[BtS MOD] Wolfshanze 1850-1920 Enhancement Mod v2.0

[Wolfshanze]

First of all, a great mod! I just tried it out for the first time and like a lot of your changes. But I found some things that doesnt seem right:

Well, let's take a look...

- Fallschirmjäger have range 5 instead of 7 from paratrooper. I think you missed that as you changed the paratrooper.

That's because German transport planes suck... no... just kidding... you're right... I missed that... I'll get that fixed in the next update, thanks for the spot.

- Scythe chariot gets defensive bonus, isn't it only an offensive unit?

Hmmm... not sure how that made it through unnoticed all this time... for a new guy to the mod, that's two errors you've caught... not bad... I'll fix that in the next update.

- Naval unit from Age of Steam till Dreadnoughts are possible without Astronomy! In my last game, i had the Colossus, so i delayed Astronomy. Later i built the Trafalgar Square and had 5 commerce in coastal tiles (financial leader) This lead to an huge tech advantage and an early domination victory. I wonder how my paddle steamer found the way to the last enemy without proper navigation.

That is actually a "residue" of default Civ4, I didn't do that... Astronomy was never needed for the advanced techs, so you could build Battleships, Transports, Destroyers and Carriers without Astronomy. You've always been-able to build modern vessels without Astronomy. I suppose I could look at this, but generally speaking, if you're ignoring Astronomy for that long, you're suffering from unseen bonuses... you speak of the "bonanza" you got for ignoring it forever, but you missed out on the huge bonuses of overseas income on trade-routes and natural resource advantages you just don't get if you ignore Astronomy.

Like I've stated before, I've tried to do minimal tweaks to the tech tree from default Civ4... Astronomy has never been needed for the Industrial Age or Modern Age techs/ships... for me to change that, I'd have to take a harder look at things and see if it's even justifiable. Things like the advent of the Marine Chronometer in the industrial age (and later radio navigation) changed the way navigation was done at sea from the old days of sail, which could explain the lack of "need" for Astronomy... dunno... I'd have to think about this one a bit.

As an added thought, I can also make Trafalgar Square require Chemistry AND Astronomy to prevent folks from repeating what you did (plus that will mean you can build it once you know how to build and sail Ships of the Line).

EDIT
I was looking at the tech tree... Scientific Method "sorta" requires the knowledge of Astronomy... you need Chemistry OR Astronomy (but not both) for Scientific Method, so I was right... though you needed Scientific Method before moving-on to the modern ships, it was still possible to build them without knowing Astronomy... I'll look at this further.

EDIT TO THE EDIT
Okay... upon further/further review, some of the previous changes I had made to the game meant Astronomy was needed before you got to "modern" (WWI/WWII) ships... but Astronomy wasn't needed for Industrial Age ships (Ironclads and Pre-Dreadnoughts)... I've tweaked the unit requirements without changing the tech tree at all... now all steam and later ships (except non-ocean-going gunboats) will require Astronomy (without changing the tech tree)... case closed.

- Viet Cong looks a bit overpowered: 2 moves, 20% withdraw and woodsman I + II. thats more bonus than any other UU gets.
With 10 xp you can make crazy things like guerliia III for 70% withdraw or woodsman III + combat I + medic I for a super medic.
Ho-Chi Minh is protective, so woodsman III + drill line for uncountable first strikes.

How do you get "guerilla III" cheaply from having Woodsman II?

Anyways, I guess I can drop the "2-move" part. They'd get double move in woods anyways with the Woodsman II.

- With combustion you get access to oil, but the ships that come with combustion are only fueled by coal, this seems a bit strange to me.

Sorry, that's just how it is in real life. Oil was known long before anyone figured-out what to do with it. In fact, "modern" petroleum use came from "rock oil" when petroleum was just a nasty by-product of making kerosene (what everyone really wanted in the industrial age). They'd extract some kerosene out of oil wells and be left with all that worthless petroleum (meh, throw it away, who'd ever want that stuff?).

I'm not lying to you... COAL WAS KING in the Industrial Age... navies were fueled by COAL, not oil or petroleum, well into WWI. It wasn't really till WWI, when newly-developed turbines required oil that ships were gradually converted from coal to oil-burning engines. You'll get exactly that in the Wolfshanze Mod... coal-fired Industrial-age navies, and Dreadnought-age vessels that can run off of Coal or Oil (modern navies take oil-only).

Anyways, to make a long story short (too late), Oil was discovered, drilled and refined long-before anyone knew what to do with the darn petroleum by-product... certainly navies stayed on the coal-standard well into the 20th century.

That's one thing that is very accurate in the Wolfshanze Mod... the fuel sources for the navies.

 

[Wodan]

Pfft... a speed-3, 5-star, commando-moving, Blitz-enabled Heavy Tank with gunpowder and trench warfare bonuses just doesn't lose in field or in cities... and you get to attack over and over and over again.

Well if you give 5-str, commando etc to the tank then the mech inf should get it too, plus march.

How many times does your CR3 Gunpowder units get to attack a turn... once? Mine get to attack 3-times as often and go strike deep into enemy territory.

In my experience you only get to attack once as well because then you're damaged. Not only that, but you have to rest next turn, so you only attack 1/2 turns. Meanwhile the CR gives the mech inf the strength to attack 1 /turn

Thanks but no thanks... I'd rather have another commando-blitzing tank that can attack multiple times a turn then a CR3 gunpowder unit that is effective only a 1/3 of the time my GG Tank is.

I won't say a tank isn't effective... I do it quite often myself. I will say that because of CR a Mech Inf will be much stronger than the tank.

All my games are also long-over before I even get to Mech Infantry... I don't feel like waiting 5,950 years of game time before a GG becomes useful... most of my games are done by then anyways. You're probably getting to Mech Infantry technology because you have too many GGs dedicated to Gunpowder units waiting for Mech Infantry... you could have finished your game by now if you had assigned them as Cavalry/Tank units!

Possibly. Though you could just as easily use normal Infantry.

 

[Wodan]

They'd get double move in woods anyways with the Woodsman II.

Is that true? I thought it was +1 move?

 

[Wolfshanze]

Is that true? I thought it was +1 move?

Simply put, if you have Woodsman II or Guerilla II a unit with 1-movement point will move TWICE through woods or TWICE through hills, respectively... it's not +1 movement, it's "half a point" of movment... try it out yourself... any unit with Woodsman II or Guerilla II will get two moves a turn if its first move is into a wood or hill.

 

[Wodan]

Yeah but if you have a 2 MP (movement points) unit it does not become 4 MP, right?

 

[phungus420]

Nope, Woody and Guerilla 2 have no movement effect on scouts or explorers. It only gives 2 movement to a unit with a movement of 1.

Glad to see you're taking the 2 movement from the Vietcong, that was a little over the top considering their other bonuses. They will still be a strong UU with Woody2 and 20% withdrawl chance.

 

[ladiesman]

That, Fusiliers, and Motorized Infantry would be the three new units I'd love to see in your next update.

Maybe Fusiliers and Grenadiers could co-exist, Fusiliers with Mil Science and Grens with Mil Tradition?

Fusiliers- 12 Str, Musketman Upgrade and Draft Unit.
Grens- 10 Str, 50% vs Cities, Not a Draft Unit. This would make it a specialist unit. Maybe make this the unit Pikeman/Macemen upgrade to? Grens would upgrade to Maine. Or make it lose City Raider promotions but gain infiltration promotion. Or trade promotions if that is possible?

I really hate Grenadiers as they exist right now.....I tend to not even get them until after I have rifles anyway so I never use them....AND it just irks me that the unit ACTUALLY has a Grenade...that wasn't what a Grenadier was...

I think other than Grenadiers, the earlier gunpowder units work fine. There's no room to add another....Muskets are already obsoleted early enough.

I still have my grumbling over expanding/renaming units after Rifles, though. I'd still like to see it go (and, not neccesarilly by these exact names, just styles) Rifleman-->WW1 Infantry-->WW2 Infantry-->Modern Infantry. WW1 Infantry would replace the Infantry now, WW2 Infantry would take the place of the Marine (and would be in the upgrade tree), and Modern Infantry would take the place of Mech. Infantry. Mech/Motorized Infantry would be a seperate unit like Marine.

It's not really a major change, it's really more of a stylistic change. But the way it is now there's no Infantry unit representing the early 20th century when there's a very easy spot to put it.

 

[blitzkrieg80]

keeping in mind that we know you don't have time to do this any time soon, Mr. Wolf, i just want to comment:

i like Ladiesman's suggestion on the Grenadier progression - besides my similar comments on the irony of a unit like the Grenadier being the whole of Napoleon's army (who at the moment is like the Horse-Archer for all civs, or Macemen for all civs as if it was the ultimate weapon [when in reality swords remained more common among elites, despite AP value of maces]). I really like the WW1/WW2 units idea of replacing the Marine unit because it currently is a weird basis for a unit, not being very historical as different from modern infantry and not really being a 'marine assault' unit either.

I don't understand why the game needs to be made so the player won't cheat and use infantry bonuses? Wolfy has it right- just don't cheat of course I can never help myself, but I certainly don't want to limit options for all... although the argument about whatever unit is superior for upgrade is ongoing i go for the cav/tank blitz GG myself [who'd have thought it with my name]

 

[Wolfshanze]

keeping in mind that we know you don't have time to do this any time soon, Mr. Wolf, i just want to comment:

i like Ladiesman's suggestion on the Grenadier progression - besides my similar comments on the irony of a unit like the Grenadier being the whole of Napoleon's army (who at the moment is like the Horse-Archer for all civs, or Macemen for all civs as if it was the ultimate weapon [when in reality swords remained more common among elites, despite AP value of maces]). I really like the WW1/WW2 units idea of replacing the Marine unit because it currently is a weird basis for a unit, not being very historical as different from modern infantry and not really being a 'marine assault' unit either.

I don't understand why the game needs to be made so the player won't cheat and use infantry bonuses? Wolfy has it right- just don't cheat of course I can never help myself, but I certainly don't want to limit options for all...

To be honest... I think the GAME-MECHANICS are pretty good where they are now... in relation to strength points, use, etc on gunpowder unit progression, especially in-regards to Musket/Grenadier/Rifleman.

Now hold on... before everyone has a fit, let me explain.

GAMEPLAY-WISE... the timing of the progression of Str-9 Muskets to Str-12 Grenadiers and Str-14 Riflemen isn't bad... and I certainly don't see a need/spot to put-in another NEW unit class.

The biggest "problem" per-se people seem to have is the Grenadier in either name and/or appearance... not its game-role function, which is pretty solid IMHO.

People seem stuck-up on the name "Grenadier" or the graphic (holding a grenade).

If I could wave a magic wand and call the Grenadier something else and/or change the graphic, I think nobody would complain... if for-example I waved my wand and this was the progression:

Musketman, Str-9, with musket graphic
Fusilier (or some name everyone likes), Str-12, with musket graphic
Rifleman, Str-14, with rifle graphic

I think everyone would be happy. In other words, you're essentially breaking down the rather large "age of the Musket" into "early musket" and "late musket" Civ4 units.

A name-change is simple enough if everybody just wants a name change... that's easy.

My REAL problem is this... GRAPHICS.

There are 36 civs in the Wolfshanze Mod... most/all have unique graphics for the Grenadier unit... holding a grenade.

Do you guys realize how long it took to come-up/find unique grenade-holding graphics for 36 civs?

Now I also have 36 unique musketmen and riflemen to consider... that didn't happen overnight either.

What we're essentially talking-about, is if I were to make the switch, as I expect a lot of people would like to see, is that we'd be making late-musket/Napoleonic musketmen graphics to fill the "Fusilier/Grenadier" slot for 36 unique civs... that's a pretty tall order.

I could probably come-up with and/or find existing models/graphics for some/most of the European civs, but then there's everybody else too (Africa/Asia/New World) that would have to be done.

I think we're talking about ditching an entire 36-civ class of models (the grenade-tossers don't seem popular) and replacing them with a late-musket/napoleonic-era unit graphic.

While I agree in-theory that this might calm a lot of people's nerves, as a mod-maker, it's a daunting task to redo so much graphically.

Or did I completely miss this subject's point?

 

[tomppb]

You are right Wolf that the progression of musketman 9, Grenadier 12, Rifleman 14 is fine. Who cares too much about the name/animation of the Grenadier.

However! Where I tend to get upset is gunpowder units and siege weapons. Musketmen usually end up fighting alongside trebuchets for a long time, kind of wierd even the turks were using cannon in 1453 at Constantinople before they had many musket men. Then chemistry and bang! musketmen are totally outclassed by the cannon. This makes it seem that in the late 16th and 17th century (when we are using musketmen and pikemen) that artillery totally dominated the battlefield, which is far from the case. Artillery was too slow firing and heavy to have a decisive effect on field battles. It was not until the 18th century that artillery came into its own in field battles reaching a pinnacle of usefulness under napoleonic tactics. Then during the civil war artillery became relatively less effective because the long range of rifle fire forced it to keep its distance. So the gren 12 cannon 12 cuirassier 12 does a great job of showing the relative balance of the three branches in the 18th to early 19th century, while the rifle 14 cannon 12 cav 15 (with rifle having a bonus against it) does a great job of showing the balance of the mid 19th to very early 20th century.

Where the game runs into problems is the early gunpowder age. This is because it makes musketmen arrive first, when actually cannons arrived first (early handguns were useless, matchlocks were first effective firearms) what about having the "bombard" unit (siege str 6 double vs city) arrive with gunpowder and then have the cannon 12 arrive with military science along with the grenadier and cuirassier. Finally perhaps add the tech "musket" which is between gunpowder and chemistry and adds the musket unit, just like rifle has its own tech. This way armies will consist of knights, musketmen, pikemen and bombards (nice representation of 16th-17th century warfare) and then go into cuirassier, grenadier, cannon (excellent simulation of 18th-early 19th century warfare) and then on into rifles, cavalry, cannon (late 19th to early 20th century) What do you think? This way cannons do not dominate musketmen in the 16th-17th century, which is more accurate.

 

[arstal]

Grens as a general purpose Napoleonic infantry unit would work (they'd possinly have to lose the city bonus), and I'd like a rename. That's small potatoes though

Above poster has right idea though. Musket tech should be chemistry though, Grens should require military science and/or military tradition possibly.

 

[Wolfshanze]

I'm not opposed to a "bombard" type of unit... but I'm not a fan of pushing-back the musketman... people complain enough as-is that muskets have too-short a shelf life and become obsolete too quick.

I could add the Bombard with gunpowder, though I'd have to debate about leaving the cannon as-is on the tech tree or push it back (perhaps to where it was originally).

 

[Perfxion]

My 2 cents:
For siege units, how about ball cannons with gunpowder, shell cannons with rifling, artillery and beyond at current spots.

 

[Wolfshanze]

My 2 cents:
For siege units, how about ball cannons with gunpowder, shell cannons with rifling, artillery and beyond at current spots.

Smoothbore vs Rifled Cannons in other words?

 

[blitzkrieg80]

i still think it'd be cool to keep grenadiers as city-assault infantry, similar to swordsmen who have barely little difference from axemen, which would preserve the lovely animation and concept: perhaps musketman with +1 attack (like sword to axe) and vs. city +10% (or keep them EXACTLY THE SAME and have a non-city rifleman at 12)... then if possible graphics-wise (amongst the horde of napoleonic done maybe?), the 12 attack Fusilier/Flintlock infantry. I agree that the ratio progression is good and would be best not to mess with, so the WW1 / WW2 isn't such a big deal, but the Marine concept isn't really refined since the removal of the amphibious assault... I do love the Wehrmacht flavor, though.

 

[CivisTexanus]

While we're discussing units may I ask about the logic why some cultural/ethnic/civ unit graphics are full on flavor units with separate civlopedia entries et all?

IE fallshirmjaeger, Ronin, etc. Why does the Ninja not get the full treatment, but the Daimyo does?

I'm guessing art? You had buttons and went ahead, even though, IRC, no stats were changed?

 

[Wolfshanze]

then if possible graphics-wise (amongst the horde of napoleonic done maybe?), the 12 attack Fusilier/Flintlock infantry.

I know there's a lot of Napoleonic units... still doesn't solve the problem of every civ not from Europe... ie: the vast majority of civs not of European decent (the majority of civs) would require new art.

While we're discussing units may I ask about the logic why some cultural/ethnic/civ unit graphics are full on flavor units with separate civlopedia entries et all?

IE fallshirmjaeger, Ronin, etc. Why does the Ninja not get the full treatment, but the Daimyo does?

I'm guessing art? You had buttons and went ahead, even though, IRC, no stats were changed?

Just cuz...

Somethings I felt like making stand-out more then others... I can make unique unit-art and buttons for any unit, but unique names and/or descriptions actually require making something a "UU" (even if I don't give it different stats from what it replaces... like Fallshirmjaeger and Ronin). There's no rhyme or reason to what I pay more attention to then something I don't... it's just a personal choice thing as to what I want to spend more time on.

For instance, I could make/use unique buttons for every unit in the game, and there's a lot of button artwork already out there for it... but to be frank... it's just an awful lot of work that I sometimes just don't feel like doing, and buttons are only really seen if you play as that civ, so civs I don't tend to play get a little further back on the "to-do" list.

 

[Xenomorph]

There might be a modcomp that lets you set custom names for flavor units without needing to resort to a UU. It'd be worth looking into.

 

[tomppb]

OK wolf no new tech "musket"

So how about this:

gunpowder- bombard str 6 x2 vs city, musketman str9

chemistry- no new land units

military science- grenadier str 12, cannon str 12, cuirassier str 12


adding the bombard represents early cannons which had a huge effect on sieges but no so much on the battlefield

bringing the cannon unit on later with military science puts artillery more in perspective. Otherwise at chemistry cannons dominate everything musketmen and even knights are outclassed by cannons and no such period of history actually existed.

 

[arstal]

I'm not opposed to a "bombard" type of unit... but I'm not a fan of pushing-back the musketman... people complain enough as-is that muskets have too-short a shelf life and become obsolete too quick.

I could add the Bombard with gunpowder, though I'd have to debate about leaving the cannon as-is on the tech tree or push it back (perhaps to where it was originally).

As for your suggestion on name change/regraphicing- I think people would like that. I would at least. It's a lot of work though, and I'd suggest waiting until you get the gameplay changes in such as Motorized Infantry. As for the art, I think the art would handle itself in time. Most places of the world had Napoleonic-style infantry at one time or another, and your mod is popular enough where needs would be filled by volunteers.

I don't think musketman being obsolete too quick is a bad thing, the age of matchlocks wasn't that long in reality, and with fusiliers they'd actually be more relevant.

Cannon at Steel is too far. Cannon as it is now in your mod is too dominant

As for Grens and city assault, there's already a promotion to cover this that Wolf added, so just promote your units normally with that.

I still would want to see Gunpowder units get a bonus vs City Raider units if that is possible. Can anyone give me advice as to how I'd throw that in the code? I'll probably just mod that in myself if it's doable.

My idea:
Bombard, Musketman at Gunpowder.
Cannon at Military Science
Fusilier (current Grenadier), Cuiriassier (wouldn't mind a rename here as well, but don't know what would be best) at Military Tradition
Rifleman, cavalry at Rifling, maybe Scientific Method also required? (too much of an incentive to keep a monastic economy in the base game)