Development plans

I'm all for the changes! And I especially like that the longbowmen finally will be more lethal. Historically longbows (or warbows which was their contemporary name) would have kicked muskets ass for a long time if they hadn't been so expansive. So gamewise I would love to see longbows take a step closer to King's Yeomen and get som additional defensive bonus.


bestbrian said:
By switching this around, we're increasing the period of time before the AI gains access to a superior resourceless city defender during a very dangerous era. I think this will play out as a game breaking advantage for the human.
Click to expand...

You will be able to build composite archers at Construction. That is a pretty significant increase of defensability. They're almost as good as the old longbows and comes much earlier.
 
I like the idea as it adds an "in-between" archer to separate the stone age from the middles ages. Plus, it puts the long-bowman back in the middle ages. Where it belongs just before the onset of offensive combatants.
 
Hey I'd very much like some more early gunpowder units so you can feel you're playing the age of enlightenment and not just going straight from the rennaissance to the mid-industrial age (victorian age?) where rifles, cannons and cavalry dominate.

So far we have musketmen (those ugly spanish rennaissance musket guys with fork rest). Grenadier (which of course is no good against riflemen), and Dragoons, an improved knight.

A new unit I'd like is an Arquebusier to represent the late medieval/rennaissance gunners. Armor still worked well against these weapons, so not so great. The best advantage would probably be ease of use and causing fear among enemies.

Then the musketman - a contemporary unit of much increased cost - possibly with bonuses against approriate heavily armed units - macemen comes to mind, and maybe even to knights. These guys uses heavy expensive muskets and were well paid professional soldiers.

Line Infantry (replaces grenadier). This is the late 17th century evolution of pike&shot formation to line formation, with innovations such as the flintlock and bayonet. This unit is meant to be able to win battles with firepower alone, and be able to protect itself against cavalry with bayonets and square formations.


Anyone else like the idea of such units? Would require a bit of rebalancing and they'd need to be worthwhile. You may object to the removal of grenadiers, but really by the 1700s they were obsolete already as specialty troops and grenadiers became just the name for exceptionally strong and tall soldiers as part of a regiment of infantry.
 
Musketmen were very effective vs knights (see battle of Pavia), but only if covered by pikemen. maybe give them +50% attacking knights?

Also swordsmen were far superior to axemen as swordsman can bear a shield and sword itself is more comfortable to operate with in battle. maybe this theme was risen already... have no time to read 21 pages.
So my suggestions to the ancient/renaissanse units parameters:
axeman str 4, +25% vs city, cost: 30:hammers: (5 less)
swordsman: str 5, +25% vs melee, no vs city bonus
spearmen: str 4, +50% vs mounted, +50% in open (grassland, plains, hills), available with masonry and pottery (urbanization) as spearmen were sity-states militia. (phalanx: starts with shock)
chariot: ok as they are.
horseman: str 6, -20% city attack; (keshik: str 7, +25% attacking knight)
longbowman: it has to be an english UU;
archer: str 3, +50% on hill/city. (english longbows: str 4, +100% defense vs knight)
knight (heavy cavalry): str 8, +50% vs melee, -25% city attack
crossbowman: str 5, +50% attacking melee, +50% in city
musketman: str 7, +50% attacking knight
pikemen: str 6, +50% vs mounted, +50% in open. this troops were pretty dominating on renaissanse battlefields.
heavy footman: str 7. no vs melee bonus
 
ps. i've read posts on page 20 and i liked the idea of composite archer. i also do not think that any civ beside england may to have longbowman unit. although longbowman civ-specific graphics could be used to represent composite archers.

so, my version of composite archer:
requires feudalism (or monarchy maybe). resourceless. str 5, +50% on hills/cities, +50% vs archery units (archers & crossbows).
english longbowman: same as at post 404 but +defense vs knights
also i think pikes must go with guilds not engineering.
 
Well sorry you feel that way, but some things have to give. Knights do come out too late, it makes no historical sense, and I don't think it works well for gameplay. Further hunting and archery are beyond ******ed as techs. Human ancestors were hunting large game with stone weapons for over a million years before the human race even evolved. It's just too stupid to keep that as a name for a tech. Also humans were using bows and arrows well before the end of teh ice age, so again it's a rediculous tech name. One other thing that really bothers me is the fact some civs have 2 UUs. This was inherited from the Wolfshanze mod, but it's another thing that has to go, 1 UU and 1 UB per civ is how it will go (though the Germans will be the exception because of the fact there is a heavy and light tank in LoR). Anyway the changes we are talking about here are not extreme, and they aren't me trying to force historical accuracy into the mod at the price of gameplay; these changes will improve gameplay.

This all wol't be happening for at least a couple months though. 0.9.8d will be released which will be save game compatible with the other 0.9.8 versions once Jdog fixes the critical bug in the current version of BBAI, and BULL fixes that OOS error it causes so that 0.9.8d will be at least as playable as version 0.9.6 is in MP. 0.9.9 wol't be coming out until MP is completely fixed and some other changes are made, plus there is just alot of XML and art to take care of, so we are talking a finalized 0.9.8d version sometime in February (waiting on jdog and Emperor Fool to fix their issues); and 0.9.9 might be six months off from that. So it's a while yet, but that's what's in the works.
 
I wonder if the issue re: changes, and what to encompass in LoR, is a result of how much we like the thing. We're getting greedy, in the sense we want to see this excellent product become the defacto standard for Civ4, like Warlords and BtS did (i.e., an official expansion pack). That makes it easier for us to find people to play it with, among other things. That can only happen if Firaxis adopts it as its own, after coming thru whatever contractual issues may apply. But that also means the Firaxis development team has to agree with all the changes that are included. I think the fear of "mission creep" is the fear that certain changes may make the whole package unpalatable to Firaxis, if they have their minds set on maintaining certain features (do some tech names, for example, date back to early days of the franchise, even if they don't make sense?).

Any chance you have friends at Firaxis that can provide feedback in that regard?
 
phungus420 said:
This all wol't be happening for at least a couple months though. 0.9.8d will be released which will be save game compatible with the other 0.9.8 versions once Jdog fixes the critical bug in the current version of BBAI, and BULL fixes that OOS error it causes so that 0.9.8d will be at least as playable as version 0.9.6 is in MP. 0.9.9 wol't be coming out until MP is completely fixed and some other changes are made, plus there is just alot of XML and art to take care of, so we are talking a finalized 0.9.8d version sometime in February (waiting on jdog and Emperor Fool to fix their issues); and 0.9.9 might be six months off from that. So it's a while yet, but that's what's in the works.
Click to expand...

BULL's OOS error has been fixed. :)
 
Regarding knight rebalancing, did you mean to remove Ignores First Strikes, or did you forget to mention it? I whipped up the knight/composite/longbow stuff in a module, but I left it in, if only because you can't disable that with modular XML. >_< Also, did you mean to remove city/hill bonuses on longbows?
 
Tulugaq said:
I wonder if the issue re: changes, and what to encompass in LoR, is a result of how much we like the thing. We're getting greedy, in the sense we want to see this excellent product become the defacto standard for Civ4, like Warlords and BtS did (i.e., an official expansion pack). That makes it easier for us to find people to play it with, among other things. That can only happen if Firaxis adopts it as its own, after coming thru whatever contractual issues may apply. But that also means the Firaxis development team has to agree with all the changes that are included. I think the fear of "mission creep" is the fear that certain changes may make the whole package unpalatable to Firaxis, if they have their minds set on maintaining certain features (do some tech names, for example, date back to early days of the franchise, even if they don't make sense?).

Any chance you have friends at Firaxis that can provide feedback in that regard?
Click to expand...

Software companies rarely take mods and run with them. The only example I can think of where this occured was counterstrike. Besides no one has even used LoR in a succession game, so it's not even being used in any measurable capacity by the civ comunity. It also still needs MP fixed, and someone to sit down and finish what achilleszero started with the art before v 1.0 is released.
 
phungus420 said:
Software companies rarely take mods and run with them. The only example I can think of where this occured was counterstrike. Besides no one has even used LoR in a succession game, so it's not even being used in any measurable capacity by the civ comunity. It also still needs MP fixed, and someone to sit down and finish what achilleszero started with the art before v 1.0 is released.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you guys have still done a hell of a job, and created something that's an improvement on the basic game, stable, and alot of fun to play. :goodjob:
 
Hello

Would be possible one country can spend money into other country to make a revolution and change the leader to other more favourable?

In the real life is very common :lol:
 
Yeah, that sounds like something that should be added as a spy mission.

But it should be posited over in the Revolutions Forum.
 
New Espionage Missions is something I am planning to add soon for my mod, if Phungus thinks they are acceptable, I'd happily port them to RevDCM (and thus LoR) when I add them.

My discussion here.
 
A couple of those ideas sound cool, the one where you can try to incite a revolution is especially interesting (should only be available in a city with a RevIdx of over 900 in my opinion). You should probably start a thread on this in the RevolutionDCM thread and see what missions the moders who use the RevDCM core are most interested in. Basically the RevDCM core is designed at this stage to be a modding standard core, so i have an eye our for features that are totally stable, and those like yourself, myself, and davidlallen would be interested in and can use. The majority of your planned missions don't really fit that bill in my opinion, but some do, and I think alot of moders would be interested in incorporating them. I'd just like to see some discussion on it first, rather then just arbitrarily grabbing the missions and code I am personally interested in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

U
Sad that development stopped
Replies
0
Views
52
UniqueUsername
U
King Phaedron
Civ 6 World Builder Custom Map Art - Secret of Evermore and Soulblazer!
Replies
0
Views
261
King Phaedron
King Phaedron
G
Civil_War, add condition
Replies
9
Views
515
globosud
G
B
HexCiv Game Development
Replies
2
Views
224
Blake00
Blake00
The_J
April Fool's: 2K buys Paradox, Millennia is the "next civ game in development"
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
Quintillus
Quintillus
Top Bottom