GeneralMatt
Emperor
Still, 950, I have a lot of trouble with it myself, I just can't control myself when Making stuff. 
-
We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days. For more updates please see here.
Bronenosets (Russian Pre-Dreadnought Warship)
- Thread starter Refar
- Start date
Dom Pedro II
Modder For Life
It's impressive to see such a beautiful unit that also is so resource-friendly for the computer.
Refar
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2005
- Messages
- 4,608
Still, 950, I have a lot of trouble with it myself, I just can't control myself when Making stuff.
Having a low end computer helps me a lot, when it comes to controlling myself
Duque d'Caxias
Great General
Excellent model but the smoke from the ship is disturbing me. Some times I can't even see the units behind it and it looks like a city beeing destroyed every turn. This model without smoke would be perfect. Could you provide it?
Thanks! Very good work!
Thanks! Very good work!
Refar
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2005
- Messages
- 4,608
I am it the process of trying out the different Effects provided by firaxis, looking for other smoke maybe. I will make a alternative version, as soon as i am throught with it - either without smoke or with a smaller amount of it.
In the meantime you could remove smoke for your self with the NifViewer or NifScope tool, by deleting the Nodes called:
ATT_Smoke1 and ATT_Smoke2. It's pretty easy.
By the way... does someone knoe how to export effects ?
I have ssen those are nif's as well, so i believe it will not be much different from exporting animations, but i did not achieved any good results yet.
In the meantime you could remove smoke for your self with the NifViewer or NifScope tool, by deleting the Nodes called:
ATT_Smoke1 and ATT_Smoke2. It's pretty easy.
By the way... does someone knoe how to export effects ?
I have ssen those are nif's as well, so i believe it will not be much different from exporting animations, but i did not achieved any good results yet.
GeoModder
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2005
- Messages
- 7,512
Still, 950, I have a lot of trouble with it myself, I just can't control myself when Making stuff.
Remembering your Hood perhaps?
GeneralMatt
Emperor
Yeah, I just couldn't hold myself back. I just had an amazing image to work from so I got carried away.. I think I should reskin that one though.
I just had an amazing image to work from so I got carried away.. I think I should reskin that one though.
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
You should revisit all your earlier work and update them!Yeah, I just couldn't hold myself back.
Where's the Ironclad Battleships?
GeneralMatt
Emperor
The revisit? Working on it today.. anyways.
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
I wrote the below in the "Diversica" mod-pack thread as someone was asking someone to put these ships in the game. There seems to be some confusion over where this class of ship belongs (some seem to think it's an Ironclad), so I thought I'd clear the matter up... this post deserves repeating IMHO... as this is an excellent model, one cannot help but put some of General Matt's fine Ironclad work into consideration with the below suggestions as well... hope this info is usefull to someone...
*****(From the Diversica Thread)*****
Actually the Bronenosets fall in a very specific time-frame, and a very specific design layout that was pretty much a world-standard at the time that is very easy to nail-down.
The Bronenoset falls quite-squarley in the "Pre-Dreadnought" time-frame of 1890-1906 naval capital ship building. By 1890 almost all navies around the world had come to the consensus of design that capital ships had four large caliber guns in two turrets and secondary and tritiary batteries in addition. This design was stuck-to almost like glue for nearly two decades and the naval battle of Tsushima was fought with these style ships. The evolution of naval design changed after Tsushima, when the "all-big-gun-ship" evolved into what we now know and call "Dreadnoughts"... which began to arive on the scene in 1906 and revolutionized naval designs there-after.
In Civ-4 game-terms, the Bronenoset would not fall into the "Ironclad" time-frame at all... but rather after Ironclads and before Dreadnoughts (ie: Pre-Dreadnoughts) of 1890-1906.
The Ironclad icon used in default Civ4-terms is simply an "Ironclad Gunboat"... more specifically an "Ironclad River Gunboat"... which is why it's limited to coastal waters, they weren't seaworthy.
There was considerable development of true ocean-going Ironclads from about 1854 to 1890... most of which were simply frigate-like vessels with armor plating, and dual-drive systems (sail + steam). General Matt has already made two excellent Civ4-unit icons for these types of units, which (if one prefers) could be used in-place or in-addition to the ironclad gunboat already in the game. The Bronenoset does not belong in the Ironclad time-frame, as by 1890, naval evolution had placed the Bronenoset in a class much superior to earlier ocean-going ironclads... ie: the "Pre-Dreadnoughts" I already explained.
Default Civ4 leaves a LOT of room to play with in naval terms, with Ironclads having a combat value of 12 and Battleships having a combat value of 40. There's plenty of room to add ocean-going ironclads, pre-dreadnoughts and true dreadnoughts in-between ironclad gunboats and battleships (of WWII-design). I've already added many naval classes in-between ironclads and battleships in my own mod... others should be encouraged to do the same, I just hope they use the right avatars/icons for each class... there's already great work out there to use for these classes.
If one wants the "Bronenoset" in a Civ4 game, it should be classified as a "Pre-Dreadnought" and not anything else (it's not an Ironclad).
This is how I broke-down the values in my own mod... I gave Ironclad-age ships three units as it shows the rapid progression of design changes over the Ironclad years from 1854-1890:
values listed as combat/speed
Ironclad Gunboat - 12/2 (same as default Civ4 "Ironclad")
Ironclad Cruiser - 15/4
Ironclad Battleship - 18/3
Protected Cruiser - 22/5
Pre-Dreadnought - 26/4
Destroyer Escort - 26/6
Dreadnought - 38/5
Destroyer - 30/8
Cruiser - 34/7
Battleship - 42/6 (I bumped combat up 2-points over default Civ4, but it could be left the same)
P.S.
I'm 20-years retired military, and the evolution of naval warfare has been a hobby of mine since the 1970s, so I like to think I have some knowledge in backing-up the history given above.
*****(From the Diversica Thread)*****
Actually the Bronenosets fall in a very specific time-frame, and a very specific design layout that was pretty much a world-standard at the time that is very easy to nail-down.
The Bronenoset falls quite-squarley in the "Pre-Dreadnought" time-frame of 1890-1906 naval capital ship building. By 1890 almost all navies around the world had come to the consensus of design that capital ships had four large caliber guns in two turrets and secondary and tritiary batteries in addition. This design was stuck-to almost like glue for nearly two decades and the naval battle of Tsushima was fought with these style ships. The evolution of naval design changed after Tsushima, when the "all-big-gun-ship" evolved into what we now know and call "Dreadnoughts"... which began to arive on the scene in 1906 and revolutionized naval designs there-after.
In Civ-4 game-terms, the Bronenoset would not fall into the "Ironclad" time-frame at all... but rather after Ironclads and before Dreadnoughts (ie: Pre-Dreadnoughts) of 1890-1906.
The Ironclad icon used in default Civ4-terms is simply an "Ironclad Gunboat"... more specifically an "Ironclad River Gunboat"... which is why it's limited to coastal waters, they weren't seaworthy.
There was considerable development of true ocean-going Ironclads from about 1854 to 1890... most of which were simply frigate-like vessels with armor plating, and dual-drive systems (sail + steam). General Matt has already made two excellent Civ4-unit icons for these types of units, which (if one prefers) could be used in-place or in-addition to the ironclad gunboat already in the game. The Bronenoset does not belong in the Ironclad time-frame, as by 1890, naval evolution had placed the Bronenoset in a class much superior to earlier ocean-going ironclads... ie: the "Pre-Dreadnoughts" I already explained.
Default Civ4 leaves a LOT of room to play with in naval terms, with Ironclads having a combat value of 12 and Battleships having a combat value of 40. There's plenty of room to add ocean-going ironclads, pre-dreadnoughts and true dreadnoughts in-between ironclad gunboats and battleships (of WWII-design). I've already added many naval classes in-between ironclads and battleships in my own mod... others should be encouraged to do the same, I just hope they use the right avatars/icons for each class... there's already great work out there to use for these classes.
If one wants the "Bronenoset" in a Civ4 game, it should be classified as a "Pre-Dreadnought" and not anything else (it's not an Ironclad).
This is how I broke-down the values in my own mod... I gave Ironclad-age ships three units as it shows the rapid progression of design changes over the Ironclad years from 1854-1890:
values listed as combat/speed
Ironclad Gunboat - 12/2 (same as default Civ4 "Ironclad")
Ironclad Cruiser - 15/4
Ironclad Battleship - 18/3
Protected Cruiser - 22/5
Pre-Dreadnought - 26/4
Destroyer Escort - 26/6
Dreadnought - 38/5
Destroyer - 30/8
Cruiser - 34/7
Battleship - 42/6 (I bumped combat up 2-points over default Civ4, but it could be left the same)
P.S.
I'm 20-years retired military, and the evolution of naval warfare has been a hobby of mine since the 1970s, so I like to think I have some knowledge in backing-up the history given above.
GeneralMatt
Emperor
The only problem is of course the room in the tech tree, and the time it takes. It would represent it right to have all those in there (as it was a hectic time in Naval development) but it would really hurt the gameplay I think..
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
Exactly how does it "hurt gameplay"?
In the early game, almost every tech unlocks a new combat unit, yet naval combat units stay static for seemingly eons.
The way I have these units on the tech-tree you don't get a new unit everytime you advance in tech. Even if you did (and you don't), how would that "hurt gameplay"? I'm really curious to know how having these units would ruin the gameplay?
What I have setup is a NATURAL PROGRESSION of naval evolution from ironclads to battleships. Instead of jumping wildly from a combat value of 12 (Ironclads) to 30 and 40 (destroyers and battleships) respectively, you get a GRADUAL increase in firepower instead of a massive leap-frog of massive amount as the default game has.
Why is this any differant from the gradual progression of ground units in the game? You don't have a massive leap from pikeman to tank like you do in ironclad to battleship.
You can argue it however you want, but I think you're going to have to do a lot better then blindly saying "hurt gameplay" by breaking-down the naval progression into logical and chronological progression. If anything, instead of racing down the naval chart, you can take a step, then concentrate on other matters, only needing to advance if your opponent does (or you can race down the naval path and ignore all-else).
The base techs that allow Ironclad are the same as in-the game and the same techs that get you battleship remain basically the same... the only differance now is instead of an "invisible progression" of units, you actually get to see the naval units progress as they did in history. It takes the same amount of time to get to battleships from Ironclad, but now you get the progression along the way as you did in history... if you want to make a huge ironclad or pre-dreadnought fleet, you can... or you can ignore it and try to progress to the next level... it only increases options, it doesn't ruin the game. I could say the same about just about any type of ground unit (why build a Cuirassier if you can get Cavalry if you concentrate on that path?). The choice is yours, but I call your bluff that this "hurts gameplay". That's just nuts to say that.
Refar
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2005
- Messages
- 4,608
I probably would not go as far as to say it hurts gameplay. But i agree with Matt, that the space in tech tree is not enought. It does not hurt, just some units bekome irrelevant.
This happens all the time and is not specific to your mod, so there is no need for hard feelings.
But for example so far i failed to build a single SoTL in my BTS games. It is in a 'Dead End' (not prereq to nothing important) tech. And while milit"ary science is a valuable tech, i tend to have steam engine before i have it.
Also the tech rate in the late game is pretty fast, so while you are right about it taking ages to see some development on ships in early game, the frigate/sotl/galleon generation of ships is very short living, which is a pity.
Inserting more units in the tech tree makes units even more short living. Again it does not really hurt, its just a pity.
----
The Ironclad however as presented in Civ is a 'exotic' unit. Those non seaworthy ironclads were specific to Amercan Civil war and were quickly replaced. This makes the ironclad as presented in Civ4 a good target for replacement by something more common.
This happens all the time and is not specific to your mod, so there is no need for hard feelings.
But for example so far i failed to build a single SoTL in my BTS games. It is in a 'Dead End' (not prereq to nothing important) tech. And while milit"ary science is a valuable tech, i tend to have steam engine before i have it.
Also the tech rate in the late game is pretty fast, so while you are right about it taking ages to see some development on ships in early game, the frigate/sotl/galleon generation of ships is very short living, which is a pity.
Inserting more units in the tech tree makes units even more short living. Again it does not really hurt, its just a pity.
----
The Ironclad however as presented in Civ is a 'exotic' unit. Those non seaworthy ironclads were specific to Amercan Civil war and were quickly replaced. This makes the ironclad as presented in Civ4 a good target for replacement by something more common.
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
There's no hard feelings, but sorry... there's units units ALL OVER THE TECH TREE that come with pretty much every tech, and that includes late-game too...
I find it odd that people don't mind getting introduced a new military ground unit with every tech advance (in late game too) that might only have a couple of points improvement over the previous unit you had... but throw-in a ship inbetween combat value of 12 and combat value of 40 and people scream "it's irrelevant... it hurts gameplay".
Sorry... I see adding ships to the game to be no differant then adding marginally better ground units which come all the time on the tech tree, but nobody says "Cuirassiers are useless, they're only a couple of points better then Knights"... or "Marines are useless, they're only a few points better then Infantry... or "Paratroopers are useless... they're the same value as Marines". These units show up the same or later then the naval units I add to the game... but while they are marginally incremental units over their predecessors, why are adding naval units to fill a HUGE gap in the unit list make for so much controversy?
Marines and Paratroopers have the same combat value and come much later in the game then the units I add... Marines are only a little better then Infantry... Cuirassiers are only a little better then Knights... I stick a few ships between the 12-combat Ironclad and the 40-combat Battleship and I've got everyone crying "irrelevant" and "hurts gameplay".
Frankly, I find that really odd.
I find it odd that people don't mind getting introduced a new military ground unit with every tech advance (in late game too) that might only have a couple of points improvement over the previous unit you had... but throw-in a ship inbetween combat value of 12 and combat value of 40 and people scream "it's irrelevant... it hurts gameplay".
Sorry... I see adding ships to the game to be no differant then adding marginally better ground units which come all the time on the tech tree, but nobody says "Cuirassiers are useless, they're only a couple of points better then Knights"... or "Marines are useless, they're only a few points better then Infantry... or "Paratroopers are useless... they're the same value as Marines". These units show up the same or later then the naval units I add to the game... but while they are marginally incremental units over their predecessors, why are adding naval units to fill a HUGE gap in the unit list make for so much controversy?
Marines and Paratroopers have the same combat value and come much later in the game then the units I add... Marines are only a little better then Infantry... Cuirassiers are only a little better then Knights... I stick a few ships between the 12-combat Ironclad and the 40-combat Battleship and I've got everyone crying "irrelevant" and "hurts gameplay".
Frankly, I find that really odd.
phungus420
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,296
I have a similar setup to Naval progression as you, but I've cut out a few units. Yours is slightly too crowded I feel, I think that's what he's talking about. Mine goes:
caravel -> covette (5/5 bonus vs privateers, enters rival) (military science) -> cutter (18/5 bonus vs U-boat, see subs, cannot enter ocean) (radio + combustion)/U-boat (radio + combustion)
cog (3/3 carries 3 cannot enter ocean) (engineering + compass) -->galleon (carries 4) -> steamer (8/5 carries 5) (assembly line) --> transport (much more modern version, ie late game)
frigate--> steam frigate (12/5) (steam power + military science) --> destroyer (25/6 bonus vs subs) (artillery + combustion)
Ship of the line --> dreadnought (15/4 bonus attacking steam vessels + small (10% to 3 units) collateral) (combustion + military science) --> battleship (industrialism + artillery) --> MC
ironclad (12/3 bonus vs wood vessels & steam frigate) (cannot enter ocean) --> cutter/dreadnought
U-boat splints into missile sub and attack sub, which I have the attack sub being pretty much the top dog of naval warefare, except against it's Stealth Destroyer counter, and it's not that good against the MC, but equalis it when attacking.
With this setup it doesn't feel crowded at all in fact the progression in naval warfare just feels much more natural, with good counters available for fleets. Personally I hate the default naval setup in the game. Virtually all units are their own counter, which is irking, subs don't get their rightful place in modern naval dominance, and the jump from frigates/ironclads to destroyers is just ********. Also I made artillery require military science.
Basically though Wolfe, I'm a firm believer that more is not necessarily better. And trying the naval mod out, it felt too crowded for MY tastes, not to say your setup isn't good, it just was overloaded for me.
caravel -> covette (5/5 bonus vs privateers, enters rival) (military science) -> cutter (18/5 bonus vs U-boat, see subs, cannot enter ocean) (radio + combustion)/U-boat (radio + combustion)
cog (3/3 carries 3 cannot enter ocean) (engineering + compass) -->galleon (carries 4) -> steamer (8/5 carries 5) (assembly line) --> transport (much more modern version, ie late game)
frigate--> steam frigate (12/5) (steam power + military science) --> destroyer (25/6 bonus vs subs) (artillery + combustion)
Ship of the line --> dreadnought (15/4 bonus attacking steam vessels + small (10% to 3 units) collateral) (combustion + military science) --> battleship (industrialism + artillery) --> MC
ironclad (12/3 bonus vs wood vessels & steam frigate) (cannot enter ocean) --> cutter/dreadnought
U-boat splints into missile sub and attack sub, which I have the attack sub being pretty much the top dog of naval warefare, except against it's Stealth Destroyer counter, and it's not that good against the MC, but equalis it when attacking.
With this setup it doesn't feel crowded at all in fact the progression in naval warfare just feels much more natural, with good counters available for fleets. Personally I hate the default naval setup in the game. Virtually all units are their own counter, which is irking, subs don't get their rightful place in modern naval dominance, and the jump from frigates/ironclads to destroyers is just ********. Also I made artillery require military science.
Basically though Wolfe, I'm a firm believer that more is not necessarily better. And trying the naval mod out, it felt too crowded for MY tastes, not to say your setup isn't good, it just was overloaded for me.
Similar threads
