomacy from the jump.