Civ4 Realism Mod (Extended Gameplay and tweaks)

[gandalf51]

- No City Razing defaulted to true. I dont like this option. You should be forced to deal with a capture.

I think it's a bad idea, in several games I had to raze enemy city that were near a spot for one of my futur city. And you don't want to capture city that are surrounded by desert or tundra, that will do nothing but increase your upkeep.

In fact if you could add a way to destroy cities (generaly cities you gain by revolt are to close to your other cities), that would be great (not instantaneously but in a number of turns depending of the size of the city)



Upgrade for fort (with tech or new improvement)
I've 2 ideas :
If you have 2 forts with units and close enough, the line between them cannot be crossed by enemy units. You cannot build fort near 2 or more mountains.
And/Or
Give Fort a ZoC, enemy units in it (if you have the right tech) :
cannot heal
have -x% in defense
take little damage each turn (with a new guerrilla tech ?)
etc...


New tech "high speed train", with electricity and railroad (or add to plastics) :
change movement cost of railroad to 1/15 or 1/20 and +25% on trade routes income


PS: As you can surely see english is not my native language

 

[belgradar]

how about making it so we can load a multi-player save game. its kinda anoying playing a game then saving it and findin gout you cant load it up the next day and continue

 

[evirus]

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:

Cruiser/Destroyer
First Rank Specializations:
AEGIS Outfit
Sonar Outfit
Artillary Outfit

Tank
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

i think for ship outfits the actions should only be available in cities, honestly whens the last time an AEGIS system was shiped to a vessel in open seas? its not exactly legos


ive been thinking about the shipping goods idea... what if there was a unit that you can order to load goods(the cities output) into, like the production output, lets say theres 10 per turn, you order the unit to load hammers, then move it to another city and drop off the goods their, again from the vessle standpoint, its seems pretty real that some of the components can be made in say ohio and shipped to florda, like the beds for example

maybe have the unit upgradable over time, like to increase movement speed, or a multiplier where you get a slight increase in material when delievering to other cities(loading and unloading in the same city wouldnt yeild anything for balance/exploit reasons, but prehaps a solid multiplier for the units tech level and a variable multiplier based on the distance to make the unit worth using)

 

[Bollox]

Mr- Jaynus I have just one more request and Ill leave ya be =)

about the world map, if he says its ok to add to your mod can you change the victory conditions to optional select mode? I dont like playing worrying how many turns i have and/or loosing because someone built a freaking spaceship or because another country is good as kissing butt(diplomacy) I want conquer or total removal off all civs to win the games I like to play =) Can this be done?

thanks Ill leave ya be

 

[GroggyGrognard]

Krafweerk, I get the feeling we could have some long-winded conversations about this topic.

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.

Here's the tricky thing. 'Proper' musketry came to the fore in the time where organized standing armies were starting to become more popular, in the 1500's, mainly because it allowed for organized units to be created from those of less-than-noble classes cheaply and efficiently. Standing armies were more compatible with the rather dynamic political situations at the time, compared to having an army based mainly on nobility, peasants, and mercenaries - it took less time to muster a force to battle. And that's not to mention a heck of a lot cheaper to maintain. So when it is said that musketry put war into the hands of the peasantry and the lower class, muskets weren't doled out to just any old person, there was some organization and trained discipline involved. I'm personally in the thought that it was this sort of unit the designers of the game were trying to evince, rather than units formed in the somewhat disorganized transition from archery into firearms.

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.

Well, given that knights and calvary had to maintain close formation so they can crash into a unit with maximum effectiveness and weight of assault, accuracy is less of an issue for musketry than one might think. A wide front of horses compressed into a narrow front to hit a line of troops can get quite dense. That close packing would cause issues for the knights as well. As to feints and dodges, those only work as well as the army opposite the mounted troops are willing to give them, not to mention the extra strain you subject to horses and riders that's not directed at the enemy, etc.

Then we get into conversations about taking advantage of terrain and conditions (which Native Americans were quite adept at doing, btw), army discipline, just how badly crupper sores affected morale, who had the biggest case of the piles during a particular battle, and the like. I'm sure the rest of this particular board won't appreciate that, I get the feeling.

Though I must admit (to bring my post back on-topic, again) that this conversation brings up another possible mod. Now, for all I know, this mod might just be downright impossible to do, so if I'm reaching, I can certainly understand. With all the mention of pikemen and other auxiliary units with the musketmen, I'm beginning to wonder if we can somehow apply a 'combined arms' bonus for the units in the stack involved with the attack, but not directly attacking or being attacked. I can see it working in a 'carry the bonus over' sort of way. For example, if you have a musketmen unit stacked with a pikemen unit, and the musketmen is attacked by a mounted unit, can some of the bonus from the pikemen unit be carried over into the defense of the musketmen? Maybe in the region of 30% of the effect of full bonus, or such? And possibly with different advancements (radio, for one, then computers), the percentage increasing to 50%, 75%, etc. Of course, there are complications - what constitutes 30% of a barrage, for one. What I'm hoping is that it'll be more of an incentive to include different sorts of units in every stack. Now, convincing the AI to take advantage of the program would be a feat, of course.

Just a brief musing. (Yeah, right.)

 

[Krafweerk]

With all the mention of pikemen and other auxiliary units with the musketmen, I'm beginning to wonder if we can somehow apply a 'combined arms' bonus for the units in the stack involved with the attack, but not directly attacking or being attacked. I can see it working in a 'carry the bonus over' sort of way. For example, if you have a musketmen unit stacked with a pikemen unit, and the musketmen is attacked by a mounted unit, can some of the bonus from the pikemen unit be carried over into the defense of the musketmen? Maybe in the region of 30% of the effect of full bonus, or such? And possibly with different advancements (radio, for one, then computers), the percentage increasing to 50%, 75%, etc. Of course, there are complications - what constitutes 30% of a barrage, for one. What I'm hoping is that it'll be more of an incentive to include different sorts of units in every stack. Now, convincing the AI to take advantage of the program would be a feat, of course.

Now THAT is a superb idea. Might be something that has to wait for the full sdk.

I think im going to have to learn how to mod civilization now. I told myself after quake id never learn all that stuff agian, but ive just got to many cool things id like to do with this.


With the muskets, I guess it really comes down to "what" the musket unit in civilization is a representation of. That seems to be where differ the most, and the probable source of our disagreement.

Ive never really understood the gunpowder progression really. It starts with musketeers, which in some versions, are shown with an arquebus (sp?), though in others its the british "brown bess". Thats almost 150 years apart. Also it skips line infantry, and goes straight to rifleman...which have had a civilwar getup at times. I was under the assumption that world war 1 was the first "riflemen", and that carried through until post-vietnam. Civilization though gives us an interim unit, the infantry...which has always had a world war two outfit. So they made a distinction between a riflemen, and slightly more modern infantry. Then of course they top off with mech.inf, or modern infantry. Which seems fairly self explanitory...those are the soldiers who have GPS, ride in helicopters, drive hummers, etc.

What I dont get is that instead of putting an interim unit between the musketeer and riflemen, they put it between the riflemen and modern infantry. So it leaves a 300-500 year gap. Though rifleman, infantry, modern infantry, only spans 100 years of technology.

Perhaps theres room for a few new units? Militia, linemen, skirmershirs....

 

[Trepanater]

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:

Cruiser/Destroyer
First Rank Specializations:
AEGIS Outfit
Sonar Outfit
Artillary Outfit

Tank
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).

My idea of new equipment later on in the game is that (If you can) make a second type of upgrades that can be bought for cretin types of already existing units. The unit for, example the Cruiser, must be in a city with a harbor, barracks, or airport, depending on the unit, and buy the upgrade as well as ends the turn for that unit. This is much like a standard upgrade to the unit but costs much less. This makes sense for units don't get equipment upgrades from exp., they become more efficient from working together thus the increased speed from exp. or ability to traverse forests such as the woodsman. Also it is more historically accurate in that modern armies retrofit their units more then replace them. Maybe have a limit on the upgrades like you can only have two on each unit or study what upgrades were large enough that only one could be put on the unit for space reasons.

My examples are:

Cruiser/Destroyer
First Rank Specializations:
AEGIS Outfit
Cruse Missile carrying ability
Anti Sub Depth Charges (Increase Damage to Subs)

Tank
NBC defensive equipment (Reduces damage from nukes)
ATGMs (Anti-Tank Guided Missiles)(increase damage to tanks)
reactive armor (Reduces damage from RPGs and ATGMs)

Just my two cents
P.S. my first post

 

[Akaz1976]

this all looks very exciting but i was just wondering if anyone can say how AI adapts to this mod?

Is it able to adjust (ie is it able to take advantage of new ablilities of units etc) and still be an effective opponent?

Akaz

 

[thescaryworker]

Great Idea. Playing through to see if its better than vanilla.

 

[JakeCourtney]

Just make sure the changes adapt to be useable by the AI.

 

[JakeCourtney]

How about making the ICBM more powerful now? Right now they are useless. How do we all feel about stronger ICBM?

 

[Master Kodama]

With all the mention of pikemen and other auxiliary units with the musketmen, I'm beginning to wonder if we can somehow apply a 'combined arms' bonus for the units in the stack involved with the attack, but not directly attacking or being attacked. I can see it working in a 'carry the bonus over' sort of way. For example, if you have a musketmen unit stacked with a pikemen unit, and the musketmen is attacked by a mounted unit, can some of the bonus from the pikemen unit be carried over into the defense of the musketmen? Maybe in the region of 30% of the effect of full bonus, or such? And possibly with different advancements (radio, for one, then computers), the percentage increasing to 50%, 75%, etc. Of course, there are complications - what constitutes 30% of a barrage, for one. What I'm hoping is that it'll be more of an incentive to include different sorts of units in every stack. Now, convincing the AI to take advantage of the program would be a feat, of course.

Just a brief musing. (Yeah, right.)

The game already accounts for "combined arms" in stacks. If a mounted unit attacks your stack containing a musketman and a pikeman, it WILL NOT be attacking the muskteman, but the pikeman -- it can't choose. The pikeman will automatically take up the defense because it is the stronger unit (12 vs. mounted, as opposed to a musketman's 9). So your example isn't something that would actually happen in the game unless the pikeman is injured to the point where it's strength is below 9 -- in which case we witness a reasonable representation of a force of pikemen reduced to too few numbers to properly defend their musketmen.

Obviously this isn't a perfect reproduction of how battles work, but it is sufficient, and moreover it's not overly complex. If you want to get into more complexity and alter the battle system, that's up to you, but I'd rather keep that aspect as is.

 

[Krafweerk]

How about making the ICBM more powerful now? Right now they are useless. How do we all feel about stronger ICBM?

What we need are more types of ICBMs

Per the Wiki:

American

* Atlas (SM-65, CGM-16) former ICBM launched from silo, now the rocket is used for other purposes
* Titan I (SM-68, HGM-25A)
* Titan II (SM-68B, LGM-25C) - former ICBM launched from silo, now the rocket is used for other purposes
* Minuteman I (SM-80, LGM-30A/B, HSM-80)
* Minuteman II (LGM-30F)
* Minuteman III (LGM-30G) - launched from silo - as of June 28, 2004, there are 517 Minuteman III missiles in active inventory
* LG-118A Peacekeeper / MX (LG-118A, MX) - silo-based; 29 missiles were on alert at the beginning of 2004; all are to be removed from service by 2005.
* Midgetman - has never been operational - launched from mobile launcher
* Polaris A1, A2, A3 - (UGM-27/A/B/C) former SLBM
* Poseidon C3 - (UGM-73) former SLBM
* Trident - (UGM-93A/B) SLBM - Trident II (D5) was first deployed in 1990 and is planned to be deployed past 2020

Russian

* SS-6 SAPWOOD / R-7 / 8K71
* SS-7 SADDLER / R-16
* SS-8 SASIN / R9
* SS-9 SCARP
* SS-11 SEGO
* SS-17 SPANKER
* SS-18 SATAN / R-36M2 / Voivode
* SS-19 STILLETO
* SS-24 SCALPEL / RT-23
* SS-25 SICKLE / Topol
* SS-27 / Topol-M

All of those have different capabilities and yields...some nuclear, some non-nuclear...

Some ICBMs arent going to make it over the atlantic or pacific, and only hold small yield nuclear weapons. Other weapons, like the soviet MIRV, can hit 5 different cities with several medium yeild nuclear weapons, anywhere in the world at the push of a button.

 

[mayonaise]

Ive never really understood the gunpowder progression really. It starts with musketeers, which in some versions, are shown with an arquebus (sp?), though in others its the british "brown bess". Thats almost 150 years apart. Also it skips line infantry, and goes straight to rifleman...which have had a civilwar getup at times. I was under the assumption that world war 1 was the first "riflemen", and that carried through until post-vietnam. Civilization though gives us an interim unit, the infantry...which has always had a world war two outfit. So they made a distinction between a riflemen, and slightly more modern infantry. Then of course they top off with mech.inf, or modern infantry. Which seems fairly self explanitory...those are the soldiers who have GPS, ride in helicopters, drive hummers, etc.

What I dont get is that instead of putting an interim unit between the musketeer and riflemen, they put it between the riflemen and modern infantry. So it leaves a 300-500 year gap. Though rifleman, infantry, modern infantry, only spans 100 years of technology.

Perhaps theres room for a few new units? Militia, linemen, skirmershirs....

"Musketmen" would denote your typical line infantry wielding flintlock musket and bayonet, say for example, from the napoleanic times. I think they left out the matchlock (Harquebus) because it wasn't very effective... although revolutionary in that it was the precursor to the flintlock musket.

After that, riflemen would most definitely be accurately portrayed as civil war era. Rifles were the single most defining thing about the Civil War. It was the first war involving guns where it actually paid to aim (although it took them awhile to realize this). By 1863 the vast majority of infantry were equipped with rifled muskets firing minie's. In fact, in its latest stages the ACW very much foreshadowed WW1 with its trench warfare.

Infantry then would be the typical WW2 infantry I would think. I wouldn't label these as "slightly more modern". As I'm sure you know, WW2 infantry, Vietnam war, etc were all equipped with automatic, extremely accurate weapons.. carried grenades, radio communication... etc. There was a vast jump from the rifleman to the infantryman of WWII on.

Following that would be Mech. Infantry. I think this is rather obvious. Modern infantry that relies on superior training and technology, radar, advanced weapons, kevlar, etc.

I really think the most confusing part is the graphics used in game. The "Musketeer" should look more like your typical napoleanic lineman instead of an old crusader equipped with matchlock, and your riflemen should look more like your civil war era infantryman. The "Infantry" unit should look more "WW2".

Thats my take on it, and int hat context, it makes perfect sense to me.

As far as the mod is concerned, I think Musketmen would be vulnerable to cavalry to an extent, but I think that is modeled fairly. They could assume square formation after all, but still could get decimated by cavalry if caught off gaurd.

With the advent of rifles cavalry became nothing more than mounted infantry, and was only replaced when motorized transportation become more convenient and reliable. Charging men with rifles on horseback was suicide.

 

[mayonaise]

As far as Zones of Control I would strongly suggest not implementing it if you are after realism. Although I fully understand why people would want this, I just don't think its realistic at all. You have to keep in mind the absolutlely enormous stretch of land each tile represents, especially on larger maps. I dont think one unit could assert much more control than over that area it already is in. War is a terrible and messy affair, and if you're fighting a war with a neighboring country you should fully expect to have your lands pillaged and burned. Limiting this should be very difficult, and having a spaced out wall of infantry just seems contrived and "gamey" to me.

Remember if a unit bypasses your borders and penetrates too deep, he is endangering himself enough. Hes surrounded by enemy troops and hostile terrain. That should be risk enough to deter that kind of behavious without having to resort to human walls.

What I would suggest to balance this out, however, is something I think Civ has always overlooked. Units should get a base increase to their fighting strength when they are fighting within their borders. Say 25% increase. Anytime a unit is fighting in its homeland it has numerous advantages-- knowledge of terrian, friendly locals, shorter supply routes, while the enemy has all the corresponding disadvantages. Perhaps this "bonus" would only take effect after discovering nationalism.

In the same vien, I think amping up nukes is a mistake. Again, each tile represents an enormous area, and to think that one nuke would entirely wipe out that much space is unrealistic. Perhaps with todays more advanced nukes that would be possible, I really don't know. I do know that the nukes that were dropped in hiroshima and nagasaki weren't even powerful enough to destroy a city, let alone the vast area represented by one tile. (I look at civ4 "cities" as more of states, with the city itself being the capital) Perhaps seperating nukes in to categories, early atom bombs and the later hydrogen bombs which would be more powerful would be the answer. That said I think the bunker and bomb shelter improvements are silly and should be removed.

 

[belgradar]

so i am guessing no one eles is haveing problems saving and loading this cool mod other then me and a friend.

 

[AlmightyOrange]

so i am guessing no one eles is haveing problems saving and loading this cool mod other then me and a friend.

I feel your pain

I can't load saved games from it

 

[Unspeakable Horror]

Hmm, are you loading the mod before the savegames? Do you have some other files in your CustomAssets directory?

 

[Hyronymus]

That was the idea

Sorry, I suppose I wasn't clear enough on the changelog. I was just stating 'requirements' because they are all in the prereq section. My bad, I'll change it to make it clearer

EDIT: Oh and as a side note, im thinking about adding a 'Nuclear Reactor' tech that would enable uranium as an alternate, as well as moving the "Nuclear powerplant' to this tech, and creating a new sub and carrier units, 'Carrier' and 'Nuclear Carrier', as well as 'Submarine', and 'Nuclear Submarine', both having significant movement bonuses, while the 'nuclear carrier' would have a size bonus, based on the fact nuclear power enabled ships to get..well...bigger.

If you build a ship in a city with a drydock you can give it promotions. Can't you make 'Install nuclear reactor' a promotion for naval units?

 

[PoetclyPathetic]

The main problem with nukes is they dont do squat dmg to the city itself. I think nukes should destroy 75% of all buildings in the city (excluding wonders) and 75% of the population, 50% with bomb shelters. I have no problem with the terrain dmg they do, that part seems fine to me.