[Beyond the Sword] History In The Making

Grave · Jan 4, 2008

Dale said:
The 3.13 version of Ranged Bombard does twice the amount of damage 3.03 did.

The above reasons are why I hate the FF method of simulating an air attack for ranged. Also, in my mod because cats are available so early, they don't have RB ability. It comes in later.

Excellent news, Dale!

I really didn't like using the Final Frontier way... but at the time it was a means to an end.

Thanks for giving us the heads up. I haven't had a chance to play with DCM v3.13 yet. Now I'm really looking forward to it!

:goodjob:

James009 · Jan 4, 2008

Uncle Anton said:
@ Grave re; Ranged Artillery

Don't tone down the ranged attack too much otherwise there's no point using it at all... personally I think an ancient invasion force which brings a regiment or two of warriors and 6 regiments of siege weaponry WOULD decimate two defending archer units... and HOW.

Giving Siege units that kind of ability is the whole point of Dale's mod. If someone can argue the point that bombardment weapons HAVEN'T dominated warfare from the time they were invented, I'll be very impressed. From Medieval warfare where 90% of the time siege tactics were NECESSARY, to the Great War when artillery accounted for 2/3 of all casualties on the Western Front, you can't tell me that Artillery of some sort isn't THE deciding factor.

I agree. At the moment I believe that the ranged damages are pretty decent and balanced, however, I'd like to offer another suggestion and something to think about.

I think that the catapults/cannons/artillery themselves should be nerfed. For example, one cannon cannot, by itself, defend against a company of riflemen, however, I find it common that my cannons are defending first instead of my riflemen units... thats not right!

Artillery themselves were, in my opinion, implemented incorrectly in Civ4 in the first place and we find ourselves finding a way to overcome that design flaw. The idea was to have artillery attack, have a splash attack, and then die. Their big bonus was the city attack and cumulative damage but thats not very realistic. You didn't see cannons entering into cities and attacking the defenders. No, they'd sit back as far as possible and open fire. Thats what these modifications we are talking about do.

My suggestion is to weaken the general strength of artillery to offset the new ranged attacks (maintaining them as is). If you cannot lower the general strength of the artillery then perhaps giving them -50% city attack and defense would suffice, so long as they aren't defending first because of their unaltered strength.

Anyways, great mod! Playing it now and lovin' it.

Kalimakhus · Jan 5, 2008

Actually artillery in vanilla civ4 used to be last defenders regardless their strength value compared to other units in a stack. It was because of players complaining about it that artillery was modified to behave like normal units, which is not realistic.

What I think is realistic for artillery is:
1 - They should have ranged attack only. i.e. They shouldn't be able to charge into a tile occupied by enemy units and attack them.
2 - They shouldn't be able to defend. They should rather be captured by enemy units if no other friendly unit is present in the same tile.

Dale · Jan 5, 2008

Kalimakhus said:
2 - They shouldn't be able to defend. They should rather be captured by enemy units if no other friendly unit is present in the same tile.

I totally disagree. I was in artillery in the army, and manned artillery is very hard to assault. This is due to splintex and other methods of defense deployed by gunners.

Kalimakhus · Jan 5, 2008

Dale said:
I totally disagree. I was in artillery in the army, and manned artillery is very hard to assault. This is due to splintex and other methods of defense deployed by gunners.

If they are so nowadays I don't believe it was the case in ancient times or even up to fairly into the modern ones. Siege weapons and Artillery pieces were common spoils of war as friendly units when pressed would abandon them because they hinder their movement.

If you mean that Siege weapons in civ represent mixed regiments with some kind of infantry in each unit then it is something else. It would then make sense if these units even charge into enemy ranks.

ebo · Jan 5, 2008

I am using Version 1.1 and have the unique units modpack. Burger world does not seem to be working correctly. It is not providing the food it says it should. It is however costing 29. I am getting 2F from Cereal Mills. That one is working.

See screen shot Below
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/72757/Burger_World.PNG

bcr1776 · Jan 5, 2008

Uncle Anton said:
@ Grave re; Ranged Artillery

Giving Siege units that kind of ability is the whole point of Dale's mod. If someone can argue the point that bombardment weapons HAVEN'T dominated warfare from the time they were invented, I'll be very impressed. From Medieval warfare where 90% of the time siege tactics were NECESSARY, to the Great War when artillery accounted for 2/3 of all casualties on the Western Front, you can't tell me that Artillery of some sort isn't THE deciding factor.
[\QUOTE]

I Think that the problem is deciding just what a piece is acting as. Siege equipment or Artillery.
Siege equipment was not meant to kill the enemy (it rarely did, with the exception of the arrow when considered as siege equipment) as much as it was to demoralize and destroy fixed defensives, (open a hole for the 'Forlorn Hope').

If Arty, Offensive and Defensive Arty have two very different effective rates, due to registration, lack of concern for friendly casualties and many other variables.

Treatment of siege equipment and artillery in differing fashion could be a way out of the quandary.

BTW Trench warfare first defeated artillery in the American Civil war. and in the great war, Artillery failed to control the battlefield. 2/3 casualty rate credited to arty is very high. That would leave only one third to bayonets, small arms, hand-grenades, Gas, machine guns, trench foot and Influenza. In fact the last two claimed more than all the other together. Of man made weapons, the Germans did best with machine guns and the UK with Rapid fire rifles.

alerum68 · Jan 5, 2008

Grave, a suggestion for your next release. I did this with my own personal copy, and the load-up time is a small fraction of what it is now. Use Pakbuild and compress all your art files into 1 .fpk file. I ran a full game with and without having a .fpk, and game time wasn't any longer then before, actually had no CTDs with the .fpk, and the start-up load time was 20 seconds instead of 5 mins. You can easily unpak, add new art files, and repak with expansions, or you can even just make .fpks for any add-ons, and just number them... HITM0.fpk, HITM1.fpk, etc...

Ask if you have any questions.

Terrance888 · Jan 5, 2008

I have a question, can you make occupents of a galley attack the occupent of another galley? Since you should be able to capture ships. And It will be more historically correct since Romans fough in ships as if they are land. And Archers are posted on ships to kill opposing crews. Maybe you can "attach" a unit so that the unit will try to kill opposing units (occupents) first and then the Crews (Galleys) And If the Unit is about to hit the final blow, It can capture the ship instead.

ebo · Jan 5, 2008

alerum68 said:
start-up load time was 20 seconds instead of 5 mins.

I would love to see this as well. I am also getting stat-up load times on the order of 5 minutes. Do yo have to change the xml files for this to work?

alerum68 · Jan 5, 2008

No, nothing has to be changed with xml. Search the forum, and there are directions on what needs to be done. I think it's in the thread, "HOW TO make your Mod load faster".

@Grave - I'm updating BUG sometime tonight. Just a few small bug fixes, but should fix the MP scoreboard problem.

Uncle Anton · Jan 6, 2008

bcr1776 said:
Uncle Anton said:

@ Grave re; Ranged Artillery

Giving Siege units that kind of ability is the whole point of Dale's mod. If someone can argue the point that bombardment weapons HAVEN'T dominated warfare from the time they were invented, I'll be very impressed. From Medieval warfare where 90% of the time siege tactics were NECESSARY, to the Great War when artillery accounted for 2/3 of all casualties on the Western Front, you can't tell me that Artillery of some sort isn't THE deciding factor.
[\QUOTE]

I Think that the problem is deciding just what a piece is acting as. Siege equipment or Artillery.
Siege equipment was not meant to kill the enemy (it rarely did, with the exception of the arrow when considered as siege equipment) as much as it was to demoralize and destroy fixed defensives, (open a hole for the 'Forlorn Hope').

If Arty, Offensive and Defensive Arty have two very different effective rates, due to registration, lack of concern for friendly casualties and many other variables.

Treatment of siege equipment and artillery in differing fashion could be a way out of the quandary.

BTW Trench warfare first defeated artillery in the American Civil war. and in the great war, Artillery failed to control the battlefield. 2/3 casualty rate credited to arty is very high. That would leave only one third to bayonets, small arms, hand-grenades, Gas, machine guns, trench foot and Influenza. In fact the last two claimed more than all the other together. Of man made weapons, the Germans did best with machine guns and the UK with Rapid fire rifles.

Click to expand...

Interesting point about offensive and defensive.

In terms of the Civil War, I believe that conflict was one of the final large-scale conflicts in which artillery needed to be used as a direct-fire weapon... he might've been a popularist historian, but Catton makes it pretty clear that artillery back then was "bottlenecked" by the signalling and registration ability of artillery rather than the pieces themselves (ie no way to forward observe). I guess I was more thinking in terms of how effective artillery could be out in the field.

In terms of WW1, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I read it somewhere - if it'd be revised, I wouldn't argue that it was less than 50%. Remembering that most casualties didn't necessarily result in a permanent turnover (ie an awful lot of soldiers would be wounded or included as casualties due to sickness more than once before either being invalided or killed) - I'm not sure whether or not historians include gassed with that statistic, as artillery was the means obviously of gas deployment - I do know that the proportion of men gassed on the western front was also extremely high, as was disease, but again there's non-permanent turnover to think about. Small arms was far less a contibuting factor, and bayonets I think come in at about 1% or less.

Maybe Dale can provide some info on it... he was an '8-mile sniper' in another life, hopefully he can provide some historical tidbits if he's still reading.

Dale · Jan 6, 2008

Artillery is NOT about killing. Artillery is simply to confuse and restrict.

Never in the history of siege/artillery weapons have they been a "killing" weapon (like a rifle or bayonet or sword are). Siege weapons are used to batter fortifications whilst artillery is used to restrict the options of the target. In modern times, modern artillery guns perform both roles to an extent (since WWI). Before that the roles were performed by different engines.

For instance, in medieval times, a siege weapon was the trebuchet, whilst an artillery weapon was the ballista. In modern times, a howitzer is more of a siege weapon, whilst a field gun is mainly an artillery weapon (even though both can perform both roles).

Anyways, artillery (in terms of both types) are not directly responsible for killing, the type of armament is (eg: splintex, phosperous, gas). But 95% of the time standard HE (high explosive) is used in in shell or rocket-assist methods.

HE is not designed to kill, its designed to break up a formation. It confuses the enemy (due to smoke, noise and shock) whilst at the same time restricting the options of the enemy.

And it's "9-mile sniper" not 8.

Grave · Jan 6, 2008

ebo said:
I am using Version 1.1 and have the unique units modpack. Burger world does not seem to be working correctly. It is not providing the food it says it should. It is however costing 29. I am getting 2F from Cereal Mills. That one is working.

See screen shot Below
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/72757/Burger_World.PNG

Burger World is working just fine for me. To test it, I placed Burger World HQ into one if my cities. Food production went up, gold went up (for the HQ) and the resource in the city dissappeared.

Make sure you have the approperiate resource in your city.

alerum68 said:
Grave, a suggestion for your next release. I did this with my own personal copy, and the load-up time is a small fraction of what it is now. Use Pakbuild and compress all your art files into 1 .fpk file. I ran a full game with and without having a .fpk, and game time wasn't any longer then before, actually had no CTDs with the .fpk, and the start-up load time was 20 seconds instead of 5 mins. You can easily unpak, add new art files, and repak with expansions, or you can even just make .fpks for any add-ons, and just number them... HITM0.fpk, HITM1.fpk, etc...

Ask if you have any questions.

That's a good idea! Something I'll look into using for the next complete revision, where you'll need to download the entire mod. I don't think it'll be feasible for a patch, since all the files are set in place.

But thanks for the idea! :goodjob:

It should certainly work for end users if they PakBuilt all the art files after download, however.

Charles Li said:
I have a question, can you make occupents of a galley attack the occupent of another galley? Since you should be able to capture ships. And It will be more historically correct since Romans fough in ships as if they are land. And Archers are posted on ships to kill opposing crews. Maybe you can "attach" a unit so that the unit will try to kill opposing units (occupents) first and then the Crews (Galleys) And If the Unit is about to hit the final blow, It can capture the ship instead.

A neat idea... I don't know how I would code that, though. :confused:

ebo said:
I would love to see this as well. I am also getting stat-up load times on the order of 5 minutes. Do yo have to change the xml files for this to work?

Nope... if you PakBuild the Art files, you don't need to change any XML. It's a good option for you guys with slow load times.

I added this useful bit of info to the FAQ, located on Page 3.

alerum68 said:
@Grave - I'm updating BUG sometime tonight. Just a few small bug fixes, but should fix the MP scoreboard problem.

Awesome!

I'll incorporate it into the next patch!

********************************************************

Speaking of patches, Patch v1.02 is available!

Please see Post #2 for download info.

Change log for v1.02:

Spoiler :

Also, if you're using the Unique Additional Content module, be sure to get the update as well!

Hopefully this alievates any CTD's a few of you guys are getting.

Agent327 · Jan 6, 2008

Dale said:
Artillery is NOT about killing. Artillery is simply to confuse and restrict.

Never in the history of siege/artillery weapons have they been a "killing" weapon (like a rifle or bayonet or sword are).

Enemies getting hit by Roman "artillery" (ballista or otherwise) or advancing in the line of fire of a Napoleonic field battery would disagree - if they survived.

(In particular, the giant arrow fired by a Roman "siege weapon" would have little effect on fortifications but put terror in the hearts of the opponent.)

In general you may be right; right up until modern times many casualties resulted as much from the rout of a panicked enemy by cavalry as from the actual battle itself. But then again, war is about killing - euphemisms such as "collateral damage" (meaning simply dead people) aside.

Dale · Jan 6, 2008

Well that's what we were taught in the Australian 33rd battery of 155mm howitzers. I was firing lynch (meaning I pulled the cord to fire the gun).

If the truth is something different then I was taught it wrong.

I'm your Daddy · Jan 6, 2008

My grandfather was a artillery man in WWII. I've heard him say the same thing.

DrewBledsoe · Jan 6, 2008

Grave:- Nice ideas in the patch .... :goodjob:

Will test maybe after playoff games or tomorrow..........

bcr1776 · Jan 6, 2008

Dale said:
Well that's what we were taught in the Australian 33rd battery of 155mm howitzers. I was firing lynch (meaning I pulled the cord to fire the gun).

If the truth is something different then I was taught it wrong.

Nope, you've got it right. Morale is nearly everything. Arty probably broke as many advances through fear of what the second volley would do as the reality of what the first one did.

miserable09 · Jan 6, 2008

Hello,
I just got HITM up and running and seems to be great! Thanks for all the hard work. Quick question about mod comps. How do I use them with HITM?

Any help is appreciated!

Thanks in advance!

[Beyond the Sword] History In The Making

1 Goat = 400 Horses

Warlord

Emperor

Mohawk Games Developer

Emperor

Chieftain

Warlord

Priest of Hiroshima

Discord Reigns

Chieftain

Priest of Hiroshima

Lighthorseman

Mohawk Games Developer

1 Goat = 400 Horses

Observer

Mohawk Games Developer

Your just my play thing

Veteran QB

Warlord

Chieftain

Similar threads