I found 3 possible animations for the new destroyer. I don't know how a modern destroyer looks like.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58642

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33751

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14551

The last one should work, modern destroyers have Aegis combat systems.

Okay, I'm sending you the autosaves of 1432 and 1424 by email (not sure if they're too big to post here, don't wanna bother to find out).

EDIT: A few minutes after I started sending the email I checked and saw each save is 4.9MB. If you want I can resend them in a highly compressed RAR file. (I will not stop the current sending because it's almost done.)

Bleh, during the upload I suddenly got a delivery failure notification due to size. I'll send you a highly RARed 1324 autosave, there's not much to do at that point so you will get to the problem part quickly.
EDIT: RAR shrunk each save to around 200K, so I'll just attach them both here. Rename the extensions to rar.

Thanks for the screenshots...now I'll return the favor. :)

Wyrmshadow has made some great modern destroyers/frigates/missile cruisers...

The Kashin DDG -
http://67.18.66.143/forums/tbs/civ3/download.php?id=10874&sid=73b08beb97051df9b7e1e3e8ab21bf5b (Note: there is a smaller version available)

Oliver Hazard Perry Missile Frigate -
http://67.18.66.143/forums/tbs/civ3/download.php?id=10310&sid=73b08beb97051df9b7e1e3e8ab21bf5b

Type 23 Frigate -
http://67.18.66.143/forums/tbs/civ3/download.php?id=10486&sid=73b08beb97051df9b7e1e3e8ab21bf5b

Ticonderoga Cruiser -
http://67.18.66.143/forums/tbs/civ3/download.php?id=10468&sid=73b08beb97051df9b7e1e3e8ab21bf5b

Arleigh Burke Missile Destroyer -
http://67.18.66.143/forums/tbs/civ3/download.php?id=10252&sid=73b08beb97051df9b7e1e3e8ab21bf5b

Bebro did some great cold war era ships -
http://67.18.66.143/forums/tbs/civ3/viewtopic.php?t=6685&sid=73b08beb97051df9b7e1e3e8ab21bf5b

VingrJoe did a couple AEGIS Cruisers with a missile attack -
http://67.18.66.143/forums/tbs/civ3/download.php?id=10961&sid=73b08beb97051df9b7e1e3e8ab21bf5b

http://67.18.66.143/forums/tbs/civ3/download.php?id=10717&sid=73b08beb97051df9b7e1e3e8ab21bf5b

All these can be found at CDG. You do have to create an account to view or download anything. It's well worth it, though. Wyrm and ripptide have a massive stockpile of Industrial and Modern units over there.

Here's the URL...

http://67.18.66.143/forums/tbs/civ3/index.php?sid=73b08beb97051df9b7e1e3e8ab21bf5b

Also, Wyrmshadow made a good number of WW2 Destroyes, in case you want to bump the Civ3 Destroyer into the modern age and use one of those.

It says I'm not authorized to see the attachment even if I've logged in.
Has CDG many units that CFC forums haven't?

Thanks anyway. Did you like the screenshots?

Two other problems :( :

1) Mobile Tower have animation problems

2) Swordman doesn't require iron

1)animation problems? You HAVEN'T the animations! The version you have doesn't contain any additional animation. For this reason it is only a few MBs.

2)That's the way they will be.

Can't you uncheck the requires escort thingy for all the naval units after galley/junk then? Their stats are boosted now so they don't need as much escort.
I have a serious problem... The year is 1432, and whenever I end the turn the game gets caught up endlessly as though it's working hard on something (judging by the 100% CPU usage, and we're talking 2Ghz here), but nothing happens. I left the game that way for about twenty minutes and nothing changed. The nations nearby me did nothing in my range of view. The screen didn't even move to anyway, it just stayed where I left it (usually it centers on any movement seen). I tried reloading the autosave from 1424 (the turn before 1432), and the same thing happened when I ended 1432, even though I did things differently in those two turns to see if it's my fault.
Any clues? Will I have to restart?
Could it possibly have something to do with the enormous world war going on in the Turkey area, between all kinds of europeans and middle-easterners?


The problem lies between Spain and Carthage.

It freezes after Carthage moves its units. (Spain is next).

I checked their cities if they were finishing of building something on that turn, and the only thing is that Carthage (the city) fills its food box next turn. In the exact moment of the freeze, Carthage was still 6. This is strange because means that cities grow AFTER you move.

The problem lies between Spain and Carthage.

It freezes after Carthage moves its units. (Spain is next).

I checked their cities if they were finishing of building something on that turn, and the only thing is that Carthage (the city) fills its food box next turn. In the exact moment of the freeze, Carthage was still 6. This is strange because means that cities grow AFTER you move.
Well, can it be fixed?

It says I'm not authorized to see the attachment even if I've logged in.
Has CDG many units that CFC forums haven't?Yes!!!

If you're not a member, then join, it's well worth it. I don't know what happened to thestonesfan's links but this is the main modern units page:
Modern units index (http://67.18.66.143/forums/tbs/civ3/viewtopic.php?t=5303&sid=73c8886ec99947058e5a8590ccba71bd)

and this is one of the better AEGIS equipped destroyers:
Arleigh Burke DDG (http://cdgroup.org/forums/tbs/civ3/viewtopic.php?t=5986)

You need to login first....

and this is one of the better AEGIS equipped destroyers:
Arleigh Burke DDG (http://cdgroup.org/forums/tbs/civ3/viewtopic.php?t=5986)
When I did a search for Modern Destroyers the first that appeared was the Arleigh Burke DDG 51.

Now, where do I put another armor? There's nothing between armoured warfare and synthetic fibers!This seems like a strange argument to me as you created the new tech screen! If it doesn't fit then move the techs? I have no idea how you create the new tech boxes and arrows and I'm not going to tell you what to do but if you created the new tech path then I guess you could change it if you wanted....?

Constitutional Monarchy lacks the standard tile trade bonus. This is not cool, considering that even oligarchic republic has it.

How about it? ;p

1408, England (wanted to play with boats too much).

Speed of Galleons is nice... but the MoW JUST TOASTS THOSE BIATCHES! ;p

Definitely turns it from POS to HOLY SHI...!

Now, if only there was some kind of colonial marine that I could load into my lovely MoW (with its brilliant bombardment) and invade other colonies throughout the world...?

How about it? A marine unit that becomes available with Nationalism to all civs, decent attack and defense, amphibious assault, dont care what you call it. Maybe even a bit earlier, like naval tactics or Flintlock!

Right after Mercantilism is when the colonial warfare gets going; shouldnt we have something capable of seizing colonies?

UPDATE ON STAT ANALYSIS: Taking WAYYY more work than I expected, might be sometime next week. I went from my calculator to excel, which is why. Totally new format, not nearly as good, but lets me save data.

I'm gonna stick by Rhye. We don't need ridiculous numbers of units. Just a few more in key spots.

I agree. The speed tech goes at in the modern age would make an addition of another tank into the chain useless - it would be upgraded to no more than ten turns before it's upgraded to MA/MBT (it should be called MBT imho.)

I think the Armored Car really isn't necessary, myself.

It would be kinda cute though; this little armored widget smashing through the enemy lines aww ;p

Sides, since its in there its nice.

COLONIAL MARINE? Since everyone had them, why not include them? Its just something to make colonial warfare easier earlier; its not like all seabourne invasions have been accompanied by aerial bombardment ;p

Well, can it be fixed?

I still haven't found a solution. I'm not sure even on the reason. Changing the food and the citizens of Carthage doesn't seem to help

This seems like a strange argument to me as you created the new tech screen! If it doesn't fit then move the techs? I have no idea how you create the new tech boxes and arrows and I'm not going to tell you what to do but if you created the new tech path then I guess you could change it if you wanted....?

LOL let me explain better.

Did you notice a reduction of the number of industrial techs?
That was made after a planned decision.
I divided the timeline in four parts corresponding to the approximate era change. And found that the industrial part of the tech tree was quite short and instead contained many techs.
This means lowering their cost, but that's a distorsion that I'd prefer avoiding, if I can.
So I decided to put a lower and an upper limit to the number of techs for each age: each age has their limits, which are different.
Plus, I decided to shift right a part of the tree, sending the XIX century to the industrial, and the 30s-40s-50s to the modern. This is more accurate IMO and fits the timeline division better.
Because of this, some techs were moved to the modern, and I've already reached the upper limit now.

You might say: "then raise all the upper limits". But I say: "remember, this is a 400 turns game. DyP had hundreds of techs, but it was 900 turns long".

An early marine unit sounds interesting for the gameplay - we'll see if there's historial evidence and if there are good animations for it.

Constitutional Monarchy lacks the standard tile trade bonus. This is not cool, considering that even oligarchic republic has it.

How about it? ;p


Republic must have something better than monarchies. If it is inferior in everything, it is useless.
However I have modified it a bit- just for trying; I want more AIs to choose monarchy

1)animation problems? You HAVEN'T the animations! The version you have doesn't contain any additional animation. For this reason it is only a few MBs.

The game had crashed

I will retry

It says I'm not authorized to see the attachment even if I've logged in.
Has CDG many units that CFC forums haven't?

Thanks anyway. Did you like the screenshots?


Rhye, just sign up as a member and you will understand why I asked for some modern units just to fit tehm into the present tree. No need for too many new tech. Armor is fine where it is, but make that Cold War Armor. The Abrams should fit into later techs, like Smart Weapons. The jet aircraft developments should be seen similar. Early jets in Civ3 old jet tech (Rocketry),
like Mig-15, F-86s and such. Next generation jets with Satelittes (F4), then Smart Weapons we got the jets like F-15, F-16, F-18.
Then just make the difference between Naval and Land based aircrafts. it works super in other mods so why not give it a thought.
The Bradley I talked about earlier was consider to be developed with Smart Weapons too. The early M113 and first versions of BMP1 in the present mech Infantry tech.
Just think that development did speed on dramaticly after WW2 so why wait several techs and let it stay with just one type of jet ???

My last thought to be sure, since you got your mod on a good run.
I just gave you hint on not letting fantastics creations sit outside this fine mod. Naturally you have missed out a huge lot not being over at CDGroup.

Best to you
Cemo

Republic must have something better than monarchies. If it is inferior in everything, it is useless.
However I have modified it a bit- just for trying; I want more AIs to choose monarchy

Currently, countries as Denmark, Norway, Sweden and UK are constitutional monarchies. They all have strong economies. Of course you may mean something different with constitutional monarchy in your mod, and said countries would be considered democracies.

Currently, countries as Denmark, Norway, Sweden and UK are constitutional monarchies. They all have strong economies. Of course you may mean something different with constitutional monarchy in your mod, and said countries would be considered democracies.

I want deep into this and found that there's a difference between "limited monarchy" (like in England now) where the monarch has only traditional and ceremonial powers and "constitutional monarchy", term that can be use for the former, but that instead means that monarch's power is limited by a constitution. All late XIX and early XX century monarchies were constitutional, but the king wasn't useless as it is now in many countries.

The game had crashed

I will retry

You're right, there's an error in the pediaicons you have (that pediaicons is different from the one I use, because mine contains the links to the additional animations)


Replace the line:

#ANIMNAME_PRTO_War_Wagon

with:

#ANIMNAME_PRTO_Mobile_Tower

Rhye, just sign up as a member and you will understand why I asked for some modern units just to fit tehm into the present tree.

It seems that CDG contains a lot of Modern tanks and planes, but very few ancient/middle ages units. Am I correct?

When I did a search for Modern Destroyers the first that appeared was the Arleigh Burke DDG 51.

wait....what does the civ3 destroyer animation represents? (It should be a pre-ww2 destroyer. If it isn't, I may replace it and send its current animation to the modern one. Or I could replace both)

wait....what does the civ3 destroyer animation represents? (It should be a pre-ww2 destroyer. If it isn't, I may replace it and send its current animation to the modern one. Or I could replace both)
Modern multi-role destroyers have missile launchers. The Civ3 destroyer uses a cannon.

Rhye, just sign up as a member and you will understand why I asked for some modern units just to fit tehm into the present tree. No need for too many new tech. Armor is fine where it is, but make that Cold War Armor. The Abrams should fit into later techs, like Smart Weapons. The jet aircraft developments should be seen similar. Early jets in Civ3 old jet tech (Rocketry),
like Mig-15, F-86s and such. Next generation jets with Satelittes (F4), then Smart Weapons we got the jets like F-15, F-16, F-18.
Then just make the difference between Naval and Land based aircrafts. it works super in other mods so why not give it a thought.
The Bradley I talked about earlier was consider to be developed with Smart Weapons too. The early M113 and first versions of BMP1 in the present mech Infantry tech.
Just think that development did speed on dramaticly after WW2 so why wait several techs and let it stay with just one type of jet ???

My last thought to be sure, since you got your mod on a good run.
I just gave you hint on not letting fantastics creations sit outside this fine mod. Naturally you have missed out a huge lot not being over at CDGroup.

Best to you
Cemo
Beer!

The modern era has the most (military) development in the shortest time frame and that should be reflected in the game even if that means adding another 50 turns. :p

Just my 2 Euro cents to be lost in the bottom of your pocket.... :mischief:

A proposal - tell me if you like it.

-> removal of Alchemy
->Physics only needs Astronomy
->Military Tradition allows a new tech, (not needed for era advancement?) Absolutism.
->the Absolute Government moved from Humanism to Absolutism
-> Absolutism allows a Colonial Marine or Colonial Infantry, 5/2/1, amphibious, requires saltpeter. The animation is taken from the musketman of the napoleonic Conquest

Guys, the modern age is great as it is. I really don't think it will add anything to the game gameplay-wise if you add another tank and more jets.

Guys, the modern age is great as it is. I really don't think it will add anything to the game gameplay-wise if you add another tank and more jets.
...but it makes sense to have three nukes...?

Well, in a sense, yes it does. Nukes aren't used often, so who cares if you have different kinds in your stocks, with only one upgrade (or none?). But when I have a large tank army it's frustrating to stop the war for a bit to upgrade my units. What we need is combined arms, not more units of the same kinds.

Early jets in Civ3 old jet tech (Rocketry),
like Mig-15, F-86s and such. Next generation jets with Satelittes (F4), then Smart Weapons we got the jets like F-15, F-16, F-18.
Then just make the difference between Naval and Land based aircrafts. it works super in other mods so why not give it a thought.


Currently there are 4 eras of airplanes: biplane, fighter (monoplane), jet fighter, stealth fighter.
Why should I add intermediate steps?

Rhye, I like the idea of removing Alchemy (a filler tech) and putting in absolutism with colonial marine! Sounds PURRRRRFECT ;p

Getting my App together, once it is sent out I can finish that evaluation ;p

Well, in a sense, yes it does. Nukes aren't used often, so who cares if you have different kinds in your stocks, with only one upgrade (or none?). But when I have a large tank army it's frustrating to stop the war for a bit to upgrade my units. What we need is combined arms, not more units of the same kinds.
I'm sorry but that makes no sense at all to me.

Continuous upgrades reflect the real world arms race where one nation attempts to maintain an edge over its enemy. In the middle of a war, upgrading your tanks or infantry at an opportune moment might just be enough to tip the balance in your favour. This is how the 20th Century has been and it would be nice if the game reflects that. Having upgrades for a unit that is never used is a waste of time as you point out.

Nuclear units aren't upgrades. They are basically 3 different types: the earlier is an air unit and it's in because of gameplay (it doesn't need aluminium, it is the first available) and history (Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the only two places where a nuclear weapon was used in effect!). The 2nd is a mobile type, a "pocket" nuclear weapon. The latter, the most expensive can strike anywhere but it's immobile.

Now instead, any other opinion on the colonial marine thing?

Currently there are 4 eras of airplanes: biplane, fighter (monoplane), jet fighter, stealth fighter.
Why should I add intermediate steps?
...because the gap between piston engined Fighter and jet engined F16 is huge.
Personally I would remove stealth, put an early jet where the F16 is and nudge the F16 to later in the game.

It says I'm not authorized to see the attachment even if I've logged in.
Has CDG many units that CFC forums haven't?

Thanks anyway. Did you like the screenshots?

I couldn't seem to look at the screenshots. Actually, I haven't been able to get to your website for a long time. Or maybe I just wasn't patient enough. But don't worry about it.

That's funny about the links. They were working for me yesterday. Maybe you can't link to any pictures. Those guys get kind of CFC-phobic sometimes. But, you should be able to find them in the "Modern Units" forum once you are logged in there.

Here is a link to the Modern Unit forum, hopefully it will work:
http://67.18.66.143/forums/tbs/civ3/viewforum.php?f=186&sid=ac38377f58d74756b4c2de58ba616459

Anyway, CDG has quite a few units that CFC doesn't. Ripptide made literally dozens of WW2 units, and I can understand why he didn't want to go through the posting process twice. Wyrm has well over a hundred planes and ships over there.

I attached some of the previews.

Now instead, any other opinion on the colonial marine thing?Well, I suppose it might make the early industrial period more fun and colonies harder to defend, but how much were they actually used?

Now instead, any other opinion on the colonial marine thing?
I like the idea.
In fact, I wouldn't personally mind having a line of offensive marine units, starting with a 1.1.1 "Raider" (there is an appropriate Warrior-with-sword anim, and also one with two axes that could work), onto something that the Berserkir will replace, on to colonial marines, through WWII marines and finally on to modern marines and the USMC.
Whenever I started work on a mod (none of which ever got very far) adding this line was one of the first things I did. It's not good that 1-tile islands are impregnable fortresses to everyone but the vikings for the first 5900 years.
This line should always be relatively weak and expensive up until the modern age where the unit stats are good relatively to their price.

wait....what does the civ3 destroyer animation represents? (It should be a pre-ww2 destroyer. If it isn't, I may replace it and send its current animation to the modern one. Or I could replace both)

The Civ3 Destroyer is decidedly modern, despite using a cannon. I don't know what model it uses, but it's a pretty common US design.

The Aegis Cruiser also only uses a cannon, for some odd reason.

Luckily, we can replace them both. Wyrm's Ticonderoga Cruiser is great, and bigger than the Civ3 AEGIS, which actually looks like a destroyer to me.

But anyway, if you are going for accuracy, you should probably replace all the Civ3 ind/mod naval units. There are plenty out there to use. Wyrm made a USN Fletcher Destroyer, which I believe came along between the world wars. It would be a good generic destroyer. There are also several British and German ones, I think. There is a plethora of great WW1 and WW2 Battleships and Cruisers to choose from. There are even some cool 19th century ships.

There are also many Subs. A unit that may be worth adding to the modern age would be a Ballistic Missile Sub, and to use the Civ3 nuclear sub for an attack sub.

Rhye, is there any point in waiting for a fix to be found for the 1432 bug, or should I start a new game?
(I really don't wanna start a new one, this one was going so well!)

Now instead, any other opinion on the colonial marine thing?

It's a good idea, but there's the graphic issue...but I suppose you could use one of the Napoelonic Musket units from Conquests.

I really wish the Firaxis Rifleman didn't look so American. He doesn't match the cavalry, and if you use one of those musketmen, they won't go too well together either.

But maybe I'm just weird about that. All the same, I wish we could get Kinboat to make us a 19th century generic rifleman.

It's a good idea, but there's the graphic issue...but I suppose you could use one of the Napoelonic Musket units from Conquests.

I really wish the Firaxis Rifleman didn't look so American. He doesn't match the cavalry, and if you use one of those musketmen, they won't go too well together either.

But maybe I'm just weird about that. All the same, I wish we could get Kinboat to make us a 19th century generic rifleman.

there already are some riflemen, I don't remember the author. I'll use one of them as a flavour animation for European culture (it's the last step of the development: adding flavour anims)

Rhye, is there any point in waiting for a fix to be found for the 1432 bug, or should I start a new game?
(I really don't wanna start a new one, this one was going so well!)

Here's your save. The problem was in Carthage, and I don't know the reason.
The only possible fix was giving the city to another civ (I tried with Egypt and it worked)

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/Autosave1432D.zip

I couldn't seem to look at the screenshots. Actually, I haven't been able to get to your website for a long time. Or maybe I just wasn't patient enough. But don't worry about it.

Is there a problem with the screenshots I posted? Don't they work?

Here's your save. The problem was in Carthage, and I don't know the reason.
The only possible fix was giving the city to another civ (I tried with Egypt and it worked)

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/Autosave1432D.zip
Bleh, oh well... Let's hope this doesn't screw up history too much. Thanks.

I like the idea.
In fact, I wouldn't personally mind having a line of offensive marine units, starting with a 1.1.1 "Raider" (there is an appropriate Warrior-with-sword anim, and also one with two axes that could work), onto something that the Berserkir will replace, on to colonial marines, through WWII marines and finally on to modern marines and the USMC.
Whenever I started work on a mod (none of which ever got very far) adding this line was one of the first things I did. It's not good that 1-tile islands are impregnable fortresses to everyone but the vikings for the first 5900 years.
This line should always be relatively weak and expensive up until the modern age where the unit stats are good relatively to their price.

I could send the swordsmen to the marines chain, giving them amphibious ability. Berserks would replace swordsmen but would come later and cost as they cost now.

If you do that, you should still have a Raider unit available with some early tech (possibly Bronze) and then have it upgrade to Swordsman a bit later on (not with Iron Working.)
The line should then be:
Raider 1.1.1 -> Swordsman 3.1.1 or 2.1.1 (-> Berserk 5.2.1) -> Colonial Marine 6.3.1? -> WWII Marine 8.4.1 -> Modern Marine 12.6.1 (-> USMC 14.8.1)
There's a bit too much of a gap for everyone but the Vikings between Sword and Col. Marine. But I don't know what unit under what name and what animation would go there. Whatever it would be, it would be replaced by Berserkir, and the stats for this unit should then be 4.1.1 with a cost of Berserkir -10 or -20 (since 5 attack in the early middle ages is ALOT).

If you do that, you should still have a Raider unit available with some early tech (possibly Bronze) and then have it upgrade to Swordsman a bit later on (not with Iron Working.)
The line should then be:
Raider 1.1.1 -> Swordsman 3.1.1 or 2.1.1 (-> Berserk 5.2.1) -> Colonial Marine 6.3.1? -> WWII Marine 8.4.1 -> Modern Marine 12.6.1 (-> USMC 14.8.1)
There's a bit too much of a gap for everyone but the Vikings between Sword and Col. Marine. But I don't know what unit under what name and what animation would go there. Whatever it would be, it would be replaced by Berserkir, and the stats for this unit should then be 4.1.1 with a cost of Berserkir -10 or -20 (since 5 attack in the early middle ages is ALOT).

Too many. For each unit I add, I must find flavour animations for them: remember this.

You don't know what unit under what name because in that time there were no name and no unit for that role. Some infantry were loaded into the ships, that's all.

The solution I propose is a compromise between the original idea (having simply an early marine) and your full line.

Now it is:

warrior->swordsman->urban militia->partisan->guerrilla
--nothing-->spearman->pikeman->fusilier etc.
--nothing-->marine (high cost, they have to be built on scratch)

and i propose:

warrior->spearman (consider that it comes later than original tech tree) -> pikeman etc...
--nothing-->swordsman->colonial infantry->marine
--nothing-->urban militia (consider that it is low cost)->partisan->guerrilla

And where does the Modern Infantry fit in?
BTW, this is another reason I think it's a bad idea to do the whole flavour thing - just because of the falvour issues you rule out things that could add alot to the game, and frankly I don't care how the units look as long as they are high-quality animations. It's also possible not to make flavours of some units.

I propose a change in thinking here:

Instead of classifying units into lines considering what they used (Spearman -> Pikeman, Archer -> Crossbowman) perhaps these units should be classified into how they fought? Sounds like a no-brainer, I know, but I don't see it happening here. One thing that I honestly can't stand in Civ3 (RoC included) is how heavily you have to rely on shock units. (Horsemen, Knights, Cavalry, Tanks, Modern Armor.) This really sickens me - where is the offensive infantry? And, in that manner, why is everything so tangled up?

Here is my idea of how the lines should look:

Offensive Infantry - Expensive to build but generally all purpose infantry, traditionally well trained and prepared for invasions abroad.
Spearman (3.2.1) -> Men-at-Arms (3.3.1) -> Pikeman (4.3.1) -> Fusilier (6.4.1) -> Mobile Infantry (8.6.2) -> Mechanized Infantry (16.12.2)

Defensive Infantry - Of average cost and training, generally used as standing armies or as guards for defenseless units.
Archer (1.3.1) -> Crossbowmen (1.4.1) -> Musketmen (2.5.1) -> Riflemen (4.6.1) -> Infantry (6.10.1) -> Modern Infantry (8.14.2)

Guerilla Warriors - Cheap, ragtag armies that rarely stand up to the heat but on occasion come in use.
Warrior (1.1.1) -> Swordsmen (2.2.1) -> Partisan (2.3.1) -> Militia (2.4.1) -> Guerilla (5.6.1) -> TOW Infantry (8.10.1)

Shock Troops - Expensive, fast, and packing a punch. The use of these units should be the exception, used only in extraordinary conditions I.E. when you have high production and low unit support and only need the best, when you need to operate a far reaching strike, or as units to take on the toughest defenders in a city since they can retreat. All have blitz as well; they are shock troops, after all.
Horsemen (3.1.2) -> Knight (4.3.2) -> Cavalry (6.3.3)
(nothing) -> Tank (14.8.2) -> MBT (18.12.3)

Offshore Invaders - Expensive and generally weak, but being able to attack from the sea is a great advantage.
Raider (2.1.1) -> Amphibious Army (3.2.1) -> Colonial Marine (5.3.1) -> Marine (12.8.1)

Explanations for unclear units:
Men-at-Arms - Meant to represent the well organized late antiquity and early medieval armies. Really bad name, needs a better one. The Legion would replace this. Available with a tech off of Warrior Code and Iron Working called Military Organization or some such.
Pikemen - Meant to represent the armies from between the age of the Knight and the age of the Musket. Renaissance armies, essentially.
Mobile, Mechanized and Modern Infantries - Self explanatory, just wanted to point out that the second movement point is due to armored trucks that transport these troops. Oh, and Mobile Infantry is available at Mass Production.
Amphibious Army - Really really really bad name; I couldn't think up a good one. Meant to represent the armies used during the Punic wars, which is where amphibious warfare first developed. Available with the previously mentioned Military Organization tech.

The only major problem I can see with this is which line should be conscripted. I can see real life examples of all three - think of the barbaric armies of swordsmen from the Germanic tribes, think of the massive conscription machine that Napoleon relied upon for his fusiliers, and think of how conscription was in WWI and WWII. I suppose it fits the Defensive Infantry line the best, though, because not all conscription armies were rag tag, and Napoleon's conscription machine was definitely the exception.

Maybe later I'll flesh this out with costs, defensive bombardment, and some graphs.

Khift, I definately like the general direction of it. One problem I noticed in your suggestion is that modern defenders are (like in normal Civ - and this is bad) too weak to properly hold up against the contemporary attackers and shocks. Modern war hardly ever involves massive exachnage of land (and I mean post-WWII wars here) and so it should be pretty hard to win over a city. If you keep defense stats the way you suggested them, there should be a cheap modern city imp called Garrison or Army Base that adds 50% defense to compensate. It has to be relatively cheap so it can be built quickly.

The actual numbers I used were nearly completely arbitrary, to be honest with you. I figured that major discrepancies like that would be noticed when more eyes looked at it anyways. I just knew what I'd like for each unit and went from there.

Another thing I noticed is you missed the Chariot, Horse Archer and Lancer. Or maybe you don't want them in.

I also missed the Camel Rider and Elephant Archer.

Sad thing is, though, that I can't see a reason to include any of those, except as flavour units. Chariots could be used as Horseman replacements in the really really ancient civs, Camel Riders as Horseman replacements for alot of moslem civs, and the Horse Archer might be suitable for a Knight replacement in Asia if they had a code of chivalry. (I can't say I know much about Horse Archers, though.) Elephants weren't used enough in my opinion to justify their use anywhere; Hannibal's army had some 10,000 foot soldiers and 40 elephants. Good for use in real armies as moral boosters for your troops and demoralizers for your enemies, not good for a unit in a huge-scale game like Civ3. Lancers are redundant since my revision combined light and heavy cavalry - the differentiation between light and heavy cavalry makes a difference in the division level, but not at the civ level.

Well, Camel Riders should prehaps simply be an upgrade of the horseman with the same stats and price, except that it requires camels and ignores desert movement. Most civs won't have both Horses and Camels anyway, and those that have them will find the desert thingy universally useful.
About Horse Archers, maybe they could be fit in between Horseman and Knight.
About Elephant Archers, I guess they really don't need to be put in because of the scale thing.
About Lancers, fine.

EDIT: What about Chariots?

I like Rhye's plan best. I think it changes the least, maintains the basic structure. To be honest, amphibious before the colonial is absolutely absurd.

It was a well known fact that an amphibious assault would fail in the ancient world; they were not even attempted!

Even river crossings were dangerous, but without ships like the WWII landers, able to drop troops directly onto a beach, a mass assault is not possible; ancient armies lacked propulsion independent from the elements!

I was asking for a slight fudging of history in requesting colonial marines; they existed, but they functioned more as infantry than as marines in the modern sense. The term marines is simply a bastardization of marine infantry, or, more colloquially, just dudes on a boat with guns. Starting with anything earlier than a Renaissance unit is simply incorrect!

Blas is right. One word proof that horse archers need to be in there: Mongolians. Nuff said ;p

If they didnt prove how much more effective light cavalry is than heavy, nothing will.

If we are going to change anything about the mod's units, I would suggest a general weakening of heavy cavalry, as every major military force has proved how worthless they are. If you arent going to weaken them you should slow them down, as they were even more worthless without their infantry support.

EDIT: What about Chariots?You ever built a Chariot when you weren't playing Egypt?

You ever built a Chariot when you weren't playing Egypt?
Well, I always end up building one or two to upgrade in time... But often the first one turns into a Horseman build before I'm done.

I like Rhye's plan best. I think it changes the least, maintains the basic structure. To be honest, amphibious before the colonial is absolutely absurd.

It was a well known fact that an amphibious assault would fail in the ancient world; they were not even attempted!

Even river crossings were dangerous, but without ships like the WWII landers, able to drop troops directly onto a beach, a mass assault is not possible; ancient armies lacked propulsion independent from the elements!

I was asking for a slight fudging of history in requesting colonial marines; they existed, but they functioned more as infantry than as marines in the modern sense. The term marines is simply a bastardization of marine infantry, or, more colloquially, just dudes on a boat with guns. Starting with anything earlier than a Renaissance unit is simply incorrect!So... you're saying that organizing a force to ride up to shore in shallow hulled large rowboats, jump off, and storm a fortress was infeasible before gunpowder was invented? That's all amphibious warfare in civ3 is, after all, just the organization of forces so that the home "camp" if you will is on boats as opposed to on solid ground. The idea that every single force until modern marines had to land their troops, organize them there, and then attack the fortress seems absurd to me.

Blas is right. One word proof that horse archers need to be in there: Mongolians. Nuff said ;p

If they didnt prove how much more effective light cavalry is than heavy, nothing will.Good point, except where would they fit? One thing I had proposed was to combine heavy and light cavalry into one unit, giving it the strength of heavy and the speed of light to reduce redundancy in units and simplify the chain. Perhaps the knight should be renamed, then?

If we are going to change anything about the mod's units, I would suggest a general weakening of heavy cavalry, as every major military force has proved how worthless they are. If you arent going to weaken them you should slow them down, as they were even more worthless without their infantry support.Something I proposed as well. I fully agree with you.

Well, I always end up building one or two to upgrade in time... But often the first one turns into a Horseman build before I'm done.Well, the horseman would be moved a little earlier to compensate. And to be honest with you, I think I've had no more than three times when I even had the chance to build a chariot; I always took longer to find a horse resource and get it connected than I did to research riding.

Actually Khift, yes! It was completely impracticle, as ridiculous as it sounds in that context.

Ancient armies had to land a ways away and march in; think Marathon, think Syracuse!

Lemme put it this way: soldiers in the ancient world wore bronze and iron armor. Floats real good, dont it? ;p

Even the Vikings had to land away from a fortified position to attack it!

Why? Because raids are one thing, and invasions are another. The action you describe is a raid!

Out of curiosity, does anyone know when the rowboat was invented? Haha I never thought about that before.

Did excel calculations for Atk vs. Cost, Def vs. Cost, and Atk vs Def for infantry units.

Got some interesting data, but mostly discovered that excel is worthless and I will have to use it simply to record data.

Internet cutoff, see yall tomorrow. Rhye will email you what I have then too!

Khift, you're right in some sense, and I thank you for your effort, but how can I throw away all the work I did until now? I spent several days in thinking how to make that archers/spearmen inversion of the stats work, and how to make the lines cohetent with 2 different kinds of cavalry cohexisting, together with camels and elephants

here's some history of marines warfare

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/mil/html/mh_032500_marines.htm

another one

http://www.exwar.org/Htm/8000PopA2.htm


it seems that amphibious warfare existed in ancient times, but was ineffective.


here's Civ3 civilopedia:

#DESC_TECH_Amphibious_Warfare
^
^
^A combined land and sea attack, usually associated with the capture of a beachhead or coastal area, is known as amphibious warfare. First
attempted by the ancient Persians during the Battle of Marathon in 490 BC, successful coordination of amphibious assaults are considered to
be among the most complex military operations. When ship-mounted guns were developed, naval vessels would open fire on ground forces
and gun emplacements while merchant ships were used to land troops and supplies. The first modern amphibious assault took place at
Gallipoli during World War I. Poorly planned and executed, this assault failed, but served as an example of the need for perfect coordination
of forces in this type of attack. As battlefield communications improved, and the range of ship-mounted weapons increased, amphibious
warfare became increasingly successful, and played a vital role in World War II. Today, amphibious operations are augmented by fast,
armored landing vehicles; hovercraft that are capable of moving troops to and across the beach; and airborne assistance from planes and
helicopters.

Rhye, you seem to be drowning in suggestions here but I have another that you actually might like ;)

Colonization of Africa and America doesn't seem to work that well so introduced with Astronomy or Mercantilism - The Colonial Harbour.

Same effects as Harbour but with extra shield and food production to make the colonies worth having. Could even give it some culture to speed up land grabbing and courthouse effects to stop corruption. Basically a cheap and fast manner of giving all of the useful improvements to a far away colony that ordinarily would take all game to build. It is important that it can not be built in a city that already has a Harbour to stop European cities growing too fast, don't know if that's possible though. By the time Astronomy has been researched all cities next to the coast should have built a harbour. At the moment colonies appear too late in the game to be of any significance and grow too slowly due to corruption to be of any use.

Might be better if you went back to the original harbour solution and removed the Dock idea as the AI doesn't seem to use it.

Rhye, you seem to be drowning in suggestions here but I have another that you actually might like ;)

Colonization of Africa and America doesn't seem to work that well so introduced with Astronomy or Mercantilism - The Colonial Harbour.

Same effects as Harbour but with extra shield and food production to make the colonies worth having. Could even give it some culture to speed up land grabbing and courthouse effects to stop corruption. Basically a cheap and fast manner of giving all of the useful improvements to a far away colony that ordinarily would take all game to build. It is important that it can not be built in a city that already has a Harbour to stop European cities growing too fast, don't know if that's possible though. By the time Astronomy has been researched all cities next to the coast should have built a harbour. At the moment colonies appear too late in the game to be of any significance and grow too slowly due to corruption to be of any use.

Might be better if you went back to the original harbour solution and removed the Dock idea as the AI doesn't seem to use it.


Yes I removed the dock. AI didn't seem to understand its real use. The result was that there were docks but few harbours, and this meant out-of-date naval units.

I'm afraid the only thing that can be imposed is to require a buillding, not to require that there ISN'T a building. I already foresee harbors+colonial harbors in big cities in Europe, and nothing in the colonies :(

After reading some more articles on amphibious warfare, it seems clear that there hasn't been any maritime corp until XVII Century. The concept of amph. warf. existed since ancient times, but it wasn't successful until WWII.

Now, what I propose is the same I proposed last time, but without any change to the swordsman. This means:

warrior->spearman (consider that it comes later than original tech tree) -> pikeman etc...
--nothing-->swordsman (NOT amphibious)->colonial infantry (5/2/1,amph.)->marine(amph.)
--nothing-->urban militia (consider that it is low cost)->partisan->guerrilla

As you can see I keep the upgrade line but don't give swordsmen that advantage. The Col. Inf. also fills the empty role of an offensive foot unit in the gunpowder era, often requested.

I'm afraid the only thing that can be imposed is to require a buillding, not to require that there ISN'T a building. I already foresee harbors+colonial harbors in big cities in Europe, and nothing in the colonies :(
:cry: Oh, booo, hooo! Looks like I'm doomed along with the colonies ;)

We really need something to encourage fast colony building (or ANY colony building in some games). Is there no way you could put a few really valuable luxuries only in the Americas and Australia to make colonies essential? It isn't really even worth going for the rubber anymore as it isn't so important.

Khift, you're right in some sense, and I thank you for your effort, but how can I throw away all the work I did until now? I spent several days in thinking how to make that archers/spearmen inversion of the stats work, and how to make the lines cohetent with 2 different kinds of cavalry cohexisting, together with camels and elephants
Rhye, you must realize that to reach the arrangement Khift describes we had to go through the arrangement that you put together. Your work was not in vain, and frankly, Khift is right in the changes that he suggests. In your setup the biggest inaccuracies are fixed, with offensive spearmen (and they are offensive in their age, even with 2 def) and defensive archers. In Khift's setup some of the remaining inaccuracies are fixed. Most of them really.

About colonies, you can have the Colonial Harbor flagged to replace any other imp with that flag (like power plants). The European cities will build factories and power plants not too long later, but the colonies will keep the colonial harbour till they're strong enough to build a factory when it won't matter. There still is the problem of this powering up the European coasts, but it's a start. We can try to find a better solution based on this one. For instance, an imp can be added with industrialization or even mercantilism that also has said flag, gives 25% production, and costs more than it's worth (so the colonies will have a hard time building it). Don't know how to call it but it should represent small businesses and places where people work in jobs (as opposed to just working and producing stuff and living off the money.) It will replace the colonial harbor pretty early, and really it's okay for coastal cities in the colonial eras to have a bit of a production boost. It will mean we see more ships and more naval combat.

Instead of classifying units into lines considering what they used (Spearman -> Pikeman, Archer -> Crossbowman) perhaps these units should be classified into how they fought?


Well in my point of view the lines that now are in RoX are a compromise between what they used and how they fought.


One thing that I honestly can't stand in Civ3 (RoC included) is how heavily you have to rely on shock units. (Horsemen, Knights, Cavalry, Tanks, Modern Armor.) This really sickens me - where is the offensive infantry?



No problem here - I agree and I'll increase ALL the cavalry cost: stacks of cavalry will be much less likely to be seen. But please don't touch Lancers, Horse Archers etc.!

Hold yer horses, Rhye (pun not intended). iirc, the AI actually tends to build high-cost units more often. It uses cost to asses how powerful the unit it. There needs to be a better incentive to build infantry, or the AI will end up tying up all of its production with high-cost shock troops which will weaken it alot.

wait a minute: are yu sure of this (that AI has more incentive to build high cost)? Does this apply to techs cost too?

btw I don't see the pun

Cottage Industry would work for the name of a low cost production 'building' for that era, or at least give you a start with what to research. It refers to the outsourcing of the production of various goods (usu. textiles) to nearby small landowners and sharecroppers in the 17th and 18th centuries. Basically it meant asking the peasants to do some stuff for the dudes in the town and was an essential bit of European industrial development.

*****

warrior->spearman (consider that it comes later than original tech tree) -> pikeman etc...
--nothing-->swordsman (NOT amphibious)->colonial infantry (5/2/1,amph.)->marine(amph.)
--nothing-->urban militia (consider that it is low cost)->partisan->guerrilla

This is superb. Also, its not like spearmen were not offensive units; usually they were the primary element of ancient mediterranean (and even European you could ALMOST say) armies. Cavalry was the tiny shock element that harassed the enemy flanks, breaking the discipline enough for the primary attack to succeed.

Just had a thought: why not give cavalry a low bombardment and really lower its attack? That way you represent the charge while still forcing the infantry to be the kill unit... I know its not feasible, but at least I liked it while I was writing it. ;p

Archers were skirmishers and defenders, although they usually require infantry support to remain effective. Having them act as defenders makes sense as it is highly unlikely that they would engage successfully. I like how Rhye worked things out and I think that this latest change is plenty for now, barring some great revelation! ;p

wait a minute: are yu sure of this (that AI has more incentive to build high cost)? Does this apply to techs cost too?

btw I don't see the pun
I don't think it applies to techs, and with techs it doesn't matter cause you only buy each tech once and you have to get them all. Currently the techs are researched in a pretty good order, no need to change that. And no, I'm not sure about it, but I recall it being said somewhere here in CFC.
And the pun was that I said "hold yer horses" in regard to changes you wanted to make to cavalry. =P

Aeon, Cottage Industry is exactly the kind of thing I meant, thanks.

I'm gonna go see if I can work out a revision of Khift and Rhye's systems so both sides are happier. Should be posted within fifteen minutes.

All-purpose infantry:
Warrior 1.1.1 -> Spearman 2.2.1 -> Pikeman 3.3.1 -> Fusilier 5.5.1 -> Infantry 7.10.1 -> Mechanized Infantry 14.14.2
(Nothing) -> Mobile Infantry 8.8.2 -> Mech Inf
These units are used both for attacking and for holding ground until defensive infantry units can come in and defend the place. Mobile infantry is intended to support Infantry in the world war era, using its speed and attack to push the front while Infantry and Machinegunners hold it.

Defensive infantry:
Archer 1.2.1 (2.0.1) -> Crossbowman 1.3.1 (4.0.1) -> Musketman 2.4.1 (6.0.1) -> Rifleman 4.6.1 (8.0.1) -> Machinegunner 4.10.1 (10.0.1) -> Modern Infantry 10.16.2 + Stealth Attack + Pardrop range 3
Mostly used to defend cities and other positions. Almost all units have defensive bombard. Some can also be used for limited offense, like the Rifleman and the Modern Infantry. Modern infantry is both intended to hold strategic positions and to harm and destroy specific targets globally. They have 2 movement points because they rarely ever march - they usually use rapid air and land transports to get from place to place. This is also why they have paradrop to a short range. They can be paradropped out of an outpost to intercept an incoming enemy force before it can do lasting damage.

Guerilla:
Swordsman 2.1.1 -> Partisan 4.4.1 -> Guerilla 5.8.1 (8.1.2) + All as roads
(Nothing) -> TOW Infantry 6.12.1 (12.0.1)
Cheap units used to put a dent in the enemies' defenses for main force of all-purpose infantry to take out. Not very capable of holding ground, but very capable of annoying the enemy and capturing workers. The modern Guerilla has low attack but a solid offensive bombard that can be used to harass nearby units.

Shock troops:
Chariot 2.1.2 -> Horseman 3.1.2 -> Horse Archer 3.2.2 (2.0.1) -> Knight 4.3.2 -> Cavalry 6.3.3 + Blitz
(Nothing) -> Tank 16.8.2 + Blitz -> MBT 20.14.3 + Blitz
Expensive, fast, and powerful units used to knock out the toughest defenders so that the main force can do its job.

Marines:
(Nothing) -> (Berserk 5.2.1 ->) Marine Infantry 8.4.1 -> Marine 12.6.1 | (All have amphib obviously.)
Marine infantry is the WWII marine of the sort that stormed the beaches of Normandy. Basically just infantry trained in amphbious assault. It should be available with some WWII tech and upgrade soon after to the modern Marine which is better trained, better equipped, and more capable of holding ground for long enough that better defenders can come in and make sure the Marines' work wasn't in vain.


The setup probably requires some tweaking, but I feel I combined both setups pretty well. It makes alot of sense in this setup that I suggested.


EDIT: It's important to see which units are contemporary with which units. So here are the groups that should end up interacting. (Also added TOW Infantry. =X)

Warrior
Spearman, Chariot, Archer
Spearman, Swordsman, Horseman, Archer
Spearman, Swordsman, Horse Archer, Archer
Pikeman, Knight, Crossbowman, Berserk
Pikeman, Musketman, Knight
Fusilier, Cavalry, Musketman, Partisan
Fusilier, Cavalry, Partisan, Rifleman
Infantry, Machinegunner, Mobile Infantry (WWI)
Infantry, Machinegunner, Mobile Infantry, Tank, Marine Infantry, Guerilla (WWII and the beginning of true combined arms)
Mechanized Infantry, Modern Infantry, MBT, Marine, Guerilla, TOW Infantry, (Modern times and the ultimate realization of combined arms)

This helps clarify how the units will interact. I probably misplaced some of the things (like the Partisan, the proper location of which I didn't really remember.)

there's something I like and something I don't.
I like the idea of making something upgradeablt to machinegunner. However historical accuracy is not easy to mantain when we touch fusiliers (line infantry) and riflemen (skirmishers)
I don't like the single cavalry line (that also deletes lancers)
And I'd prefer to mantain the swordsman-to-marine line (with the Colonial Infantry in between)

blasphemous, can you try to find that post revealing AI building priorities?

1. Yes, Fusiliers and Riflemen were one of my biggest dilemmas. However, I decided to just assign them each to one line and get it over with. In this case historical accuracy must be sacrificed in the name of gameplay and balance.
2. I know you object to the cavalry thing but I really think it's the best solution. But if you insist on two cavalry lines, they should both still be under shock troops and should serve the very same purpouse. Really, their use is the same in the scale of the game and so I don't think there should be a split.
3. So swordsman can upgrade to colonial infantry and from there to marine infantry. That's not a huge issue for me. If you do that, the new marine line would be:
(Nothing) -> Swordsman 2.1.1 -> (Berserk 5.2.1 ->) Colonial Infantry 5.3.1 -> Marine Infantry 8.4.1 -> Marine 12.6.1
with all but Swordsman having amphib.

I think ultimately the issues should be decided by each of us proposing one setup, and then all of the devteam voting on it. So far we have Rhye's setup which is the one currently in the Xpack, we have Khift's and we have mine. If anyone else has a suggestion they should make it.

blasphemous, can you try to find that post revealing AI building priorities?
I highly doubt it. I only vaguely remember this.
But this would be a good place to start. It's a very long thread and the thing about unit costs may be in a thread linked to from there or may not be there at all. I'm not prepared to read through the whole thing for a second time (last time took me several hours), if some brave soul is, they're welcome to try. It's an excellent read really, slightly outdated but has some great food for the thought of anyone involved in modding.

In the suggested thread, this post (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=931785&postcount=189) says something about it.

Nothing else though, that I could see.

many thanks, procrastinator.
The things they say is cohent with the results of my tests, which demostrate that Blasphemous statement is false, fortunately :)

With some test it's clear that AI prefers to build a cheaper unit in case the price of the other is too high. So we can guide AI to build what we want raising or lowering the treshold.

I think that makes sense, simply because the AI needs some way to decide. I like Rhye's tree the best in terms of units mostly because it keeps the most variety. I notice no one has anything to say about ships! ;p

Certainly the earliest marine should be Colonial; nothing before that! Also, Blas I noticed that in your stl post you put swords as 2.1.1 units... that would be extremely worthless, considering

Def Bonus for Attack From Sea, Def Bonus for Fortify, Def bombard, and Possible Def bonus city wall/city size and terrain Def bonus (if city is on a hill).

EVEN against a Def 1 unit this unit would be almost certain of losing... which may be the point, now that I think of it ;p

Its why C3C standard doesnt bother with marines until naval bombard is really strong! I would say that the swordsman would have to remain a 3.1.1, because his other ability will hardly be useful.

Rhye, sending Excel thing now... dont think you will find it very useful, still just Infantry, but I mailed my app today so I have plenty of time to finish the rest of the stuff! R^2 values tell you how well the model fits the line. I think there are other patterns, but until I get it all into my calculator there is no way to plot the residuals. Cheers!

Awesome!
Rhye, can you propose a revised version of my proposal (or Khift's) that you would agree to if the majority of the devteam supports?

I think that makes sense, simply because the AI needs some way to decide. I like Rhye's tree the best in terms of units mostly because it keeps the most variety. I notice no one has anything to say about ships! ;p

Certainly the earliest marine should be Colonial; nothing before that! Also, Blas I noticed that in your stl post you put swords as 2.1.1 units... that would be extremely worthless, considering

Def Bonus for Attack From Sea, Def Bonus for Fortify, Def bombard, and Possible Def bonus city wall/city size and terrain Def bonus (if city is on a hill).

EVEN against a Def 1 unit this unit would be almost certain of losing... which may be the point, now that I think of it ;p

Its why C3C standard doesnt bother with marines until naval bombard is really strong! I would say that the swordsman would have to remain a 3.1.1, because his other ability will hardly be useful.
Actually, I don't want Swordsmen to have amphibious attack. I want them to be very cheap attack units (like the Archer in standard civ) for underdogs to put up a fight with. Later they can upgrade to Colonial Marine or to some medieval unit for all I care. =P

I have modified Aeon's sheet, making a table that calcuates with a formula an approximate usefulness of the unit.

It isn't perfect, because there are many more factors, but it confirmed me that msuketman was too expensive and some types of mounted and armoured units were too cheap.

I like your rendition, Blas. Only two things I would change on it, though: it needs a late ancient age all purpose infantry. Having 2.2.1 spearmen probably wouldn't cut it, and, in my mind's eye, spearmen represent the warriors of early antiquity - Greece, Persia, mesopotamia, and Egypt. Then came along a more organized, better trained, and better equipped steel army used by the Hittites and Romans. Before, this was represented by the swordsman, although they hardly looked like it, but in your line it is lacking. Also, could Pikemen represent a fighting force that appears later in the medieval age? Like, say, 1200-1600, after the age of the knight had passed and during the Renaissance. Probably appear near invention, and would need a little better stats.

To Rhye: I wouldn't say this is throwing away your hard work at all. This is just an extension of your work - I took it and did what I could to make it seem more viable in my eyes hoping it would work out better for the mod, and then Blas did the same for my idea.

To Aeon: Of course there is nothing to say about ships; they're fine as is! Well, from what I can tell.

About the amphibious units: I just threw them in to my plan; I have no emotional stock in them. In light of the pages linked to by Rhye and the arguments of Aeon, I agree that the Colonial Marine should be the first amphibious unit.

Khift, I have no problem with an all-purpouse 3.2.1 infantry unit being added in the late ancient age, if you have any suggestions I'm all ears. About Pikemen, they're fine where they are - Pikes were invented to counter Knights defensively. It's already a bit inaccurate giving them a good offense because they weren't especially mobile, but it's a sacrifice that must be made for coherence of the unit lines and for differentiation between crossbow and pike.
Actually, whatever late ancient age all-purpouse infantry that's added could have 3.3.1 and then Pike could get 3.4.1 so they can actually stand up to knights properly. But then Crossbows would have to be 1.4.1 and lonbgbows 1.5.1 and then everyhing else gets screwed up as well. It can be done I guess, but I think it would be better not to.

Rhye, can you email me a copy of that spreadsheet you fiddled with? I am starting to get REALLY curious about how to use Excel, and its pretty clear you know a lot about it! ;p

Thanks!

Had the mobile tower error just after I finished off the Koreans (the Chinese fell in 90AD, Koreans in 200 something cuz I had a GPT with them). Playing as mongolians on Emperor, had been going really well prior to that (5000+ gold, 40GPT, been exploiting the heck outta the AI)!

Had the mobile tower error just after I finished off the Koreans (the Chinese fell in 90AD, Koreans in 200 something cuz I had a GPT with them). Playing as mongolians on Emperor, had been going really well prior to that (5000+ gold, 40GPT, been exploiting the heck outta the AI)!

Replace the line:

#ANIMNAME_PRTO_War_Wagon

with:

#ANIMNAME_PRTO_Mobile_Tower

Rhye, can you email me a copy of that spreadsheet you fiddled with? I am starting to get REALLY curious about how to use Excel, and its pretty clear you know a lot about it! ;p

Thanks!


Here it is, but I have no time to make a detailed guide of it. Consider that the first italic column is a rating of how good the unit is, the 2nd italic is how much it really costs with 0.42, the third with 0.44 and the bold is the ratio: higher it is, better the unit is compared to the price.

EDIT: removed, see post below

To Rhye: I wouldn't say this is throwing away your hard work at all. This is just an extension of your work - I took it and did what I could to make it seem more viable in my eyes hoping it would work out better for the mod, and then Blas did the same for my idea.

To Aeon: Of course there is nothing to say about ships; they're fine as is! Well, from what I can tell.



:cry: I don't want to spend the rest of my life tweaking this mod: I listen to everybody but I consider the unit balancement and additions done for 95%, I don't want to begin from scratch again.

I think cavalry now are OK (I raised some costs, depending on what the excel sheet told me :) ) and I changed Musketman and Guerrilla for the same reasons.
I'll try to find a solution to make some unit upgrade to the machinegunner. But it won't be easy.

Rhye, you don't have to do all of the work. We can take a more active role if you want to spend a bit less time on the mod.

Rhye, I'm going through the stats sheet (and managing to understand most of it so far) but one thing I don't understand the Upgrades column. What exactly does it list? (The lefthand number of it that is.)
Also, tank is listed as having 1 movement point. oO
Blitz value should be in direct relation to the number of movement points, it shouldn't have a constant value.

Sorry, double post due to internet problems.

the upgrades column counts how many units are there in its line, upgrading to the unit.

All the abilities are in one column. It's a rough approximation, made in 10 minutes.

I fixed the sheet; there were a couple of errors

the upgrades column counts how many units are there in its line, upgrading to the unit.

All the abilities are in one column. It's a rough approximation, made in 10 minutes.
1. So that's how many units come before the unit in its upgrade chain? Okay.
2. I meant that the Blitz ability should be worth more for the MA than for the Tank because MA can make 1.5 as many attacks. And I think the MA should be renamed MBT.

Besides that, what do you think of us relieving some of your workload? I know in a few days you won't be as free to the mod and I'd hate to see developement die. Alot of your work is technical stuff, right? I mean, going through the biq, making the changes to stats, stuff like that. I bet some of can handle some of the parts of the great work that you do.

Besides that, what do you think of us relieving some of your workload? I know in a few days you won't be as free to the mod and I'd hate to see developement die. Alot of your work is technical stuff, right? I mean, going through the biq, making the changes to stats, stuff like that. I bet some of can handle some of the parts of the great work that you do.


Well, the technical stuff isn't the problem, except for long beta tests.
If you want something different to do, I can give you: create a scenario where you have some fighters, bombers and kamikaze, and your opponent has some cities and units. I've been asking to test Japan since now; but what I really need is to test the kamikaze, and this can be done without playing a whole game.

Apart from that, I'm quite quick at doing technical things, as long as I have feedback that is useful (requests to remove the Byzantines, in this moment AREN'T useful ;) ). Faster I get a reply, faster I can make a decision and implement it. But this isn't your case: you're always the first to reply.

And of course, I'm getting angry for how we don't find any unit creator for the Shifta. There are lots of creators that did a lot of work for Double your Pleasure and RaR. I never asked anything to anyone. Now that I do, nobody cares, they prefer to keep working on the long wishlish other mods have.

Now, on with the work:

1) I've added the Modern Destroyer. Now I need to know what stats have to be increased from normal Destroyer, and what special abilities it has.

2) I want to know if ANY of {Cruiser, Destroyer, Battleship, Submarine, Carrier} are post WWII only and which one were from WWII on (no WWI).

3) I've thought of how to divide the lines, to tie the machinegunner to something.
There are pros and cons, I'd like to see what you think.


now (0.45):

Warrior->Spearman->Pikeman->Fusilier->Rifleman->Infantry->Mech.Inf.
Archer->Crossbowman->Musketman->Fusilier->Rifleman->Infantry->Mech.Inf.
(nothing)->Machinegunner->TOW Infantry

the machinegunner is the only problem. Historically it is OK.

it could be:

Warrior->Spearman->Pikeman->Rifleman->Infantry->Mech.Inf.
Archer->Crossbowman->Fusilier->Machinegunner->TOW Infantry
(nothing)->Musketman->Fusilier->Machinegunner->TOW Infantry

the cons are obvious:
-few upgrades, that will keep pikemen until early industrial
-fusilier to rifleman connection is missing

Rhye, gameplay is far more important than small issues of historical accuracy.
make it:
Warrior->Spearman->Pikeman->Fusilier->Infantry->Mech Inf
Archer->Crossbowman->Musketman->Rifleman->Machinegunner->TOW Infantry
Upper row should mostly have equal or almost-equal def and att, except for infantry which should have more def than attack. (This is important, since trench warfare was all about attacking with a disadvantage against enemies that are defending with an advantage.)
Lower row should have more defense than offense as it will be the one defending cities (because it's the line starting with archer.) That means making TOW the main defender for modern times. For this you should increase attack and lower defense of Mech Inf.
(Of course I would rather you use my more comprehensive suggestion, but if you insist on making fewer changes then fine.)

And of course, I'm getting angry for how we don't find any unit creator for the Shifta. There are lots of creators that did a lot of work for Double your Pleasure and RaR. I never asked anything to anyone. Now that I do, nobody cares, they prefer to keep working on the long wishlish other mods have.Well, have you tried grovelling in a personal PM to BeBro or Aaaglo or anyone else? Maybe if you told them how important it is to you they may be interested in helping. There are one hell of a lot of units requested out there, and they take a long time to create. Even if someone does respond how fast do you think it will be completed? A more personal approach might gain a quicker response.

Rhye, gameplay is far more important than small issues of historical accuracy.
make it:
Warrior->Spearman->Pikeman->Fusilier->Infantry->Mech Inf
Archer->Crossbowman->Musketman->Rifleman->Machinegunner->TOW Infantry
Upper row should mostly have equal or almost-equal def and att,
Lower row should have more defense than offense as it will be the one defending cities (because it's the line starting with archer.) That means making TOW the main defender for modern times. For this you should increase attack and lower defense of Mech Inf.
(Of course I would rather you use my more comprehensive suggestion, but if you insist on making fewer changes then fine.)


Fusiliers / Line Infantry were organized in long lines that fired simultaneously. In the Napoleonic era they had bayonets, too, but before that, I see them more defensive.
Later Riflemen are more skirmishers, less organized. They better suit the all-round unit, while the fusiliers the defenders.
Well, in truth, none of them fit the defenders line.



except for infantry which should have more def than attack. (This is important, since trench warfare was all about attacking with a disadvantage against enemies that are defending with an advantage.)

That was true in the standard civ3 and RoC. Now with the machinegunner, the defensive role is already taken and infantry must be an all-round

Well, have you tried grovelling in a personal PM to BeBro or Aaaglo or anyone else? Maybe if you told them how important it is to you they may be interested in helping. There are one hell of a lot of units requested out there, and they take a long time to create. Even if someone does respond how fast do you think it will be completed? A more personal approach might gain a quicker response.

I sent a PM to Utahjazz.
But I'm quite sceptic because of the reasons stated above.

Fusiliers / Line Infantry were organized in long lines that fired simultaneously. In the Napoleonic era they had bayonets, too, but before that, I see them more defensive.
Later Riflemen are more skirmishers, less organized. They better suit the all-round unit, while the fusiliers the defenders.
Well, in truth, none of them fit the defenders line.
Yes, I realize this, but a sacrific must be made, and really it's more unrealistic for pikemen to last into the industrial age than it is for riflemen to defend.

That was true in the standard civ3 and RoC. Now with the machinegunner, the defensive role is already taken and infantry must be an all-round
Oh, right, I forgot that.

Put another Musketman type unit in the upgrade tree between pikes and fusiliers; having pikes for that long is not a 'small historical innaccuracy', it is an anachronism of epic proportions!

Warrior->Spearman->Pikeman->SOMETHING (muskets, Arquebusiers, skirmishers...)->Rifleman->Infantry->Mech.Inf.
Archer->Crossbowman->Fusilier->Machinegunner->TOW Infantry
(nothing)->Musketman->Fusilier->Machinegunner->TOW Infantry

If we are going with Rhye's upgrade tree, I think it needs to look like that simply to keep things logical. The greatest advantage of this mod is that it is historical while still fast; don't take away its historicity!

Personally, I see nothing wrong with keeping the original tree; it has worked rather well thus far, and I have no problems with its historical content. The only addition I am begging for is a colonial marine; with that granted, everything is A O K!

I got the first refuse, from Utahjazz "Nah, I'm not interested."

I'll try with BeBro

Warrior->Spearman->Pikeman->Fusilier->Infantry->Mech Inf
Archer->Crossbowman->Musketman->Rifleman->Machinegunner->TOW Infantry


OK. This sounds reasonable

OK. This sounds reasonable
Yay. :D
But for it to work, Mech Inf needs to have more offense and less defense (the two should be almost equal) and TOW needs to be better on defense than the Mech Inf. Otherwise people will have to use their old offensive army for defense and their defensive army for scrap metal.

I got the first refuse, from Utahjazz "Nah, I'm not interested."

I'll try with BeBroOh well, it's worth a try. Kinboat is really good as well but has already said he doesn't take requests any more so you'll just have to hope you win his lottery on Monday if no-one else is interested.

Warrior->Spearman->Pikeman->Fusilier->Infantry->Mech Inf
Archer->Crossbowman->Musketman->Rifleman->Machinegunner->TOW Infantry

In the absence of any modern infantry upgrade or relagating mech inf to a solely specialist unit, I'd go along with this idea as well. (Did you notice howmany caveats are in this approval ? ;) :D )

please, the stats for the modern destroyer?

I'm chancellor Gottwald of Germany :goodjob:

I will wipe the French out of Europa

Hello, sorry to interrupt the conversation here... I really like this mod, I've been reading a lot of this thread and it seems like a tremendous amount of work has gone into it. But I feel like the version I got from the beginning of this thread is different than the one you're talking about? Is there an updated version, newer than 2.62? Thanks for your help!

Yes. The one we are talking about is the expansion pack.

When can we expect the expansion pack (approximately)?

Quick question:

what is the difference going to be between tanks and mech infantry?

mech infantry will be slightly weaker and slightly cheaper?

So, basically, we turn them into a light tank?

...whats the point...?


Rhye, fortresses and barricades take too long to build as compared to their utility; workers should be able to build them in a turn or two, considering how much time it takes for them to do everything else. I mean, walls cost 20 shields, and fortresses take 16 turns (non industrious) to build. So while a city can pump out a wall in 2 or 3 turns, a woker takes 16. A road, a far more useful goody, costs 8 turns! Since they are so useless for anything other than static defense, why not make fortresses and barricades cheaper? That way we see more of them, just like in real life!

Unrelated, but it seems like the Roman legions really suck at building any kind of terrain improvement (I think slower than slaves?).

Anyway, once I am finished conquering France (Monguls still, nothing can stop me now mwahahahahA!) I am going to try and build the Roman empire perfectly (Hadrians wall and everything), so thats why I am *****ing about that ;p

Wiped France out of Europa ! Next goal Russia or Greece or Romans with my panzers

Heil Democratic Republik of Germany !

When can we expect the expansion pack (approximately)?

We're at 70% of our work.

If I had all the graphics I need, it would be ready in no more than 2 weeks. Unfortunately 1 unit and 5 wonder splashes are missing right now.

Quick question:

what is the difference going to be between tanks and mech infantry?

mech infantry will be slightly weaker and slightly cheaper?

So, basically, we turn them into a light tank?

...whats the point...?



Its stats were changed to 14/14/2.
It is an all-round unit and the thoughest defender, together with the TOW Inf (4/14/1, no resources)




Rhye, fortresses and barricades take too long to build as compared to their utility; workers should be able to build them in a turn or two, considering how much time it takes for them to do everything else. I mean, walls cost 20 shields, and fortresses take 16 turns (non industrious) to build. So while a city can pump out a wall in 2 or 3 turns, a woker takes 16. A road, a far more useful goody, costs 8 turns! Since they are so useless for anything other than static defense, why not make fortresses and barricades cheaper? That way we see more of them, just like in real life!


OK this will be changed in the standard mod, too.


Unrelated, but it seems like the Roman legions really suck at building any kind of terrain improvement (I think slower than slaves?).


What version are you talking about? In basic 2.62 you're right, and it was changed both in 2.63 and the pack

I'm guessing you removed a big chunk of the MBT defense to make people use the TOW and MI for defense?
Perhaps some MBT attack should be removed as well, because it will have to face up to weaker defenders now. Unless you add a modern/industrial "Military Base" improvement that's cheap and adds 50% defense. That would be fair and help keep the world map stable once everyone reaches the modern age, since in reality you don't see very large lands switching hands in modern wars.

I'm guessing you removed a big chunk of the MBT defense to make people use the TOW and MI for defense?
Perhaps some MBT attack should be removed as well, because it will have to face up to weaker defenders now.

Yes.

Can you suggest stats and abilities for the modern destroyer?

Another thing I'd like to put in the discussion:

I'd like to know which one of these would be more USEFUL for Russia:

- the cheaper and earlier R7 ICBM
- the Mig-29 (which would take the stats the F-15 had)
- the T-34 with slighly better defense (as the increased movement is already taken by the Panzer)

Can't suggest stuff for the modern destoyer (except it should have the unlimited cruise missile thingy.) I'm not very knowledgeable about naval stuff.
I think the better-defense T-55 would be best for the Russians. It would be genuinely useful if it's enough defense that the tanks can guard a city just as well as machinegunners (meaning they can conquer and then hold the ground on their own).

Added the Modern Destroyer, the WWII Carrier, the Dreadnought and the modern infantry. I'm now choosing the animations

When we will have the next step to download ?

The new additions are completed with stats, pedia and animations.
Many thanks to Cemo and Asclepius: I pasted their suggestions posted in old pages all together in a doc and orderer them - this was much useful

I want some feedback on the Russian UU. After that you'll have the new version

Feedback on the choice of this unit ?

Another thing I'd like to put in the discussion:
- the T-34 with slighly better defense (as the increased movement is already taken by the Panzer)Up until the battle of Stalingrad in 1943, the only reason the russians used the T-34 was because it was nothing but an up-armored tractor chassis with a medium-caliber tank cannon and turret. It was a cheap piece of equipment which could be mass-produced by an entirely and utterly untrained crew of workers.
The T-34 should therefore be loyal to its historical counterpart - a less powerful tank overall, but one that is cheaper by the dozen.

In 1943 the first T-34 '43 models began showing up, which were essentially even-more up-armored tractors with a heavier tank turret. The turning point of the war also led to the introduction of several heavier tank models, which rendered the T-34 the tank which withstood the storm and charged into Berlin - but not the mainstay of the Russian army for long enough to be considered a reliable and sturdy piece of machinery.

Now, on with the work:
2) I want to know if ANY of {Cruiser, Destroyer, Battleship, Submarine, Carrier} are post WWII only and which one were from WWII on (no WWI).
Naval warfare, much to the dismay of many enthusiats, has been rendered all but obsolete due to flying.

In the early years of WW2 the ship-mounted guns on many battleships, cruisers and even destroyers had a range which was beyong the range visible from the ship's tower. You needed spotter planes to spot your hits, which made naval battles very heavily reliant on planes and very vulnerable to submarines, which led to the predominant role of subs in the late years of the war.
The introduction of reliable sonar systems into the naval scene made submarine warfare more difficult and risky, and the high costs of building reliable and general-purpose subs also made it a task simply not worth invensting in. Admiral Donitz was amongst the first to realize that in order for his tactics to work, he would need to sink an impossibly high ammount of tonnages per tonnage lost, and that it would require too many subs and was simply not cost-effective. He quickly withdrew his sailors to the eastern front when the Russians started driving for Berlin.

There have been no major advances in naval battleclasses except for the introduction of Anti-Aircraft capable vessels and nuclear submarines, that is if you do not take into account the introduction of originally-land based technologies such as cruise missiles. There are virtually no post-WW2 ships because flight has rendered sailing all but obsolete as a means of war.

Many thanks, Sh3kel.

I managed to split the existing single modern units in 2.

Now it is:

ironclad->dreadnought->battleship
....->destroyer->modern destroyer
carrier->modern carrier
cruiser->AEGIS cruiser.

I've added the new animations to dreadnought, destroyer (an early destroyer, with the standard anim moved to the modern destroyer) and carrier (a WWII one).
Modern cruiser and destroyer are the last naval unit and can carry missiles.

The only thing I'm not sure is if the split of the carrier is worth its evolution. Did it evolve much since WWII?

Considering Sh3kel's comments, I ask again the question

Russian UU?

- the cheaper and earlier R7 ICBM
- the Mig-29 (which would take the stats the F-15 had)
- the T-34, cheaper tank

One or both of the modern ships should have the unlimited cruise missile ability (meaning a bombard with the same range, rating, and ROF as a cruise missile.) In reality a modern ship does not need to go into port to replenish its supply of missiles, it can be supplied at sea and that is truly done. You could make the ROF and rating of the ship a bit lower than that of the cruise missile, for balance's sake.

Considering Sh3kel's comments, I ask again the question

Russian UU?

- the cheaper and earlier R7 ICBM
- the Mig-29 (which would take the stats the F-15 had)
- the T-34, cheaper tank
The T-34. Being able to swarm with more tanks than usual is a real advantage. Maybe you can make them really really cheap, with -2 to def and to att, and without blitz. The result would be a very large amount of slightly weakened units that can only attack once a turn. Russia would be able to afford building it in very large amounts and so overcome the disadvantage of each specific unit. As long as they don't have blitz, two slightly weakened tanks would not be better than one regular-strength one. But three of the weakened ones would be.

The animation of that unit show the gun firing. A ship firing to a distant enemy with the gun isn't a good show.

The animation of that unit show the gun firing. A ship firing to a distant enemy with the gun isn't a good show.
Both of them? Can't you find an animation of either a modern cruiser or a modern destroyer that shows it firing missiles?

Many thanks, Sh3kel.

The only thing I'm not sure is if the split of the carrier is worth its evolution. Did it evolve much since WWII?
The difference between a classical Diesel Powered Carrier (designated CV in the US navy, will be refered to as CV henceforth) and a Nuclear Powered Carrier (CV-N - USN Designation) is like day and night.

A CV will have a smaller carrying capacity due to its need to carry fuel for the propulsion of the carrier as well as for the aircrat on board. CVs tend to have shorter operation ranges, be much smaller and overall carry less punch all due to the constraints of fuel capacity and size.
A CV-N tends to be much larger and have very long operational ranges due to their reliable power sources - Nuclear power is not only safer than diesel in terms of fire hazards, but it also allows for a much higher transformation of energy ratio than diesel. A CV-N can also be a larger craft due to the added propulsion granted by the nuclear based engines, not to mention the fact that since the fuel consumption can be limited to the aircraft on board only, it is only natural that it be made a bigger ship with a larger carrying capacity and a greater operational range.
CV-Ns also happen to be incredibly costly in comparison to diesel.

Instead of having the Carrier evolve, make it possible for a Nuclear Carrier to appear on the playing field with the discovery of fission. The nuclear carrier will have one-two additional movement points to stand for its improved mobility - however it must require Uranium and be more costly than its regular, diesel counterpart.

i don't find a destroyer with that animation

Big problem Rhye :(

I played Expansion Beta as German when "error reading file"

Settings : ALL "victory condition" disabled + 5/5 agressivity of AIs :crazyeye:

The difference between a classical Diesel Powered Carrier (designated CV in the US navy, will be refered to as CV henceforth) and a Nuclear Powered Carrier (CV-N - USN Designation) is like day and night.


Are modern destroyers nuclear powered, too?

Are modern destroyers nuclear powered, too?
The main propulsion system of modern destroyers are gas turbines.

Big problem Rhye :(

I played Expansion Beta as German when "error reading file"

Settings : ALL "victory condition" disabled + 5/5 agressivity of AIs :crazyeye:



Edit pediaicons.txt

replace
#WON_SPLASH_BLDG_Colony_Ship
with
#WON_SPLASH_BLDG_Colony_Ship_Project

I have found a couple of animations for modern destroyer and Aegis cruiser with a missile attack.
Both units are oversized so they should require some resizing work. Before doing that I want to be sure that this is EXACTLY what you want (no ability to carry any missile, but bombard power/ROF/range as cruise missiles have). For both? Or only for one of the two?

One of them should be able to carry cruise missiles; might as well make it the destroyers, since the cruisers are more useless (lacking anti-sub sighting)

I would go with the T-34, but dont make it too much weaker. If you plan to make it so that three equal a normal tank, you are going to screw Russia over very badly... although so did the real world, so maybe it will all work out regardless ;p

Considering that spotters are required for ships to reach full bombardment capability (according to our well read amigo above ;p), why not give battleships ranges slightly further than they can see? Three squares maybe? That way you need other ships, or airplanes, to see what you are shooting at.

Finally, can we do something about the Middle East crowding and the Persian settlement of India? Even pumping shipmoves doesnt stop them!

I think India needs some bonuses to production to allow it to pump out settlers faster, and Byzantium needs to be moved. I might do a test game with them moved to SE Asia to see how it affects gameplay.

Does anyone have a better idea for a name than Modern Destroyer? Something snazzy and badasterix? ;p

In case we choose the T-34, I'd make it cheaper but not weaker. Possibly I'd add an ignore forest cost, like cossacks.

One more thing: the ability to carry a missile automatically includes tactical nukes, not only cruise missiles. Is it realistic?

It doesn't have to include tac nukes. Remember that thread where there was a breakdown of hwo to seperate the two?
I think one ship should carry and one should have the unlimited missile bombard thingy. Don't care which has which. But make cruise missiles stronger than the unlimited missile bombard so there's an advantage to using them.

It doesn't have to include tac nukes. Remember that thread where there was a breakdown of hwo to seperate the two?


post the link please


I think one ship should carry and one should have the unlimited missile bombard thingy. Don't care which has which.

Instead I care - it should be based on real facts (which I don't know)

Instead I care - it should be based on real facts (which I don't know)

It seems that modern destroyers (guided missile destroyers) and cruisers have very similar roles - but the cruiser is the larger one and is more specificly designed to using cruise missiles. I am not sure how this should be translated to the game. If one have an unlimited supply of (weaker) missiles but can only fire once a turn, and the other has a limited supply but can fire them all in one go - then perhaps the latter is better suited for the cruiser. They would save their expensive and powerful payload for a designated target and let the destroyers fire at whatever comes in the way.

Is this the chart of how separating the missiles?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=802724&postcount=11

I'll try if it works

Yes, that's the chart.

Just played a bit, had three very disturbing problems.
First and foremost, the game crashes to desktop every few turns the second I end the turn. I load the last autosave and continue and it works fine for a bit and then it happens again.
Second of all, I may have found the reason for certain AIs being flooded with gold: the AI appears to underestimate the value of GPT. I offered a deal to Greece, they were willing to either give me about 2100 gold, or 19GPT + 1750 or so gold. This means the AI may be giving eachother way too much gold by way of GPT.
Third and least annoying, is that my capital of Deutschland-Zentrum is at size 10 and refuses to grow further, not because of lack of food but because it seems to need an improvement to grow further (99999.... turns for growth.) I will hopefully soon claim Shakespear and see if that fixes it.
Attached is the latest autosave (the game crashed after this very fruitful turn of trading. This means you can try and trade Astronomy with Greece and see the gold thingy.) Make sure to remove the ".not.zip" from the end of the filename - this is a rar file.

OK, I'll try. About the cruise missiles, I managed to have them loaded into AEGIS and destroyers.
It works fine and I can avoid changing those 2 units animations.
Now I can choose the transport capacity, which can be different for the 2 ships. Any suggestion?
The only corrateral effects is nuclears subs being able to carry cruise missiles, too. But I think that's not a problem.

Give both large capacities (at least 3, better if more), and make cruise missiles cheaper so they get built.

bleh, I don't know what happened this time. The crash happens between the Aztecs or the Carthaginians.
Please abort that game. It's born badly.

Tomorrow (or tonight if I'm fast) I'll send you the 0.5.
One of the fixed things should be the amount of gold. It was due to too low rate caps.

0.5 sent!

The main changes are:

-addition of the colonial infantry (early marine)
-addition of modern infantry
-heavy changes to the upgrade paths
-balanced costs as a result of the excel sheet
-addition of industrial and modern naval units
-some changes to the tech tree
-some changes to the governments
-some changes to the starting techs
-dock removed
-alternative barbarian warrior removed
-added a warrior that upgrades to the legionary or the berserk
-Russian UU now the T-34
-tons of civilopedia fixes
-some new civilopedia pictures
-civs balancement

Bleh. I loved my empire so very much. :cry:
Oh well. These changes are probably worth it. I'll start a new game this evening. What civ should I play as? (Gimme a selection so I can choose. =P)

Japan please. I've been asking to pick the kamikaze many times

Okie, fine, I'll start soon. I still miss my German empire alot. I will probably rebuild it once the xpack is complete. :D

How come civs with 5-6 cities are able to keep up in the tech race when I have maybe 40-50 cities at this late age in the game?

How come civs with 5-6 cities are able to keep up in the tech race when I have maybe 40-50 cities at this late age in the game?
Probably because you can't research faster than 5 turns per tech, and they have enough of an income for that so you don't have a research speed advantage over them. Also, research in this mod is very much based around trade, and if you aren't trading much and they are, they're bound to keep up.

Haha glad my spreadsheet idea was helpful, even if I was not much use in its creation ;p

now... about Byzantium... ;p

Destroyers: 2
N. Subs: 4
Cruisers: 6

Destroyers are fast and small, subs have way more space dedicated to missile holding, and cruisers are just bigger in general. Thats my explanation for these arbitrary numbers. Besides, I like cruisers the best ;p

thanks for the explanation. Yeah I'm getting everything in 5 and never trade. Turns are going VERY slow for me for some reason too. Couple minutes wait at 1500 AD.

PC Specs:
Dual Opteron 2200Mhz CPU's
4 GB RAM

Very strange that is so slow. You have a far better computer than mine (P4-1700, 512MB RAM) and I wait 1 minute and half in 1500.

The tech race is going like I wanted to.
I wanted a s