Organization of techs- I Agree completely about your points of Liberalism helping the creation of Communism and Fascism being the historic reaction against Communism, but it's where the techs are placed on the tree that bugs me. I think Liberalism should be a requirement for Communism, but I would like to see Communism placed behind Scientific Method. Communism should be a requirement for Fascism, for understanding of Marxist theory is required to oppose it, but I would like to see Fascism placed behind a military tech like military tradition.
Liberalism requires Scientific Method. This represents the "liberal" method of thinking spawned from the Scientific Revolution of the 17th/18th centuries, where Liberalism started to flourish. So in a way, Communism needs Scientific Method, because it's a PreReqTech to the Communism PreReqTech (Liberalism).
Also, Fascism is more of a nationalistic movement (Nationalism) than the application of science towards military technology (Military Science).
Right now I'm pretty happy with the way the tech tree is. I worked on it almost a whole month, doing research, etc... just to find, what I feel, is a historically accurate representation of a "tech-tree".
Unique Units- Why not add a second to each civ? I would gladly help brainstorm and hunt down models. I could also write pedia entries.
I already have ideas for 2nd UU's, just haven't actually made them yet. Graphics, Pedia, etc... I have it all written out already, since I'm using the UU's from my Warlords "beta" of HiTM for these units.
Israel- While I sort of doubt the historic importance of Israel when compared to some other civs, I think the leader heads might be better balanced. Phi/Ind and Fin/Org aren't exactly the most balanced of trait combinations. Also, in my opinion, their UU sort of sucks, so maybe a better UU plus more balanced traits might make a better civ.
My aim for Israel is not to make it a "Jewish" empire. with the Israeli civilization I included, I wanted to kind of seperate the "faith" from the "nation". So in my mod, Israel can be a Buddhist state... you get the idea.
I like the Sufa as the Israeli, UU. Again, this is to seperate the "faith" from the "nation". If I made the Israeli UU a Jewish based unit like everybody else does, it wouldn't make much sense if you had a Macabee swordsman, but your state religion was Buddhism.
So I looked towards modern Israel for inspiration, and found the Sufa. The IAF is considered one of the best Air Forces in the whole world, so I found it suiting to represent the IAF as a UU in HiTM. Besides, no other Civ has a modern fighter aircraft as a UU, which is even more reason to use the Sufa as Israel's UU.
Republic of Texas- I'm not going to object to Texas being included, but I wonder if there are more historically important civs that aren't being included, for instance Lithuania or Austria.
Well, considering I created the BtS version of the Republic of Texas, it's obvious why I would include it into HiTM. I see no point in adding other new civs, especially since anybody can download any one of the Modular Civs out there and plug them in and start using them with no problems.
Native America- I would really really like to see this Civ split up into several different civs. Say for instance the Lakota, Iroquois, Sioux and Navajo. If anything the cities for the Native Americans are pretty damn racist... "Poverty point"? Please... [I know this isn't your fault, but you have the power to do something about it].
I don't get into the PC (politically correct) game. I'm not going to re-arrange the Native American civilization and break them up into several different "tribes", nor am I going to go through and ping about the names of their cities. It's not a big deal to me.
HRE + Germany - I think you should combine these two civs, while I know the HRE did in some instances extend past modern day Germany, I think having them both is a tad redundant. You could use both UUs though if you chose to give all nations two unique units.
That sounds like more work than it's worth.
Sumner + Babylon - I suppose the same could be said about these two, also I believe Saddam was more a leader of modern day Babylon than greater Arabia [Saudi Arabia].
Saddam was often quoted as saying he was a "King of Babylon", but he was also a raving madman, too.
He was of Arabic decent, the Iraqis are of Arabic decent. I could easily say I'm from "Holy Roman" decent, but the reality is my ancestors are of German blood. See my point?
Besides, Arabia needed another Leaderhead, and I really liked how the Saddam Leaderhead looked, so I used it.
I look forwards to whatever you end up doing next and I'd be more than happy to help with whatever.
Well, I appreciate the feedback. The next patch will be released tomorrow. After that I'm going to focus on my "to-do" list.
On the subject of UUs, Numidian Calvary is slightly broken at the moment - they replace horsemen, but they don't require Ironworking like normal horsemen do. They get the Flanking I (30% withdrawl) and +50% vs. melee in addition to the +50% vs. archery normal horsemen get. They're far better for far cheaper. I think they need a bit of balancing.
Also, their Civilopedia entry still says they replace horse archers.
Some of that is done on purpose. Numidian Cavalry doesn't require Iron Working, so that you can acquire them earlier. That's part of the "Uniqueness" of them.
The ancient Egyptians had this kind of Cavalry long before the Iron Age, also.
I could look into the combat bonuses, though and see if I can balance them out better, but I like them not having the Iron Working PreReqTech. The Camel Archers are sort of the same way, too.
Is there a post/thread somewhere which discusses WHY each change was made?
What do you mean? I could answer that right now, but I want to make sure I know what you mean, first.
It would be interesting which changes were made because of a percieved game imbalance in the default game, which changes were made "just because" it felt better to the author, and which changes came about because of cool ideas/general enthusiasm.
Hi
I have few questions.
1) How does AI manage to use ranged bombardment?
2) How does AI mage to use new units?
The AI used the ranged bombardment just like Dale's version does. That's because I'm using Dale's Ranged Bombardment.
So everything is exactly the same.
Why does AI artillery (when fortified in the city) does not bombard my sieging city units?
Can you explain that further?
