Alpha testers needed for Steph's mod 2

[Steph]

I have indeed run into that exact problem. The northern half of my country is jungle, forest, and mountain. My settlers simply cannot walk out there. It's impassable. For a while, I was wondering why the Mexicans didn't settle into my territory. That's the reason. So my only means of expansion at this point is through conquest. I intend to open a can of whoopass on the Mexicans eventually. They're at war with the Andes at the moment, and the Andes look doomed. They are somehow holding their own ground though. If the Mexicans wanted, they could probably conquer the entire continent, including me.

Then it's how it should be. Many conquest wars were started by people like you, who could not expand in their territories and had to take it somewhere else.
Note that you could build roads with your workers to cross a patch of impassable terrain and start colonizing on the other side. It will simply take more time than just sending the settlers.

 

[Phlegmak]

Note that you could build roads with your workers to cross a patch of impassable terrain and start colonizing on the other side.

Doh! Double doh! Now I feel stoopid for forgetting about that.

 

[Steph]

As the civilopedia says

^The settler cannot cross moutains, jungle or forest without roads. It cannot load in a boat.
^Oversea expansion can be done only with more advanced settlers.

 

[T.A JONES]

Ya I still have a pic from when I played your first mod that clearly shows how the AI overcomes this settler problem exactly how you discribe.

Take a look:

Spoiler :

I think what they do is build a road to a resource then a settler walks over and plants his ass deep down in the jungles.

Any Questions?.... Alright then!

 

[Steph]

They even build a small road to the east for the fisherman who likes the fishes from this pond

 

[Steph]

I'm working on the French, and when doing so I'm seriously pondering if I should not simplify a bit the unit line, by removing the Engineer, Machine guns and AT infantry.

They are not really the same scale as the other units (cannot compared a MG team with an infantry regiment, could we?), and are hard to balance with other units.

Beside, there are very few flavour units for those

What do you think?

 

[Phlegmak]

Well, what I'd like is the science screen fixed for everything after the first age. I think you should do that before working on the French. Right now, your mod is only playable for 1/4 of its intended length.

I tried downloading your documentation and you messed up the URL for it. On your webpage, you made the documentation link point to the American update zipfile.

I looked at your units in my old copy of your doc file. It makes me wonder what are the purposes of Engineer and AT? I also just noticed the number of units that have hit point penalties. Why have so many units with reduced hit points? I don't see the point.

If you're having trouble deciding about flavor units, then don't make every single nation have flavor units for every unit. Just leave Engineers, AT, and MG as the same for every nation or most nations.

 

[Steph]

Well, what I'd like is the science screen fixed for everything after the first age. I think you should do that before working on the French. Right now, your mod is only playable for 1/4 of its intended length.

Don't worry, I'll fix it before releasing a new update, that will include the French. I'll try from now on to include a new civ, and general improvement.

I tried downloading your documentation and you messed up the URL for it. On your webpage, you made the documentation link point to the American update zipfile.

Damned! I'll correct that this evening.

I looked at your units in my old copy of your doc file. It makes me wonder what are the purposes of Engineer and AT?

Engineer were supposed to help assault city, with a very good attack. However, they reduced the interest of infantry.
AT are hard to model. I'd like them to give a bonus against tanks, but the engine doesn't allow it. So if I make them good against tank, they are also good against infantry . That's why I think I may get rid of them.

I also just noticed the number of units that have hit point penalties. Why have so many units with reduced hit points? I don't see the point.

The concepts of hit points, for me, is related to the size of a unit. A unit with 10,000 people should have more hit points than a unit with 1,000.
So an infantry regiment will have normal HP, while support unit (archer, but also some cavalry), will have less HP.
For instance, the chariot will have better A/D than early horseman, but less HP.
The knights have less HP than medieval infantry, but better A/D.

If you're having trouble deciding about flavor units, then don't make every single nation have flavor units for every unit. Just leave Engineers, AT, and MG as the same for every nation or most nations.

The pb is not here exactly. With many flavour units, I can add unit just for the fun of having the flavour, even if they are not really useful.
Like giving to Britain Scottish of English units, with almost the same stats, just for flavour, so you can make one or the other.

But if there is little flavour, and I don't really see the point of keeping the unit....

So, as a conclusion, what should I keep or not:
- Engineer: good attack
- AT : I don't know how to model them. Perhaps stealth attack against tank?
- MG: good defense + defensive bombardment.

Is it really worth it?

 

[Phlegmak]

So, as a conclusion, what should I keep or not:
- Engineer: good attack
- AT : I don't know how to model them. Perhaps stealth attack against tank?
- MG: good defense + defensive bombardment.

Is it really worth it?

Alright, if you're having trouble deciding, then just get rid of all three.

 

[cemo1956]

AT are hard to model. I'd like them to give a bonus against tanks, but the engine doesn't allow it. So if I make them good against tank, they are also good against infantry . That's why I think I may get rid of them.

- AT : I don't know how to model them. Perhaps stealth attack against tank?
- MG: good defense + defensive bombardment.

Is it really worth it?

Try out AT both bazooka and AT guns with Stealth attack. Then select only armored units in what can be selected as making a stealth attack vs.
I have tested and for humans it works, however we always have the elusive and erratic AI. Heaven knows how that will work.
But then of course AT should be a weaker in attack than infantry. Perhaps create a building to pop them out, or the AI will not build them.
Don't worry about that they are good vs other infantry too. Heck man a dude with a RPG can do damage to a group of Marines hiding in a building can't he ???
Many times during WW2 Bazooka was used to knock out infantry from defensive positions.


I used AT guns (not Bazooka) with airdrop capability to differ them from normal artillery, they can follow Paratroopers. Use Wyrmshadow old Gliders for dropanimation.


MG: YES better defense, think of the WW1. Infantry to attack hopeless positions to be slaughtered. WW1 tanks then help a bit to crush MG positions. Don't forget to have a better attack then defense on Infantry in WW1 and both attack and defense strategy for the AI.
Remember Krytens old ideas on improving infantry attacking......

Cemo

 

[cemo1956]

How should I call the people from North Africa? North African just sound... strange, as I already have Africans.
Berbers would be to restrictive. Could I call it Maghreb instead?

When you pick unit evolution for this area, don't forget the great impact the Vandals had after Carthage. They really messed things up for the late Romans and then the Byzantines.

I like the idea on this you did with the Amerika. Many other parts of the world had these very big chances in peoples thanks to mass movings of tribes.
I guess Ottomans have something to work with. Starting as the Hittite culture then actually Greek, a bit Persian long before the Turks popped up.
Interresting upgrading units on these guys.

 

[Steph]

I have finished to add the French ground units.
Next step: French navy.

 

[Steph]

I've done the French navy this week end, and started working on the air force.
When doing that, I'm wondering something.
I have perhaps put to many details in WWII, with several units (like 3 different aircraft carriers, battleships, several fighters...).
So I'm thinking it makes this part to complex.
Should I streamline it a bit, and keep only one unit of each type for WWII?

So, the lines would be:
- Armored ship or Ironclad --> WWI battleship --> WWII battleship
- Submarine --> Attack submarine (now I have two subs, one WWI, one WWII)
- Destroyer (WWI and WWII) --> Modern destroyer (and no more frigate)
- Cruiser --> Modern cruiser (only one type)
- WWII carrier --> Modern carrier --> Nuclear carrier

- Biplan --> Fighter -> Jet fighter -> Air superiority
Fighter bomber --> Jet fighter bomber --> Multirole fighter
- Same for naval
- Medium bomber
- Heavy bomber --> Jet bomber

For aircrafts, the countries will have what was historically available. For instance, Germany could have Me109 and Stuka in WWII (Fighter and fighter bomber), but at the end both upgrade to Eurofighter (no difference fighter/ fighter bomber)

Also, I may simplify a bit the ground unit lines, and for some civilization mix them.
Like for France, instead of having spearmen and swordsmen, just have "warriors".

What do you think about that?

 

[Phlegmak]

You know, there is something that's been bugging me since the beginning of your mod. Isn't there a limit on the number of units you can make in the editor? Perhaps I'm wrong, but it worries me that so much of your mod might be impossible. Or did you already build all the units in the editor?

I've done the French navy this week end, and started working on the air force.
When doing that, I'm wondering something.
I have perhaps put to many details in WWII, with several units (like 3 different aircraft carriers, battleships, several fighters...).
So I'm thinking it makes this part to complex.
Should I streamline it a bit, and keep only one unit of each type for WWII?

If you think the player or the AI will actually use all of your units, then keep them in. If you think the player will always build one type of unit, then streamlining might be better. I'm assuming you're talking about having several different aircraft carriers simultaneously. Like 3 different varieties.

Let me rephrase all that. If you will be having something like 3 different varieties of unit simultaneously available, only do this if you think the AI, and especially the player will make use of all of those units. If you're talking about the unit upgrade lines with more units, then, in my opinion, simplification is better. Keep in mind that for some nations, overly complex unit lines are fine. (More on this below.)

So, the lines would be:
- Armored ship or Ironclad --> WWI battleship --> WWII battleship
- Submarine --> Attack submarine (now I have two subs, one WWI, one WWII)
- Destroyer (WWI and WWII) --> Modern destroyer (and no more frigate)
- Cruiser --> Modern cruiser (only one type)
- WWII carrier --> Modern carrier --> Nuclear carrier

- Biplan --> Fighter -> Jet fighter -> Air superiority
Fighter bomber --> Jet fighter bomber --> Multirole fighter
- Same for naval
- Medium bomber
- Heavy bomber --> Jet bomber

For aircrafts, the countries will have what was historically available. For instance, Germany could have Me109 and Stuka in WWII (Fighter and fighter bomber), but at the end both upgrade to Eurofighter (no difference fighter/ fighter bomber)

Also, I may simplify a bit the ground unit lines, and for some civilization mix them.
Like for France, instead of having spearmen and swordsmen, just have "warriors".

What do you think about that?

In my opinion, I don't like the way most mod-writers make their units. That is, that all of the nations get the same types of units at the same time. It would be way cooler to have nations with totally different units at totally different times on the tech tree. Perhaps in a game that mirrors Earth history, it would be reasonable to have every nation getting similar units at the same time. However, let's say you have a fantasy game like some AD&D game. Let's say you have a nation of monsters vs. a nation of humans. The monster nation would get totally different units, at totally different times on the tech tree. THAT would be cool in my opinion.

So let's apply that to your game. Let's say France gets the generalized Warrior unit that you mentioned in your second to last sentence. Other nations would get two specialized units at different techs. So France would get Warrior, and Germany would get Swordsman and Spearman. Let's say Andes gets NO horse mounted units whatsoever, due to the fact that the Western Hemisphere had no horses until Europeans brought them. (I know you're immediately thinking of the Americans and their horse units. It's different with them because the American Indians weren't wiped out immediately or enslaved immediately like the Incas and Aztecs. Incan and Aztec civilizations died with the Spaniards, but the American Indians lived on a few more centuries.)

In Civ 3, Babylon has the Bowman unit, or whatever it's called. It has the firepower of an Archer (2) and the defense of a Spearman. It can't upgrade, I believe. That's something to wonder about. How do your mixed units upgrade? As defensive or offensive? Or should you have mixed-role ground units for a long time? For example, France has Warriors with 2a,2d,1m in the stone age, Heavy Footman in the Middle Ages with 4a,4d,1m and so on, until Gunpowder troops.


After you do your French units, I'd like to try them out in the first age. However, I think it's vital that you get the science screen working right for all ages after the first. I suppose the game is still playable without looking at the science screen past the first age, but it would help tremendously to be able to look at it.

 

[Phlegmak]

By the way, what are you doing about the writing of English text? 90% of your English is perfect, but you make frequent, minor mistakes. So far, the meaning of your text that you have written on this forum that I have read is comprehensible. Actually, only 99% of it is comprehensible, but I think that's a perfectly fine percentage. So, do you have someone to proofread your English text? Should I do that along with the rest of playtesting?

 

[Mirc]

Well, his mod already had 3000 units a loooong time ago. I don't think there is a limit, and if there is, it's very high.

 

[Steph]

No one if proofreading it yet, but that's part of the job of the Alpha and Beta testers .
The units are already in the game, I used the copy tool to create 19 copies of each unit, x2 for the "resourceless" version when needed.
So I'm not worried about the limitation, I know it can work.
When I'm doing know is going through all the units again, and try to make them and flavoured. Selecting new graphics, giving new names, specific bonus, writing the pedia entry (no description yet, just the game effect).

And doing it, I think I'll keep a few country like America with more complex unit lines in the modern era for aircraft, and ships, but the other countries will probably be a lot less detailed.

Also, the way I'm making the mod, as ALL the units are flavoured, I have easier upgrade path.

The French bronze warrior upgrades directly to the gaul iron swordsman that upgrade directly to the Frankish warrior.

I don't have to do French warrior --> Roman warrior --> ... Aztec warrior --> French swordsman --> Roman swordsman....

 

[T.A JONES]

THis would be a perfect mod to use wikipedia on. So many discriptions for the 1000's of units this way with wiki you got grammer taken care of and ya just paste what you want.

A mod this good can't sacrifice pedia depth. It would be a horrible waste like you woudn't believe.
Hold the mod back a month just for pedia and I will send in discripts for you one each day :
Have you seen MAM or Balancer Reloaded? those are what you want to compare to in pedia quality. Make it so it looks like its store bought standards no big gaps saying "will do some day"

Again Yes I will help and you can judge if its worthy but I will just be pasting from other sources word for word so its hella lot better then leaving blanks

 

[Steph]

Remember it's still an alpha version.

I want to finish the unit settings for each civilization, starting some civilopedia for it, so the structure is here (all the DSC_PRTO are in), it's just the text that is missing.

So when it's done, it's just a matter of writing the text.

Contributions are welcomed. I can take them and integrate them in the final pedia.

 

[cemo1956]

Hm I just can't help to compliment on that Spanish Uhlan. The true Caballero with a lance. I haven´t seen this unit being released on it´s own. Have I missed it.
It´s just super Steph.

Sorry I know it doesn´t help you just giving thumbs up for units, but I must ...