Suggested EXISTING rule edits to improve realism or gameplay.

[alpha wolf 64]

the problem with designing era type unit capabilities is that the AI rarely seems to upgrade. one of tonights more interesting battles consisted of 3 infantry, 2 spearmen, a pikeman, 2 archers, and a horseman. 2 of the infantry appear to have been drafted. Even when the AI has substantial money, I still end up killing tons of obsolete units mixed in with their best units. in another war, the babylonians are protecting their radars with spearmen, altho i see most cities are defended by at least one infantry.

on a side note, does anyone know the disbanding order the AI uses when it runs out of money? do they disband obsolete units or last created?

 

[Mojotronica]

What is the difference between a Spearman and a Warrior, as presented in Civ?

Bronze weapons and light armor?

This is simulated in the game by giving them an additional point of defense, but they are no better on offense than a Warrior.

Is this accurate? Should Spearmen be A=1, D=2? Or A=2, D=1? Or even A=2, D=2?

The Spearman is the basis of the Greek Hoplite unit, which were pioneers in using three or more tiers of men in a moving block to methodically mow down their opposition. In Civ the Hoplite gets an extra point of defense to simulate what is essentially an offensive tactic...

Do you think that Hoplites should have an extra point of offense in addition to or instead of defense?

 

[Jaybe]

Since unit strengths are as much a matter of training/tactics as equipment, it is quite arbitrary what A/D/M you give them (so leave them alone).

Does anyone have experience after moving Republic/Democracy gov'ts yet? Instead of moving Demo to follow Sanitation, I put it after Nationalism. Haven't played yet.

 

[Mojotronica]

Jaybe --

Training (or other factors -- see some of the above posts) are simulated by experience (hit) points...

Technology and tactics are simulated by unit strengths.

You don't think this topic is relevant? Why?

I think it's extremely relevant -- it's the foundation of the game, actually... The graphics are just window dressing.

I don't think that you appreciate it as much as I do... I think of it as messing around under the hood of the game. It's fun!

 

[Civanator]

Originally posted by dracoraven
How is it possible to make mountains immpassable?

--vanilla civ user

Make every unit in the game wheeled, and then no one can go on mountains. downside is they can't go in jungles, either.

 

[Jaybe]

Mojotronica,
I wasn't trying to be dogmatic about it, just expressing my views!

Technology, tactics & training can be represented as you say. But training can also be represented by combat strengths to adjust for abnormal circumstances (e.g., in a historical scenario).

My "so leave them alone" comment was based on the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" perspective. OTH, I have taken several of the suggestions in this thread and am about to test them out for a month or so (similar A/D strengths for infantries, Rep/Dem moves, Caravel w/2 attack).

 

[Jaybe]

Following are a few of my mods I have had in place for several months (or longer).

I have increased fighters' defense to allow for 'offensive' fighter missions. I have not cared for the principle that 'the attacker has the advantage' in aerial combat with Civ3. 'He who spots the other first' actually applies, and this refers to individual aircraft. Therefore, I have endeavored to make it an even fight among similar types. The F-15, with its superior avionics, gets a slight advantage.

Bombardment strengths have been adjusted. Stealth fighter with its guided munitions is almost as good as a bomber, but with fewer bombs (RoF).

Fighter: A/D:4/3; Bombard /RoF:2/1
Jet Fighter: A/D:8/7; Bombard/RoF:4/1
F-15: A/D:8/8; Bombard/RoF:6/2
Stealth Fighter: B/RoF:8/2

----

Based on one of the Firaxis mods provided with Civ3/PTW, I gave modern naval units Blitz, but compensated somewhat by reducing their RoF to 1. Five bombardments at 1 RoF works pretty well. Who knows who will win in Battleship/Battleship engagements, so I increased their defense (Surely, you should not have a huge advantage just because you are the attacker!). Also with the AEGIS, since it is so strong in the counter-air/sea/submarine aspects.

Destroyer: Blitz, RoF:1
Battleship: A/D:18/16; Blitz, RoF:1
AEGIS Cruiser: A/D:12/12; Bombard:6; Blitz, RoF:1
Nuclear Submarine: A/D:10/5; Blitz; Movement: 5 (from 4)

 

[alpha wolf 64]

Originally posted by Jaybe
Does anyone have experience after moving Republic/Democracy gov'ts yet? Instead of moving Demo to follow Sanitation, I put it after Nationalism. Haven't played yet.

i did this and it seems logical to me.

 

[Kryten]

Cruise And Cruisers
---------------------
As has been mentioned before, many people have modified AEGIS Cruisers so that they can carry Cruise Missiles (I know that technically AEGIS Cruisers are an anti-aircraft ships, but I assume this unit represents all the many different types of modern missile warships, just like ‘Tank’ units represent all the many hundreds of armoured vehicles used in WW2).
Also, many people like to up the range of Cruise Missiles to something like 6 to make them a bit more realistic and useful.
The only problem with this is....the missiles quickly run out, and you have to spend many turns travelling all the way back to a port to re-load.
Plus it is a matter of luck for the AI player to have an AEGIS Cruiser leaving a port that also had some spare Cruise Missiles in it.

Well, if you are as lazy as me and hate ‘micro-management’, you could do this:-
Give AEGIS Cruisers a bombard of 16, a range of 6, and a rate of fire of 3, EXACTLY the same as a Cruise Missile!
It’s as if these ships had unlimited supplies of these missiles, simulating re-supply at sea….which is what happens in the real world.
(This way they could also represent all the many different types of ship-to-ship missiles as well)
This leads me on to the next subject....



“The Queen Of The Seas Is Dead”: Battleships Are OBSOLETE!
------------------------------------------------------------------
I would first like to state that I KNOW how much damage a 16” shell would do to a modern warship, I KNOW how thickly armoured they were compared to today’s ships, and I KNOW how wonderful they were at shore bombardment.
But before you all get nostalgic for these bygone graceful grey behemoths, may I remind you of the following:-
* NO battleship has been built since 1945.
* EVERY nation in the world scrapped ALL their battleships after WW2, except America, which kept four.
* EVEN America has scrapped these last four (the last battleship on active duty was USS Missouri (BB 63) decommissioned Mar. 31, 1992). In the 21st century, there are no battleships in the United States Navy....or ANY navy!

So why on earth does Civ3 allow these to be built in the Modern Age?
THEY ARE OBSOLETE!

They were made obsolete in WW2, when it was discovered that they needed Carriers to protect them from aircraft (think of the sinking of the Repulse, Prince of Wales, and Yamoto).
And that was with propeller driven aircraft....a 60 year old technology.
Today, with jet aircraft and anti-ship missiles....
The fact is their role has been taken over by Modern Missile Warships.

As this thread is about trying to make Civ3 more historically accurate, I suggest that AEGIS Cruisers be made a little bit more powerful than Battleships (or Battleships should be reduced a bit), and that they can no longer be built once Modern AEGIS Cruisers become available.

(One last thing: I think the 'Nuclear Sub' unit should have an attack of 12, a defence of 6, a movement of 5, plus the ‘radar’ (i.e. ‘Sonar’) ability....
....after all, these things have got better since WW1 & 2 ! )

 

[Bobby Lee]

well i have just spent the last several hours readin this thread...


YOU PEOPLE RULE.... I have never heard a better more logical discussion on how to fix the issues with the civ3 military side. I have read and implemented a few of ur ideas into my own scen that i have been workin on for who knows how long.... I myself i have solved many issues.... things like spearmen versus tanks (i gave so many attack and defense points for each era that i separated plus thier original stats)... i have also gone through and done things like edit the way infantry type units work so that u get sum infantry on infantry after the invention of chivalry....

sounds to me like (not to mention wut i have seen) the AI bein very dumb is the biggest problem in this area... the AI's issue with artillery ( i nearly died when i noticed that cause artillery is the biggest killer on the battlefield ) or it bein so dumb as to not be able to figure in that an early gun just has a bombard and that it will get whipped without protection (dumb AI treats its unit like meat through a meat grinder... never even seen it retreat... INSANITY)

I have also started doin things like givin each civ its own version of a unit... or as much as possible... to simulate things like how the British Riflemen where just flatout better and how much different different civ's units looked. (lets be real a Greek swordsman would never have looked like that... actually come to think of it i dont think the greeks ever used swords, just spears/pikes... oh that reminds me pikes where invented at about the same time the 1st caveman sharpened his 1st stick to kill his neighbor with they came into use the way they should be with the Greek Phalanx and where never lost since then.)

 

[Mojotronica]

According to James Dunnigan, the weapon the Allied soldiers most feared was the German 88 -- an 88mm anti-aircraft gun that could be converted (w/ typical German forethought) into an anti-tank gun.

It was not the most deadly weapon that the Allies faced, but infantrymen tended to attribute a lot of deaths to it.

Just for grins I thought that a decent German UU could be developed around this concept...

It would replace Artillery, and have Artillery Bombard stats of 12/1/1, but it WOULD also have A=10, D=1, M=1. It would be relatively cheap -- 60s. Stronger than any attack unit of it's era other than the tank... It would make a nice tank-killer in the field.

I admit the idea is kind of cheesy, but I thought I'd put it out there...

 

[Jaybe]

Kryten,
Regarding the nuc sub:
What radar does is allows vision of 2 LAND tiles, so AEGIS sees an extra tile inland (naval units already see 2 water tiles).

 

[Kryten]

Originally posted by Jaybe
Kryten,
Regarding the nuc sub:
What radar does is allows vision of 2 LAND tiles, so AEGIS sees an extra tile inland (naval units already see 2 water tiles).

Oops! You are quite right Jaybe.

It could still simulate modern satellite information being relayed to them for targeting their missiles though.....

("He's clutching at straws Jaybe! You've got Kryten on the run!" )

 

[Civanator]

Kryten, I think he got ya there. Checkmate.

 

[Jaybe]

Kryten's so good that I just had to nitpick!

 

[Bobby Lee]

I think that radar should still be given to the Aegis cruisers though as they would be able to get satelite info... for that matter all land and naval units of a time after satelites should be able to do that.... wish there was sum way to do that (give all units the radar ability after the invention of satellites... or better yet reveal the map but give a hide ability to all land units... been thinkin that they needed to be able to hide anyways after the invention of flight because it really happened that way)

 

[thestonesfan]

Since Kryten has shown a moment of weakness, I will take advantage of it and point out that he is a little erroneous in his assessment of battleships.

Kryten states:

* EVEN America has scrapped these last four (the last battleship on active duty was USS Missouri (BB 63) decommissioned Mar. 31, 1992). In the 21st century, there are no battleships in the United States Navy....or ANY navy!

Not true. Both the Iowa and Wisconsin are currently reinstated in the US Naval Registry, which means they are in reserve.

On the effectiveness of battleships...truthfully, no one really knows these days, but they should not be understimated. There is some top Navy brass that feels the US is currently lacks sufficient surface fire support.

The Iowa class of battleships still has no equal in surface firepower and shore bombardment.

That said, I certainly wouldn't push the Navy to build any more of them, but I wouldn't take them out of the Civ3 modern era. After all, if you make them appropriately expensive, you're way ahead to build a carrier and load it up with Jet Fighters (Which, BTW, I have souped up considerably, so they are real butt kickers).

These types of threads are my favorites, and I'll post a big bunch of changes I make tomorrow. But I need to hit the sack. Later dudes!

 

[Buckets]

Great thread! Here's some of my personal favourite changes:

Add 2 happiness to hospitals and 2 unhappiness to factories. This is mostly to balance the human with the ai, but a nice side-effect is that if your city is stable at size 12, you know you can expand to at least 14 without civil disorder. In other words, hospitals are always a positive improvement. Also, i now mod Cure for cancer to double happiness of hospitals - more realistic i think.

Add 2 unhappiness to coal plants. Why ever build a solar plant when you can just build a recycling station? Well, now there's a good reason.

All aircraft have a movement of 2. So you can now re-base and perform a mission on the same turn. With rails and artillery, aircraft seemed a little slow and weak. Only bug is that in PTW you can select 'auto-bombard' which will allow 2 bombing runs even if the unit doesn't have blitz, so i add blitz to be fair.

Eliminate 'build city' from desert, tundra, forest, jungle and mountains. Some areas are uninhabitable this way and you will actually see a good use of colonies! Also the ai won't waste precious settlers on scrap land.

Smart Weapons-removed prerequisite Satellites. This is to allow precision strikes somewhat earlier. Precision strikes are the only real reason to build stealth, and what makes the f-15 good, so to balance these units, Smart Weapons comes (possibly) sooner. There's redundancy anyway in the fact that Integrated Defence requires satellites and smart weapons, while smart weapons require satellites.

(One last thing: I think the 'Nuclear Sub' unit should have an attack of 12, a defence of 6, a movement of 5, plus the ‘radar’ (i.e. ‘Sonar’) ability....

Even better - give them movement of 2 + 'all terrain as roads' for an effective movement of 6. Once they attack they lose half their movement. So, if they don't sink the fleet they'll be somewhat vulnerable after attacking.

I'm contemplating a government change and here's why: having done some playtesting i'm finding that the ai researches more and more slowly through the ages, especially in the industrial and modern ages. (Example: ancient - 160 turns, mid - 100, ind - 231 !) There's alot of reasons why but i suspect the real problem is that the ai switches Govs alot. Once they have Democracy and Communism, they will stick with dem for peace time, com for war time and rarely go back to monarchy or republic. And because Dem has high war weariness, they will need to switch alot. I mean, the ai does not conduct efficient quick wars.... anyway, i'm theorising that changing the war weariness of democracy to low will alleviate some of this, but it needs to be tested!

 

[Buckets]

Who doesn't like screenshots? Thought it odd that Ceremonial burial is kind of a stone age tech, so... that got me thinking what other stoneage techs could i add to replace the default unique starting techs... I don't use it much but someone might find it interesting.

 

[Procifica]

Steph: How does a Rifleman or Infantry unit take less damage than say a Knight? I'd say the Knight has a better chance of taking a bullet than a unarmored soldier of today (assuming no other type of support).

And following your above figures as examples, I'd say a tank has a MUCH better chance of living than Infantry (8 vs. 12), and has much higher firepower too.