Civ4 Realism Mod (Extended Gameplay and tweaks)

[BaneBlade]

This Mod works fine for me with 1.09, dunno if it causes problems for others.
I finished my third game using it, and its indeed great! Only concern sofar is, the longer "steps" in the techrace benefits the human player too much, imho. Example: I managed every game to get me a bronzemine early, and then took out EVERY bordering Civ without it(1-3). Then, getting praetorian(only play Rome atm, GotM hooked me up) i conquered the rest of my continent. In vanilla i normally don't have the time for this. It's not a big problem though because i think:
a) I could step up to higher AI-level.
b) In MP it shouldn't be a problem, there are counter for this, only the AI is too stupid to build/use sufficient amounts of it, and he doesn't prioritize getting the important ressources enough.

 

[Polydeukes]

No it doesn´t work when you load the mod it deactivates patch
Game version 109 --->100
Savegames 109---> 100

 

[JamieCiv4Files]

I've mirrored this at http://civilization4.filefront.com/ for you jaynus

 

[rumbold]

Well I had downloaded the patch, then loaded the mod and began a game. I then install the game on a different computer and tried to load the same game just with the mod (patch not downloaded) and everytime I tried to open the saved game it would close out of Civ completely.

So while it may deactivate the patch, it seems that if you begin a game with the mod and the patch, you will need both to continue.

Anyone have any idea why?

 

[Fujisan]

Just bug report.

Detailed info for Egyptian War Chariot does not pop up.

You know, when you mouse-over a unit, a short info pops up. When you mouse-over the FLAG of a unit (or units), much more detailed info appears. So, the former is missing. May be this is a civ bug?

 

[Sirkills2much]

Im not sure if this has been mentioned yet (read most of the thread) but i have a suggestion, here goes, TACTICAL NUKES like in civ3, im pretty sure the first detonated nuclear BOMBs didnt have an infinite range, and still most dont! i like the idea of having a nucler sub invisible and off the coast armed with a nuclear weapon that can only go so far, makes the nuclear warfare more strategic, ive even got a couple ideas stemming from tac's as well, 1. making a bomber capable of carrying a nuke, 2. fission/fusion bombs, fission damages 1 tile around city, while a fusion bomb damages 2 tiles around 3. a light nuke unit that doesnt require oil and can move to a city to detonate only polluting 1 tile, of course the proper nuke can only be built with the proper techs/resources at the right cost. anywho these are just some ideas from someone who made as much realism as possible for scenerios in civ3. If anyone has any opinions on this, feel free to speak

 

[ledfan]

*maybe have the tactical nukes harder or impossible to shoot down (if thats possible) by the SDI wonder, but cause less damage than the ICBM. You couldn't stop a nuke from landing when dropped from a bomber with the SDI! *Maybe have nukes "improve" over time. Even fission bombs were relatively weak at the beggining, 15-20 kiloton explosions in Japan WW2, and increased in strength over time. http://www.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_atom.html . hydrogen or fusion bombs were 1st tested in 1952, and had a megaton of TNT equivelent. (15 megatonnes in 1954). The website i linked to explains a lot, and not too complicated either. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/bomb.html this one has got info on hydrogen bombs.

 

[ledfan]

i dont know if this has been mentioned, but mounted units should have an advantage over most melee units (except phalanx etc). An organised attack by mounted units would be devastating against axemen! Also the rifle units should get an advantage over mounted units, as a solid line of rifles firing would decimate cavalary ranks, it doesnt matter how fast the horses run bullets will always be faster! The only way the rifling units would lose their advantage would be if they were suprised, or unorganised. could you mod the units so the riflemen lose their advantage if caught in the open, in an non-fotified posistion? This is similar to how effective crossbow units were against early mounted units, like knights. Longbow units wernt as good because they fire skywards, to get improved range etc, so fast units were hard to hit; while crossbow were fired straight ahead, and very powerful at short(er) range. A crossbow bolt could put a hole through a solid 6-8 inch thick oak door, so a knights armor was useless against them.

 

[ledfan]

Is Jaynus here? He hasn't posted in over a week.

has anyone tried to PM him???

 

[The Great Apple]

has anyone tried to PM him???

Checking his profile, he hasn't been on CFC since the 13th November, although there is an email listed in there which could be tried.

 

[Simetrical]

i dont know if this has been mentioned, but mounted units should have an advantage over most melee units (except phalanx etc). An organised attack by mounted units would be devastating against axemen!

Not really. The basic problem with cavalry is that they're inherently much more expensive to maintain than infantry, and therefore a cavalry force will always be greatly outnumbered by an infantry force bought with the same money. Cavalry had definite uses, but outperforming infantry at melee when all else was equal was very much not one of them.

This is similar to how effective crossbow units were against early mounted units, like knights. Longbow units wernt as good because they fire skywards, to get improved range etc, so fast units were hard to hit; while crossbow were fired straight ahead, and very powerful at short(er) range.

It's simple ballistics that any projectile will travel farther if fired at an angle. All bows, crossbows included, were fired in arcs when range was desired. A high-velocity projectile wouldn't need to be fired in as steep an arc to attain the same range as a low-velocity projectile, but a) crossbows didn't have vastly higher release velocities than longbows and composite bows and b) you would still want to fire in a fairly steep arc to attain maximum range.

A crossbow bolt could put a hole through a solid 6-8 inch thick oak door, so a knights armor was useless against them.

Hardly. The thickest part of a knight's armor could stand up to crossbows or early guns without being penetrated, and the thinner plates on the limbs would deflect most projectiles without absorbing their full force.

However, horses were typically not as well-armored as their riders, and were consequently more vulnerable to arrows; also, crossbowmen were vastly cheaper to maintain than knights, leading back to the same cavalry-efficiency question I mentioned before. One crossbowman would likely be slaughtered against one knight, but a unit of crossbowmen outnumbering their knightly opponents five or ten to one would most likely prevail, particularly if protected by pikes.

 

[JakeCourtney]

Damn you Janyus for leaving us cold... Now I refuse to play Civ4 because its boring the way it is! Now I have no hope for a fun game! Unless someone else with talent can make some good mods and combine them! Err... This sucks.

 

[noid]

Not really. The basic problem with cavalry is that they're inherently much more expensive to maintain than infantry, and therefore a cavalry force will always be greatly outnumbered by an infantry force bought with the same money. Cavalry had definite uses, but outperforming infantry at melee when all else was equal was very much not one of them.

I agree with ledfan. Cavalry always had an advantage over melee units, even when heavily outnumbered.. They could charge.. Try reading something about Polish heavy cavalry the "Husaria"..

 

[ledfan]

"
Quote simetrical
Hardly. The thickest part of a knight's armor could stand up to crossbows or early guns without being penetrated, and the thinner plates on the limbs would deflect most projectiles without absorbing their full force."
http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval/crossbow/crossbow-history.html
read this. proves my point. I could list loads of references that state that crossbows were the only really effective long range weapon against knights.

Sorry, but how many strategy games have you played? rome total war and any other similiar game clearly show that horsemen of any kind were used to charge formations of melee units, and were only ineffective against spear bearing units because of their longer reach. A properly mounted Cavalry charge could smash through any infantry lines, and were often used in a hit and run tactic. Axemen would of been trampled by the horses, and the pure force of the charge would knock back the melee troops often causing the lines to break and run. However, the axemen would defeat mounted units in forest areas etc, because the mounted units need open spaces to be able to move, gain momentum and basically take advantage of their superior speed. These are well documented facts, and I could find references for this if you like.

 

[Badmojo]

Back to the main topic!!!!!

where is Jay, and will anyone pick up the ball for him until he gets back from Real life???

no need discussing horse vs melee vs blah blah if no one can mod it?!!
and that discussion should be taken to a new threat/forum

 

[anti_strunt]

(Latest version)
- Removed riflemans (and redcoats) +25% vs. cavalry bonus (a bonus against a moving target, WTH?!)

I'm not sure if this has already been addressed, but riflemen gaining a bonus against cavalry most probably represents their being equipped with bayonets, thus to an extent combining the abilities of the musketeers and pikemen of previous armies, so I believe the bonus should stay, but that it should be changed to only apply when on the defensive.

Sorry, but how many strategy games have you played? rome total war and any other similiar game clearly show that horsemen of any kind were used to charge formations of melee units, and were only ineffective against spear bearing units because of their longer reach. A properly mounted Cavalry charge could smash through any infantry lines, and were often used in a hit and run tactic. Axemen would of been trampled by the horses, and the pure force of the charge would knock back the melee troops often causing the lines to break and run. However, the axemen would defeat mounted units in forest areas etc, because the mounted units need open spaces to be able to move, gain momentum and basically take advantage of their superior speed. These are well documented facts, and I could find references for this if you like.

Rome: Total War isn't exactly the pedigree of realism; and to claim that ANY kind of horsemen were used to charge formed foot is pretty odd. Because proper, devoted mounted cavalry charges (i.e. of the kind that actually could actually break solid, formed foot) and hit-and-run tactics are rather incompatible, tactically speaking. The former was done by light cavalry, the latter by heavy cavalry, and prior to the adoption of cataphracts (and excepting Alexander and his imitators) Europe had only light cavalry...

 

[Nagash]

Hi ...,

i've a little question concerning this Mod!
Does it work, resp. does it work with the 1.09??

I've red about this question, but couldn't find an answer for it ...

 

[Nagash]

Oh ..., i forgot ..., the most of you will be already asleep ...

I'm sitting here (germany), watching my clock, wondering why there's no traffic, then realizing i'm talking with USA!

 

[Gav]

i enjoy this mod and since it looks like its not happening any more, i might try to edit it myself. the first thing i would work on is nukes, they are too cheap, not effective enough, and dont cause a realistic international backlash.

might attempt something involving basic atom bombs and tactical nukes.

 

[Misanthrop]

Hey there... I really like this mod but I experienced 2 "problems":

1st - I think the GUNSHIP is too weak vs. former Units like Riflemen or Cavalry.

2nd - My games both ended in 1482 by Time Victory. Did anyone else have that problem? Or could it depend on the Map I used? (Sorry, I really don't know :suicide: )