Alpha testers needed for Steph's mod 2

Steph said:
The population cost was there to prevent having to many units. However, a large army should be very expensive. My idea was to try to force the player and the AI to have relatively small armies. Or to seriously endanger their economy.
So keep playing a bit and tells me if the pop cost removal is really interesting or not.
I think I should keep it for the larger units: main infantry, large cavalry or armor forces, largest ships (Battleships, Carrier), and remove it for the elite forces (knights), support forces (archer), as they usually have a HP penalty for "small size unit". And artillery, aircraft and most of the ships would not need it.
So for instance, the Battleships would require 1 pop cost, but the Battlecruiser, which are a bit weaker, would not. It can help differentiate between units.
And to avoid endangering the AI to much at the beginning of game, the pop cost can appear only at a given point. It could be military formation in the iron age. Or Renaissance tactics during the Renaissance age?


I like your idea where yoiu have HP bonus for POP cost units and penalty for ones that cost none

I figure some units for each civ should have special abilties on this idea for instance: no POP cost and yet still no HP reduction. ether
 
I like your idea where yoiu have HP bonus for POP cost units and penalty for ones that cost none
I figure some units for each civ should have special abilties on this idea for instance: no POP cost and yet still no HP reduction. ether

Not very often, as I consider HP to be a linked to the number of men in a unit.
So many men --> pop cost and HP
Less men -> no pop, HP penalty
 
The population cost was there to prevent having to many units. However, a large army should be very expensive. My idea was to try to force the player and the AI to have relatively small armies. Or to seriously endanger their economy.
So keep playing a bit and tells me if the pop cost removal is really interesting or not.
I think I should keep it for the larger units: main infantry, large cavalry or armor forces, largest ships (Battleships, Carrier), and remove it for the elite forces (knights), support forces (archer), as they usually have a HP penalty for "small size unit". And artillery, aircraft and most of the ships would not need it.
So for instance, the Battleships would require 1 pop cost, but the Battlecruiser, which are a bit weaker, would not. It can help differentiate between units.
And to avoid endangering the AI to much at the beginning of game, the pop cost can appear only at a given point. It could be military formation in the iron age. Or Renaissance tactics during the Renaissance age?

Oups... It may not be the wisest idea. Should I put an upkeep back?
Yes, you have to.

I've thought for quite sometime now that I could give a range of 1 to support unit (archer, riflemen). So you could pincushion the pikemen with arrows. And we could have a better use of ROF. It would seem reallistic. Except then you could also bombard ships. However, it would require the ship to be near the coast.
With if I change the US archer, give it a range 1 bombardment, but reduce the attack by one, so you could try it in your next game?
I think it would be interesting.
Yes, make that change.

That wouldn't have happened with pop cost for units
:mischief:
Well, it leaves one of few choices.
1. Leave the units as they are. Civs in a good position will have vast armies and will generally overrun their weaker neighbors.
2. Readd the pop requirement for units. I find that civs will still have fairly large armies, but they will have tiny populations and few if any buildings.
3. Make units cost more resource-wise.
4. Reduce the efficacy of mines. Mines in your mod are fanatastic.

For now, leave the units as they are. My next game I try will be a noncontinent game. The continental games always result in one nation conquering most of it. I wish I could keep a better eye on my opponents' armies to see what they're doing. Can you add spying to be early in the game for testing purposes?

There is something I'd like to get feedback on. What about the two versions of units, the - and the +.

The goal was to prevent a civ from being completly crushed by another because it has no iron nor oil. I supposed you could always find some, but
1) the cost of the unit is doubled (you need more time to get the resources)
2) the unit having less resources, it's smaller size, so it has a -1 HP (instead of building 100 tanks in the regiment, you can build only 60)
3) It has reduce MP or range when oil was required.

I think it helps preserving balance, but at the cost of doubling the number of units.

What are your thought about that?
I like the way you have done the + and - units.

Your mod was, from the beginning, not meant to be balanced. I would say it's definitely not balanced. I can't say that this is a good or bad thing yet. Overall, I'm happy with the early American units, even though it's often a struggle. The early first age units are good in the fact that they don't require resources. It's helped me that way.

By the way, I noticed that my neighboring civs were always at or near 0 gold. I suspect it may be due to the unit maintenance costs.

I noticed some of the civs are starting to build more buildings, too.
 
Speaking of names...

For the infantry / cavalry, the units are named with "code name"

Like

Fr_05C + Knight

but in the civpedia, I've given a more specific name, like "Chevalier"

However, for armor, aircraft and ships, instead of

US_11N + Battleship, I'm using US_11N + USS Montana BB

What do you think of that?

Should I
- keep it like that?
- Use Fr_05C + Chevalier, US_11N + USS Montana BB?
- Use Fr_05C + Knight, US_11N + Battleship?

Using "real name", if possible in the local language, can add to the flavour, but may make it difficult to identify easily the units.
 
Speaking of names...

For the infantry / cavalry, the units are named with "code name"

Like

Fr_05C + Knight

but in the civpedia, I've given a more specific name, like "Chevalier"

However, for armor, aircraft and ships, instead of

US_11N + Battleship, I'm using US_11N + USS Montana BB

What do you think of that?

Should I
- keep it like that?
- Use Fr_05C + Chevalier, US_11N + USS Montana BB?
- Use Fr_05C + Knight, US_11N + Battleship?

Using "real name", if possible in the local language, can add to the flavour, but may make it difficult to identify easily the units.
I like this:

- Use Fr_05C + Chevalier, US_11N + USS Montana BB?

better.

You should remove the free upkeep for the Tribal Wars's Warrior unit. I built around 20 or 25 of them the last time I played France (yesterday). Paris was so productive that I could build one every two turns. I think it should require upkeep and I think the number of free units for Despotism should be at least 5. I don't remember what it is now.

Hey, how difficult is it to have a French version and an English version of your mod? Just curious.
 
I like this:
- Use Fr_05C + Chevalier, US_11N + USS Montana BB?
better.
Then I'll try to use the name in original version for the different units.

You should remove the free upkeep for the Tribal Wars's Warrior unit. I built around 20 or 25 of them the last time I played France (yesterday). Paris was so productive that I could build one every two turns. I think it should require upkeep and I think the number of free units for Despotism should be at least 5. I don't remember what it is now.
Hmmm. I could remove the free upkeep and increase a little the despotism free upkeep.

Hey, how difficult is it to have a French version and an English version of your mod? Just curious.
Very. It requires renamming all the entries in the editor, and rewriting the whole civilopedia :(.
I think I could use French, German, Italians names for units. But the civpedia would remain in English.
You wouuld have liked a French version?

BTW, I finished adding the Royal Navy, and I also updated a good bunch of tech icons.

I'll try to finish the Brits before I leave for one week of vacation.

@ T.A. Jones: the more testers, the better!

I know Phelgmak is doing a really great job, and for finding bugs it's invaluable, but it would be better to have several points of view about the "feeling" of the game, and also to exchange between testers about how they play the mod, what strategy, etc.
 
Very. It requires renamming all the entries in the editor, and rewriting the whole civilopedia :(.
I think I could use French, German, Italians names for units. But the civpedia would remain in English.
You wouuld have liked a French version?
No, I was only curious. Actually, I think the unit names would be irrelevant, but the civilopedia would be the important part.

I know Phelgmak is doing a really great job, and for finding bugs it's invaluable, but it would be better to have several points of view about the "feeling" of the game, and also to exchange between testers about how they play the mod, what strategy, etc.

See that, T.A Jones? That's exactly what I was thinking!
 
No, I was only curious. Actually, I think the unit names would be irrelevant, but the civilopedia would be the important part.
Well, with the current naming convention, you know that the

Br_08I + Light Infantry, Fr_08I + Light Infantry, and Ge_08I + Light Infantry are all light infantry, and so should perform roughly the same.

Same if I named them

Br_11N + Battleship, Fr_11N + Battleship, Ge_11N + Battleship

or

Br_11A + Fighter, Fr_11A + Fighter, Ge + 11A_Fighter.

Now, if I use:

Br_08I + Riflemen, Fr_08I + Voltigeur, Ge_08I + Jaeger
Br_11N + HMS Nelson, Fr_11N + Richelieu, Ge_11N + Bismark
Br_11A + Spitfire, Fr_11A + Dewoitine D520, Ge_11A + Me 109

You may have to go to the civpedia to learn what they are. Personally, I think it adds to the "flavorization". But I'm not sure everyone will like it.

And it will start to be fun when I'll have to find original version for Aztec or Inca units, or for Turkish, Arabic... Russian... etc.

That's why I'm limiting it for the moment to navy, aviation and armor, where I can use the name of the equipement.

Instead of US_13C + Armor, Fr_13C + Armor, or US_13C + Armored Divisiojn, Fr_13C + Division blindée, I'm using US_13C + M1 Abrams MBT, and Fr_13C + Leclerc MBT.
 
Well, with the current naming convention, you know that the

Br_08I + Light Infantry, Fr_08I + Light Infantry, and Ge_08I + Light Infantry are all light infantry, and so should perform roughly the same.

Same if I named them

Br_11N + Battleship, Fr_11N + Battleship, Ge_11N + Battleship

or

Br_11A + Fighter, Fr_11A + Fighter, Ge + 11A_Fighter.

Now, if I use:

Br_08I + Riflemen, Fr_08I + Voltigeur, Ge_08I + Jaeger
Br_11N + HMS Nelson, Fr_11N + Richelieu, Ge_11N + Bismark
Br_11A + Spitfire, Fr_11A + Dewoitine D520, Ge_11A + Me 109

You may have to go to the civpedia to learn what they are. Personally, I think it adds to the "flavorization". But I'm not sure everyone will like it.

And it will start to be fun when I'll have to find original version for Aztec or Inca units, or for Turkish, Arabic... Russian... etc.

That's why I'm limiting it for the moment to navy, aviation and armor, where I can use the name of the equipement.

Instead of US_13C + Armor, Fr_13C + Armor, or US_13C + Armored Divisiojn, Fr_13C + Division blindée, I'm using US_13C + M1 Abrams MBT, and Fr_13C + Leclerc MBT.
I think there is no problem to just use generic names like "Rifleman" or "Warrior" for nations which you have a hard time finding specific names, like for Andes.

I personally have no problem if you use the specific names for units like Rifleman, such as Voltigeur, Jaeger, and any others. I've played plenty of mods and most mods have their own custom units, so it's always necessary to look at the civilopedia at least a little bit.
 
British artillery added...

I'm trying to "rush" the British, so I can post an update including them and the new tech icons before I leave for one week of vacation to the Ocean.

In this update, I have modified the archer line. They have a weak attack, but have a range of 1. Their bombardment strength is weaker than a good old catapult, but they can be helpful to wear down strong ennemy units before attacking with swordsmen.

If you can try this tweak and tell me how it goes.

I've done the change for units nb 01 to 05 (ie. Medieval units). If the change is interesting, I'll extend it later to cover the gunpowder age.

The civpedia will not include this change yet. If it works OK, I'll correct the pedia. But if it's not fun and I have to come back, I don't want to change the pedia twice!

When the Brits are done, I'll start Germany.
 
French game.

~~~~~~~~~~

Steph_NoPop
July 31, 2007

Continents 60%
Normal Climate
Temperate temperature
4 Billion age
Standard size
Roaming barbarians
Default rules, with Culturally linked starting location removed
All random enemies, except including America
Normal aggression
Regent difficulty
Playing French

1. Starting next to Flood Plains kind of sucks due to the frequent disease.

2. Shouldn't Bow be a requirement for Archery?
 
1. yes, but it kind of doesn't suck due to good food production boost.

2. why all these overrating of bow for archery? It's not very politically correct! The swords feel discriminated afterward, not being a requirement for archery!
 
Well, I was not able to finish everything, but I'm currently uploading a new update of the mod.

- British flavour units added. I have not completly finished, the early infantry units are not done. If I can, I'll try to update them tonight before leaving, but I doubt it. The British have several Scottish flavour units available (in gunpowder age for the moment).

- I have changed some of the tech icons with new ones (especially for some "empty" icons)

- Gameplay change: I have given a range of 1 to the archer line. Tell me if you find this tweak interesting.

I suggest playing with America, France or Britain, and to include the two other civ in the AI controlled civ, and keep the others random.

I'm leaving tomorrow morning for one week at the ocean side. I'll be back next friday, I hope everything will work fine.
 
Back
Top Bottom