siroxo said:
One thing I thought of the first time I played it through was that if anything the discovery date for uranium should be well before the vanilla version. Uranium has been known for almost 2000 years (although known commonly for about 150).
But it's unrealistic to give players (and AI) the advantage of knowing its location before they should technologically know that it's useful. Some people would be able to identify uranium in 1800, sure, but they wouldn't make particular note of it. They certainly wouldn't bother mining it. Better to only make it visible when someone figures out it could be useful (maybe it shouldn't have to be you who figures it out?).
ledfan said:
http://www.hyw.com/books/history/Medi0000.htm
http://www.roman-empire.net/army/army.html
Again, the sources and references these websites used need to be checked, but both state that even the roman professional army lost out to heavy cavalry used in the battlefields by german tribes. The second one says that the roman army was compleatly reformed after one decisive battle (a reformation that was needed before hand, but the romans hadn't got round to it!)
Indeed, I never denied that cavalry could prove decisive. So could infantry. The occasional sound defeat of infantry by cavalry doesn't mean that cavalry should get a bonus against infantry; under some circumstances it could be devastating, yes, and in most circumstances it was very useful, but the same could be said of most types of soldiers. Neither infantry nor cavalry should receive blanket bonuses against the otherspearmen should receive a modest bonus against cavalry, and horse archers against infantry, but I wouldn't say much beyond that.
I wouldn't give pikemen a bonus against cavalry, incidentally. Cavalry's vastly greater maneuverability probably gives them an advantage if anything (not counting pike squares protecting missile units, a tactic which I think might have been used in medieval times?). Just leave them even.
Instant_Cereal said:
I was thinking... Wouldn't it be realistic if Rome's legions have 2 moves to represent Rome's superior logistics and discipline and a city attack bonus to represent their engineering skills?
Giving them two moves is way too much as things are set up now. City attack bonuses due to engineering ability should be granted by techs such as Engineering, not to particular units or civs.
It would be nice if the run-of-the-mill unit had two moves instead of one, actually. That would allow more flexibility for creating impediments and movement aids of various sorts as appropriate. With one move as the base, the only bonuses can be multiples of 100%, and no penalties can be applied at all.
whyisciv4sobugg said:
No oil needed to make ICBMs? Don't ICBMs contain plastic and other petroleum derived parts?
They don't have to.
anti_strunt said:
Hey! So am I! I guess you were a member of the RTR team, since you brought it up?
Yeah, I was (look at the 6.0 credits, or the website credits). Now I'm theoretically an EB member, although I don't really contribute much. You were an
RTW realism mod member? Under what name?
anti_strunt said:
Horse Archer - Shouldn't get any bonus, either, really. Should get a much greater chance of withdrawing, tho. Maybe a chance for a first strike?
It would be great if HAs got, say, a 95% chance of withdrawing against infantry, and a 60% against cavalry (but 0% against anything equipped with a motor or rifle). They would have to be completely rebalanced, though, of course.
I think all ranged units should get first strike to some degree. Something like
Straight bow: 1 first strike chance.
Composite bow, longbow, early guns/cannons, slings: 1 first strike.
Rifled gun/cannon: 1 first strike + 1 first strike chance.
Computer-aided cannon (Modern Armor, maybe some ships): 3 first strikes + 1 first strike chance.
Missile (Gunship, maybe some ships, and also SAM Infantry but only when fighting Gunships): 4 first strikes + 1 first strike chance.
The latter two developments are a major step up, quite intentionally. I'm picturing the First Gulf War, where the advanced M1 Abrams computer-aided weaponry completely annihilated the outdated Soviet tanks used by the Iraqis, without the latter getting close enough to fire accurately.
anti_strunt said:
War Elephant - Elephants were deadly to just about everything, so yeah, they should get a bonus.
No, I don't think so. Horses were typically terrified of elephants, but prepared infantry could take them on without too many casualties. Of course, they'd lose some men, but if you're sufficiently acquainted with war elephants that you don't run, it's not that hard to mob them and injure them badly enough to make them flee.
anti_strunt said:
Knight - Here I'm unsure. Perhaps it's justified?
I don't think so. They shouldn't get more of a bonus against infantry than cavalry.
. I have not found a workaround in this thead. Please help, thanks OLGE.
