[BtS MOD] Wolfshanze 1850-1920 Enhancement Mod v2.0
- Thread starter Wolfshanze
- Start date
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
Well I hope you enjoy the Wolfshanze Mod!Thanks for the quick response! It's working a million times better than Filefront
Arian
No more ghostbusting!!
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
I do hate Megaupload... for downloading... I'd much rather people put stuff on FileFront...I thought you really HATED Megaupload
But since a lot of people seem to have problems with FileFront, I went with MegaUpload... it's not like I'll be downloading from there. Besides, it's a commonly used service around these parts... I figure between FileFront and MegaUpload, everyone should be able to download my mod that wants it, and that's the end-goal.
Of course now I have to "double-upload" when I do the mod. blech!
Wolf I love this mod it is a tremendous improvement over the game. But the early gunpowder units always kind of bothered me as an oversimplification. I would suggest introducing three new units
The bombard- Str 5 siege weapon that is doubled vs city like the trebuchet becomes available with gunpowder. This unit would represent the revolution brought about by early cannons against medievial walls.
cannon-str 10 siege weapon available with chemistry represents 18th-to early 19th century artillery (smoothbore)
field artillery-str 12 represents mid to late 19th century arty available with military science
The fusilier- str 10 gunpowder unit represents 18th century musket armed infantry str 10 available with chemistry. The redcoat would be the UU equivalent of the fusilier with +25% vs gunpowder and mounted units.
So siege weapons:
bombard (str5 double vs city) represents 16th-17th century cannon available w/ gunpowder
cannons (str 10) represents 18th century-early 19th century arty available with chemistry (perhaps this unit would get +10% vs gunpowder units to represent the deadly effects of cannister/grapeshot on ranked infantry?)
field arty (str 12) available with military science (or perhaps steel or rifling?) represents 19th century rifled arty
gunpowders units
musketmen -str 9 w/gunpowder (16-17th century)
fusiliers-str 10 w/chemistry (18th century)
grenadiers-str 12 with military sci (late 18th to early 19th)
rifles-str 14 w/ rifles (19th century to early 20th)
What do you think?
The bombard- Str 5 siege weapon that is doubled vs city like the trebuchet becomes available with gunpowder. This unit would represent the revolution brought about by early cannons against medievial walls.
cannon-str 10 siege weapon available with chemistry represents 18th-to early 19th century artillery (smoothbore)
field artillery-str 12 represents mid to late 19th century arty available with military science
The fusilier- str 10 gunpowder unit represents 18th century musket armed infantry str 10 available with chemistry. The redcoat would be the UU equivalent of the fusilier with +25% vs gunpowder and mounted units.
So siege weapons:
bombard (str5 double vs city) represents 16th-17th century cannon available w/ gunpowder
cannons (str 10) represents 18th century-early 19th century arty available with chemistry (perhaps this unit would get +10% vs gunpowder units to represent the deadly effects of cannister/grapeshot on ranked infantry?)
field arty (str 12) available with military science (or perhaps steel or rifling?) represents 19th century rifled arty
gunpowders units
musketmen -str 9 w/gunpowder (16-17th century)
fusiliers-str 10 w/chemistry (18th century)
grenadiers-str 12 with military sci (late 18th to early 19th)
rifles-str 14 w/ rifles (19th century to early 20th)
What do you think?
I played a few games as the Axis powers, great mod Thanks again for the mirror. Does anyone have tips for playing as Hitler? Also how do I build the new unique units? I got quite far into a game but didn't see them - I'm not that experienced with Civ IV so that's one reason why..
Thanks again for the mirror. Does anyone have tips for playing as Hitler? Also how do I build the new unique units? I got quite far into a game but didn't see them - I'm not that experienced with Civ IV so that's one reason why..
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
The new units are no-different then any other normal unit... you just need to have the right tech(s) to open-up a new unit... look in the Civilopedia or hit F6 in-game to view the Science chart... either way will tell you what techs you need for the new units... some come quite-early, such as the Battering Rams.
I like most of the ideas. I would change the musket ideas.
I think Fusiliers and Grenadiers should come at the same time both be str 12.
One wish I had was that Heavy Footmen/Pikemen could lose CR promotions if they were promoted to a gunpower unit. That's my biggest gripe with the game outside of AI issues (it's a base Civ issue)
Cannon and Field Artillery is kinda not needed. Wolf thinks Musketman and Fusilier are but I disagree. There's a huge difference between Cromwell's infantry, Fredrick's, and Civil War infantry. The difference between 17th and 18th century cannon not nearly as much.
The addition of the bombard would make castles so obsolete that they would have to be moved back to feudalism, which should happen anyways honestly.
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
I'll probably change the castle-thing to Feudalism regardless... always thought they came a bit late, and now that folks are going to have access at least to battering rams early in the game, it shouldn't be a big problem.
The reason Arstal I thought the bombard/cannon/field artillery progression was a good idea is the artillery never seems to quite match the infantry in the gunpowder age. You often have musketmen (which I think of as 16th-17th century infantry with arquebus and/or matchlock muskets) fighting with trebuchets
then you get chemistry and all of a sudden the cannon wipes the floor with the musket man 
12 vs 9 if this represents the 18th century I don't think its accurate artillery did not dominate musket armed infantry that much. A bombard would represent well early artillery in the 16th to 17th century which was great against fortifications but not so good in the field. Artillery didn't start catching up to infantry and cavalry until about the 18th century, hence the str 10 cannon with the str 10 fusilier (and str 10 knight). I thought the str 12 field artillery was necessary to represent the muzzle loading rifled guns used in the American Civil War and wars in Europe like German wars of unification and Italian wars of unification etc. The rifled guns had a substantial increase in range over smoothbores.
so I would imagine these groupings
16th-17th century tech (w/gunpowder) musket str 9/bombard str 5 (x2 vs city)/ knights str 10
18th century (w/chemistry) fusilier str 10/cannon str 10/ knights str 10 (unless we make a str 10 hussar unit with 25% vs cannon
)
late 18th century-mid 19th century (with military science) grenadier str 12/field artillery str 12 / cuirassier str 12
mid 19th to late 19th century (w rifles/miltary tradition) riflemen str 14/ field artillery str 12/ cavalry str 15
I know field artillery is a bit odd because Napoleon only had smoothbore cannons but I think artillery tactics became so devastating during the napoleonic wars that it justifies giving them a str 12. While during the Civil War artillery actually did suffer in relation to infantry because rifles could hit the artillery crews easily so they had to keep their distance unlike napoleonic artillery which could get relatively close.
Oh and the reason I would have the grenadiers come after the fusilier is I thought it would represent the advancement of infantry tactics from the fairly rigid tactics of the 18th century in which everyone fought in lines to the Napoloeonic tactics which were a more exotic tactics of column attacks, skirmishers, squares etc. Of course this is all simplification, grenadiers certainly served with fusiliers but it isn't very romantic to call the unit "Napoleonic Infantry" Grenadier has a nicer ring
Anyway thats my two bits, hopefully you would implement some types of changes Wolf. But I think its a great idea to move castles back to feudalism.
then you get chemistry and all of a sudden the cannon wipes the floor with the musket man 12 vs 9 if this represents the 18th century I don't think its accurate artillery did not dominate musket armed infantry that much. A bombard would represent well early artillery in the 16th to 17th century which was great against fortifications but not so good in the field. Artillery didn't start catching up to infantry and cavalry until about the 18th century, hence the str 10 cannon with the str 10 fusilier (and str 10 knight). I thought the str 12 field artillery was necessary to represent the muzzle loading rifled guns used in the American Civil War and wars in Europe like German wars of unification and Italian wars of unification etc. The rifled guns had a substantial increase in range over smoothbores.so I would imagine these groupings
16th-17th century tech (w/gunpowder) musket str 9/bombard str 5 (x2 vs city)/ knights str 10
18th century (w/chemistry) fusilier str 10/cannon str 10/ knights str 10 (unless we make a str 10 hussar unit with 25% vs cannon
)late 18th century-mid 19th century (with military science) grenadier str 12/field artillery str 12 / cuirassier str 12
mid 19th to late 19th century (w rifles/miltary tradition) riflemen str 14/ field artillery str 12/ cavalry str 15
I know field artillery is a bit odd because Napoleon only had smoothbore cannons but I think artillery tactics became so devastating during the napoleonic wars that it justifies giving them a str 12. While during the Civil War artillery actually did suffer in relation to infantry because rifles could hit the artillery crews easily so they had to keep their distance unlike napoleonic artillery which could get relatively close.
Oh and the reason I would have the grenadiers come after the fusilier is I thought it would represent the advancement of infantry tactics from the fairly rigid tactics of the 18th century in which everyone fought in lines to the Napoloeonic tactics which were a more exotic tactics of column attacks, skirmishers, squares etc. Of course this is all simplification, grenadiers certainly served with fusiliers but it isn't very romantic to call the unit "Napoleonic Infantry" Grenadier has a nicer ring
Anyway thats my two bits, hopefully you would implement some types of changes Wolf. But I think its a great idea to move castles back to feudalism.
Grens were shock troops. In a way, I'd rather see Grenadier as a promotion then as a seperate unit.
Make the Grens fusiliers without the city attack bonus, and make the city attack bonus a promotion.
Then again grens and cuirassiers were elite units. I'd rather have seen cuiriassiers called Dragoons.
Bombard/Cannon is a good idea, and used in other mods.
Make the Grens fusiliers without the city attack bonus, and make the city attack bonus a promotion.
Then again grens and cuirassiers were elite units. I'd rather have seen cuiriassiers called Dragoons.
Bombard/Cannon is a good idea, and used in other mods.
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
I mostly look at the spacing of combat Strength values...
By default, on-land, you're looking at:
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 (Mace), 9 (Musket), 10 (Knight), 12 (Gren/Cuir), 14 (Rifle), 15 (Cavalry), etc, etc
By default, at-sea, you're looking at:
2 (Trireme), 3 (Caravel), 4 (Galleon), 8 (Frigate/SotL), 12 (Ironclad if you count it), 30 (Destroyer), 40 (BB)
I'm not really a fan of cramming every possible Str-Point out of the scale... I think the land scale is already well-covered... it's why I had to fill the HUGE combat-gap in the naval system though... it was outrageous that land has something covering almost every other point, but naval units had anywhere from an 18 to 22 point gap in naval progression (along with 100 years of naval development missing).
phungus420
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,296
Agree with you for the most part Wolf. I'm not a fan of cramming in more units, and the naval gap was the most glaring hole in default BTS that actually needed a fill, it wasn't cramming things in to implement steam navies.
Before I started using your mod I did use a bombard and mortar unit to ease the progression from treb/cats to cannons, that worked for me. Having a bombard and mortar in there definately worked well, but to be honest I haven't found your movement of the cannon placement lacking either. I don't know, not really sure it would be worth it to tweak the ground units. At least pre modern age ones, I think the modern/information age is a bit strange/lacking in it's unit progression though.
Before I started using your mod I did use a bombard and mortar unit to ease the progression from treb/cats to cannons, that worked for me. Having a bombard and mortar in there definately worked well, but to be honest I haven't found your movement of the cannon placement lacking either. I don't know, not really sure it would be worth it to tweak the ground units. At least pre modern age ones, I think the modern/information age is a bit strange/lacking in it's unit progression though.
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
I could do a "study" of the cannon progression...
Perhaps something like this:
Add a "Bombard" Cannon at Gunpowder-tech with 6 native strength and double-str against cities (with a bombard rate inbetween or equal to cannon's bombard rate). This would obsolete catapults and trebuchs at Gunpowder and give a unit slightly stronger in the field, but much stronger at city assaults, but much less useful "in the field" then cannons.
Do a little research on the upgrade costs and tweak-them so you don't actually "lose money" because I add a unit... in other words, I could look at the current upgrade costs from Trebuchs and Catapults to Cannons, and add a two-step cost from Trebuchs and Catapults to Bombards to Cannons and make sure it "equals-out"... in other words, if the cost of an upgrade from Trebuchs to Cannons is currently 140 as-is now... but would be 80 to Bombard and 80 to Cannon with a new unit, the net upgrade cost from Trebuchs to Cannons would increase to 160... I know how to "force" the upgrade cost to be cheaper, and I could make it 70 to Bombard and 70 to Cannon, so the cost wouldn't increase.
Something like that... I'll think about it.
Perfxion
Warlord
I think Castles should come before the middle ages, I think Code of Laws or Construction. Because as it is right now, you can only use a castle for like half of 1 era and they are so pointless to build unless you have that one production city that can get 1 built in like 2 or 3 turns.
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
Oh, they're NEVER useless... the culture, trade and espionage bonus alone are worth the construction. But yeah... the fact you can only build them right before the medieval age ends and gunpowder appears has always been at least slightly annoying.
I'm fine with moving it up to Feudalism... anything earlier, I'm not really into.
