Civ4 bts - Roman Praetorian

[SpiderMinky]

Come now, SpiderMinky, you're talking too much sense. It's fun to debate historical realism in civ. Stop making so much sense!

Yeah I know, I just cannot help it, I have and love Rome Total War and it's expansions and and if I am looking for something that was "more" realistic I play that. However given as much garbage as they get on their forums about how it is not indeed realistic and that there are whole mods, rome total realisim being one that springs to mind to make that "more" realistic, I realy have to laugh, when I see threads like this one relating to Civ. They are ultimately games and will deal in simplified abstracts to be games. Civ is a 1000ft view god level game where things are abstracted out quite a bit, and as much as I like to pick nits with things I cannot bring myself to do it when it is talking about realisim in a game like that.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

exactly. it's all 1s and 0s

 

[SpiderMinky]

yep it's all 1's and 0's and I quite frankly play the game to escape from Reality so discusions on if it is real enough are shall we say, kind of silly.

Pick the game that works for you and then run with it.

That being said what i would love to see is hybrid of the two, not for the realisim portion mind you but a game like civ where you colonize and then conquor the world combined with the tactical combat engine from total war. my big problem with replayability in total war was that the campaing map was always the same. add in the random world of civ and the total war combat engine and I would be stuck in fantasy land forever.

That said it would be a very hard game to get the AI to excell at.

 

[ButSam]

And what is the deal with the American Unique Unit? I mean, how does that apply to George Washington's time? They didn't even have a standing army after the Revolutionary War. Lincoln with Navy Seals? What's that about?! I want a refund!!!

Seriously, dude, get over it. The game is geared toward fund.

Sam

 

[HiroHito]

if they turn praets into legionaries, there will ppl crying, omg its should be hastati, no wait principe, or was it triarii ? no no wait it must be comitatenses, or rather pseudocomitatenses ? auxiliae palatinae ?

I mean who cares ?

In fact its a roman soldier

 

[Jaybe]

All these Civ unit names through the ages have always been, uh ... "stupid". They are UNITS, not individual soldiers! Praetorian should be "Legion", Rifleman could be a generic "Rifles".

 

[SwordofStriker]

All these Civ unit names through the ages have always been, uh ... "stupid". They are UNITS, not individual soldiers! Praetorian should be "Legion", Rifleman could be a generic "Rifles".

Since we're nitpicking now, I'd have to say that your post is sort of the pot calling the kettle black my friend. Rifles never went to war all on their own.

Anyone who is bent out of shape over their unit names can change them. Editing XML is definitely not a terribly hard task for most computer literate people, and the modding community here is very supportive and helpful.

 

[Antilogic]

I've modded it to Legion. It's not that tough to do, just a one-line switch in an XML file you put in CustomAssets.

 

[Jaybe]

I've modded it to Legion. It's not that tough to do, just a one-line switch in an XML file you put in CustomAssets.

Oh? And which xml file IS that, pray tell?

 

[Mesix]

Because the game spans several thousand years, and leaders don't change during that period. While a different UU for each leader would be an interesting addition, I'm not sure how much it would add to the game, or whether or not it would apply in all cases, where a particular leader wasn't so influential on the army.



This I do agree with, but you can easily change the name to Legionary in XML. Giving them the pilum might be difficult, as I'm not sure there's an animation for a unit using javelins, shield and short sword, but I'm not really concerned with whether or not they have them.

The shild wall unit in FfH would make a nice Roman Legion or Greek Hopite.

 

[Elite Hoplite]

Praetorians are royal British guards who protect the palace, the exact same thing. But these guys never fight, and stand there. So if they are UU then why isn't the bristish royal guard? Civ4 in my experience is one of the most inaccurate games made, even more incorrect than 300 the movie, and thats pretty bad.

 

[Elite Hoplite]

if they turn praets into legionaries, there will ppl crying, omg its should be hastati, no wait principe, or was it triarii ? no no wait it must be comitatenses, or rather pseudocomitatenses ? auxiliae palatinae ?

I mean who cares ?

In fact its a roman soldier

Legionare is a typical soldier, of coarse there are different types of units e.x.
Spearman, catapult engineer, auxillery, archer. Like in modern infantry we have the foot soldier, but not all of those soldiers do the same stuff, they have a specialty at a certain aspect ex. anti-personel, mortor, medic.
So wat im trying to say is that we dont want the names too techinical but we want it to be overall correct.

 

[Elite Hoplite]

All these Civ unit names through the ages have always been, uh ... "stupid". They are UNITS, not individual soldiers! Praetorian should be "Legion", Rifleman could be a generic "Rifles".

A legion? lol thats a bit huge isn't it? The closet to the smallest unit, is a tent group since u see only 3 legionares.

But I do agree on the point of calling the units in their group or formation name. In civ4 there is the phalanx( a formation) but the rest of the units in the game are mainly named as individual units.

 

[Antilogic]

Oh? And which xml file IS that, pray tell?

I don't have access to my game at the moment, but I know it is in the XML/Text folder. I think it is something like CIV4GameTextInfos.xml or something like that. Originally, I just started opening every file in the XML/Text folder, and searching for "Praetorian" until I found it. Then, copy that file into an XML/Text folder you create in CustomAssets, and change that single line from "Praetorian" to "Legion" (or whatever else you want).

It may be in CIV4GameText_Civilopedia_Units.xml as well, but I think that is just the Civilopedia entry and not the name of the unit. It's been awhile since I've done this.

And presto, it's been fixed for you!

P.S.: Here is a thread that has a decent reference file for Civ4 XML stuff: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=140511.

 

[Jaybe]

Thanx for the info, Antilogic.

 

[bonafide11]

The praetorians were the elite guards, so no they do not match the city raiders of swordsmen, but they were the elite troops. The Legions were only the food soldiers, so I understand why Firaxis decided to include the elite soldiers.

 

[HiroHito]

Legionare is a typical soldier, of coarse there are different types of units e.x.
Spearman, catapult engineer, auxillery, archer. Like in modern infantry we have the foot soldier, but not all of those soldiers do the same stuff, they have a specialty at a certain aspect ex. anti-personel, mortor, medic.
So wat im trying to say is that we dont want the names too techinical but we want it to be overall correct.

ok I got your point

 

[TheLastOne36]

How about the civ get's the UB and the leaders gets the uu?