Suggested EXISTING rule edits to improve realism or gameplay.

This thread is intended as a place for game customizers to post their suggestions for editing the game rules to improve realism, game play or to explore ideas about game mechanics theory.

This IS NOT a thread to post your wish-list of changes you would like to see in future versions of the game. It is ONLY for changes that may be implemented using the existing editor.

Many threads exist in the general Creation and Customization forum that relate to this topic, but they are scattered and sometimes hard to track down. My goal with this thread is to collect them all together in one place.

Within this thread, customizers can post their ideas about unit statistics, for example perhaps you think that Musket Men should have more powerful offensive capabilities. Then others can debate your idea from the standpoint of realism or playability. Or they can post their agreement with your idea.

This thread is a place for customizers to publish the minute details of their Mods -- the bits and pieces that make their Mod different from the core rules. For example, some customizers favor ranged weapon units having the ability to fire a 0 range defensive volley against attackers. If enough customizers support an idea, maybe it will make it's way into the core rules of a future version of Civ.

You can post your ideas for new units or Unique Units here, from a statistical standpoint rather than a graphics standpoint. Supposing that you think that the game could use a Crossbowman unit in the early Middle Ages -- here you can make a case for it, show where it would fit into the existing Tech Tree and post it's stats.

If you think that the Tech Tree is hopelessly out of synch with reality, you could post your new version of it here.

This topic encompasses aspects of game balance, playability, history and the capacity of the game to be adapted to simulate real world systems in ways the game designers never imagined.

Hopefully it will inspire lively discussion and hours of useful reading material for customizers.

Kryten was the inspiration for this thread -- here is a short list of ideas he says he will elaborate on in it:

Originally posted by Kryten

How about if you start a new threat in the Customisation Forum where we can post all our ideas and editor tricks.
It could be called something like “Suggestions For Modifying Existing Rules For More Realism” (the word ‘existing’ is important, otherwise people will think it is just another wish-list for Civ4).

This would be a nice place to put all the tricks, tips and ideas that I and others have collected over the past couple of years.
With luck, people will also post their own suggestions and observations, so that it will become a sort of ‘realism ideas library’ that people could browse if they want to create a mod or scenario....or if they just want to spice up their own version of the game.

If you do decide to start this thread, then here is a short selection of some of things I’d like to post (most of these have already been posted before. But, as you have mentioned, they are scattered in many different threads and hard to find):-
*Making Galleys ‘wheeled’ and oceans ‘impassable to wheeled’ to stop Ancient world colonization.
*Allowing forests to be mined to stop the AI cutting down every tree in sight.
*Making mountains ‘impassable’ and the effects this has on the realism, challenge and visual aspect of the game.
*Making AEGIS Cruisers carry Cruise Missiles for more realism.
*How to slow down the ‘tech race’ so that Tanks don’t appear in the Middle Ages.
*Why some foot troops should have 2 move points (skirmishers).
*Defensive bombardment: it’s effects and how to add it.
*The visual realism of not allowing cities to be built in deserts & tundra.
*How to make Shaman, Druids, Monks, and Priests lower the enemy’s morale by using defensive bombardment.
*And (of course), the fact that in reality infantry CAN defeat other infantry.
....plus many, many more.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Kryten! Hope it's okay that I quoted you here...

Links to past threads I have made in Creation & Customization that relate to this topic:

Unit design theory:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49439

Alternate UU: German Rifleman:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49322

Mojo's Land Unit Mod Ideas:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49380

Alternate UU: French Imperial Guard:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49336

Expansion of the Age of Sail, Age of Gunpowder Ideas:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49308

Spotlighted unit idea: Recon Vehicle:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49337

Alternate UU: American Leatherneck:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49325

Offensive Musket Man:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48921

How is it possible to make mountains immpassable?

--vanilla civ user

Kryten on -- Offensive Musketmen:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49084

Why do Samurai, Impi and Jaguar Warriors, who apparently do not use horses, get to move 2 spaces?
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=366766&highlight=Impi#post366766

Here's a thread on how to get AEGIS cruisers to carry cruise missiles and some more on unit flags:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45646

Edit: The above thread touches on the issue of having certain aircraft not be able to land on carriers as well, something dealt with specificly here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=849249#post849249

Would this work?

If you think that Panzer are a little weak as a UU, but don't want to outright replace them, set your Cavalry to upgrade to Panzers...

Then when the Germans get Motorized Vehicles, they can upgrade their obsolete Cav units to Panzers (for a moderate fee -- 40 gold each (20 w/ Leonardo's Workshop)) and launch a devastating massive assault on the opposition...

Since the upgrade path is linked to Panzers, not Tanks, no one else gets to do this.

Originally posted by Mojotronica
Would this work?

If you think that Panzer are a little weak as a UU, but don't want to outright replace them, set your Cavalry to upgrade to Panzers...

Then when the Germans get Motorized Vehicles, they can upgrade their obsolete Cav units to Panzers (for a moderate fee -- 40 gold each (20 w/ Leonardo's Workshop)) and launch a devastating massive assault on the opposition...

Since the upgrade path is linked to Panzers, not Tanks, no one else gets to do this.

Click to expand...

Actually that is a really good idea !

I've been figuring out the musketman issue. As we all know, all infantry's got exaggerated defensive values, like their only purpose was to defend the cities/important positions/artillery. All the attacking is made by cavalry, even in the modern era before tanks.
Infantry has formed the main force of the army before and after the Middle Ages, and even in medieval times, no army did not fight without infantry. The superiority of heavy cavalry was eventually decreased after several inventions, such as longbow, pike and a number of pole arms. However, the main event in investing to infantry was after the musket was evolved to the adequate level, in both range and accuracy.
The musket had still its weaknes: small rate of fire. After the musketmen gave the opposing force the first shock, they were vulnurable from 1 to 3 minutes (that is, only in theory; when the battlefield was filled with smoke and screams, it probably took more time). This is where cavalry comes in the picture again. When the enemy were reloading their weapons, light cavalry charged unsupported musketmen down. Cavalry was not ceased to exist, only its role had changed.
Main battle force were the pikemen. They had multiple roles: they gave support to musketmen while they were reloading, and they were used both in attack and defense on the battlefield. The most importantly, they were very effective against cavalry, as was mentioned earlier.

When the rate of fire, range, and accuracy of the muskets and battlefield tactics for them continued to evolve, the life for cavalry became harder. Musket infantry could now resist the straightforward cavalry charges with musketfire far more effectively than before. The armor they previously wore, was no use against the power of new muskets. Their main advantage now was their speed. Flanking and harrassing enemy cavalry was their duty. Pikes were still in use, protecting the weak points of battle formations.

OK, here comes the conclusion...
First of all, the jump from Musketman to Rifleman is far too great: there should be some custom units between them, such as Musket Infantry and Napoleonic Rifleman.

I suggest that Musketman should have fair attack value, but very weak defense (e.g. 4/1). The next step for Musket Infantry would be 5/2, then Napoleonic Infantry 6/4, and finally Rifleman 7/7, with ZOC. This would represent the evolvement of the firearms more accurately, as their defensive value increases relatively to the attack value. Defensive factors of terrain and cities comes more important in defending the ground. This also makes the role of the cavalry vary: In Musketman era, it would be used to hunt down those unprotected musketmen, while in the age of rifles, cavalry would be mainly used to scout the ground and patrol, as it was in real life.
Of course, this would need the adjustment of other units as well, but eventually after this thread has beared fruit, this might work well.

Question: how many THREADS are you going to devote to this one topic? I've counted FOUR on this board in the last week, and you haven't replied really to any of them, instead you're creating new ones.

Anyways, I'm kinda going the opposite direction with the musketman theory. I think that the earlier musketmen should have higher defense (they were mostly useful on defense), and then scale up to a more balanced unit at Riflemen.

An Arquebus unit should be added, to fill the gap between Musketman and Medieval Infantry, as these were commonly used from 1400's to 1600's.

I don't see a need for a stop-gap between Musketman and Rifleman.

Infantry shouldn't be able to be built before Riflemen (Replaceable parts can be obtained without Nationalism).

I still don't see how the Panzer UU is understrength when it has 1 extra movement point, and gets an EXTRA ATTACK. The idea behind the panzer is its supposed to be able to be like a Blitzkreg type unit, and it fits nicely. If I have 3 Panzers and you have 3 regular tanks, chances are I'm going to win, because I get up to 9 attacks to your 6. I could attack you once and then retreat 2 squares out of your reach. I don't see the problem here.

Ironclad was brought up in another thread. How does it ruin the Age of Sail? True, you can in theory get Ironclads soon after Magnetism, but you can get alot of other "spoiler" units pretty quickly if you research the right way. In my earlier example, I've pointed out you can have Infantry before Riflemen.

In a related note to the Infantry, while I'm on it, what can possibly attack a 6/10/1 unit, entrenched, with any success, in the early Industrial Ages?

Back to Ironclads, I think personally they should be made at least 5/5 (A/D), if not 6/6. Frigates I think should be raised to 3/2 or 4/2. Its sad watching a Frigate or Ironclad unable to kill a Ancient Age Galley. An Ironclad should be able to obliterate a Frigate and anything lower with ease. I think Ironclads are an important bridge between the Age of Sail and the modern ships (Destroyer, Battleship, etc.).

What would be nice is if units could get an "era" bonus vs. units from an earlier era. Say 100% for 1 era difference, 200% for 2 eras difference ,and 300% for 3 eras difference. There is no comparison between a Knight and a Spearman, for example, or a Rifleman vs. a Knight, or Modern Armor vs. a Rifleman. The first in each example should win at least 90% of the time.

Originally posted by Elsilhe
I've been figuring out the musketman issue. As we all know, all infantry's got exaggerated defensive values, like their only purpose was to defend the cities/important positions/artillery. All the attacking is made by cavalry, even in the modern era before tanks.
Infantry has formed the main force of the army before and after the Middle Ages, and even in medieval times, no army did not fight without infantry....

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree with you more Elsihe (but then, I would wouldn't I ).
And I do broadly side with you on the several diffrent types of 'Musketmen'.

I like to think of the Civ3 unit as being more of an 'Harquebusier' (a soldier with an early type of gun supported by a forked post).
So you have the following:-
*"Harquebusier" = 17th century (no bayonets, so needs Pikemen for defence).
*"Fusilier" = 18th century (with bayonets and tricorne hats).
*"Napoleonic Infantry" = early 19th century (large conscripted armies).

If we assume that the Pikemen are say 3-3-1 (just for the sake of argument), then 'Harquebusiers'....who are able to kill at a distance with their early firelocks....would something like 4-2-1.
Thus the Pikemen defend the 'Harquebusiers' while they do the killing.
'Fusiliers', with their bayonets, could be 4-4-1, and so make the two earlier troop types redundant.
'Napoleonic Infantry' would then be 5-5-1.
Which leads nicely into late 19th centuty American Civil War Riflemen: 6-6-1.

And if we assume that fortifying a unit means digging a trench or taking up a position behind a wall, then an American Civil War rifle assult would be 6 v 8, which using CivLacky's excellent combat calculator shows this to be 34% chance of success and 66% chance of defeat.....which sounds about right.
An if the defenders are fortified uphill, then that's 6 v 10.5, or 22% success and 78% defeat, or only 1 chance in 5.
(The Little RoundTop and Picket's Charge at Gettysburg anyone?
)

Edit: Oops! Sorry Procifica....it took me so long to type this that I didn't notice that you had already posted.
(Only two fingers and one brain cell I'm afraid. )

The people working with me on my ACW scenario have experimented with numbers with regard to Infantry, and your findings for the ACW Rifleman seem about right with our findings. Though I've adjusted the terrain features down by about 1/2 as far as defense, cities and metropolises are at 10% and 20% respectively. Fortifying is 20%. The regular Union Rifleman is 9/11/1, while the Confederate Rifleman is 9/12/1.

I see what you mean about the Pikemen and Arquebus units, Pikemen look good at 1/3/1 (or 2/3/1), and I like the 4/2/1 stats (I think it should be 5/2/1, and Medieval Infantry be 4/2/1, to represent some improvement). Then Musketmen could be 6/4/1 or 6/5/1, and then Riflemen could be like 8/8/1. I'm of the belief that Industrial Age unit values are too low in general vs. the Middle Age units.

Procifica --

This is the final thread I'll create on this topic, I promise. I am hoping to stimulate discussion on the statistical aspects of the game, which (because I am demented) is what interests me the most.

I LOVE that you and Elsilhe have different ideas about how Musketman units should operate in the game. And what's very exciting (to me) is that you both have interesting explanations as to why you feel the way you do.

I personally don't think that the Panzer is a good GA inducing unit for the Germans -- I think a unit that existed in 1871 is a better choice historically, or a unit that would have served under Frederick the Great.

But my idea of giving the Germans an exclusive upgrade f/ Cavalry to Panzer is an example of the kind of rules modification I am anxious to read about. It simulates a historical effect -- Germany's sudden unexpected dominance w/ the Tank by manipulating the existing rules.

One "pro" of Ironsclads is that they provide a nice segueway from sail to motorized ship, but because Magnetism is too close to Steam Engine on the tech table I feel that several hundred years of dominance by wooden ships is unrealistically truncated in actual gameplay.

Wooden ships should appear sooner, and I like your ideas about making them more powerful. There's no reason NOT to. But editing the tech table is a considerably more difficult project than just deleting the Ironclad. My idea was just a quick 'n dirty fix to prolong the wooden ship era.

Building bonuses into modern units based on era is not something the current editor can handle. It belongs in the "sticky" wish list for future editor thread.

However in some ways bonuses ARE built into the units because starting with Cavalry, most of the units are disproportionately strong for their cost when compared directly against pre-Cavalry units.

(Pikemen and Knights are slightly weak when compared against their cost, and Musketmen are VERY weak for their cost.)

The big value Vs cost units are the Cavalry ("worth" 120, cost 80; ) Infantry (worth 140, cost 90; ) Tanks (worth 250, cost 100; ) Mech Inf (worth 300, cost 110; ) and Mod Armor (worth 400, cost 120.)

(Riflemen, Guerillas, Marines and Paratroops are worth more than you pay for them too, but much less dramatically.)

The increased worth to cost ratio accounts for their advantage over ancienter units. The ratios sort of correspond to your figures -- 1.5x for Cavalry and Infantry, 2.5x for Tanks and around 3.0x for Mech Inf and Mod Arm...

This is interesting. Paul Saunders used the AI build tool in the editor to limit the development of Africa and the New World for his Map, which attempts to channel development along the lines of Earth’s history (e.g. Eurasian dominance.)

The Zulus, Aztecs and Iroquois are available, but their AI will not build workers or cultural improvements, so they are in effect “super-barbarians.”

(Not very “PC,” but I think it’s extremely clever – an effective means to create a more realistic feel in your Mod, map or Scenario…)

You can read about it here, under “The Africans” heading…

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=137514#post137514

Quote: I personally don't think that the Panzer is a good GA inducing unit for the Germans -- I think a unit that existed in 1871 is a better choice historically, or a unit that would have served under Frederick the Great.

I tend to agree here, though there are some that will say Hitler's Third Reich was the Golden Age for Germany (this is when it was at its greatest power in history, technically).

Quote: However in some ways bonuses ARE built into the units because starting with Cavalry, most of the units are disproportionately strong for their cost when compared directly against pre-Cavalry units.

(Pikemen and Knights are slightly weak when compared against their cost, and Musketmen are VERY weak for their cost.)

Problem though is you need more of them to win a battle. My earlier example: Infantry can be built early in the Industrial Ages. What can possibly take them out that is available? Why does a Musketman or Rifleman or Knight or even Cavalry consistently lose when attacking say a Spearman?

The cost idea though, what you have to figure in, is by the time you can build modern units, most of your cities (major ones) are likely to be size 15+, which means room for improved production is very limited. If units cost say 400, you'd never be able to build any, and neither would the AI.

I feel that Industrial and Modern units should be given more power (Civ2's Firepower was a sucky sucky way of doing so).

So, here is a quick list of what I think should be unit stats:

Warrior: 1/1/1 c: 10
Spearman: 1/2/1 c: 20
Archer: 2/1/1 c: 20
Chariot: 1/1/2 c: 20
Horseman: 2/1/2 c: 30
Swordsman: 3/2/1 (or 3/1/1) c: 30
Catapult: 0/0/1 (5/1/1) c: 40
Longbowman: 6/1/1 c: 50
Medieval Infantry: 5/2/1 c: 50
Pikeman: 2/4/1 c: 50
Knight: 5/3/2 c: 70
Cannon: 0/0/1 (10/1/1) c: 60
Arquebus: 6/3/1 c: 60
Musketman: 7/5/1 c: 80
Rifled Cannon: 0/0/1 (12/1/2) c: 90
Cavalry: 9/4/2 c: 90
Rifleman: 8/8/1 c: 100
Infantry: 12/15/1 c: 120
Artillery: 0/0/1 (18/1/2) c: 120
Tank: 20/12/2 c: 140
Mech Inf: 15/20/2 c: 160
Modern Armor: 24/18/3 c: 200
Radar Artillery: 0/0/1 (24/1/2) c: 180

Costs can be adjusted, but I think these stats better state the power of modern and industrial units.

Ships: (not filling in costs)

Galley: 1/1/3
Trireme: 2/1/3
Caravel: 2/2/4
Galleon: 4/2/4 (3/1/1)
Frigate: 6/3/4 (6/1/1)
Ship-of-the-Line: 9/6/3 (9/1/2)
Ironclad: 12/12/4 (12/1/2)
Destroyer: 18/12/6 (18/2/2)
Cruiser: 24/16/5 (24/2/3)
Battleship: 32/24/4 (32/2/4)
AEGIS Cruiser: 28/24/5 (28/2/4)

I'm leaving out Carrier and Transport. This emphasizes the power of the Age of Sail ships over Ancient ships, and the still greater power of the Ironclad and modern-era ships.

Originally posted by dracoraven
How is it possible to make mountains impassable?
--vanilla civ user

Click to expand...

I’m afraid that this can only be done with the PTW editor I’m afraid.

Impassable Terrain And Its Effects On the Game
---------------------------------------------------
I have found that making mountains impassable has a wonderful effect on the game, making it far more realistic, challenging and visually appealing.
If anyone is interested, then a full discussion of the effects can be found here….
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49121
....and there is a small downloadable mod on page 9 of this thread if you want to give it a try.

Stopping The AI (and players) From Cutting Down Every Tree in Sight
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is an idea originally proposed by Venger.
Use the PTW editor to allow mines to built in forests (i.e. logging camps).
This will help to stop the total deforestation of the planet.
A more detailed discussion and a screenshot can be found in posts 14 & 15 of this thread....
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28738&highlight=forests
....however, Willem has noticed that “the AI will mine Forests that are on Plains tiles, but will still chop down those on Grassland.”
Still, it is better than the existing arrangement.

Getting The Gods On Your Side
------------------------------
Some people have made some very nice Aztec Priests and Medieval Monk type units.
But how can these be used in the game?
It would be nice if they could increase or decrease morale in some way.
Well, you could use defensive bombardment to reduce the attackers hit points as a way of simulating a lack of confidence.
(You could also give Armies defensive bombarment, to represent either corps arillery or the fact that they were led by exceptional generals such as Alexander, Caesar or Napoleon...all of whom KNEW how to win battles, even if outnumbered).
A full discussion can be found here....
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28849

World Colonisation In Ancient Times
-------------------------------------
Most of us have felt annoyance when they reach a new virgin continent only to find that it has already been settled by Ancient Galleys.
But with PTW, you can make oceans ‘impassable to wheeled units’, then make all Galleys ‘wheeled’.
The result....those sneaky AI nations won’t be able to cross oceans with their Galleys! (nor will you of course).
Now everyone will have to wait until the Middle Ages when they can build Caravels....which is what happened in reality.
(Forgive me, but I don’t know who first thought of this first)

Boring Barbarian Boats
----------------------
Are you like me?
Do you ignore Barbarian Galleys?
Do you just watch them sailing helplessly up and down your coast while you colonise inland?
Well, we can change that.
Download Lab Monkey’s “Barbarian Galley”, only allow the barbarians to use it, give it the same stats as a normal Galley, but in addition give it a bombardment of 1 or 2 with a range of 1.
Now you will find those useless, impotent, harmless barbarians bombarding your coastal irrigation and roads….just as if pirates had landed, plundered, and then retreated back to their ships!
You now have three choices:-
* Don’t build terrain improvements on the coast....
* Put up with their raids and keep rebuilding the damage....
* Or build a fleet and sweep them from the sea.
(That should give you something else to worry about! )

(Much later edit: I had the wong link in "Getting the Gods on Your Side". Now fixed)

I know I'm not the only one disturbed by the fact that you can build tanks 1450 AD, and other things like that. I think that this is largely because EVERY civ becomes a republic at the end of the ancient era. Is this realistic? If you don't count the republic of Rome, which don't compare to a modern republic, IMO, did any country become a republic earlier than the late middle ages?
As this is rethorical questions, my answer is: No! The middle ages is the "Age of Kingdoms". Monarchies all around.
So my solution to this was to move The Republic to the place of Democracy in the late middle ages, and move Democracy to the start of the industrial era. As everyone has monarchy, research is slower, and you push the tanks back a couple of hundred years. You might say this makes a more linear game, but, if you play the builder style, as I do, then the game already is linear, as in the ordinary game, everyone goes republic.

I just had a new idea. I don't kknow if it can work.

I think we can reduce seriously the defense of the infantry, thus making them easier to defeat by another infantry, and very vulnerable to cavalry.

However, infantry steel needs some other asset to compensate.
First, I'll give defensive bombardment of 0 to spearman and archer.

Second, I'll increase the bonus for fortified units, but remove the fortify flag for cavalry. This way, only infantry can get a bonus when in good defensive position.

Unfortunately, I tested it and it didn't work as I wanted. Cavalry is not fortifiable, and so is always active, and the sentry didn't work either (nothing happened when I click it)

Procifica, concerning unit stats:

Considering the extreme level of abstraction in CIVIII/PTW
its hard to say that "these stats are right and those are wrong".
(I am now talking about stats for the general CIVIII/PTW,
not scenarios).

....but I think you have made infantry to strong compared
to Tank/Panzer.

I am using these stats:
Infantry 6-10-1 Cost 90
Panther 35-30-3 Cost 360
T34/85 32-27-2 Cost 280 (Stalin factor)

After all armoured formations had an enormous impact
on WW2. Assume Germany had attacked Soviet with 30
Panzer divisions instead of (the historical) 20, and you
really see a "what if" history.
Hitler thought Soviet had 7 000 tanks in June 1941.
In reality the Soviet tank-forces had 29 000 tanks.

Ok, the reason why I didn't use "real" tank stats, is because in this game, you can't simulate the effects of how bad tanks are in hilly, forested, or urban terrain, and the corresponding defensive advantages infantry have in such terrain. Your stats are more realistic with regard to tank offense/defense power compared to infantry, but Infantry in urban terrain or in non-plains/grassland terrain does have an advantage. One idea of this is the battle around Baghdad today, the US is contemplating how its going to use its tanks in there.

So I just modified the regular Civ3 stats.