Orion's Grand Inquisition

SR-71 said:
But the main wrong issue its this: a) Archers have "arrows barrage" b) but then Gunpowder units should have also "lead barrage" from firearms, and c) Armor "guns barrage", and d) ships "cannons barrage" and e) battleships "main guns barrage" f) even slingers "slings barrage"...... :cry::cry: the list it's endless...

So the main issue it's why much modern units are in disavantage fighting with ancient archers only because the first have not "barrage" capability? Musketman 0 - Archers 1 (barrage), Rifleman 0 - Archers 1 (barrage), Tanks 0 - Archers 1 (barrage)... So the only units that can fight 1vs1 with archer are artillery units, beacuse you are giving archers a long-range fire capability... a nonsense, it isn't? :crazyeye::cry: So IMHO best delete archer barrage :goodjob: And please leave SIEGE AND ARTILLERY units the only capable of Long range fire.
Click to expand...

I've considered that issue myself in other mods that have archer ranged attacks. I think it's meant to represent massed archers firing volleys into the air so that the enemy is showered with arrows from above, instead of each archer aiming directly at a nearby individual target. When used in a massed upward volley, arrows could be considered the equivalent of indirect fire weapons like artillery. So it makes sense that direct fire weapons like muskets and rifles wouldn't have the ranged ability since they were never fired upward en masse to reach a distant target. (I can see battleships having that ability though since they were used to bombard landing zones.)

I actually like archer ranged attacks but it does seem like a letdown when you advance to gunpowder units. I think that could be avoided by weakening the archer's ranged attack's effect. Of course I agree that archer ranged fire should have no effect on fortifications (and I've never seen them have that ability in other mods that have archer ranged fire).
 
On the other hand (and this is probably more likely), if the archer's ranged attack is meant to represent simply firing an arrow, then all gunpowder units should have the same ability and direct (not ranged) attacks by such units would be considered to be hand to hand combat. Artillery would then be differentiated by having a longer range and the ability to destroy fortifications.
 
OrionVeteran said:
It took several weeks of development time for the Aviation mod and the Navy mod. Combined forces took even longer. But we will be adding more land units in 255E. Patients... Despite appearances, I do have a life outside of Civ4. :lol:
Click to expand...

Oh, I suppose you have... Sincerely, I don't imagine a modder like a fat guy with heavy eyeglasses with the same briefs and shirt from weeks, eating cream-filled doughnouts and only up from the chair to go to the WC and looking into the refrigerator for more cookies... :twitch:

Erm, right, if you or somebody reading this, are one of them, please don't feel resentful... But it's logical that I want my suggestions to take into account... wherever can be carry out :gripe::hammer: :lol:

P.S. If I could help in some way please tell me, I don't know about python, but perhaps could do something... but I don't know what :hmm:
 
Blue Senshi said:
On the other hand (and this is probably more likely), if the archer's ranged attack is meant to represent simply firing an arrow, then all gunpowder units should have the same ability and direct (not ranged) attacks by such units would be considered to be hand to hand combat. Artillery would then be differentiated by having a longer range and the ability to destroy fortifications.
Click to expand...

I think your first opinion was correct, barrage represent arrows coming from above. But the fact it's that as you pointed this barrage give to archer units an illogical advantage ingame against non archer units, even gunpowder and modern ones. So, as it's not a bad idea but with a poor effect ingame, should be deeply tweaked, or simply deleted IMHO :scan:
 
Ver 255E will include the following tanks to boost tank warfare:

WW1:
Renault FT17
MarkV

WW2:
M3 Stuart
M4 Sherman (Renamed existing tank)
M26 Pershing

Cold War:
M24 Chafee
M48 Patton

Vietnam:
M60A1 Patton

Modern:
M1126 Stryker
M1 Abrams (Renamed Modern Armor)

There might be one or two other units to add.
 
Downloaded, and such, loaded properly, I try to start a game, I went with duel and Huns, and after I hit Launch it CTDs I doubt iut's system reqs because I can run C2C on a tiny map.. any ideas?
 
Jwitti said:
Downloaded, and such, loaded properly, I try to start a game, I went with duel and Huns, and after I hit Launch it CTDs I doubt iut's system reqs because I can run C2C on a tiny map.. any ideas?
Click to expand...

Believe it or not I traced a CTD to one graphic issue: The Wild Boar. I have posted a separate mod comp in the Animal downloads that has fixed the Wild Boar. I will be posting version 255E very soon, which fixed several more issues and adds more items. But, if you can't wait, you can try and make the changes to the Wild Boar in your copy of 255D.
 
I can wait.. patience IS a virtue..
 
Great news. I was able to solve the AI Icebreaker code and change the Ice feature back to impassible. Several tests all worked! The AI evaluates where to find Ice within a range of 10 water plots and selects the closest plot that is adjacent to land. It sends the Ice Breaker ship to the Ice Plot and removes the ice. Then the process starts all over again. This has been such a thorny issue and now it is finally solved. :banana:

Look for it in the soon to be released OGI version 255E.
 
Way to go Orion! Congratulations on fixing your icebreaker!

Did you get a chance to actually play and enjoy your mod over the holiday?
 
Rusty Edge said:
Way to go Orion! Congratulations on fixing your icebreaker!

Did you get a chance to actually play and enjoy your mod over the holiday?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, no. A major bug was discovered with Mine Warfare, which had to get fixed. I have fixed it, but other problems remain. However, the Historian and I have come up with a way to improve the efficiency of Mine warefare by going to single mines and use promotions to determine other calculations. We think going from 6 mines down to just 2 will revolutionize the concept of Mine Warfare. It will take me a few weeks to develop the new ideas and test. I think I will postpone the release of version 255E, until we know for sure if the new mine warfare concept works. My goal now is to play a real game over Christmas.
 
There's an issue I forgot to mention, in case you haven't noticed:
Classical and Medieval armies have a proper unit, but Renaissance armies graphic don't exist, so Renaissance armies appear with an Industrial army unit, and Industrial have a Modern one :eek: (don't know how modern armies look like, I haven't tried yet)

Hope you'll can fix easily before 255E :goodjob:

:thanx:
 
More issues to solve: the Balloon which is supposed to be an only recon and defensive unit, at present is able to attack: one of my ships suffered two attacks :eek: (screenshot below)
:thanx:
 

Attachments

  • Civ4ScreenShot0023.JPG
    Civ4ScreenShot0023.JPG
    343.9 KB · Views: 165
More: The requisites for Early Destroyer and Destroyer are the same, so the Early Destroyer is never available and the Destroyer appears too early :scan: You must add some other more modern req for the last one... :cool:
 
SR-71 said:
More issues to solve: the Balloon which is supposed to be an only recon and defensive unit, at present is able to attack: one of my ships suffered two attacks :eek: (screenshot below)
:thanx:
Click to expand...

One of World War 2′s best-kept secrets was that of the Japanese balloon bombs. Lacking a practical means to attack the US mainland during the war, the Japanese constructed 9,000 large hydrogen balloons, attached incendiary and anti-personnel bombs to them, and set them afloat on the high-altitude trade winds towards the United States. It is estimated that about 1,000 of these weapons successfully crossed the 6,000 miles from Japan, a few drifting as far east as Michigan. Once the US military realized the nature of these balloons, they regularly shot them out of the sky, but adopted a policy of absolute secrecy to deny the Japanese any news of success. The news media cooperated with the military and didn’t publish any news of incidents. After five months, the Japanese became discouraged by the bombs’ apparent total failure, and halted the attacks. The policy of silence was so successful that few people have heard of these bombs even today. In all, there were 285 balloon bomb incidents reported, and six deaths. All six deaths occurred when a group of picnickers in Oregon found a balloon bomb in the woods, and attempted to move it, causing it to explode.
 
SR-71 said:
There's an issue I forgot to mention, in case you haven't noticed:
Classical and Medieval armies have a proper unit, but Renaissance armies graphic don't exist, so Renaissance armies appear with an Industrial army unit, and Industrial have a Modern one :eek: (don't know how modern armies look like, I haven't tried yet)

Hope you'll can fix easily before 255E :goodjob:

:thanx:
Click to expand...

All of these should be approriate units in 255E. If not let me know.
 
SR-71 said:
More: The requisites for Early Destroyer and Destroyer are the same, so the Early Destroyer is never available and the Destroyer appears too early :scan: You must add some other more modern req for the last one... :cool:
Click to expand...

The early Submarine requires Submarine Warfare, while the Destroyer requires Combustion. So they are different. It could be that in your game research of these two techs came close together.
 
OrionVeteran said:
One of World War 2′s best-kept secrets was that of the Japanese balloon bombs. Lacking a practical means to attack the US mainland during the war, the Japanese constructed 9,000 large hydrogen balloons, attached incendiary and anti-personnel bombs to them, and set them afloat on the high-altitude trade winds towards the United States. It is estimated that about 1,000 of these weapons successfully crossed the 6,000 miles from Japan, a few drifting as far east as Michigan. Once the US military realized the nature of these balloons, they regularly shot them out of the sky, but adopted a policy of absolute secrecy to deny the Japanese any news of success. The news media cooperated with the military and didn’t publish any news of incidents. After five months, the Japanese became discouraged by the bombs’ apparent total failure, and halted the attacks. The policy of silence was so successful that few people have heard of these bombs even today. In all, there were 285 balloon bomb incidents reported, and six deaths. All six deaths occurred when a group of picnickers in Oregon found a balloon bomb in the woods, and attempted to move it, causing it to explode.
Click to expand...

Erm, I'm grateful for that information, but I knew about this history lot of years ago, as a war-professional/history-fan as I am. But that's not the question... :scan: I told you because the units are indicated in Civpedia as "only defend". So, are they really able to attack or not? Is it intentional? I mean, did you it as a way to surprise players (as the Japanese did)? :confused: If not, the proper use for balloons should be as they're in Civpedia, "recon and only defend", leaving the bombing issues for Airships, which it's the next step... :)

And, leaving apart the case of the Japanese balloon-bombs, I sincerely don't imagine how a balloon can damage a Dreadnought, as in your mod happens... :eek::eek: I'm thinking that perhaps your style of mod results too bizarre for my taste :cry::lol:
:thanx:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

primem0ver
Genetic Era Mod - Repost... and Revival?
Replies
15
Views
1K
keldath
keldath
ToastedHCL
Making a mini-modmod to make CoM more engaging and balanced (IMHO) - let's all share our personal ideas/tweaks for CoM!
Replies
6
Views
244
Mr Smith
Mr Smith
CSD
[BTS] Normable
Replies
0
Views
858
CSD
CSD
W
Trying to create shortcuts to individual mods on Steam Deck - what am I doing wrong?
Replies
1
Views
222
lymond
lymond
Buffalo Solider
Linux setup . . .
Replies
10
Views
518
Buffalo Solider
Buffalo Solider
Top Bottom