How can I make my bunker building add to city defense, even against gun-powder based units. I mean it is obvious that concrete will break up from bombardment but still it usually takes some time. It is a bit ridiculous, can you add a defense modifier like the modifier they use vs. air units? Thanks for any help

How can I make my bunker building add to city defense, even against gun-powder based units. I mean it is obvious that concrete will break up from bombardment but still it usually takes some time. It is a bit ridiculous, can you add a defense modifier like the modifier they use vs. air units? Thanks for any help

Easiest answer- you can't.

All gunpowder units ignore building defense. You could make it so that they don't, but then walls will work as well. The easiest way is to do it via SDK.

I suppose you could make City Walls obsolete with gunpowder, but I don't know what obsolescence does to a building (whether it disables it or merely prevents it from being built).

I know there's a boolean tag in the Civ4UnitInfos.xml file that controls whether a unit ignores building defence modifiers. Again, like Mechaerik said, it's not going to distinguish between City Walls and a concrete, rebar reinforced Bunker. I'm not even sure it's the only thing you have to mod, I haven't tested it yet.

For what it's worth I removed gunpowder units from my mod and it seems to have eliminated the problem. I had removed them before I noticed the city fortification limits for other reasons. It's an easy thing to do just add a new combat type to BasicInfos\CIV4UnitCombatInfos.xml and change the GunPowder units to that.

For what it's worth I removed gunpowder units from my mod and it seems to have eliminated the problem. I had removed them before I noticed the city fortification limits for other reasons. It's an easy thing to do just add a new combat type to BasicInfos\CIV4UnitCombatInfos.xml and change the GunPowder units to that.
I am going to playtest first and see how things go, I would love to be able to create trenches. Can you make forts a little tougher, and add to their tile defense percentage? Your idea did work though and thank you I will keep it in mind.

You can change a fort's tile defense percentage in XML\Terrain\Civ4ImprovementInfos.xml. The field you need to change is called iDefenseModifier. I think this is applied directly to the units in the fort instead of changing the tile defense percentage, but it should do what you want.

You can change a fort's tile defense percentage in XML\Terrain\Civ4ImprovementInfos.xml. The field you need to change is called iDefenseModifier. I think this is applied directly to the units in the fort instead of changing the tile defense percentage, but it should do what you want.

Yes I will try that. Did anyone ever change the fort graphics to trenches like they did for civ III? Thank you

For what it's worth I removed gunpowder units from my mod and it seems to have eliminated the problem. I had removed them before I noticed the city fortification limits for other reasons. It's an easy thing to do just add a new combat type to BasicInfos\CIV4UnitCombatInfos.xml and change the GunPowder units to that.

Why bother if all you're doing is trying to make them deal with Walls? All you have to do is change the value in this line of their entry in UnitsInfo:

<bIgnoreBuildingDefense>0</bIgnoreBuildingDefense>

That would be a lot less work than turning them all into a new combat class.

Why bother if all you're doing is trying to make them deal with Walls? All you have to do is change the value in this line of their entry in UnitsInfo:

<bIgnoreBuildingDefense>0</bIgnoreBuildingDefense>

That would be a lot less work than turning them all into a new combat class.

Yes we will try that.

what I really need is trenches.

Well, trenches are difficult. I'm sure its possible to replace the fort with another graphic, but trench improvements are very difficult, because you can't actually make it dig into the ground.

Well, trenches are difficult. I'm sure its possible to replace the fort with another graphic, but trench improvements are very difficult, because you can't actually make it dig into the ground.
I know, I hear snafusmith is working on them for his blood and iron mod, it should be released sometime, we will see. I suppose thats the reason there are not too many WWI mods.

Ok what I am going to do is turn ignorebuildingdefense back to 0 on all gunpoweder units. I know walls come into question, but the fact remains that they still provide cover. I don't believe the walls get scared and fall down because a man is holding a musket or a grenade. They come down with firepower, so you have to shoot something at them to destroy them. Now granted, they might not be much protection, but they have some. It reminds me of Stalingrad, all the fighting was not done in just fortresses or bunkers, but in houses, in buildings, and in factories. If troops on either side could find cover, even a brick wall, even a damn half a tree trunk, do you realize that wall or cover, might keep them alive just one more day. So I will reduce the protection of walls from 50 to 10. I will raise the city defense of a bunker to 50. Also terrain will have a defense value, like a fort does(but different values). A forts protection is applied to the unit that is inside correct? Than can we not do the same with terrain? I know already that if say, an infantry unit stays in a square long enough it can build up a fortification defense value of 25% so how can we make this say 5-10% higher? Let me know what everyone thinks. So if you make a line of infantry divisions, from a city to a city and have them fortify and give them machine gun support and artillery, you could simulate a trench line. Also, I have noticed from playing the AI for CIV 4 v. 1.74, that it spreads its units out alot. It does make armies of other units, one had 5 inf 2 arty, that I am guessing was supposed to bombard my city. However, I had a large army, within a train ride, that hit that force which was wide open in a grassland square, and destroyed it. But, in BTS man does that AI make armies, I have had some bad as battles with 50+ units in my 1100 AD mod, and that AI makes real good combined arms forces. So let me know what you think, I am going to test these theories and see how they work.

I would suggest leaving siege the way it is.

I would suggest leaving siege the way it is.

Its works great as far as cities, really cool. Siege the way it is will not work right with this mod, so adjustments will be made.

Well, trenches are difficult. I'm sure its possible to replace the fort with another graphic, but trench improvements are very difficult, because you can't actually make it dig into the ground.

Don't need to

<TerrainMakesValids> what does this mean, just the terrains I can build a fort on? Is there a way to build a fort without getting rid of other improvements in the square? like for instance, building a fort over a farm, is there a way not to destroy the farm in the process? Or building a fort over a mine, without getting rid of the mine?

<TerrainMakesValids> what does this mean, just the terrains I can build a fort on?


Yes, that's it.

Is there a way to build a fort without getting rid of other improvements in the square? like for instance, building a fort over a farm, is there a way not to destroy the farm in the process? Or building a fort over a mine, without getting rid of the mine?

No way to do something like this :(, only one improvement on one tile.

No way to do something like this :(, only one improvement on one tile.

You could make the fort a Terrain Feature, and then build that, kind of like how your Pioneer tank build hills.

You could make the fort a Terrain Feature, and then build that, kind of like how your Pioneer tank build hills.
Yeah mechaerik, I think you were right about leaving the cities alone, so I reverted that back to normal. If your units ignore building defenses, well for instance I had Brussels with a defense of +375% walls, castle, and a bunker building in the city. I had changed the name of walls to defenses, and castle to fortress. I made all my gunpowder units a 0 for ignorebuildingdefense. But a 77cm field piece would knock off anywhere from 75-120% each bombardment, so the defenses were in ruins in no time anyway, even though the German77cm field gun was only supposed to hit for a bombardrate of -25% per turn. At first I thought it was the field pieces combat mod,
<UnitCombatType>UNITCOMBAT_SIEGE</UnitCombatType>
<iUnitCombatMod>50</iUnitCombatMod>, but then I tried a cannon and it was hitting for a huge chunk of percentage, so I changed it back to normal. I guess if you want to protect cities then, your just going to have to fortify infantry and machinegunners. And counterattack armies that are besieging cities. The forts I am going to keep, I can make infantry build forts, and in world war one troops were used to build, repair, and re-gage railroad track, so I am thinking of giving infantry divisions these abilities. I will look into making a fort its own terrain, do you know of a better graphic that would better display the look of a trench, or even a better fort graphic.

I hope they look into these problems if they create civ 5, and even if they do make civ 5, we will probably need a super computer to play it, for god's sake they better not meld it with steam...lol.

If anyone has any other suggestions, I would like to hear them.

in world war one troops were used to build, repair, and re-gage railroad track, so I am thinking of giving infantry divisions these abilities.

Sort of ... they weren't combat infantry, though they were organized into corps, divisions, and battalions. They did other things too ... there were whole Forestry Corps (corps, not divisions!) just for cutting lumber. But they didn't go overseas and they didn't carry rifles. They were just workers under direct military command as opposed to private owners or the civil service. Basically conscription was used to create forced labour.

By WW2, you do have armed engineering units in many services though. For instance, the Seabees.

Sort of ... they weren't combat infantry, though they were organized into corps, divisions, and battalions. They did other things too ... there were whole Forestry Corps (corps, not divisions!) just for cutting lumber. But they didn't go overseas and they didn't carry rifles. They were just workers under direct military command as opposed to private owners or the civil service. Basically conscription was used to create forced labour.

By WW2, you do have armed engineering units in many services though. For instance, the Seabees.

Yes I know the Germans used their troops to re gage tracks in Russia. I am sure troops were also used to doing many other civil engineering jobs as well. Thanks

Yes I know the Germans used their troops to re gage tracks in Russia. I am sure troops were also used to doing many other civil engineering jobs as well. Thanks

Actually yeah, the Germans did use special troops to do that, at least in the early part of the war. The Eisenbahntruppen. Highly specialized brigades. Some pics here:

http://www.eisenbahnregiment.de/histaufnahmen.html

They were using POWs by the latter stages of the war.

The German army itself wasn't using standard gauges of any sort by the time they were making signifigant gains in the East. They were using extremely narrow-gauge Heeresfeldbahn, "field railways" of light construction. It wasn't worth maintaining or rebuilding regular track anywhere near the front.

Actually yeah, the Germans did use special troops to do that, at least in the early part of the war. The Eisenbahntruppen. Highly specialized brigades. Some pics here:

http://www.eisenbahnregiment.de/histaufnahmen.html

They were using POWs by the latter stages of the war.

The German army itself wasn't using standard gauges of any sort by the time they were making signifigant gains in the East. They were using extremely narrow-gauge Heeresfeldbahn, "field railways" of light construction. It wasn't worth maintaining or rebuilding regular track anywhere near the front.
Actually they had to re gage Russian tracks later on as they and the Austro-Hungarians pushed the Russians back, the Russians use a wider track. This is why the Russian army had supply problems at the start of the war, when they invaded East Prussia with 1st and 2nd armies.

So they used special troops, that is interesting I did not know that, but it does make sense. The workers would have to know what they are doing. The railroad troops, I like that name...ha ha...easy to remember and straightforward...undeniably German.

I'm sort of confused on the name actually ... it's either Eisenbahntruppen, or Eisenbahnpionere. One of them is a civil engineering unit, for building railways, the other is regular combat troops who do something or other on the railway (guard trains, maybe?)

The german wikipedia entry (not available in english) says, that they are both the same.

The german wikipedia entry (not available in english) says, that they are both the same. Really thanks I was wondering, by the way how is Germany? I hear its really nice there. I am in the middle of the United States, good ol farm boy Iowa.

I could ask the same about america, and what would you answer ;)?

Different, in any place, some parts more nice, some less.


Back to topic (a bit):
The german wikipedia also says, that there were railroad troops in the american civil war, and they showed the importance for railroads in war, they were the "model" for the europan railroad troops.

I could ask the same about america, and what would you answer ;)?

Different, in any place, some parts more nice, some less.


Back to topic (a bit):
The german wikipedia also says, that there were railroad troops in the american civil war, and they showed the importance for railroads in war, they were the "model" for the europan railroad troops.

Same here in america, but thank god I don't live in Harlem.

Interesting about railroad troops during the civil war, also tracks different size in the South, and the confederates had less track but put them to good use, transporting Joseph E. Johnstons reinforcements to Manassas Junction. This ultimately changed the tide of the battle, causing a rout of Union forces all the way back to Washington. Also, one more thing I read awhile back. The German Army before World War 2 did not use the battle of Bull Run, as an example for teaching Military Science, they thought the battle was unorganized and performed by amateurs, If I remember right, something about lack of discipline, and that it was more like a fight between rival gangs than armies. They were right it is obvious. However, it did prove the strategic importance of railroads.

J, I was wondering do you do any modding for civ 4?

Same here in america, but thank god I don't live in Harlem.

Interesting about railroad troops during the civil war, also tracks different size in the South, and the confederates had less track but put them to good use, transporting Joseph E. Johnstons reinforcements to Manassas Junction. This ultimately changed the tide of the battle, causing a rout of Union forces all the way back to Washington. Also, one more thing I read awhile back. The German Army before World War 2 did not use the battle of Bull Run, as an example for teaching Military Science, they thought the battle was unorganized and performed by amateurs, If I remember right, something about lack of discipline, and that it was more like a fight between rival gangs than armies. They were right it is obvious. However, it did prove the strategic importance of railroads.

J, I was wondering do you do any modding for civ 4?

While you make some good points about the southern railroads (they did a great job with a what they had), they where not in the same league as the northern railroads.

However, it did prove the strategic importance of railroads.


I think, that's why so many modders try to restrict units to railroads :D.


J, I was wondering do you do any modding for civ 4?

Bts, look at my sig ;).