Civ4 Realism Mod (Extended Gameplay and tweaks)

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Modpacks' started by jaynus, Nov 4, 2005.

  1. anti_strunt

    anti_strunt Warlord

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    180
    Hey! So am I! I guess you were a member of the RTR team, since you brought it up?

    Cataphracts were adopted relatively early; they were already in existence during the 2nd century CE, although only in small numbers.

    Actually, many armies of the Germanic states of the Dark Ages/Early Middle Ages used cavalry consisting almost entirely of heavy, charging cavalry (eg. proto-knights). Some of the early expeditions sent by the HRE (when it was still the eastern half of the former Frankish empire) against the Magyars in the 9th century or so were almost entirely of heavy cavalry.
     
  2. anti_strunt

    anti_strunt Warlord

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    180
    Anyway, to get back to the actual issue (is this mod even alive, anyway?) and tackle the actual units, and wether they should get anit-foot boni or not:

    Chariots - Most modern research indicates that standard combat chariots (ie not scythed chariots) were primarily used as mobile archery/javelin platforms when fighting against infantry, so no bonus here.

    War Charitos (Egyptian UU) - Same here.

    Immortal (Persian UU) - Humm, I believe this is a fantasy unit (the real Immortals not being horse-borne), and Persian cavalry weren't extraordinarily heavy, so a bonus prolly wouldn't make sense...

    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?

    Keshik (Mongol UU) - I don't really think they should get a bonus either; the strength of the Mongols lay rather in their superior strategic mobility, discipline and leadership than in the ferocity of their charges... Give them an extra move if anything...

    War Elephant - Elephants were deadly to just about everything, so yeah, they should get a bonus.

    Knight - Here I'm unsure. Perhaps it's justified?

    Camel Archer (Arab UU) - Boy is THIS a silly unit or what?? Oh, well. Camels, when used, were almost exclusively an anti-cavalry weapon, so ol' smelly should get a hefty anti-mounted bonus instead.

    Conquistador (Spanish UU) - Should get a bonus if the knight does.

    Cavalry - The problem here is that the unit represents so many things; both the charging cuirassiers of the Napoleonic era, and (judging by the graphic), the rifle-armed cavalry of the ACW and later eras (and, YES, the Polish hussars...). If only we still had the Dragoon/Cavalry setup of good ol' Civ 2. As for right now, I'm torn.

    Cossack (Russian UU) - The Cossacks were by definition light cavalry, but IF we give a bonus to the regular Cavalry we should probably give it to the Cossacks too.


    DIDN'T MAKE THE CUT:

    Samurai - Could someone please tell me what the heck is up with Firaxis and their fetish for putting Japanese warriors on foot??? Stupid.
     
  3. olge

    olge Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    2
    Hello I have the same problem as described earlier. It is not possible to load any save game genrated form this mod :mad: . I have not found a workaround in this thead. Please help, thanks OLGE.:cry:
     
  4. Simetrical

    Simetrical Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2005
    Messages:
    96
    Location:
    New York City
    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?).
    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 other—spearmen 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.
    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.
    They don't have to.
    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?
    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.
    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.
    I don't think so. They shouldn't get more of a bonus against infantry than cavalry.
     
  5. Kushan

    Kushan Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    204
    Location:
    Spanaway, WA
    OT:
    Way to many RTW players here....j/k

    I agree, a cavalry commander would have to be crazy to purposely charge headlong into a formation of pike units. Instead a smart commander would charge around the pikes and attack the flanks. So in game terms, they just null the others advantages out. I would just rather see pikeman vs cavalry, be even then see one get a bonus over the other.

    This may be an interesting topic to check out: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=142558

    I'm planning on including something like this in my Medieval mod.

    Kushan
     
  6. Mexico

    Mexico TR senior programmer

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2005
    Messages:
    578
    Location:
    Slovakia, Kosice
    any error message from game?

    i had similiar problem with loading saved games, whem mod was instaled into user directory , when mod is instaled in program files/firaxis/..., then all is working fine
     
  7. JahtheIII

    JahtheIII Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2005
    Messages:
    39
    Quick question/comment about city razing....

    I always thought that city razing should be allowed in the early era's, but then disabled after some point in the game.

    Razing a city was indeed a viable option a few hundread years ago, but today wouldn't be an acceptable solution to capturing a city. Making the end of city-razing tied to acquiring a certian tech, or entering a certian time period would maybe reflect how ideas about acceptable behavior in war has changed.

    just a thought, great mod!
     
  8. olge

    olge Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    2
    I am getting and error message about an invalid mod under the My Games folder. So I move the mod under Program Files. But the saved game has a path in there so I changes that too (with notepad). Now the games seems to refuse the file. :confused:

    Is there any way to rescue my (winning) game? :cry: Or do I need to start new?
     
  9. Erendir

    Erendir Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    59
    I cannt download the 0.6 version!!!
    "The requested URL /jaynus/CIV4_Realism_v0.6.zip was not found on this server."
     
  10. Pshanksta

    Pshanksta Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2
    I am also getting this error. Please fix! I wish to try this cool sounding mod.
     
  11. Stigga

    Stigga Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1
    When I try to download your mod, I receive the same message. Maybe, you should place it at some file hosting (i.e. rapidshare.de or smth like that)
     
  12. whyisciv4sobugg

    whyisciv4sobugg Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2005
    Messages:
    12
    "Acceptable behavior in war"? Who enforces this acceptable behavior in war? Maybe you can have some of the other civs whine at you for razing cities in later stages of the game, but as evidenced by some of the unacceptable behavior we have witnessed lately (torture, etc.), for the sake of realism it shouldn't be turned off.

     
  13. oldStatesman

    oldStatesman Cybernaut

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    983
    Location:
    Random Map
    The download link in the original post does not work. Get a page with a rude message on it instead.
     
  14. Mexico

    Mexico TR senior programmer

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2005
    Messages:
    578
    Location:
    Slovakia, Kosice
    sorry, you must start new game :-(, - editing saved game is not working
     
  15. gauros

    gauros Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1
    yes the link does not work, can u plz upload it somewhere else so we test this MOD

    thanx
     
  16. David Smith

    David Smith Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2005
    Messages:
    219
    Location:
    Maryland
    Has this great mod died???? Does no one know what happen? :cry: Is there any hope for this MOD??? :confused: Can we find someone to carry on? :aargh: :help:
     
  17. SuperSloth

    SuperSloth Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2005
    Messages:
    213
    Location:
    san jose/fresno, CA, USA
    for a dead project this mod sure gets a lot of posts.
     
  18. Polydeukes

    Polydeukes Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    8
    my words great mod
    Who and where is JAYNUS ??
     
  19. Ad Hominem

    Ad Hominem Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2001
    Messages:
    183
    Location:
    Under a solid roof
    Shows how lazy we are... instead of taking it over, we just whine over Janus not being here anymore... go figure...
     
  20. Fixius

    Fixius Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    3
    Location:
    behind you
    if ur breaking up with us J at least give us some closure :(
     

Share This Page