What does it happen if I tag a trait?
When you tag an improvement as being of some trait, that trait makes it cost half as much as normal. Barracks is tagged Militaristic, Harbor Seafaring, etc.

The Axeman was chosen out of desperation, because there aren't good animations for other things, and because there was no good suggestion of a non-filler UU for them.

The Axeman? I know it is more a viking thing :) but if you think of it, the egyptians weren't famous for their military.
We can't use mummies, sphinxs, scrabbles, scorpion-men and other Age of Mythology things.
The choice was between a slinger, an axeman, an archer, a spearman.....


About the Mobile Tower, there is evidence that Persian empire USED it.

Right now the first (axeman) is only cheaper, but given egyptian poorness in shields, that's a very good thing.
The second has 2 attack and 2 defense. If that's too weak, I can give it +1 or +2 hp.

When you tag an improvement as being of some trait, that trait makes it cost half as much as normal. Barracks is tagged Militaristic, Harbor Seafaring, etc.


Really? The editor help only says that it may trigger a golden age...
Your meaning is much more interesting, but are you sure?


The Axeman was chosen out of desperation, because there aren't good animations for other things, and because there was no good suggestion of a non-filler UU for them.


I see you remember :)

However, I still think some of the UUs need a looking at, even if you are dead set against it Rhye.Agree.

Things seem to be pretty much set now but I still don't get (or agree with) the late industrial unit progression. Everybody seems to be repeating everything, so I'm going to repeat myself as well.

Balloons and airships (the German UU) are totally pointless in a game where recon isn't necessary. The map is just too small for this to be important when the range is only a few squares and making it any furthur is unrealistic. The German Zeppelin UU is IMHO a nonsense when they only existed for the equivalent of a couple of turns. (The U-Boat is a far better option that existed from 1914 to 1945.)

The same applies to the biplane - this isn't RaR - the turns are too short for this unit and their historical significance too minor. The first plane should be the fighter, the second (at advanced flight) should be a second generation jet and the third upgrade should be an F16 equivalent.

The Armoured Car should be replaced with the first tank (NOT a WWI tank, but something 1940's vintage), the first generation of post-War tanks should arrive with Armoured Warfare which upgrades to the MBT.

Last chance to persuade you Rhye!

Astronomy and Magnetism both seem to allow safe Ocean travel. This is redundant because Magnetism is required for Astronomy.

Only Astronomy allows it. If you think otherwise, it's a mistake in the pedia.

I think I will move caravels and galleasses to astronomy, and allow sea and ocean travel to mercantilism

Last chance to persuade you Rhye!



I see what you mean.
The fact is that I wanted to shift right the whole 18th century and the WWII and post WWII. And one of the reasons was a better balanced number of techs compared to the number of corresponding turns (industrial period was short and had too many techs, which I needed to make VERY cheap).
A consequence is that I've made more room for some time periods, including WWI and reduced modern one.
I didn't like the standard tree because IMO it gave a lot of space to 50 years (1950-2000) while it compressed other periods. Don't tell me that you were able to distinguish between the belle-epoque warfare and WWII warfare!
I prefer that distinction instead of distinguish '50s planes from '70s planes.
This tree allows us to fight with WWI weapons for an amount of turns that isn't so short as before.

About the armoured car, you know that I wasn't sure of adding it at first. But my effort goes in the direction of filling the upgrade lines. And something that upgrdes to mech inf. is very good.


About the zeppelin: I know their existence was short, but it is the most charismatic German UU. In the game it isn't so short, as it is an early bomber that flies even before fbiplanes are around and that now upgrades to the heavy bomber.
The U-boat is OK by why should we change?

Really? The editor help only says that it may trigger a golden age...
Your meaning is much more interesting, but are you sure?
Yes, this is how you select what improvements become cheaper.

I see you remember :)
Well, yeah, you do know I remember like, everything, ever, right? =P


Just finished my second session as the Vikings...
The world is kinda ganging up on me for the last millennium (now 1110AD or so), and I'm now finally researching Fortification, and amassing large amounts of Warriors for a big upgrade. If that doesn't save me, I'll just quit, I'm not doing too well.
Had one really really weird bug. When I was running 0% research rate to save up to buy techs, every turn the game switched it back to 30% research. When I decided to research at 60% it didn't switch down anymore.
Attached is my save for analysis of the bug and stuff. Note the biq has been fixed so that the wonders produce the correct units.
Remember to remove the .not.zip part from the extension.

very strange.
I think it's not a bug, but a collateral effect of the rate cap. Despotism has a 70% cap. Probably it will not allow science go under 30%

No, it allows me to put it below 30, it just bounces back at the beginning of the next turn. =\

I've seen. I think that's the rate cap.

I've seen. I think that's the rate cap.
If so, then it's gotta go. This is way too annoying. =\

I kinda think the Zeps are cute. As to the Egyptians, you are right that they didn't have much of an army, but axes?

Haha we SHOULD give them a mummy UU! That would be nuts!

Lets just go with their strengths and give them a hyper worker (and some shield bonuses, sheesh ;p)

Now onto the Portugese UU:

A 0.1.1 settler that can go where workers can for the same price as all other 3rd upgrade settlers

Not particularly useful, imho. If they were given a cheaper one (population terms, considering how few cities the Portugese get in the mod) at Feudalism, when other civ's settlers get more expensive, it would be dy-no-mite! ;p

Seriously, they could actually build a pretty decent colonial empire with settlers like that!

You could also give the Egyptians some kind of bonus production building dependent on them building Pyramids or something. I dont know what it would be called, but it might help them remain competitive!

Same thing for other people with really low production. It could work ;p

If so, then it's gotta go. This is way too annoying. =\

If so, it's gotta be written in the pedia.
I need caps to enhance differentiation.

Lets just go with their strengths and give them a hyper worker (and some shield bonuses, sheesh ;p)


Yes laborers would be cool. But there's no available animation for them.


Now onto the Portugese UU:

A 0.1.1 settler that can go where workers can for the same price as all other 3rd upgrade settlers

Not particularly useful, imho. If they were given a cheaper one (population terms, considering how few cities the Portugese get in the mod) at Feudalism, when other civ's settlers get more expensive, it would be dy-no-mite! ;p

Seriously, they could actually build a pretty decent colonial empire with settlers like that!



Yes, a medieval settler would be more useful for their growth.
But again, there's no animation :(

There is historical evidence of prazeros, and the animation I've found fits perfectly a modern settler.

If being not wheeled and being able to defend isn't enough, I'll reduce the population cost.

Having one defense point hardly sounds like being able to defend... I mean, they aren't going to be attacked by warriors, right? 1 defense just means they aren't capturable. More of a malus for the enemies of Portugal than a bonus for Portugal itself.

Let me think....
they should be able to defend from barbarian spearmen. So they need 2 defense.

BTW I've found that the lower cap of 30% is comprensive of the luxuries: luxuries+science must be >= 30%. So 0/30 or 10/20 or 20/10 or 30/0 are OK.

What babarian spearmen? The Prazero replaces the industrial settler, right? There usually aren't any barbarians left by then.

2 is the right number. 3 is too high (they cannot defend like a company of cavalry!)

I'm making some changes to the modern tech tree in order to make WWII planes and jets more distant. Now rocketry has electronics as a requisite, and it seems correct, too.

What babarian spearmen? The Prazero replaces the industrial settler, right? There usually aren't any barbarians left by then.
Generally, there are, on the far corners of the earth.



I'm undecided about the rate caps. They make the game more interesting, but they cause the AIs to build up big wads of cash in Despotism.

Maybe Prazeros should treat all terrain as roads.

Get rid of the Prazero defense and make them cheaper pop-wise... although I do not really see what the point of that would be; by the time nationalism rolls around (or whatever it is cant remember right now haha), its a bit late for building more cities... and expecting them to be productive and useful.

Portugal really needs something to encourage them to settle Africa, but I dont know what it would be!

NEW TOPIC

Didnt somebody say somethin about givin each civ a starting tech called "Being XXX" or something? You could use that to define which governments are available to which civs... that way some countries (like European ones) cannot use theocratic monarchy or republic, slowing down their development. Later they would have access to more advanced government forms (and the lovely new resources that pop up with magnetism and such) that other civs cant have. Democracy, Communism, and Facism should be open to all, but the rest could be distributed amongst the various culture groups

BENEFITS:
-Cruddy start locations of ME Countries could be improved by having access to better governments earlier
-forced variety in governments used (so that there are things besides Republics out there!)
-Better control of how the game develops

BAD THINGS:
-More work for Rhye
-Less choices for the individual about governments

The Zeppelin as a flying balloon variant and several other models have been around since the French first flew them in the mid-19th century. They most certainly did not last for just a "couple of turns", as they predate the tank and the airplane, which are clearly in the game.
Just a reminder, the Hindenburg crashed before World War 2, and several blimps were used as spotters during the first world war in the Western front by both sides.

2 points of defense in the industrial age is pretty much useless. Take away the defense, make the prazero simply uncapturable (gets destroyed instead of captured), and make it cheaper. That would be marginally useful.
Aeon, it doesn't make sense for the middle-easterners to be the only ones capable of using the early govt's, and it does make sense for the Eruopeans to be way ahead of the rest technologically early on.

I decided to dump my vikings game, there was no prospect of winning and it wasn't very fun just surviving. So I started as the Brits instead.
I think I discovered why the French are so powerful... They have a goody hut right near their start, and their Scout probably nabs it on turn 3 or so. By the time I met them they already had Mysticism (and my first build was the Curragh that contacted them.)
The Maya were destroyed at around 150BC. o_O
The French were so powerful, they conquered Germany by 200AD.
Magellan's voyage still gives just +1 to movement. That's pretty much completely useless by the time it comes in, with the new naval movement scheme.
I entered the Middle ages at around 300AD, first among those I know, quickly followed by other europeans. Isn't that a tad early?
Hoplites are still 2.3.1?! HOPLITES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE OFFENSIVE! 3.2.1, NOW!

2 points of defense in the industrial age is pretty much useless. Take away the defense, make the prazero simply uncapturable (gets destroyed instead of captured), and make it cheaper. That would be marginally useful.


Uncapturable means that they have 1+ defense points. Then 2 is the right number, considered that spearmen have attack 2.



I decided to dump my vikings game, there was no prospect of winning and it wasn't very fun just surviving. So I started as the Brits instead.
I think I discovered why the French are so powerful... They have a goody hut right near their start, and their Scout probably nabs it on turn 3 or so. By the time I met them they already had Mysticism (and my first build was the Curragh that contacted them.)
The Maya were destroyed at around 150BC. o_O
The French were so powerful, they conquered Germany by 200AD.
I entered the Middle ages at around 300AD, first among those I know, quickly followed by other europeans. Isn't that a tad early?


Yes this needs a tuning.



Magellan's voyage still gives just +1 to movement. That's pretty much completely useless by the time it comes in, with the new naval movement scheme.


It is not that useless if you consider the coastal movement



Hoplites are still 2.3.1?! HOPLITES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE OFFENSIVE! 3.2.1, NOW!


No! Maybe you confuse them with the phalanx.

Do you mean that Hoplites in reality were defensive, or that what I saw was a Phalanx? (It was not.) I don't really know, I just read in that thread I linked to a while back (about suggestions for rule changes) that Hoplites were special in having a powerful offensive tactic. If that was wrong, I apologize.

I'm undecided about the rate caps. They make the game more interesting, but they cause the AIs to build up big wads of cash in Despotism.

Not anymore since 0.5
Cap=6 was caused that, but rate=7 doesn't seem to be a problem.

Do you mean that Hoplites in reality were defensive, or that what I saw was a Phalanx? (It was not.) I don't really know, I just read in that thread I linked to a while back (about suggestions for rule changes) that Hoplites were special in having a powerful offensive tactic. If that was wrong, I apologize.

I don't know anything about that thread, anyway the hoplites were well-trained units.
Their biggest victory was vs Persians immortals. So it does make more sense to be defensive.
Instead, the phalanx conquered all of Greece and the Persian empire. And that would be offensive.

Get rid of the Prazero defense and make them cheaper pop-wise... although I do not really see what the point of that would be; by the time nationalism rolls around (or whatever it is cant remember right now haha), its a bit late for building more cities... and expecting them to be productive and useful.

Portugal really needs something to encourage them to settle Africa, but I dont know what it would be!

NEW TOPIC

Didnt somebody say somethin about givin each civ a starting tech called "Being XXX" or something? You could use that to define which governments are available to which civs... that way some countries (like European ones) cannot use theocratic monarchy or republic, slowing down their development. Later they would have access to more advanced government forms (and the lovely new resources that pop up with magnetism and such) that other civs cant have. Democracy, Communism, and Facism should be open to all, but the rest could be distributed amongst the various culture groups

BENEFITS:
-Cruddy start locations of ME Countries could be improved by having access to better governments earlier
-forced variety in governments used (so that there are things besides Republics out there!)
-Better control of how the game develops

BAD THINGS:
-More work for Rhye
-Less choices for the individual about governments

The idea would be good if there were 1 (ONLY ONE) govt not available for each civ. That way fairness would be preserved.

If that happens, I can consider the idea and try to see if it's possible (it would cause problems to the tech tree. I'm not sure I can handle them)

Yes he has a good idea for governments

Rhye can surely if it's possible both :crazyeye:

The idea would be good if there were 1 (ONLY ONE) govt not available for each civ. That way fairness would be preserved.

If that happens, I can consider the idea and try to see if it's possible (it would cause problems to the tech tree. I'm not sure I can handle them)
I don't think it's possible because you have already given each civ 3 techs to start with, and IIRC they aren't allowed any more.

I see what you mean.
The fact is that I wanted to shift right the whole 18th century and the WWII and post WWII. And one of the reasons was a better balanced number of techs compared to the number of corresponding turns (industrial period was short and had too many techs, which I needed to make VERY cheap).
A consequence is that I've made more room for some time periods, including WWI and reduced modern one.
I didn't like the standard tree because IMO it gave a lot of space to 50 years (1950-2000) while it compressed other periods. Don't tell me that you were able to distinguish between the belle-epoque warfare and WWII warfare!
I prefer that distinction instead of distinguish '50s planes from '70s planes.
This tree allows us to fight with WWI weapons for an amount of turns that isn't so short as before.

About the armoured car, you know that I wasn't sure of adding it at first. But my effort goes in the direction of filling the upgrade lines. And something that upgrdes to mech inf. is very good.


About the zeppelin: I know their existence was short, but it is the most charismatic German UU. In the game it isn't so short, as it is an early bomber that flies even before fbiplanes are around and that now upgrades to the heavy bomber.
The U-boat is OK by why should we change?
I understand your choices Rhye, this sort of discussion is extremely subjective anyway. I just feel that the speed of technological advancement in the 20th century precludes many weapons used in WWI simply because they were obsolete so damn fast. However, the game doesn't work like real life so there are bound to be biplanes and balloons floating around way after they should have been scrapped in reality. This is why I argue for units which have more longevity and could survive for many game turns witout looking out of place. The pace of development in the 20th Century is another reason why more turns and units should be devoted to the end game.

The Armoured Car upgrading to Mech Inf does make sense in game terms but I have a fundamental problem with the Mech Inf unit. There are too many of them and they are too cheap to produce. I don't have so much of a problem with the Zeppelin if it upgrades to the bomber but I still think they are a wasted unit, a bit like the multiple nukes. As I said before, this is all very subjective and the reason I would prefer a U-Boat is its historical significance and its length of service. Zeppelins dropping a handfull of bombs on London may have been a revolutionary concept but their effects were militarily insignificant and reproducing psychological effects in this game isn't possible.

I think I have made my case quite clear but it's up to you and what you feel is right for the game. I may know my history better but you certainly know what works in this game, so over to you.... :)

The Zeppelin as a flying balloon variant and several other models have been around since the French first flew them in the mid-19th century. They most certainly did not last for just a "couple of turns", as they predate the tank and the airplane, which are clearly in the game.
Just a reminder, the Hindenburg crashed before World War 2, and several blimps were used as spotters during the first world war in the Western front by both sides.
No need to try and teach me history. As a militarily significant weapon, airships most certainly did only last a couple of game turns. Zeppelins may have taken to the air in 1900 as observation platforms, but they were only used in anger to drop bombs from 1915 and most had been scrapped by 1919. The ones remaining simply being used as observation balloons again. Simply predating something doesn't make it a useful unit to have in a game representing thousands of years of history. Its impact on military decision making should be considered. Zeppelins merely proved that lighter than air concepts were a dead-end road.

The Armoured Car upgrading to Mech Inf does make sense in game terms but I have a fundamental problem with the Mech Inf unit. There are too many of them and they are too cheap to produce.

This needs to be checked with my excel sheet, let me see.

EDIT: yes you are right. Both Mech Inf and modern armor need an increase of their cost




I don't have so much of a problem with the Zeppelin if it upgrades to the bomber but I still think they are a wasted unit, a bit like the multiple nukes.
Zeppelins dropping a handfull of bombs on London may have been a revolutionary concept but their effects were militarily insignificant and reproducing psychological effects in this game isn't possible.


OK they've been short in real life, but in the game they last a little longer, with slightly lower stats than the bomber.
What would U-boat solve? Yes it's accurate and appropriate, but naval UUs have never been that useful. And Germany isn't a seafaring civ, it's the real opposite. For most of its existance, Germany dominated the skies, not the sea.

I don't think it's possible because you have already given each civ 3 techs to start with, and IIRC they aren't allowed any more.

One more is allowed.
But it isn't simple and I don't know if it's worth the effort

OK they've been short in real life, but in the game they last a little longer, with slightly lower stats than the bomber.
What would U-boat solve? Yes it's accurate and appropriate, but naval UUs have never been that useful. And Germany isn't a seafaring civ, it's the real opposite. For most of its existance, Germany dominated the skies, not the sea.Whether they are a seafaring Civ or not is not really the point. If the British hadn't had such a huge Navy, the war in the west (both in WWI and WWII) would have been won by Germany simply because of the U-Boat.

I'm sorry but it is not correct to say Germany dominated the skies for anything more than a very short period. Air combat in WWI was insignificant and had no bearing on the course of the war. From 1939 to 1941 (at least in the East) you could say Germany was certainly dominant in the air. But as the western bombing campaigns and Russian production began to pick up, the exact opposite became true. By the end of the war the Luftwaffe had been wiped from the sky. If you consider a naval UU not to be useful then what about the old F15 UU, also not that effective, so I don't understand the argument that air UU's are any better. A U-Boat can sink a boat and start a GA. An F15 could never do that and neither can a Zeppelin. However, if you consider German air dominance in 1940 to be important then the Bf 109 should be the UU of choice not the Zeppelin, not that I would recommend that.

A U-Boat can sink a boat and start a GA. An F15 could never do that and neither can a Zeppelin.

Really can't air units start a golden age?

They can if they have lethal bombardment of one type or another. Trust me, I played enough with the Americans to be sure.

I will write down the govt stats and names and check with what I remember/can find out to produce this.

However, saying that Europe needs to be ahead in tech early on is THE most incorrect thing I have heard in a while. The middle east and balkans need to be ahead! Writing, ship building, irrigation, religion, iron working, bronze working... wanna guess where all that came from? Not Germany! Not France! Not your under pants! ;p

How about the printing press (moveable type was Gutenburg's addition, not the press itself)? Gunpowder? Wanna take a quick guess about them too?

If you guessed China, you'd be SMACK ON! ;p

Until the Renaissance (with the brief exception of Rome), Europe was a technological backwater of EPIC PROPORTIONS!

So IMHO, crippling their early development is JUST AS IMPORTANT as boosting their later improvement. Ok, off to breakfast.

And the Byzantines have to go ;p

Wouldn't shooting down an enemy plane also start a golden age?
By the way, wouldn't it make sense to only have one of the UUs start a golden age? In my Vikings game my golden age was started when I used a longship to sink a british galley, I would rathered have the GA start when I actually got the Berserkir and invaded Britain...

Really can't air units start a golden age?Oh, I'm sure they can but it requires unit destruction for that to happen and unless they have lethal bombard it will ony happen with an air interception and I don't know if that's enough to start a GA.

And the Byzantines have to go ;p
:lol: Useful comment #25 in a series of 100. Collect them all!

Until the Renaissance (with the brief exception of Rome), Europe was a technological backwater of EPIC PROPORTIONS!

So IMHO, crippling their early development is JUST AS IMPORTANT as boosting their later improvement.


I know this, and I tried to do it, but I must be very careful.
In fact I don't cripple Rome and Greece early, and this causes them to expand in other civs territory. Once this happens, Euro civs never recover.

Whether they are a seafaring Civ or not is not really the point. If the British hadn't had such a huge Navy, the war in the west (both in WWI and WWII) would have been won by Germany simply because of the U-Boat.

The German tactics for the use of U-boats was not like modern submarines as stand-off weapon platforms. In fact, the Germans perfected a concept known as the "tonnage war", which has been the cornerstone of all modern submarine tactics since the second world war.

The Tonnage War (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Tonnage+war) is a concept based on the assumption the enemy has a finite number of vessels and a limtied capability to replace them, and if the tonnage sunk is greater than the tonnage fielded into sea as replacements then the war will eventually be won by means of attrition. This calls for the U-boats to operate in large wolfpacks in order to be effective, and target convoys carrying supplies as a priority rather than warships - the assumption being a heavier transport is worth more tonnage than an escort, also the assumption being a sunken troop transport beats a sunken destroyer escort in overall value to the war effort.

The U-boats were unneffective means of warfare during the better part of the war - until 1942 there were too little of them to be useful in any sort of tonnage war, and from 1943 onwards the mass production of American escorts simply rendered the war too costly. Due to a lack of viable rockets and missiles that could be launched from subs, the use of a U-boat for anything other than a hunting wolfpack in a tonnage war wasn't even considered in the war.
The U-Boats weren't destroyed due to British numbers - David Jordan in his book "Wolfpack" explains very briefly but trutrhfully how the British Admiralty didn't even consider them threaths until too late, and didn't even bother developing SONAR capabilities to counter them. Not until the Americans committed their coast guard (and attached air force) and jointly developed a viable SONAR did the tide of the U-boat war begin to turn towards the allies.

If anything beat the U-boat it was the American merchant marines' numbers, the massive production power of the American shipyards which simply fielded too many ships to make a tonnage war an option, the cooperation between the US Navy, US Coast Guard, the royal Navy and Royal Air Force which led to the sinking of massive numbers of U-boats and Kriegsmarine vessels, and the dog-gone determination of Hitler to cause more harm than good to his general staff.

Back from another session of British dominance.
-Shakespeare's pedia entry still uses old city/metro size numbers.
-The Magnetism boats say they sink in ocean, but the pedia claims Magnetism allows sfe ocean travel.

Thanks everyone.

While we still discuss of the zeppelin, I've found a way of having religious wonders built earlier and -I hope- tuned the discover of the new world and the tech costs.

I'm beginning now with the flavour animations.

I'll have an huge amount of things to remember - it is very likely to forget something.

In the next version your main work will be checking that every civ has its right units.

First things first Rhye...
My 2 cents on carriers. You have correctly put in WW2 Carriers and Modern Carriers. Now then the talks floated around Nuclear Carriers. Well these are very special to USA. Most other nation with modern carriers have the most significant types the Angle Decks or VTOL/Jump carriers. Nuclear Carrier should more so be a UU for USA, but you got enough of those so just make it a flavor unit for the yanks.
Flavor units for Modern Carriers:
France = Charles de Gaulle
England = Hermes
India = Gorshkov
Russia = Kiev
USA = Nimitz
Spain = Principe de Asturias
Lots of others to pick out for all the other nations.

WW2 Carriers from Wyrmshadow
Graf Zeppelin for Germany
Essex for USA (Among many other)
Kaga for Japan
Ark Royal for England
Arromanches for France
then just pick any flattop for the rest perhaps CV Yorktown that he made also for generic carrier with lots of civ3 colors.

Well then you might consider those naval aircrafts.
Easy enough.
Land Based aircrafts (jets and props) set up as Transport Only Aircrfat and Transport only foot WITH Capacity 1
(unit with tranposrt capacity >0 can't be loaded to other with same stuff).
I think this is how set it up. Just keep re-base and such other aircraft things.

This the AI will work out at least in some test scenarios I made.
Don't mess with rebase and other thing.

If you like I'm sure not the only one to give a hint on the masses of aircraft that could be considered as such Naval planes. Think of it as each nation should have 1 prop-fighter (Zero, Corsairs and Seafires) and 1 dive/tropedobomber (like Kate, Avenger, Swordfish) for WW2 Carrier and then 1-2 jetfighters (depending on any jet upgardes F-8 & F-14) also same for strike aircrafts (like Phantom,F/A-18 and Harriers)
All these naval aircrafts have the lethal sea tag on AND have perhaps more defense and offense as a whole BUT shorter range. This makes them very different from land-based beside the capability of being able to land on carriers.

All this will as many says OOOH no more units, BUT I think modern times have that effect to increase and expand quality in modern weapons. As I said before lots more difference between a Gloster Meteor and a F/A-18 Hornet than a Musketman and a Flintlock (even if it spelled doom for Pikemen with the importance of the Bayonnet)

Looked over your Modern Tech tree (what I saw on that picture any way) and Rocketry should have the first types of jets, then Space Flight was clearly Supersonic aircrafts birthday. Later on Smart Weapons gives us the jets of today. Easy as that. No added tech !!!!!!
If you would consider 1 tech it should be right there between Rocketry and Space Flight setting up Supersonic. That was the key advance before Space Flight could commense.

Rocketry is more like V1 and V2 rocketry stuff and early subsonic jets.
Never understood how the Cruise Missiles could be placed in that tech. Surely the Tomahawk is known for a Smart Weapon if there anything like that. Just watch the old films from Gulf War. My suggestion to move the cruise missile to Smart Weapons adding on that simplier rocket for all like V1, V2 or Scuds.

Even so Rhye you thought that WW1 biplanes should have that early Flight tech so in historical importance I vote for adding at least more advanced jets to balance the importance of the jet aircraft.

Hm Stealth fighters actually are a bit ill placed. It's a bomber F-117 not a fighter.

On other modern jet bombers I agree that the Tu-95 Tupolev "Bear" is a fine Russian bomber, but I think it's a prop.
Many nations today uses jet fighterbombers or strike/attack bombers. The days of that huge bomber (B-52) are gone. Then lots of those units on CDGroup.
Tornado, Canberra, Vulcan, Tu-22, A-10, A-6, A-7, Arado 234 (germanjetbomber), B-36, Jaguar, F/A-18, F-104, F-105, F-111, F-15 Strike Eagle, Su-25 and on and on and on. Just pick some.


The Zeppelin issue
Zeppelin as the most german like? My 2 cent on that says the STUKA, what other aircraft has more Nazi written over it. Almost all folks knows about the Stuka a true German UU bomber if any. How much more than a pretty sight did the Zeppelin mean to WW1. Good for recon both before and perhaps after WW1, but really I can much more units that ment more.
Please change that.

Another thing came to my mind. Stealth Attacks are not much used. This most be the most modern jets not only stealth aircrafts. Unit with ability to strike stealth must mean that it can pick out a single unit in a pack. Just look at those TV-guided bombs from Iraq. Tick all those units in that selection so that the modern strike-aircrafts can hit anything it wishes. Very true to real life IMHO.

cemo, I think you've put in about 20 cents, not 2!!! :lol:

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/Japan.SAV

Here's the latest save of my Japan game. We're a little ways into the industrial age. I have done a little bit of imperialistic war, destroying the Mayas and the Incas. Now I have significant settlements on four continents. My colonies include much of the Asian mainland, some Indonesian islands, a piece of Australia, California, the Panama Canal, and the entire Pacific coast of South America.

China stupidly declared war on me, so now I'm going to have to fight them before Kamikazes.

Looked over your Modern Tech tree (what I saw on that picture any way)

Is Cemo not a tester??? If he isnt, RECTIFY! ;p

I agree that it would be nice to have a seperate category of naval aircraft. The Marine Corps Air Station near where I live flies different jets than the USAF would, and I assume that it is the same all over.

Do we really need a stealth fighter? Couldnt it be replaced with a JSF of some kind? Stealth fighters seem kinda stupid haha

I don't think we should bother cramming in a huge number of modern units that won't be used in most games anyway.

After a week's absence, I am back!



Well, alot of things must be said:

1. For the third time, remove the Armoured Car! It's just... not even sensible. Replace it with Mobile Infantry; that is what is needed.

2. About the U-Boat and Zeppelin debate, let me throw in a third idea for a German UU: an infantry replacement with high attack and defense. Historical basis? In both WW's, Germany's infantry inflicted approximately 30% more casualties than they received, not because of excellent weaponry or troops, but because of their excellently trained officers. Other nations had a doctrinal training (If A happens, perform action B), but Germany inherited the Prussian method of officer training and each officer would more or less spend their entire life going through academies and apprenticeships to build them for leadership.

3. About the flying units: I can't say I like the biplane or U2. Just not enough usefulness. You could get the same intelligence through espionage as you could through their use, and by the time they roll around you should have plenty of money for espionage. And, if you are going to make the bombers inable to land on carriers, then in order to keep the balance you need to raise the bombard of fighters and give them Lethal Sea bombardment to keep the sea dominated by planes.

4. About cruise missiles: If you are going to do anything with these, make them cheaper. Personally, I'd just remove them and give certain naval units their bombard rating. I don't use them, the AI doesn't use them, and while elaborating on them is cool, I don't think it'd change anything.

5. About drafting: One thing I realized this past week was that although drafting may date back into prehistory, mobilization does not, and the unfortunate thing about Civ3 is that it requires you to be mobilized before you can draft anyone. You might want to consider moving drafting back to Nationalism. Not nice, I know, but it's just a constraint placed on you by the game.

6. About governments: More than anything else here, I would like a differentiation between urban and rural monarchies. There is a world of difference between the monarchies of Rome and the Italian peninsula (urban) and the monarchies of France and Germany during the dark ages (rural/feudal). And you've gotta admit, Absolute and Constitutional Monarchies simply didn't appear often enough to warrant their appearance. They are just an example of an urban monarchy. Perhaps you could differentiate between the ancient and post renaissance forms of urban monarchy as well.

7. A small wonder proposal: Public Schooling. Available with the Corporation, Public Schooling would increase trade by 25%-50% (Your choice) in every city, but also generate two unhappy faces in each city. Historical reasoning should be obvious - modern compulsory schools were a product of large trusts attempting to create a stable and predictable economy through forcing consumerism and destroying competition ab ovo on the populace at large, and yet it causes much unhappiness and torment amongst those forced to stick go along with it. I can't remember if you removed the Corporation or not; if you did, put it at Industrialization.

8. Could I get a list of the UU's, Rhye? I'd like to do some nitpicking, if you will. ;p

9. Is there any way to make every city in the empire produce one culture per turn once the Printing Press is discovered? It would make sense, if you ask me.

10. Just gotta have ten things to say. Can't help it, it's a law of physics!

1. Agreed. The Armored car is silly.
2. The Zeppelin is kind of fun, but I think any of the three are fine as a second UU.
3. I can see some use for the U2, but not too much. The Biplane is good, but I think that it's too easy to get to flight in our current tech tree.
4. Messing around with units carrying other units is an unnecessary complication. Simplicity in units is best.

7. There's plenty of wonders now as it is.

9. It wouldn't be possible without creating a small wonder which adds a +1 culture improvement in every city. And I think we have enough small wonders now. But we should make Printing Press more useful. Right now, it's just an added cost to Free Artistry. It has no use on its own.

If you’re really stuck for an Egyptian UU might I suggest the mamluk? Mamluks were non-Muslim slave-soldiers who played an important role in the development of Egyptian society. As outsiders they were dependant on leadership for their position, and as non-Muslims were able to skirt the prohibition of conflict between Muslim nations. They were defeated by the Ottomans, but remained in control of Egypt under ottoman rule, and Napoleon, but regained control of Egypt as soon as he departed. Originally there we a kind of infantry, but later developed into heavy cavalry. They didn't really pop up until the 9th century A.D., but they managed to maintain control of Egypt from this period until early 1800's when they went the way of the Knight's Templar.

As a Civ unit you could make them early, balanced infantry with a chance to enslave a defeated unit to create another mamluk. Eventually they would upgrade to heavy cavalry. I know they come on to the scene a little late, but if you're really stuck for another Egyptian UU this might be the way to go. What do you think?

The German tactics for the use of U-boats was not like modern submarines as stand-off weapon platforms.... (SNIP)
These historical posts are interesting but not exactly relevant to discussing what to do with Rhye's mod. I try and keep my posts short and to the point.

It's not the total tonnage sunk per month that was important but the total sunk from the ships which were available at that time. You contradict yourself by first saying U-Boats were "ineffective" and then later "SONAR turned the tide towards the Allies". If they were ineffective, what tide was being turned?

When effectively used, there were more than enough U-Boats to bring England to its knees and for a few months this certainly was the case. Hitler’s interference in deployment orders and the breaking of the Enigma codes gave the British enough of an advantage to be able to strike back. This doesn't alter the fact that the U-Boat, singlehandedly, almost caused the British to be starved of both food and weapons. It could be argued that only chance tipped the scales in favour of the Allies. What if... the British hadn't captured an Enigma encoder? What if ... the German B-dienst had decoded the North Africa convoy route...? It still doesn't alter the fact that the U-Boats were a significant historical unit that better represents German power than the Zeppelin does.

Looked over your Modern Tech tree (what I saw on that picture any way) and Rocketry should have the first types of jets, then Space Flight was clearly Supersonic aircrafts birthday. Later on Smart Weapons gives us the jets of today. Easy as that. No added tech !!!!!!
If you would consider 1 tech it should be right there between Rocketry and Space Flight setting up Supersonic. That was the key advance before Space Flight could commense.

Agree completely and had suggested as much already. No need for extra techs, just shuffle the types of aircraft back and forward a bit to squeeze in a second generation jet.

Rocketry is more like V1 and V2 rocketry stuff and early subsonic jets.
Never understood how the Cruise Missiles could be placed in that tech. Surely the Tomahawk is known for a Smart Weapon if there anything like that. Just watch the old films from Gulf War. My suggestion to move the cruise missile to Smart Weapons adding on that simplier rocket for all like V1, V2 or Scuds.

Agree.

argh. I'm drowning....

I thought I could advance to the last part of the project, apart from some details (Germans UU for example), but now I have to stop.

Some random thoughts (I'm too lazy now to reply post-by-post)

->Is cruise missile too early? No problem, I'll put it later.

->There is no Smart Weapons tech!!! That silly tech was removed.

->Germans have a lot of potential UUs. The choice is difficult as America or Russia or France.
The Zep remains my favourite (could be my love for Led Zeppelin? :) ), but I considered various alternatives before adding it (including the mentioned infantry: the Wehrmacht sounded a good name for it, but its animation is taken by Modern Infantry now). I didnt think of the U-boat, and as I've said it is a valid alternative. The feared Stuka was too short in terms of life.
Anyway, the discussion remains open.

-> I considered the Mameluke, but there were 2 things I didn't like: 1) they are more a dinasty than a unit. During mamelukes egyptian armies were composed by various types of horses, camels and archers. I don't find appopriate a unit with that name. 2) I prefer an ancient UU for Egypt

->for cemo: I'm sorry you've spent some time with that long post, but I must point out that I won't put flavour units. I'll use flavour animations. So I don't need civ-specific names: the name remains the same. What will change is how units will look, depending on the cultural group. An example: the current swordsman will be Euro-only. Mediterranean civs will have their own animation, African civs will have a black swordsman and so on.

->what do you exactly mean with "mobile infantry"? Can you show some animation?

->If you don't want the armoured car, then you'll have to fight with Sh3kel and Blasphemous. They wanted that unit. In any case I need something that comes with motorized transportation and upgrades to the mech inf.

->the list of the UUs...well I haven't time. Look inside the editor. And they are not definitive.

->U2s now are more useful, as upgrade for the explorer.



more later....

->the draft: do you mean the "conscription of units" flag? It is in Nationalism

->I don't agree with the point on the goverments. "rural" monarchies are represented by the Feudal Monarchy; the rest of the monarchies are divided by the power (theocratic, absolute, constutional) instead of the size. The size would mean dividing Signorie/Principati as small monarchies from medium sized monarchies and large empires.
The same with republic: the "city state" should be the smallest form.
But there is absolutely no way to privilegiate small nations rather than large, with the editor. Check yourself: there is no way. A large empire is always better for any government,

->what do you exactly mean with "mobile infantry"? Can you show some animation?
Don't need a new animation, just give modern infantry a movement of 2.


->If you don't want the armoured car, then you'll have to fight with Sh3kel and Blasphemous. They wanted that unit. In any case I need something that comes with motorized transportation and upgrades to the mech inf.
I count at least 3 people against the Armoured car. Mech Inf doesn't need or deserve a progenitor. Put the first tank in Mot Transport and you have room for two tank upgrades.

I count at least 3 people against the Armoured car. Mech Inf doesn't need or deserve a progenitor. Put the first tank in Mot Transport and you have room for two tank upgrades.

In that case we have again the same problem.
If a tank goes in Mot. Trasnport, then it is a MKIV or similar. You already refused that possibility.

I forgot to say one (important) thing:

-> No more modern units. I have gone too far until now, compared with my original project. I agreed to something I wasn't sure at first, but now we've reached the limit.
Units that come with rocketry will not change because rocketry will be put more distant from advanced flight.

1. For the third time, remove the Armoured Car! It's just... not even sensible. Replace it with Mobile Infantry; that is what is needed.
I agree, and no Rhye, me and Sh3kel both wanted Mobile Infantry, not an armored car.
Mobile Infantry should be 8.6.2 (or 8.5.1), while regular Infantry should be 7.7.1. And modern infantry should get 2 movement as well.
About an animation, just anything that shows WW-era infantry in a vehicle. Best if it would get out of the thing before fighting (the vehicles were used to transport the infantry between places where they fought, they didn't actually fight while in the car/on the bike).
4. About cruise missiles: If you are going to do anything with these, make them cheaper. Personally, I'd just remove them and give certain naval units their bombard rating. I don't use them, the AI doesn't use them, and while elaborating on them is cool, I don't think it'd change anything.
Agreed. No point in keeping a unit that nobody uses, and making them so cheap that they are widely used would make them overpowered. Their current price is pretty fair, it's just such a bother to use them...

5. About drafting: One thing I realized this past week was that although drafting may date back into prehistory, mobilization does not, and the unfortunate thing about Civ3 is that it requires you to be mobilized before you can draft anyone. You might want to consider moving drafting back to Nationalism. Not nice, I know, but it's just a constraint placed on you by the game.
It is possible to draft when not mobilized, I've done it many times. =|

->I don't agree with the point on the goverments. "rural" monarchies are represented by the Feudal Monarchy; the rest of the monarchies are divided by the power (theocratic, absolute, constutional) instead of the size. The size would mean dividing Signorie/Principati as small monarchies from medium sized monarchies and large empires.
The same with republic: the "city state" should be the smallest form.
But there is absolutely no way to privilegiate small nations rather than large, with the editor. Check yourself: there is no way. A large empire is always better for any government,
Well, you could always make a very very powerful gov't that has the highest level of corruption... That would cripple larger nations but benefit small ones.

Don't need a new animation, just give modern infantry a movement of 2.
Mobile Infantry is a proposed post-WWI unit, not a modern unit. Modern Inf should still have a movement of 2, and also airdrop with a range of 3.

I count at least 3 people against the Armoured car. Mech Inf doesn't need or deserve a progenitor. Put the first tank in Mot Transport and you have room for two tank upgrades.
It's not that mech inf needs a progenitor, it's that during WWII Infantry was driven from place to place very often, rather than marching. Mob Inf also is a much more appropriate mo-trans rubber unit than the armored car.

In that case we have again the same problem.
If a tank goes in Mot. Trasnport, then it is a MKIV or similar. You already refused that possibility.Why does it have to be a WWI era tank? The time line isn't that rigid and as I've said before units are around longer than the date in which a particular tech is researched so a general early tank (but NOT as early as WWI) is still appropriate. :wallbash: ;)

Mobile Infantry is a proposed post-WWI unit, not a modern unit. Modern Inf should still have a movement of 2, and also airdrop with a range of 3.

Ahh, I see. In which case I disagree. I don't believe the scale of the map is large enough to show truck mounted troops, Most WWII era troops weren't mobile enough to warrant keeping up with tanks. For example a lot of German troops which were supposed to be motorized had nothing more than a bicycle. Agree with the Modern Inf stats though.

It's not that mech inf needs a progenitor, it's that during WWII Infantry was driven from place to place very often, rather than marching. Mob Inf also is a much more appropriate mo-trans rubber unit than the armored car.I hate to say I have to disagree again but only the Brits and Americans were truly motorized but only by the end of 1944. Also motorized forces dismounted well away from the front line so basically they should act as ordinary foot soldiers but if you give them a movement of greater than 1 then they will retreat from combat against slower units. This is not realistic.

Ahh, I see. In which case I disagree.



I hate to say I have to disagree again



:goodjob:


No, really we're not going very far in this way...I won't accept any requests if your opinion is fragmented...

The industrial tech tree ends and the modern one begins in the '20s/30s.

So in the mot. tranportation place the only tank can be a WWI (MKIV) or post WWI light tank (Renault FT17)

LOL, this is going nowhere :shakehead

How about we skip the unit.. :gripe: .... and try to fix the more serious problems with this mod. i.e. the fact that the AI doesn't seem to colonize anymore. Or the fact that colonies have no effect on the game.

Doesn't colonize anymore?! In my game as england, it's just almost 1300, I just recently reached Africa with my first Caravel, and at least most of the western coast is colonized by the Europeans. I even saw a Galley off the coast that had just dropped off a settling pack iirc. This means they didn't even wait for magnetism to colonize.

EDIT: And my first colonizing party will set out next turn, so we'll see just how much colonies matter.

Doesn't colonize anymore?! In my game as england, it's just almost 1300, I just recently reached Africa with my first Caravel, and at least most of the western coast is colonized by the Europeans. I even saw a Galley off the coast that had just dropped off a settling pack iirc. This means they didn't even wait for magnetism to colonize.

EDIT: And my first colonizing party will set out next turn, so we'll see just how much colonies matter.It seems to vary a lot from game to game but how many developed colonies do you ever see in the Americas or Australia, the areas that are not connected to the Euro starting locations? Most of the time there are none in Australia and only a handful of non productive single states in Latin America.

Well, soon enough I'll find out when the Americas and Australia get discovered...

It's not that mech inf needs a progenitor, it's that during WWII Infantry was driven from place to place very often, rather than marching. Mob Inf also is a much more appropriate mo-trans rubber unit than the armored car.

What you are describing is true but you are implementing it in a completely wrong way. The movement bonus in this game is not just what the word says, it is also a "retreat" ability that infantry should not get in any way. This bonus is meant for units that always have a superior movement ability toward others, and not just when driven. Infantry in WW2 was driven from place to place and that's all... they didn't fight from up their transport vehicles. This means they should be just infantry as they infact are (ie footsoldiers), and you should instead implement a ground transport that can load them to reflect what you described in the quote.

I voted I don't like the map.
While the map itself is not badly done, there are too many european civs in the game (+ you must include Austria) and too few space for them on this map.

just my personal opinion ^^

Hmmm... You have a point...
Since the AI cannot deal with land transports, perhaps the underused paradrop ability should be renamed "rapid transport" and the icon altered to show both a parachute and a car, and then Infantry can upgrade to Mobile Infantry with motorized transport, which has the same stats (and even the same animation), costs 5 shields more, and has rapid transport with a range of 2. This would then upgrade to Modern Infantry with the stats it has now but with an added rapid transport of 3. TOW could also get rapid transport of 2 (useful for defensing minor objectives near a city in a rush.)
IIRC, paradrop requires an airport... Since airports already have little use for a contiguous developed nation that's not at war, and even at war the benefits are minimal, maybe we should rename airport to something else that would represent rapid transport as well as flight... Or airport could require the thingy that allows rapid transport, and become a cheap building for air trade only.

Hmmm... You have a point...
Since the AI cannot deal with land transports, perhaps the underused paradrop ability should be renamed "rapid transport" and the icon altered to show both a parachute and a car, and then Infantry can upgrade to Mobile Infantry with motorized transport, which has the same stats (and even the same animation), costs 5 shields more, and has rapid transport with a range of 2. This would then upgrade to Modern Infantry with the stats it has now but with an added rapid transport of 3. TOW could also get rapid transport of 2 (useful for defensing minor objectives near a city in a rush.)
IIRC, paradrop requires an airport... Since airports already have little use for a contiguous developed nation that's not at war, and even at war the benefits are minimal, maybe we should rename airport to something else that would represent rapid transport as well as flight... Or airport could require the thingy that allows rapid transport, and become a cheap building for air trade only.

No.

Just no.

Railroads already represent rapid transit. Mobile infantry seems goofy. Just leave the modern infantry units alone. They work fine!

AND airports give tons of benefits. I dunno about you, but I like being able to build veteran bombers and rapid drop massive armies into cities I captured with those bombers and some strategic paradropping.

If I thought the AI could handle it, I would request a massive cargo plane that could rebase with troops in it to replace the airlift ability... but since they cant its hardly worth mentioning.

Ohh, et Byzantium delenda est! haha mutilated some Cicero ;p

About an animation for a German infantry UU, have you looked at the one used by the Germans in the Age of Imperialism scenario? Its pretty good and seems very "German."

I voted I don't like the map.
While the map itself is not badly done, there are too many european civs in the game (+ you must include Austria) and too few space for them on this map.

just my personal opinion ^^


well take a look at the other Earth maps in the forum...you'll change your mind

Rhye,

My current test game is as Russia and I am finding the Cossack to be overpowered. 6/5/2 makes it a nearly unstoppable unit in its era. The 5 defense allows them to roam freely deep within enemy territory with little fear of effective counterattack by the AI. No horse unit should have that much defense, please consider moving their defense to 3 and giving them the ability to blitz or perhaps make them cheaper.

Also, I really think there needs to be an increase on attack power for the medieval militia unit that comes with feudalism. As it is, there is no good foot attacker with an strength over 3 until very late in the medieval era. This creates a huge reliance on horse or artillery to defeat 4 defense muskets and then fusiliers. A civ without iron and horses really has little hope of making any headway at all until they can mass produce fusiliers and terbuchets/cannons. We need a 4 attack foot unit available early to Mid medieval era.

In my Roman test game, I had to use 3/3/1 legions from early in the ancient era until I could build fusiliers, way too long a life for an ancient unit IMO.

Thanks Horton.
I'll consider putting the man-at-arms back as a middle step between swordsman and colonial inf., and lower cossacks defense to 4.

Have you read the last pages?
What do you think of the zeppelin, of the armoured car/mobile infantry and of modern jets/modern bombers?
I'd be glad to hear your opinion.

I voted I don't like the map.
While the map itself is not badly done, there are too many european civs in the game (+ you must include Austria) and too few space for them on this map.

just my personal opinion ^^

While I disagree completely about what he thinks about the map (its so good that other people have used it!), I do agree that there are too many Euro/ME civs... but you know what I am going to say already, dont you Neo ;p

Byzantium... Byzantium... Byzantium... must... die... ;p

PS: Writing a vicious attack on Rousseau for my Euro paper. Its delightful! ;p The man says more wrong things than I DO! hahaaha

About Mobile Infantry: Crap, I'd forgotten about retreat. With that... well, yeah, it is a little insubstantiated. And the rapid transport thing wouldn't work well. Too complicated.

Either way, the Armoured Car is bunk. (And railroads don't represent motorized transportation, silly, they represent infrastructure. The thing about railroads is that they can't go off track and into enemy territory!)


It is possible to draft when not mobilized, I've done it many times. =|Gah! Shows you how often I draft in-game...


About my government idea: Size had nothing to do with it. Just where the power lied and how advanced the techniques were. If the power lay with the king solely and the people were organized into large cities, it'd be urban, if the power lay in the nobles and the people organized into manors, it'd be feudal. Just that simple. I simply suggested a differentiation between ancient urban monarchies which were little better than despotisms (Rome, for example) and the post renaissance monarchies (Absolute and Constitutional monarchies come to mind). There would be three monarchies: Ancient Urban, Feudal, and Baroque Urban. Names could be changed, of course, this is just theory.

Nothing to do with size. It's just a simpler and more streamlined system.


About the Cossacks: SOMETHING needs to be done about this unit! It just keeps getting shafted and dejected in it's every rendition. 6.5.2 is too powerful. 6.4.3 is too useless. 6.3.3 + blitz is too weak. 8.3.3 is too redundant (Sipahi).

I'd suggest 6.3.2 + ATAR, except that it isn't exactly light cavalry.

Perhaps 6.3.3 + Enslave to Cossack to show that as they won battles their size only grew, both from new recruits and from indoctrinating their enemies. But even that seems too funky.

Whatever the answer is, it's gotta be good! Cossacks need some lovin'!





A paper about Rousseau, Aeon? Throw some attacks on his book Emile for me while you're at it, will you? ::grin::

-> No I don't agree with governments. And Roman Empire was totally different from a despotism...there was the senate!

->the armoured car...the choice is yours. In that place I can put an early tank like the Renault FT17, or an even earlier MKIV, and call it "Light Tank".
Otherwise I can leave it where it is. Remember that its place is accurate, as the Austin Mk2 armoured car was used by the british as a sort of tank for crushing irish rebellion. In 1922 they entered stadium during a game, and entered the football field and shot to the spectators.

Is not so difficult to find specific wonders governments, no :( ?

argh. I'm drowning....

->Is cruise missile too early? No problem, I'll put it later.

->There is no Smart Weapons tech!!! That silly tech was removed.
....

This is where you should put cruise missiles and perhaps permit other modders to make very very small adjustment to your brilliant mod.
I am thinking about the evolution of jet aircraft which you have obviously canned. Other might expand on this.
Also it's a good place to add some modern units (which you don't like) that have the omitted quality on picking out Stealth attacks.


->for cemo: I'm sorry you've spent some time with that long post, but I must point out that I won't put flavour units. I'll use flavour animations. So I don't need civ-specific names: the name remains the same. What will change is how units will look, depending on the cultural group. An example: the current swordsman will be Euro-only. Mediterranean civs will have their own animation, African civs will have a black swordsman and so on.


Brilliant idea, of course when I think of it it's what I accually means. Not a flood of different named units but different flc for different nations on the same. Like Modern Armor being a Challenger for British, Abrams for Amerika, some late T-model for Russia and Leopards for German and so on.

Someone mentioned I put in 20 cents, but surely it wasn't worth more than a single devaluated cent ....

Good luck on the mod I'm looking forward to it, and what it can offer in further development.

Cemo

->the armoured car...the choice is yours. In that place I can put an early tank like the Renault FT17, or an even earlier MKIV, and call it "Light Tank".
Otherwise I can leave it where it is. Remember that its place is accurate, as the Austin Mk2 armoured car was used by the british as a sort of tank for crushing irish rebellion. In 1922 they entered stadium during a game, and entered the football field and shot to the spectators.
The British also "invented" the Concentration Camp that doesn't mean I think it should be in the Mod....

Due to the scale of the map in RoC each unit represents a VERY large force, say Army or Division in size. Who ever heard of an Armoured Car Army? As cemo said, it looks like you are pretty much set on this idea so why don't you just close the debate on units and move on. It doesn't appear that you will reach a concensus on the Armoured Car with the people who are testing for you. I'm not going to vote for either an Armoured car or a WWI tank so I abstain!

As cemo said, it looks like you are pretty much set on this idea so why don't you just close the debate on units and move on. It doesn't appear that you will reach a concensus on the Armoured Car with the people who are testing for you. I'm not going to vote for either an Armoured car or a WWI tank so I abstain!

Well it seems to me that nobody here would reach the consensus. We're very divided, it's very clear.
I'm set on some ideas but I can live without the armoured car. I don't want to reach the consensus on it, I can remove it. But it must be replaced by something else. The fact is that motorized trasportation must necessairly contain something pre-ww2 (it could even be an improvement instead of a unit). And in this case I'm set on my idea.

Is not so difficult to find specific wonders governments, no :( ?

yes it is ;)

Trench warfare ended the usefulness of the armoured car. The most successful early tank was the Renault F.T., developed in World War I and was still in use in the early 1930s, but the French developed their tanks to assist infantry (they were more servicable than the British ones).

This is where you should put cruise missiles and perhaps permit other modders to make very very small adjustment to your brilliant mod.
I am thinking about the evolution of jet aircraft which you have obviously canned. Other might expand on this.
Also it's a good place to add some modern units (which you don't like) that have the omitted quality on picking out Stealth attacks.


Does the same apply to SAM battery?
(BTW rocketry is a little postponed since after that screenshot you saw: it has now electronics as a prerequisite, too.)



Brilliant idea, of course when I think of it it's what I accually means. Not a flood of different named units but different flc for different nations on the same. Like Modern Armor being a Challenger for British, Abrams for Amerika, some late T-model for Russia and Leopards for German and so on.



In this moment I added 1/3 of the land (non-armoured) units.
It is such a long and boring thing to do.
It means adding more than 80 units!!

My "basic" plan is to add only those units, leaving standard ship, planes and tanks.
If I'm not exausted I'll add those, too, including some modern stuff. Modern units usually look very similar, so I must carefully consider if it's worth spending 4-5 days in doing this. I can't promise anything.

Blehhh! I just wrote for a few minutes straight and then sent the post, only for my school's stupid internet to log me off and lose my text. ARRGH.
I'll rewrite it this evening when I get home. :'(
(And it just happened again when sending this post only this time I managed to save my text.)

SUGGESTION: Put in a half track. Make it faster than tank, stronger than infantry on attack, and stronger than tank on defense. Give it slight AA ability (if that is accurate) and use it to replace the armored car.

Why? Because half tracks are cool, they carry infantry, and they could replace the armored car with something a bit more logical (and USEFUL!).

ABT PAPER: I finished my paper on Rousseau (sorry Khift, Social Contract only), so if anyone wants a good laugh I can send it to them ;p

Its pretty much a humerous assault on an asinine goofup.

@Aeon:
Railroads reperesent trade and infrastructure, not rapid transit to the front line. My rapid transit idea is not really so complicated. I bet after one game using it you would hardly notice the complication involved - all it will require you to do is put the unit in a city and press the button and then select where you wanna go. A railroad or current airport takes too long to build to be able to effectively speed up unit movement to the front line. If there were units that can skip away from a city's nine-tile core in one turn instead of two that would allow for much quicker war. Think about it: you conquer an enemy city, you secure it with Infantry and quickly build a transit center (or whatever), and then you send out your Mobile infantry right into enemy territory. Then on the enemy's turn, they attack your units, you suffer heavy casualties (cause they're using Infantry to attack Mobile Infantry), but the survivors proceed to put a hurting on enemy troops. A turn or two later, your cheaper Infantry arrive and relieve the surviving Mobile Infantry units, and hold the ground or even gain a bit, and then a couple turns later new Mobile Infantry starts pouring back into the battlefield from your newly-conquered cities.
And anyway, Armored Car being its own unit is just ridiculous. Maybe you could make it much cheaper and very weak (as in 3.2.2) so it serves as a scout (possibly between Explorer and U2?) and pillager.
Speaking of pillage, perhaps some units should not have it (after the early ancient age) so that it can be made a special ability? Historically I think there were times when pillaging was not something EVERYBODY did...
Just another idea. :)

RE: Men-At-Arms
I think the best would be this:
Urban Militia (3.2.1, no Iron) comes in with Feudalism.
Urban Militia upgrades to Footknight (better name for Man-At-Arms, judging by the animation) which comes in with Chivalry (which is a tech not everybody will research since it's not required), has 4.2.1, and requires Iron (at the same price as the Urban Militia.) This way there's an attacker with 4 attack in the medieval age for those who research Chivalry and have Iron, and the upgrade to Colonial Marine is smoother.

RE: Cossack
Enslave sounds very cool and unique. Maybe 5.3.1, cheap, and enslave. That would be pretty balanced (cause enslaving to a 6.3.1 unit is pretty damn powerful.)

RE: Cruise Missile
PLEASE Rhye, remove this useless unit and just give ships its bombard rating!

what do you think of an halftrack with low attack, high transport ability and 3 movement?

Transport of what?

Jsut finished another session of England. 1472 AD is the year at the moment.
-Astronomy was discovered sometime around 1300
-I discovered Australia at 1320
-When I got the Dutch map in 1330 they already knew of Central America (apparently they had just arrived there). Next turn they had a colony there. Nobody else knew of the Americas before I got there at 1440 or so.
-The Arabs look very very weak, with only three cities in their home area and a couple satellites in Africa. The rest of their home area is occupied by Ottoman cities - not conquered Arab cities, but actual Ottoman cities. This mean the Ottomans out-settled the Arabs. If the Ottomans could settle current Byzantine territory this would not happen. Yet another collateral effect of having the Byzantines in. 4 empires blocked and counting.
-Constitutional Monarchy seems to be better than Oligarchic Monarchy in every way. Is this in purpose?
-The Privateer pedia entry should say what an enslavement results in. Also, though I'm only now researching Naval Tactics, it seems that 11 movement for a unit that's already a bit underused would be a killing blow. Can it at least be made 15 or something so it can stand up to its contemporaries' 25's? It would also make sense for them to suffer slow movement near the coast, that way they would be more of a menace on the open sea (like in real history).

Oh, and I noticed that the Urban Militia is in fact no longer part of the Swordsman line. So just repalce my idea about UM upgrading to Footknight with an idea that's the same only with Swordsman upgrading to FK istead.

-> tech costs have changed in the version I have. I need no more info on that.

-> I have some problems adding the man-at-arms or FK. I should find other flavour animations and I'm not sure to find them.
If I don't, the last possibility could be raising pikemen attack to 4.

->tranport of foot unit, of course. It should be tried to see if AI can use it.

->Privateers coastal movement is fine. They did not attack in the middle of the ocean, but near arcipelagos.

1. Okay, when I finish this game (should be a few more days at least) I would like to play on the latest version you have so I can help tweak science costs.
2. DUDE! This is EXACTLY why I thought flavor anims were a bad idea! NEVER let graphics be the small issue disallowing a gameplay change! I would rather see china use euro footknights than see offensive pikemen and swordsmen that upgrade directly to Col Inf.
3. They can't use it, it's been tried, don't bother.
4. Okay, then give them 15 (or more) in coast and sea, and limited in ocean (to keep them where they should be bugging people.)

1. Okay, when I finish this game (should be a few more days at least) I would like to play on the latest version you have so I can help tweak science costs.
2. DUDE! This is EXACTLY why I thought flavor anims were a bad idea! NEVER let graphics be the small issue disallowing a gameplay change! I would rather see china use euro footknights than see offensive pikemen and swordsmen that upgrade directly to Col Inf.
3. They can't use it, it's been tried, don't bother.
4. Okay, then give them 15 (or more) in coast and sea, and limited in ocean (to keep them where they should be bugging people.)

1. If you want a full new release you'll have to wait some more. If you only want the new biq, I can give you before you start the game.
2. I'll see what I can do.
3. So what stats would you use? There are many halftracks out there and they seem what we were looking for.
4. That would mean being the same as frigates. Instead I didn't want them to be faster than frigates in the ocean, but slower than modern ships. 11/11/11 was the best compromise imo.

1. I want whatever I'll need to be able to play with updated rules.
2. Just keep in mind that gameplay matters more than graphics to most civ players.
3. I don't know... Halftracks are another think I don't know enough about.
4. But 11/11/11 is very very slow compared to the other units of its age... This unit is one that I used to build as an explorer because it was as fast as the Frigate and cheaper. Now it will become almost useless... It should at least be faster at sea, if not at coast and ocean.

-> No I don't agree with governments. And Roman Empire was totally different from a despotism...there was the senate!

->the armoured car...the choice is yours. In that place I can put an early tank like the Renault FT17, or an even earlier MKIV, and call it "Light Tank".
Otherwise I can leave it where it is. Remember that its place is accurate, as the Austin Mk2 armoured car was used by the british as a sort of tank for crushing irish rebellion. In 1922 they entered stadium during a game, and entered the football field and shot to the spectators.Post Augustus Rome was essentially a despotism with some monarchial source. (The Caesar's will was the will of God or somesuch.) Before Augustus, I don't think you can really debate that Rome wasn't a republic.

I also just got an idea: Mobile Infantry with 8.5.1 + ATAR. This solves the problem with retreats; it only has one movement point, so it shouldn't retreat. The only problem is that it moves faster than tanks naturally do... Perhaps raise the Tank movement rate to 3 to fit? It's a possibility. Better to think of a possible answer that doesn't work than not think of anything at all, right?

The half-track thing might work, I dunno. Seems funky. There really isn't a good answer to this question, is there?

I thought of the ATAR solution for Mob Inf but somehow forgot about it. It's a good solution. And since Mob Inf would be far weaker than the Tank, it's fine that it's faster.

Sorry - I've looked at the beginning pages of this thread and Rhye's own website for the answer and can't find it.

Do I need a patch to play the mod? I'm downloading as I write and kinda wondering if I'll be able to play when all's said and done. ;)

Looking forward to trying it out. Thanks in advance for any response.

hello cincinatus,

you must have your Conquests version updated to 1.22.

You will find useful info in the readme

Thanks for the quick reply.

Can I have the difference between the following terms:

-mobile infantry
-mech infantry


-halftrack
-APC

I need the definition, the difference in role, the difference in when they were invented and were used

APC means Armoured Personnel Carrier. A halftrack could be one, but sometimes they have full tracks and armoured like a tank, defended by a machine gun.

and what's the difference between mobile and mechanized inf.?

Let's see:

I try to throw in a proposal:

mot. transport allows the Halftrack (which seems to be the oldest of the listed units, except for the armoured car), 6/8/1 + ATAR.
Upgrades to IFV (an heavy APC, the mech inf. animation should be OK), 10/12/1 + ATAR



remember that now it is:
Armoured car: 7/7/2 -> mech inf: 13/13/2

Halftracks are good. Armored car is silly.

and what's the difference between mobile and mechanized inf.?
Mobile Infantry: Soldiers transported from a non-combat zone to another non-combat zone by trucks. Soldiers dismount some distance away from the enemy and deploy on foot before engaging.

Mechanized Infantry: Soldiers, normally equipped for assaulting defended positions, they travel in half-tracks or fully tracked APC's as supporting infantry for armoured (tank) units. They travel right up to the point of engagement in their armoured vehicles and dismount only when contact is made. Receiving supporting fire from heavier weapons carried on the fully-tracked APC or half-track APC.

OK, now, I'd like to know the years when those have been used.
That is important to choose which two of the list should go in the game.

From an historical point of view, what's better between "mobile infantry upgrading to mech infantry" and "halftrack upgrading to IFV (or APC)"

OK, now, I'd like to know the years when those have been used.
That is important to choose which two of the list should go in the game.

From an historical point of view, what's better between "mobile infantry upgrading to mech infantry" and "halftrack upgrading to IFV (or APC)"

Using trucks to move your soldiers around didn't really become common until around 1943, a lack of trucks was the only thing delaying every infantry battalion being so equipped. Many German, Russian and some British Divisions weren't motorized at all during the war, whilst some were obviously using trucks to get about in the 1930's they weren't standard equipment. (BTW Having a division wholly mobile in trucks was a new concept during WWII and units so equipped were called Motorized Infantry not Mobile.)

Mechanized infantry was perfected by the Germans in 1940. Small numbers of "Panzergrenadier" (armoured infantry) mounted in lightly armoured half tracks would accompany the Panzer Divisions into combat. By the middle of the war Panzer Divisions would include 4-6 battalions of mechanized infantry using half-tracks and armoured cars. (The trouble for the Germans was the lack of APC's, if they were lucky the battalions which didn't have enough APC's would have trucks, otherwise they would be walking with heavy equipment pulled by horses.) This concept was eventually copied by every other army.

Motorized Infantry became the norm during the 1950's (especially during Korea). During the late 1960's as armies got smaller and more specialized it became standard practice to move your forces into combat using APC's. (Vietnam being a major exception simply because it wasn't possible to operate APC's or tanks in many jungle locations.) Most armies still maintain forces which are not equipped with APC's and are more lightly armed so that they can be moved faster by air and operate in areas where vehicles cannot.

Motorized upgrading to mechanized kinda misses the point as both infantry units perform different tasks. Simply put, all infantry eventually become mobile (i.e. motorized) to some extent. Whilst Mechanized infantry is equipped specifically to conduct more offensive operations or maintain control over large areas.

This doesn't alter the fact that the unit you are considering is another 1940's development which you want to put in a slot you say is reserved for something from the 1920's.

IMHO (and I promise this is the last time I'll say this!) Half Track Infantry upgrading to Mech Inf isn't necessary but the upgrade path Tank>Heavy Tank>MBT is. :D (BTW APC, IFV or Mech Inf are describing the same thing.)

Yes it has to be something from the 30's maximum.

If you prefer an early tank instead of mob. inf. or halftrack there, it has to be an early light tank. (well, we could consider the halftrack a light tank anyway)
Then, two possible upgrades are possible: to the tank or to the mech inf.

To mech inf is correct: I read that many APC were old obsolete light tanks re-adapted.
So, it could be:
Light tank (Renault FT17 animation) -> Mech Inf.

I just suggested a half track because I realized that you guys have a problem with the word car. These things lasted well towards WW2; the American Tank Corps started in WW1 virtually died out because these cars were cheaper.

Its a lot closer to Armored Truck than armored car.

The real problem isnt history, its perspective. Some of you are sitting there thinking subconciously that these things are Honda Civic size machine gun carrying widgets. Not exactly.

Here is a site with a Russian Armored Car http://www.battlefield.ru/fai.html
that includes a picture

A modern day example would be the Humvee

I have to get my political statement ready or I would do some more research, but you guys can go hit up google and find a ton more on your own!

At the moment your tank path is:
1940's Tank > 1980's MBT

Your Aircraft path is:
1915 Biplane > 1940's Fighter > 1975+ Jet Fighter > 1980's Stealth Fighter

Infantry path:
1880/1900 Rifleman > 1916 MG > 1970's AT
1916 Inf > 1980's Inf
1970's Mechanized Inf

The progression in the late industrial to modern eras just doesn't seem right to me and the holes are just too big between some and too small between others.

Your Aircraft path is:
1915 Biplane > 1940's Fighter > 1975+ Jet Fighter > 1980's Stealth Fighter


Who said that the jet fighter is 1975+? It can be 1960, too. Even if the animation shows a mig-29, the unit is intended to cover from the 50s on.
If you prefer another animation, just tell.

The stealth units entered in service in the 90s. The date of invention is another matter. The F-117 was used in the gulf war and in Kosovo. Before that, there was the F-19.
In any case, it is enough distant from the jet fighter.


Infantry path:
1880/1900 Rifleman > 1916 MG > 1970's AT


This is not correct. The rifleman covers from post-Napoleonic/mid-800 until the end of the Century. The animation shows an American Civil War rifleman.
[/QUOTE]

I've been following up on the whole armored car/halftrack discussion and honestly, I don't see why a unit of that type is even necessary. Who, exactly, is going to build them? You can immediately begin researching for tanks and have a vastly superior unit within a few turns. Plus, with the stats the car has been given, it isn't really a large improvement over the best cavalry units.

I'm all for flavor units to add variety but these seems pointless.

Another unit that leaves me scratching my head is the machine gunner. I *really* liked the earlier builds where all the foot units converged at fusiliers and then went to infantry. It seemed more realistic to me and made sure that all civs could have a chance to regain defensive unit parity before the industrial era. I recommend that those lines be made to converge again and then that rubber be removed as a requirement for infantry. The reason for this is that I've played literally 100+ games of Rhye's and have rarely seen more than a small handful of civs ever colonize rubber. You wind up with tanks vs rifleman which destroys the balance of the game. Let infantry go to around 8/10/1 and allow it to become the dominant unit until the advent of armor.

Last thing, what are we supposed to use for defensive units in the modern age? The mechanized infantry tops out at 14 defense and is clearly no match for the modern armor units with their 20+ attack. This is a huge issue as cities become basically indefensible. There will simply be no way to stand up to any sizable AI SoD late in the game. There needs to be a defensive unit within defense points of the best attacker units or balance is destroyed.

Less than the stats of the best attack; remember that the defense has all those little city defense benefits, and the AI cannot remember what button to push to make the artillery work (honestly, this is the ONLY game I have EVER heard of where it is ok for the AI to not understand how to use parts of the game. RIDICULOUS!).

I have been saying the same thing about infantry infrequently (in that a change from the original was... ill concieved ;p), but it seems that the prevailing blasts of hot air ;p are in favor of it. Sheer volume stands with an infantry change, and thats how cheer-ocracies work! Speaking of which... can we add a government called cheerocracy? It could super suck, it would just be entertaining to someone of my feeble intellect ;p

As to HTs and ACs, why not have the darn thing in there. Its already there, it serves some kind of purpose... maybe... and it looks cute ;p

Can anyone think of a compelling reason to get rid of it?

Oh, and are the Cavalry units upgrading to some kind of mechanized infantry? If they dont, they should! Go check out unit designations; there are still Cavalry units around in the modern world, but they are usually equipped with helis and other hyper mobile bits of equipment.

From what I know, the current military definition of cavalry is that it is a tactic, not a a dude on a horse. It is the idea of a hyper mobile (strike) unit that can attack rapidly without the encumbrance of heavy weaponry. Usually they do their best work on the flanks, where they can tear into a force already engaged with a primary unit, like a general infantry group or a tank corps.

***IDEA***

Also, thought of a way to implement invisible units. Make the guerrilla line invisible, but make it so that all units can detect invisible. That way these guerilla units can run around causing havoc, but do not require a special unit to hunt them (something which never made sense to me in other games).

This means that they can sneak around, but cannot attack any cities without being spotted. It also increases the value of patrolling the countryside (something France, and later the US, was forced to do in Vietnam).

So surprise attacks are possible, but the units capable of executing them are better suited to the fifth column activites for which they were designed (cutting rails and killing villagers and generally making PITA of themselves)

horton, the separation of the lines was made in order to make something upgradeable to machine gunners.
You made me notice many times of the importance of the upgrades; now, isn't that important?

What do you think if I make infantry a non-resource unit and leave everything else unaltered?

I'd prefer to see both the foot lines converge at fusiliers and then upgrade to infantry and then mechanized infantry. This allows for fusiliers to take on a larger role than merely defenders as they would be the only 4+ attack foot unit available besides colonial marines and those marines have to be built from scratch. Once fusiliers are upgraded to non-resource dependant infantry, they become the dominant unit available until armor comes onto the scene. This allows for the AI to "catch up" unit wise and achieve parity with each other since few AI ever manage to get their hands on rubber. Machine gunners are just too specialized for my taste. They are useless for anything besides defense so even if the AI mass upgrades it's fusiliers to them it will not use them effectively.

One great change in the X-Pack from original Rhye's and civ in general is the increased versatility of most gunpowder units. Why put in a 4/10/1 machine gunner that possesses none of that versatility? Who would build them when you can have 8/7/1 infantry? Especially considering that you're likely only facing offensive units from the AI that have attack ratings of 6-8?

Also, I made a typo in my last post. I meant to say that the best defender unit's defense rating needs to be within 3-4 points of the best attacker's attack rating.

argh. Where were you when we made those changes?

In this moment there are 4 foot unit lines:
the offensive (from swordsman to marine)
the ranged/defensive (from archer to TOW)
the versatile (from warrior to modern inf.)
the cheap (from urban militia to guerrilla)

And this makes sense. In general terms, the player has the very subjective choice of building offensive and defensive or only versatile units.
This means that one can choose between swordsman+archer and spearman and this goes on until modern: which is better? 1 marine+ 1 machinegunner or 2 all-purpose infantry?

The rubber has been a problem since early times. Few civs are up-to-date in industrial and modern; however it seems that most of those few civs reach rubber.

I do not agree with you about the rubber.

All the AI who should hit up Africa, South America, and the Indies for rubber do so; I have never seen an in-game industrialized nation NOT build a colony or two for rubber. It forces humans AND ai to engage in the colonialism that was so important in the real world; it allows the savvy sea-dog the advantage of being the only one with access to it.

For the sake of imperialism, leave it that way! ;p

Also, I just noticed the site for the mod...

Shows you how dense some people can be ;p

I read through it, and if I get a few minutes I will submit some corrections for a few articles; you might want to take a quick look at the Greek one immediately!

A line from the Roman article seems to have been accidentally incorporated into it.

Horton, I have to disagree. I like the new setup, I think it makes sense, and soon I will, for the first time, be able to really try it out. I'm pretty sure my opinion won't change, but who knows?

the site for the mod...



My top quality english again.... :mischief:

which is the correct form?
-The mod site
-The site of the mod
-The site for the mod

I read through it, and if I get a few minutes I will submit some corrections for a few articles;

Yes tell me if you want.

However I don't care that much for now, as that page will be completely altered to be adapted to the X-pack.
Heavy changes are necessary to update it, and I'll need the collaboration of all of you, but it will be worth the effort.

After the pack the judgment of a civ not only depends on the starting location, the UU and partially the traits. The 2nd UU, the new unit lines and religious trait will add strategical depth that should be analysed in the guides.

I do not want to give people my crummy advice about how to play a game of Civ. I am not good at that.

However, I am halfway decent at writing, sooo if you give me some rough materials to work with I could turn out something. Especially if you get it to me in time for Thanksgiving/Christmas!

BTW, mod site is a perfectly appropriate phrase. I was commenting on my ability to completely miss something in your signature after (literally) months of conversation ;p

Really you didn't notice the site?? :lol:

The first priority AFTER the mod is released is updating the existing guides to RoX.
I will need Horton's help, too, as he's the author of many of the guides.
Then will come the rest.

well take a look at the other Earth maps in the forum...you'll change your mind


non hai dei link ? Ci sono più di 100 pagine in questo post.

edit: ehm correggo, più di 180 :P

ehm...ma sei italiano?

Non mi riferivo al mio post, dicevo di guardare nella sezione mappe del forum le mappe che trovavi.

Sono tutte più grandi (tempi di caricamento più lunghi) con l'europa addirittura più piccola della mia!

Te ne prendo un paio a caso (tanto sono tutte uguali):

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=44762

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=9829

Some good news: I have collected all the missing wonders graphics but the Temple Mount.

This was done without Rufus Firefly's help. I got bored of him saying that he has no time, while he posts wonder packs for RaR everyday, so I decided to do everything on my own.
I hope you'll appreciate the final result.

blaphemous (or sh3kel), can you find some aerial views of the Mount Temple (better of the OLD temple)?

Some of the upgrade paths in the current patch seem to be broken. No unit will upgrade to mechanized infantry.

Also, when I try to draft units I am getting 4/4/1 partisans even though I have the technology for TOW and mechanized infantry. This is proving to be a real problem.

An aerial view of a structure that was destroyed long before the invention of the camera and before the invention of the first air balloon? I suppose a panting is possible, or an aerial view of the miniature models of the place that have been built (like that in Holyland, possibly there are others.)
I'll try.

This is from the model of course, it can be cropped right not to include the tourist giants in the background. (http://lluker.faculty.ltss.edu/SOB-STM/model-7.JPG)

Impressive modern photo. (http://www.biblicalisraeltours.com/photos99/119.%20%20Jer%20Dome%20of%20Rock.JPG)

Again from the model, can be cropped to make a nice splash. (http://www.biblicalisraeltours.com/photos99/139.%20%20Jer%202nd%20Temple%20model%20Temple%20Mo unt.JPG)

Ditto. (http://www.biblicalisraeltours.com/photos99/140.%20%20Jer%20Temple%20Model%20Holy%20of%20Holie s.JPG)

Press "next" for another good one, there are a few nice paintings here. (Numbers 16-18 and 28-30 in the URL.) (http://www.templeinstitute.org/gallery_16.htm)

Another model, can be cropped and edited in many ways to make a good splash. (http://www.templemodels.com/temple/Fullsizewht1200.jpg)

Possibly there are some other good ones on this site, but mostly they look very fake - the wrong kind of fake. Some image editing can perhaps fix that. (http://www.templemodels.com/temple/)

Very good one from the model, can be cropped not to include the mega-trees and kiosk. (http://solo21.abac.com/frodsham/Israel%20Images/images1121/model/medium/model10.jpg)

I can continue if you need more, but I wouldn't wanna waste my time if these are good enough. All I'm really doing is google image search, I can easily continue if the need be.

Some of the upgrade paths in the current patch seem to be broken. No unit will upgrade to mechanized infantry.

Armoured car upgrades to it.


Also, when I try to draft units I am getting 4/4/1 partisans even though I have the technology for TOW and mechanized infantry. This is proving to be a real problem.



You're right: I forgot to check what can be drafted with the new unit system.
I'll fix that.

I can continue if you need more, but I wouldn't wanna waste my time if these are good enough. All I'm really doing is google image search, I can easily continue if the need be.


OK that's enough.
I already had a 3d beautiful splash; the aerial view of the miniature was OK for the building graphics.

Rhye, too many barbs around Russia. My first settler didnt get produced until well after most AIs had built their first city. 430BC and I have three cities which cannot be protected because the horsemen/horse archer attackers are too strong!

Russia needs some kind of early advantage, or there simply needs to be less barbarian soldiers to rape it. And I mean rape in a literal sense. I feel like I should just stop colonizing with three cities and start working on developing some kind of infrastructure... since the barbarians wiped out every worker I bothered to produce.

Russia also managed to win 0 out of 20 battles that it fought against the barbarians; numerous barbarians did not have to fight a battle, as they could simply walk into an undefended city once one of their friends had slaughtered all the defenders.

So I am a strong advocate of fewer barbarians near Russia!

I remember that you alredy said this, but there are two things to be mentioned, too:

-barbarians are placed in key spots to block invasions from west. They slow down european expansion and you should get this advantage (let them destroy the barbs and then found your city)

-Russia always performs very well when AI manages them. It even invaded Germany a couple of times.


The only thing that I can say is tell me if there's a particular barbarian spot that is too close or too annoying.

The wonder graphics is 100% complete now! Top quality 3D wonder splashes!


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

Rhye, do the barbs there really have to be horse archers? Can't they be swordsmen and spearmen? That way they would still hurt the westerners alot but Russia would be able to combat them better, even as a human player... And by the way, the barbs were crippling to me as Germany as well, and I barely even tried expanding eastwards.

Beautiful splashes, i approve it ;)

very nice splashes, i have to say

Rhye, do the barbs there really have to be horse archers? Can't they be swordsmen and spearmen?