Shaitan
der Besucher
A majority of respondents in the info poll want discussion on customizing DG3 with the editor/mod pack, etc.
Discuss!
Discuss!
DG3 Discussion - Game customization (using editor)
- Thread starter Shaitan
- Start date
disorganizer
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2002
- Messages
- 4,233
i would like to have a Dyp-Game...
hehe, I KNEW there would be a "but 'Poly's doing it TOOOOOO!!!!" response. 
I know DyP is huge, but not everyone's familar with the style of play. (like I think there's 2 types of workers if you use France for example, and you should switch out of chiefdom ASAP).
I know DyP is huge, but not everyone's familar with the style of play. (like I think there's 2 types of workers if you use France for example, and you should switch out of chiefdom ASAP).
Shaitan
der Besucher
I would not support any actual mod pack or scenario. Absolutely not something that requires files. Things like lethal bombardment for planes would be acceptable if people wanted that.
Eklektikos
Eponymous
Myself I'd prefer to use the default settings.
Shaitan
der Besucher
As would I, EK. Changing the way the game runs will mean that we have to adjust our individual plans and strategies to them. In addition it adds a burden to the learning curve for any new players we get.
I'd be willing to have a game with 'small' changes. Here's a list:
- Granaries and Hospitals would get the expansionist attribute
- Radar Artillery would have a movement (and ROF - if now already - of 3)
- Bombard type units (like cats, cans, arty, radar) would have an increased bombard strength
- Oasis 3.0.1 (it could use the vanilla colored dot in the icon list...)
- Granaries and Hospitals would get the expansionist attribute
- Radar Artillery would have a movement (and ROF - if now already - of 3)
- Bombard type units (like cats, cans, arty, radar) would have an increased bombard strength
- Oasis 3.0.1 (it could use the vanilla colored dot in the icon list...)
Eklektikos
Eponymous
While I'm not in favour of modifications in general I'd be particularly opposed to that one (assuming I'm right in thinking it allows expansionist civs to build these faster), since just being able to build granaries from the off is a major advantage IMO.
Shaitan
der Besucher
What is Oasis 3.0.1? Would this require changing files? Usually you need to redo the text files when you add things.
Bombards are already very effective when used correctly. The AI doesn't use them effectively so any increase here would just pad our cushion of superiority.
I have to echo EK on the expansionist granaries. Just being able to build those is a huge bonus. Making it easier to build them is a step too far.
Artillery should never move faster than infantry. The only time bombards moved faster than the grunts was horse artillery and even that didn't move a whole lot faster.
Bombards are already very effective when used correctly. The AI doesn't use them effectively so any increase here would just pad our cushion of superiority.
I have to echo EK on the expansionist granaries. Just being able to build those is a huge bonus. Making it easier to build them is a step too far.
Artillery should never move faster than infantry. The only time bombards moved faster than the grunts was horse artillery and even that didn't move a whole lot faster.
3.0.1 being food/shield/commerce.
You've been out of the modpack making business for a while, haven't you?
Then again, I have that entire forum to mod-erate.
We could ask someone with lots of experience with mod making. Impreza was telling me about the 1850-1900 scenario last week, which I think might be better for a RepGame (Game of Republic).
You've been out of the modpack making business for a while, haven't you?
Then again, I have that entire forum to mod-erate.
We could ask someone with lots of experience with mod making. Impreza was telling me about the 1850-1900 scenario last week, which I think might be better for a RepGame (Game of Republic).
Feodor Ardent
Grizzled 'ol Civ Veteran
I believe they were only refering to Radar Artillery, which is at least a step in the right direction. Both mechanized infantry and truck-towed/self propelled artillery were invented at the same time as the panzer division. Both should have the same movement as the armor they support.
Shaitan
der Besucher
Maybe it should but it doesn't. Armor is faster than artillery. The panzer in Civ3 moves faster to reflect the blitzkreig attack but German tanks were no faster (strategically) than Allied ones. Modern armor is faster than mechanized infantry to reflect the command presence of main armor on the battlefield (an Abrams is not faster than a Bradley). Radar artillery could be moved almost as fast as mechanized infantry tactically but not strategically. Definitely not as fast as modern armor in any case.
Feodor Ardent
Grizzled 'ol Civ Veteran
Not that well be able to reflect this in the Demogame (Im working on an article on the topic, though) but Ill respectfully disagree with you. I think you are mixing the tactical and strategic concepts.
:grad: :grad: :grad:
Not usually true. In both world wars, the armor attached to traditional foot infantry units was horse-drawn, as was the transport for the infantry units themselves. Thus, a division/corps of the Allies or Central Powers in World War I might be reflected as a 6-10-1 infantry unit permanently stacked with a 12-1 artillery unit. The typical non-motorized infantry force from World War II would have similar stats.
The Germans, for World War II, invented new types of large-scale units in which ALL the transport was mechanized, using trucks, half-tracks and other kinds of vehicles. They deployed them as early as 1939, as panzer divisions, motorized divisions, and other names. These would be the equivalent, in the game terms noted above, to units of all arms -- tank, infantry, and armor -- with movements of 2 or 3. The German advantage all through the war, until late in 1944, was in a superior operational doctrine, allowing greater strategic mobility. Therefore, even though the Americans, British, Soviets, and Italians all produced faster and better machined tanks than the Germans, the panzer gets a 3 movement because the Germans routinely employed their armor and supporting units in a more mobile and flexible way on the battlefield.
The problem is that that the command presence we typically associate with the modern tank is fictional, although the tank still takes the best picture galloping across the battlefield. Tanks, at almost any time in the last half-century, have actually been less dominant on the battlefield than in World War II, mainly because everyone has gone to such great effort to invent ways to kill them. The major reason that modern armor would get a 3 movement instead of a 2 is that the modern army has embraced the operational combined arms doctrines developed late in WWII so whole-heartedly. When a modern mechanized force goes into combat, it includes tanks, infantry, artillery, and aircraft, all wired up, all advancing together, all moving, strategically, at the same movement allowance. If any of these unit types moved separately, they would expect to be stopped or crushed by any roughly equivalent opposition.
Okay, Ill stop now and save the rest for the article.
:grad: :grad: :grad:
Not usually true. In both world wars, the armor attached to traditional foot infantry units was horse-drawn, as was the transport for the infantry units themselves. Thus, a division/corps of the Allies or Central Powers in World War I might be reflected as a 6-10-1 infantry unit permanently stacked with a 12-1 artillery unit. The typical non-motorized infantry force from World War II would have similar stats. The Germans, for World War II, invented new types of large-scale units in which ALL the transport was mechanized, using trucks, half-tracks and other kinds of vehicles. They deployed them as early as 1939, as panzer divisions, motorized divisions, and other names. These would be the equivalent, in the game terms noted above, to units of all arms -- tank, infantry, and armor -- with movements of 2 or 3. The German advantage all through the war, until late in 1944, was in a superior operational doctrine, allowing greater strategic mobility. Therefore, even though the Americans, British, Soviets, and Italians all produced faster and better machined tanks than the Germans, the panzer gets a 3 movement because the Germans routinely employed their armor and supporting units in a more mobile and flexible way on the battlefield. The problem is that that the command presence we typically associate with the modern tank is fictional, although the tank still takes the best picture galloping across the battlefield. Tanks, at almost any time in the last half-century, have actually been less dominant on the battlefield than in World War II, mainly because everyone has gone to such great effort to invent ways to kill them. The major reason that modern armor would get a 3 movement instead of a 2 is that the modern army has embraced the operational combined arms doctrines developed late in WWII so whole-heartedly. When a modern mechanized force goes into combat, it includes tanks, infantry, artillery, and aircraft, all wired up, all advancing together, all moving, strategically, at the same movement allowance. If any of these unit types moved separately, they would expect to be stopped or crushed by any roughly equivalent opposition.Okay, Ill stop now and save the rest for the article.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
I would rather see small tweeks in the game, rather than using a Mod pack. I have played with DyP Mod at one tome and beleve me. It is Waaaaaaaaaaaaaay Long.
Zarn
Le Républicain Catholique
I think naval ships should have better bombardment and movement in the later ages. I also think planes should be able to sink ships. Better bombardment for artillary and aircraft.
Grandmaster
Deity
Lethal bombard for all arty units, save perhaps Catapults. Also, anybody interested in the concept of an "era multiplier?" You know, to ensure that obsolete units don't defeat modern ones, have stats multiply by, say, x10 every era (Ancient, Middle, Industry, Modern.)
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
@GM - Even though this is of topic here, I have done that in my Imperialism Mod for units progressing each Upgrade path. (IE Aquebus -> Musketeers -> Greneder -> Riflemen -> Infantry -> Adv. Infantry -> Modern Infantry (Nam Version) -> Modern Infantry (Gulf War Version). Mostly I leave Leathel Bombardment to Heavy Artilleries
Feodor Ardent
Grizzled 'ol Civ Veteran
To re-emphasize what I noted on another thread, giving bombard units the ability to kill other units completely destroys any resemblance Civ warfare has to real warfare. I used massed artillery for years in Civ II to win games, but that's just because that is what the system leaves you.
As for catapults, they seem to have been put into Civ II because their infantry units were undergunned for dealing with cities and defended positions and this was all the designers could think of to simulate the effects of siege warfare. Catapults should have no effect at all on an open field battle in any game and cannon never had the killing power it has in Civ III until the age of Napoleon.
Be that as it may, the best force for rapid conquest in Civ II was a mixed force of workers, infantry, and massive numbers of guns, particularly if the workers could build railroads up to the walls of cities. Civ III at least tries to work around that.
Octavian X
is not a pipe.
I really wouldn't support anything needing extra files to play. Otherwise, these ideas sound nice, simply to correct gameplay quirks.
Grandmaster
Deity
Feo, I agree with you partially in theory. However, you can't deny that it is dumb that at least later-era arty units can't kill. I mean, think about it. In Civ3, you can pound a single Warrior with enough carpet bombing to level a city, and he still won't die! Obviously, if you are dropping bombs on an enemy formation, after a while you will drop enough to either kill all its soldiers or destroy its cohesion, eliminating it entirely from the battle (killing a unit in Civ terms.) Likewise, if you fire heavy guns at an enemy ship (be it the big guns of a battleship or shore-based anti-shipping guns) you will eventually sink that ship when you hit it enough times. Yet in Civ3, you can do no more than damage these units! Think about this: when someone is launching an amphibious invasion of your land, the best way to stop it is to sink the transport ships they are on before they can reach the beaches. You can do that with shore artillery and aircraft. Yet in Civ3, you can't. You can soften them up, but you have to use actual warships in full pitched battle to sink the ships. Ludacris. Another scenario: Pearl Harbor, or for the Brits and Italians (do we have any?) Taranto. At both of these harbors, warships we sunk in-harbor using bomber aircraft. But in Civ3, that is impossible! It was one of the most effective and devastating naval tactics of WWII, yet Civ3 overlooks it. I don't see why we shouldn't have Lethal Bombard on, say, every arty unit from Artillery and Bombers onward. That means Artillery, Radar Artillery, Cruise Missiles (no change needed...), Fighters, Jet Figters, Bombers, Stealth Fighters, Stealth Bombers, and F-15s. I would also give lethal sea bombard to all bombard-capable ships after the Ironclad, and I would give Lethal Land Bombard to Battleships and AEGISs (not Destroyers.) Thank you for listening to my rantings.
