1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Civ4 Realism Mod (Extended Gameplay and tweaks)

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

  1. woodelf

    woodelf Bard Retired Moderator

    Jun 12, 2003
    I'm sure there is a way to combine this (or any Mod) and Rhye's map, but I wouldn't have a clue how to.
  2. SlayerofDeitys

    SlayerofDeitys Chieftain

    Oct 24, 2005
    Just wanted to comment on the cruiser. Aegis is merely a weapons system and while the first ships to use Aegis did eventually fall under the cruiser class it has been outfitted on DDG’s, DD’s and even frigates (obviously not the wooden kind in civ4). So instead of making an Aegis cruiser, what if you just added a CG unit, and then maybe make Aegis accompany a technology that upgrades the ships with increased strength, ballistic missile defense and anti-air (or at least a MUCH higher interception probability). I like this idea also because you could add new techs such as Ballistics that improve munitions etc. that would make your existing units stronger (all types). This would fit nicely I think due to the fact that you have increased units in a longer period of time. Maybe instead of "upgrading" the unit it could work as a promotion. Armor piercing rounds discovered with "Ballistics" could provide a marine with a bonus against infantry and tanks maybe, though I wouldn't personally want to go up against a tank with anything but a JAVELIN (anti-tank missile) and even then... that could also be a promotion however. Back to this ships I would also like to see ASW (anti-submarine warfare) Helos and normal gun ships stationed aboard the ships as they are capable of carrying one of each. Which would also give you the ability to prosecute an enemy sub even without a ship as there are fixed and rotary winged aircraft with ASW platforms. Speaking of which Aegis has no effect whatsoever on ASW for the record. This mod sounds awesome (haven't had a chance to play yet but I think I will be able to give .6 a go) and I can't wait to try it. :goodjob:
  3. Lachlan

    Lachlan Great Builder of Civs !

    Mar 27, 2002
    European Union
    I want normal world map for this famous mod !

    Anybody are interested by an algorithm of spliting empires ?

    I'm not pragramer but begin with 8 civ and finish with 18 !!!

    Early few civs and now more ...

    What do you think ?
  4. wolfman1234

    wolfman1234 King

    Mar 27, 2004
    Spain GMT+1
    I loaded this mod and after that i chose the Bebep earth map as scenario. All works fine for now.

    I found a typo in the swordsman or the axeman, i dont remember, it has a bonus repeated.
  5. Yaromir

    Yaromir Chieftain

    Nov 10, 2005
    Durham, NC
    This is already getting too much for poor jaynus.

    Another game I liked was Victoria and a few people got together and started VIP
    Victoria Improvement Project

    I suggest something similar for civ IV

    Certainly a collaborative effort with public review could accomplish much more than poor single jaynus! :lol:

    I would also like to see a mod installer/uninstaller/management interface (I think I can do that one in java myself)

    I see a lot of promising work on here :goodjob:
  6. Krafweerk

    Krafweerk Chieftain

    Nov 5, 2005
    Heres some basic info on the musket used by the british army (probally the best representation of a musketeers weaponry and ability)

    Basic Data

    Furniture (fittings) Brass
    Caliber of bore .75 (.75 inch)
    Caliber of projectile .71 (.71 inch)
    Projectile One ounce lead ball
    Theoretical maximum range 250 yards
    Effective maximum range (100 round volley) 150 - 200 yards
    Effective maximum range (Single round) 100 - 150 yards
    Favored range Less than 100 yards
    Weight 9lbs 11 oz
    Optimum effect at 30 yards Will penetrate 3/8" of iron or 5 inches of oak
    Rate of fire (Optimum) 4 - 5 rounds per minute
    Rate of fire (actual) 2 - 3 rounds per minute
    Rate of misfire 20 - 40%

    Here's a bit on Knight armor

    Body Armor...A Historical Perspective
    AUTHOR Major James P. Carothers, USMC

    II. Data: As long as man has developed weapons, he has
    simultaneously produced armor to protect against its threat. The
    crude and unsophisticated armor of the Romans to the medieval
    knights of the middle ages established a trend towards armor
    modernization. Gunpowder ended the development of armor for
    centuries until the famous Australian "bushranger" Ned Kelly
    introduced effective armor in the 1850's. Soldiers and criminals
    experimented with varying degrees of success during World War I
    through the gangster years of the 1930's. World War II and the
    Korean Conflict were a renaissance for body armor. Technological
    innovation and combat experimentation firmly reestablished the
    requirement for effective body armor. Research and development
    through the last two decades have resulted in "state of the art"
    body armor in the hands of the common soldier today.

    In 1880, the Australian police found the famous bushranger,
    Ned Kelly, a formidable foe. An "Outback Outlaw", Ned fashoned a
    suit of boiler-plate iron armor, with a twin panneled
    breastplate. A metal apron protected the groin and a crude helmet
    with eye slits completed the outfit. Dispite the unrefined
    apperance, Ned's armor was extremely efficient and enabled him
    to face, and survive the concentrated fires of numerous
    Australian police. Unfortunately for Ned, his armor didn't cover
    his legs and after catching a few rounds in his lower extremities
    the police captured him.

    "Having said that, I have put on an accurate reproduction of a breast plate and had someone hitting me with a claymore (an ahistorical heavy one as well) the blow knocked me back, dented the armour in a big way but I didn't feel anything other than being sharply pushed back, this was at full swing!

    In plate you do have to go for joints or gaps in the armour, certainly a blow to the center of a plate wont do anything until the 20'th blow when the armour has been bent to the point that they cant expand there lungs to draw breath.

    An arrow will go striate threw the armour if it hits it at right angles, however plate was designed with a lot of angles and curves, anyone firing from directly ahead can only get a right angle if they hit the one mm ridge at the front of the plate, plate was made glass hard so that arrow points couldn't catch and would shatter when they hit (seen a slow motion camera footage, your only risk is flying splinters getting in your eye)"

    Source: Re-Enactors forum

    During medieval Europe, armored knights on horseback were the dominant military force until the invention of projectile weapons. While elephants and armor came and went, the speed and availability of soldiers on horseback remained to be an essential component of warfare for centuries. Although cavalry was primarily used as support for the infantry, in formation it could be used for countless possibilities, including quick attacks, chasing, flanking, reconnaissance, and breakthroughs. Even though firearms reduced the cavalry’s overall effectiveness during the Renaissance, it was not until the 19th century that guns and artillery made cavalry charges obsolete. Guns became quicker to shoot with the invention of the cartridge, breach-loader, and revolver, and more accurate with the invention of the rifled barrel

    From the History of Armored Warfare

    Most medivel armor ranged from .8 t0 3mms. Knights would be probally wear a heavier plate...so we'll say 2.5mm

    thats roughly 1.5 eights of an inch...so at 30 yards, 90 feet, a musketeer could easily penetrate the armor of a knight, per the data above saying it can penetrate 3/8ths of an inch. IF he can hit it at a 90 degree angle. The more angle, the more armor youre giving the knight.

    If you hit 10mms of armor thats sloped at a 15 degree angle, that 10mms of armor effectively becomes 11.5mms of armor.

    At 60 yards, we'll say the the musketeer can penetrate 1.5 eights of an inch, half of 3/8ths...since its double the range (it would actually be less due to the ballistic of the ball) that is the exact thickness of the armor the knight would be wearing. Since no knight ever wore flat plate, they always wore rounded plate, we have to assume there was armor sloping involved in the hit. The amount of degrees (which will definitly be higher than 0 ) of sloping, would only increase the armor protection of the knight.

    How fast can a horse run down 180 feet and trample a man holding a gun?

    At what range do you think the musketeers would fire?

    I think its safe to assume the musketeers would get one and only one volley off at the knights, before the knights closed range, and made short work of musketeers.

    IF the musketeers fired at thier maximum range (250yards) its POSSIBLE that a well trained unit could fire two shots in the time the knights closed on the musketeers. However the first volley would be completely ineffective, incapable of penetrating thier armor.

    The only chance the musketeers would have is if they fired from less than 45yards (which is dangerously close when you consider you have 50 guys in armor, on huge steads, carrying maces, pikes, and swords steaming at you at full speed) and ALL thier shots were true. If the muskets have a 20-40% chance of a misfire....well...all thier shots arent even going fire.

    My conclusion on this subject is infact that knights should be running down musketeers left and right. Not the other way around. If anyone should get a bonus, its the knights agianst the musketeers.

    Of course...if you have a highwall between you and the knights...and you have a musket...whole different story. Maybe a +75% city defense? -50% agianst knights? Or something in that ratio?


    And sorry to be a killjoy all the time, but I have a strange obsession with realism heh...im like the realism gestapo...
  7. maler23

    maler23 Chieftain

    Nov 4, 2005
    Hey Janus,

    Forgive me if this is scattered. I'm doing this at work :)

    As you are making changes, are you able to adjust the AI to compensate for these changes as well? Meaning, is the AI now able to take advantage of the changes you have made? Just wondering.

    Also, as far as improvements go, I like the idea of "zone of control". That would help to prevent the "wall o' units/forts" requirements. I also like the idea of the attackers, if in the defender's realm, losing some of their defensive advantages(due to the attacker knowing the lay of the land etc.)

    For me, the biggest thing I would like, which I mentioned before, is the ability to put defensive improvements on other improvements. My main irritation is feeling that my borders are way too "open" even with units sprinkled about. There should be a way either through defensive modifications or something to make it hard to rush control a whole bunch of cities in a single turn.

    Also, does the AI currently make note if I'm massing a whole bunch of troops near a border? Will it compensate to move troops over to cities near my troops and such?

    Ooh, what about mines? For both land and sea? Perhaps there would be a chance to instantly destroy whatever unit hits that space? Perhaps a minelayer unit that places mines which opponents can't see? Maybe they have to use a spy or scout unit first to find them if they suspect there are some?

    i need to actually get some work done.


  8. evirus

    evirus Warlord

    May 31, 2005
    all standerd map types are supported(play now and custom world)
  9. DickieBear

    DickieBear Chieftain

    Nov 10, 2005
    I saw where somebody mentioned giving gunships the ability to attack across water with no penalty, but nobody seems to care that helicopters are better at killing tanks than they are at killing guys with swords on horseback. They are not really better, but they get a bonus. I have had a few gunships killed by knights. I would have had more, but I quit building gunships after watching a few get slaughtered by units with no ranged attack.
  10. GroggyGrognard

    GroggyGrognard Chieftain

    Nov 9, 2005
    Well, not to be too vague here (being at work, I can't exactly go into a full discourse at length):

    1) If I recall correctly from my brief studies about events such as the English Civil War, units of pikemen were used to shield the musketeers against this situation of being overrun after firing a volley, in roughly a 2:1 ratio of musketeers and pikemen. The musketeers would fire, and if discipline were up to snuff, the musketeers would retreat behind the pikemen to reload.

    2) Note that to alleviate the problems associated with reload times, especially in the earlier eras of firearms, musketeers were often organized in ranks, to allow sustained fire as part of the unit reloaded their weapons. Ranks of two or three were employed - of course, good fire discipline and formation were required for this. (Oddly enough, I believe it was the Japanese that came up with ranked fire before the Europeans.)

    3) One must remember that there are two crucial elements to a knight's effectiveness - first is the knight, the second is the horse. One cannot armor down a horse as much as one would a knight, unless one were willing to sacrifice the mobility and the endurance of the horse to a crippling degree. Taking the horse out of the equation would turn knights into lumbering, overarmored foot troops - not much of a charge left, there! The line between 'soldier mortality' and 'soldier ineffectiveness' is a different line.

    In conclusion after my rather general statements, I would believe that the knight would not have such an easy time against the musket as you would suggest.

    In respectful disagreement....
  11. jaynus

    jaynus Chieftain

    Nov 1, 2005
    Wow we all talk alot at work huh? Addicts!!!!! haha.

    Ok. Lets get down to it shall we!

    bebear - No worries mate. I was a bit snappy anyways :) I have put alot of thought into the AI is all, and I am busy testing their responses and abilities to use things. As far as their usage of 'buildable resources' goes, in my test game, I am *JUST* at that point, so not sure yet ;) If they dont, its easy enough to make them do it (youd be suprised).

    About Rhye's World Map - I will ask Rhye if I can include it today :)

    Ohhhh, you just gave me a world of ideas there!!! Heres the idea I just got off that (Everyone pay attention here!!! What do you all think?): Instead of creating different specialized unit for all the different variations of arms and equipment in the later game; All units with this type of specialization capability starts out with enough experience to use at *least* one promotion; This first set of default promotions contains possible specializations (which have penalties as well).

    So, for example:

    First Rank Specializations:
    AEGIS Outfit
    Sonar Outfit
    Artillary Outfit

    First Rank Specializations:
    Long-Range Firing Outfit
    Anti-Infantry Outfit
    Occupational Outfit

    These are just ideas...those tank ones a re pretty stupid, but you get the idea.

    ORR!!!! We could do it this way: We add a button to these units in their actions to change outfits/firing setups (This would take 2-3 turns). Soooo...you could just hot-swap your units to different techniques. This opens up a HUGE range of new types:
    - You can setup firing formations for your infantry/musketman/etc.
    - You can setup different outfits on your ships
    - You can setup different ammunition for your aircraft missions
    - You can setup different outfits and manuvers for your tanks

    I love this idea....what does everyone think? The only issue I see with this is the AI is very unlikely to use it (Unless it was in promotion format). And I cannot modify the AI this far. But, on the other hand, we make sure specialized setups are penalized enough that AI with generalized units can fight them as well. (Until next year when the SDK comes out and I can fix it).

    OKAY! Now that Im done blabbing about that:

    Lachlan - Yup! Im into the idea, and looking into it :)

    GroggyGrognard - You are correct sir. Firing lines were employed very quickly (in retrospect) after the wide-ranged use of them became popular. (In Civ4 standards, when grenadiers come into play is when firing lines were most popular).

    I have already began to tweak them. I already upped the building destruction of nukes very very high, and there was already an undocomuented change to Nukes Combat power (I Tripled it ;) )

    Anyways, next on the agenda:

    Who all would be serious about assisting with this mod? If you would want to, email me jaynus@gmail.com and let me know what you can do for it (Unit creation/skinning, xml, python coding with me, etc.) I'll check people out and see if theres anyone thats looking to go the same way as me :)
  12. woodelf

    woodelf Bard Retired Moderator

    Jun 12, 2003
    In the immortal words of Dirty Harry "A man's got to know his limitations." I know mine jaynus and I'll gladly test anything you guys put out, but I haven't programmed or coded anything since 86 and I don't think this old dog is learning anything new. :D

    I'll keep checking the boards (while at work, heh) and see if any other ideas can be utilized here or if someone else is on your wavelength.

    And you might need a new catchy name now that you're officially making a Mod and not just tweaks. ;)
  13. Krafweerk

    Krafweerk Chieftain

    Nov 5, 2005
    Which supports my arguement. The pikemen (+100% agianst mounted) are needed in the stack with the musketeers. Otherwise the knights (and we're talking knights, not unarmored horsemen as were used in the english civil war, all of this is theory since to my knowledge, heavy knights never fought agianst smooth bore muskets) would route the musketeers.

    Ok so we need to figure out how many men a unit of musketeers is in Civ4. Also we need to know how many knights is a unit of knights in civ4. 40 Musketeers, will fall to 30 knights. 150 musketeers will fall to 80 knights. (Pulled out of the old rear end but I can always work it out if need be, though as in real life, nothing is every purely scientific) However if a group of knights is 30 knights (which is alot really...alot of kingdoms had only 100 or so, its doubtfull theyd put them all in the same place) and a group of musketeers is 70 or 80 strong...the ranked fire would have an overwelming effect.

    Also like you said, discipline and training is a huge factor. Possibley this means that unit XP and upgrades need a looksee to see if they can be improved. If you read the Richard Sharpe novels, alot of men were just crooks that were thrown into the army...getting them all to just aim the same direction was nigh impossible. Jaynus added redcoats, and the french have the actual musketeers not the vanilla musketmen...perhaps those wouldnt have the disadvantage...but id say your average line of musketmen would break after thier first volley failed to slow the charging knights.

    Actually, I have footage of a guy in full plate doing a backflip. Mobility after the horse is taken out isnt as much of a factor as one may think. The armor was specially designed for mobility...otherwise even the heaviest armoured knight would fall to any faster opponent eventually...which wasnt the case. Knights dont "lumber", they run at you at full speed and smash your head in with a mace :p

    All that big slow lumbering giant stuff is just movies.

    I respect that...we can agree to disagree :)

    I do know, that if given the opportunity to go back in time, and was faced with 500 musketeers, and had 250 knights...I would absolutely send them agianst those musketeers, and fully expect victory.

    That is of course an unrealistic situation, since pikemen, skirmershers, catapults, maybe even early cannons would all be in the mix as well.

    But if you were a poor peasent drafted into the army, given a musket and 3 days to learn how to use it, then had to stare down charging knights, and that first volley didnt stop them dead...youd run...and most of your comrades behind you...

    Horsemen route stationary ground troops...thats what they were designed for...be it archers, longbowmen, crossbowmen, or early musketmen...they were deadly effective at eliminating all those threats.

    Whats interesting to note though...is that it was just assumed after the advent of gunpowder and the distribution of firearms to most modern armies, that knights would no longer be effective...yet no one ever tried.

    Though I can always remember that movie, where the british soldiers are stationed in africa in a small post...armed with enough ammunition to stop an army, and with new enfield rifled weapons...and zulus with spears just run right over them. It is a movie granted, but from what I know about the zulu war, its pretty accurate.

    Firearms really didnt become effective until the advent of the repeating rifle, and of large magazines. Then after the machinegun was employed with such deadly results in world war one, almost every army in the world gave up thier horse soldiers.


    If its really nessacary, and I think it is, since I just cant believe that musketmen alone would be able to stop an equal sized force of knights, ill look up the OrBat of musket troops, find out how long it took them to load and fire, how thier lines worked, and at what range they opened fire at.

    Ill also look up the amount of time a combat horse can close the distance between the first volley, and the musketmen. At a full run, a horse can make it 100 yards in 25-30 seconds or so...how many volleys could you get off at them in that time? How effective would they be? If you waited to fire until your most effective range (30 yards) wouldnt it be to late? A horse can close 90 feet in just a few seconds. Of course we're not even considering the tactics used by horsemen agianst lines of infantry, such as a zig zagged approach, or a circling manuver where the circle closes in each rotation (like the indians, who were masters of beating the gun without having them themselves) even short charges then feints...or lateral manuvering to waste the lines ammo, exhaust the soldiers, and minimize the fire taken...or in the best case scenerio...rotate the line to follow you, so a second unit could charge in and break the line.

    One of the things I actually like about civ, was that every once in a while, a pikemen or something would defeat a tank. People have been defeating more technologically advanced armies for over a millenia....Mao Zedongs army of peasents is a good example...who defeated tanks with pitchforks basically. The zulu agianst the english. The visigoths and ostragoths agianst the romans. The vietcong agianst the united states.
  14. SlayerofDeitys

    SlayerofDeitys Chieftain

    Oct 24, 2005
    I definitely like the idea of having a basic unit and then equipping it with whatever system it is you would like. I also like the swapping idea, it would be great for units such as archers and marines or bombs for planes. When it comes to ships for example though it is far to impractical to swap systems out.
    The idea of being able to change your bombers from cluster bombs to napalm etc. sounds like a lot of fun. :D As you said however the problem is getting the computer to use these things effectively, in the short term at least.
    Oh and by the way they did make nuclear powered cruisers, they stopped using them because of design problems and expense but that is a viable alternative for not having oil. For that matter while non exist that I know, of I see no reason a battleship couldn't be outfitted with a nuclear reactor.
  15. ipris

    ipris Warlord

    Aug 19, 2002
    Looks fantastic. I'll definately try it out when you;ve finshed it all.
  16. Master Kodama

    Master Kodama Nitpicker

    May 2, 2004
    Off Topic
    It's a historical fact that when rifling was invented and implemented on guns, making them much more accurate at longer ranges, picking a man off the back of a horse became much easier -- because if you could see him, rifling meant now you could hit him, particularly if he was riding straight at you, perched up high on his horse and ever so obvious. Cavalrymen, no matter how well trained, became much easier targets for even a minimally trained man with a rifle. In the age of more advanced firearms, cavalry were used largely for flanking, but even that didn't last all that long since tight formations (which could be easily flanked) fell out of fashion fairly soon after the introduction of the rifle.

    I like where you're going with this, even if I'm inevitably going to disagree with some of the changes you implement. ;)

    I have a suggestion though: Knights should require Feudalism, as probably should Longbowmen too, but medieval-tech infantry should not, because many peoples with strong militaries never developed feudalism (think China). The default tech-tree works this way, but the techs that the units come with, and in some cases the time/order they appear in don't really make any sense. I commend your own rearrangements of the units, but my own idea is to add a new tech, "Fealty," between Monarchy and Feudalism. Macemen would come with this tech, and require Metal Casting (not Machinery); Knights would come with Feudalism. Then Pikemen could come with civil service, and maybe require Engineering or Construction, and should be increased in strength from the default (pikemen were employed long after other medieval units, like the knight, were gone). Longbowmen could come with Guilds (maybe their strength or bonuses should be increased?), simulating history in that Longbowmen came after Knights (Feudalism is a prereq for Guilds), and really arose as a military unit in direct response to knights. Vassalage and Serfdom could be divided, one coming with Fealty and the other with Feudalism. The question would be which came first, the chicken or the egg. Just based on the names, I would say Vassalage with Fealty, Serfdom with Feudalism, but they could easily be switched. Anyway, if you don't like or don't agree with these ideas, that's fine, I'll just have to mod them myself. :) I've got so many more ideas and quibbles with the tech-tree as it is.
  17. Krafweerk

    Krafweerk Chieftain

    Nov 5, 2005
    The first widely used rifle I believe was the Webley MkI, a french rifle...in the the mid to late 1800s. Cossacks were more than able to shred napoleans men who carried them.

    American indians on horseback, with bows and spears, were able to put up a decent fight agianst various models of winchesters, remmingtons, and spencer rifles.

    This is in the same vien as what I was saying before. Its a overly common misconception that firearms, before the 1st world war, were as effective as say...an M1, or Kar98 rifles. Even as effective as a 1903 springfield, or enfield mkII.

    I could stand 150 yards from you, and you could fire a thousand rounds at me with alot of midrange (carbines or rifles) 1700s and 1800s firearms, and the chances of you hitting me, or hitting me and diminishing my ability to fight, are almost nil.

    It wasnt until the very very late 1800s that repeating rifles were in wide spread use (almost 300 years after the first standardized firearms were in widespread use). The cartridges that were used were still manaully loaded, which meant it still had a slow reload time, but you, or a group of men could put more fire on a target than previously, increasing the "effect" as well as the outright effectiveness.

    Even though, all around the world armies without firearms were still competing with mixed (sometimes very good) results. It really came down to each situation.

    It really wasnt until after the spanish american war, that advances in gunpowder and mass production allowed for magazines, and more accurate rifles. An enfield, mauser or springfield from world war one is far more accurate and powerful than an M16, or even M14. They had thier drawbacks...they were heavy..slow ROF...and required matainence that wasnt always able to be applied. However when those rifles appeared on the battlefield, as well as the belt fed water cooled machine gun, it truely marked the end of the horsesoldier. He had been struggling for almost 500 years, but finally, after dominating the battlefield for more than 2000 years, his sun had set.

    Id just like to see that translated into this mod ;) seeing as its the "realism mod".

    Just for some perspective:

    8 men were involved in the shootout at the "ok corral"...at a distance of 8 feet, over 40 shots were fired in just about 20 seconds. Only 5 rounds foud thier mark...one of which was a shotgun blast.

    In world war two, an average of 128 THOUSAND rounds of rifle ammo were fired for every man killed. So much for accuracy.

    World war one, it was somewhere in the millions of rounds per casualty.

    The weapons in world war one were more accurate, and had more stopping power.

    In terms of range, the average during world war 1 was around 1,400 metres, although accuracy could only be guaranteed at around 600 metres. Quite a contrast to 30 yards isnt it?

    I think you guys are really over playing the impact of the gunpowder based weapons.
  18. Master Kodama

    Master Kodama Nitpicker

    May 2, 2004
    Off Topic
    @Krafweerk: Interesting. Since I'm not an expert, I will have to concede your point. I had always marvelled at how the Zulu, for example, were able to fight effectively against firearms. Perhaps your explanation gives some hints as to why (there were, of course, other factors such as organization and tactics etc.).

    So, if we assume that Civ4 riflemen are supposed to represent earlier rather than later rifles, should a bonus against Cavalry be applied to Infantry? Or is that even necessary, considering their base strength?
  19. JakeCourtney

    JakeCourtney Villain

    Oct 11, 2005
    Liberty, IL
    Are you going to be recuriting people to do 3d modeling for the units?
  20. Youri

    Youri Chieftain

    Nov 3, 2005
    As a student physics I hate how all the civ games treat this subject. In all Civ games Physics is a tech you develop during the renaisance. In reality however, only a small part of physics was 'discovered' (Classical Mechanics, by Newton) during that time, it wasn't until the beginning of the 20th century that most physical theories were developed (Relativity (Einstein), Quantum Mechanics (Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Dirac)), however, this game gives the impression that all of this was developed much earlier. The tech name 'physics' is way too general here. (Same could be said for Mathematics, but I don't have any historical knowledge about this.)

    My suggestion:

    'Astronomy', move it two spots to the left in the tree. This will also allow ships to explore the ocean a bit earlier. Rename 'Physics' into 'Classical Mechanics' and place it directly right of 'Astronomy', no longer depending on 'Scientific Methods', but only on 'Astronomy'.

    'Scientific Methods' (move it one spot to the left) should require 'Classical Mechanics' or 'Chemistry'.

    'Electricity' (also move it one spot to the left) should require 'Scientific Methods'.

    Electricity should lead to both 'Theory of Relativity' and 'Quantum Mechanics'. Both of these should be required for 'Fission'. First civ to research both of these gets one free tech or a great scientist.

    Add 'Superconductivity', which requires "Refrigeration' and 'Quantum Mechanics', make this needed for all Space Ship parts.

Share This Page