Conquest Editor

[Bjornlo]

How lethal a berserker was would depend on the circumstances.
There was this one battle in England where this one fellow walked out on this bridge and challenged the English army. Held them for quite a while too. He supposedly killed 25 men in single combat (one at a time) before the English sent this pike/spear man hidden under a tarp on a raft/rowboat to float under the bridge and stab the big annoying booger on the bridge from below.
I doubt you could have held the bridge as long with a bolt-action rifle or worse a slightly older smooth-bore, both of which were in use about the time Civ allows for riflemen.
Also Ragnar Hairybritches supposedly cut a knight and horse in half with a single blow from his great sword... Viking weapons typically were better then anyone they fought. They used some high-tungsten content ore, and made crude steel alloys to go against soft-iron weapons used elsewhere in Europe.
So while 6 is a large attack. If it is realistic or not depends on if you care to compare it to the units it was supposed to fight or the units that replace it. I think in close quarters axe and sword can work just as well as a old, slow and semi-reliable rifle. The problem is that CIV does not allow range combat with rifles. A rifleman would no doubt he in significant trouble if a pack or madmen with wicked sharp and insanely large axes got loose in his trench. However these axe-welding maniacs would be in similar or worse straights while they crossed the open ground to gain the trench.
I've experimented with giving riflemen a range 1 bombard to try and represent this. The range-0 bombard which allows them to protect their buddies, but not themselves seems not quite right. The bombard was far lower then their attack. So basically they could harry the enemy by sniping, but had to "go over the top" (close with their foe) to wipe out the unit. Not sure if this works that well with riflemen, but giving MG units a high ROF and low bombard works pretty well... The AI actively seeks out and destroys my MG units. But, it is a little reluctant to use them as widely as I do. I have the bombard and defend flags selected.

 

[Stormrage]

Lets go! I call the Springfield.

I call Susan!

....a pack or madmen with wicked sharp and insanely large axes ....axe-welding maniacs..

Did someone call for me?

 

[TexasJim]

Actually, I've been giving it some thought... If the Berserk's attack was only five, it wouldn't be much of an improvement. There's is nothing with an attack power of five because once you get above four everything increases by two.

Mathmaticly, increasing the Berserk's attack power by two is not nearly as significant as increasing a one point attack/deffense (Javelin Thrower, etc.) by one.

Then again, I don't think it should have the same offensive power of a Modern Infantry unit.

 

[WildWeazel]

You could just start over and change all of the A/D values... or double them to start with so you can make smaller relative changes.

 

[TexasJim]

That's a little too much work. All in all, everything is relatively balanced- so I've decided not to mess with it for now. Also I was wrong... The Crusader has an attack power of five.

Was there Lethal Bombardment in regular CIV3?

 

[Turner]

I believe LB was added in 1.17. But you needed to turn it on in the editor, as it was not turned on by default.

 

[TexasJim]

How did the F-15 start a Golden Age then?

 

[El Justo]

b/c it's the american UU and if you win a battle w/ a UU for that first time, it'll trigger a golden age.

 

[Bjornlo]

It would start a golden age not by bombing, but shooting down another plane.

 

[TexasJim]

That's kind of unfair to America. I've never even shot down another plane. I usually beat the game before anyone else develops flight.

 

[Steph]

How can India can make War Elephants without Ivory? Where do they get the elephants from? Maybe if you added a Cloning technology they could somehow biochemically engineer them in the modern era, but what good would that do you?

Heres the solution: You make the (Ivory required) War Elephant available to everyone- like in Civ2. India's new special unit will be the "Nonviolent Resister" they'll have no attack or defensive value- but will be historicly acurate. While we're at I'm going to take away the French Musketeer, as it (is only based upon the fiction of Alexander Dumas and) has no historical accuracy whatsoever. France will not have a special unit. They will instead gain bonuses when bartering peace treaties, surrendering, and being total douche bags.

Ts Ts Ts... Does it really deserve a comment? I will simply ignore the second part, as it doesn't deserve an answer...

For the first part, how can any country build spearman without copper and tin? How can you build boats without timber? How do you create a carrier or a bomber without iron? Or do you need a "philosophical stone" technology that allow creating the metal needed to produce a ship from oil?

The resource system is really simplified in CivIII. And luxuries (like ivory) usually come in "clusters", and are not spread as strategical resources. If you want to give a resource for India, just create an Elephant strategical resources.

And about lethal land bombardment, artillery it is seldom enough to destroy completly an ennemy force. Look at WWI... Look at the Gulf wars: despite intense bombing with ultra modern weaponry, the americans still encountered some ground fighting forces.

 

[Iron Beagle]

That's kind of unfair to America. I've never even shot down another plane. I usually beat the game before anyone else develops flight.

But on the positive side they have a unique unit in the later stages of the game, unlike the other civs.

 

[The Last Conformist]

All things considered, the F-15 is one of the weakest UUs. Besides everything else, the game is usually decided when it comes around.

On the plus side, America's traits (Ind/Exp) are pretty good, especially prior to C3C.

 

[frekk]

Artillery does need fixing in some way, though - perhaps by making it significantly cheaper, or more powerful. Most artillery units just aren't powerful enough to be worth building, because you need such a stack for them to be effective. It's only when you get to the modern Artillery unit that they become useful (and devastating), partly because of the strength, and partly because by this stage you've accumulated enough of the damn things.

Agree, but the solution isn't to make the modern artillery more powerful. It's fine as it is. The problem is the earlier artilleries, and let's face it ... you couldn't wipe out a squadron of knights with catapults, let alone an army of them.

It can't be fixed, because making it realistic would require changing things that are hard-coded into the game. Artillery in any age should primarily be about stripping defense bonuses temporarily rather than doing a whole lot of damage, so that they are used chiefly for dislodging entrenched units from hills, fortresses and barricades, forests jungles mountains etc. And also for seiging cities.

 

[TexasJim]

Ts Ts Ts... Does it really deserve a comment? I will simply ignore the second part, as it doesn't deserve an answer...

For the first part, how can any country build spearman without copper and tin? How can you build boats without timber? How do you create a carrier or a bomber without iron? Or do you need a "philosophical stone" technology that allow creating the metal needed to produce a ship from oil?

The resource system is really simplified in CivIII. And luxuries (like ivory) usually come in "clusters", and are not spread as strategical resources. If you want to give a resource for India, just create an Elephant strategical resources.

And about lethal land bombardment, artillery it is seldom enough to destroy completly an ennemy force. Look at WWI... Look at the Gulf wars: despite intense bombing with ultra modern weaponry, the americans still encountered some ground fighting forces.

Copper, tin and timber are not resources placed on the map. They're also not as hard to come by.

You don't need Iron to build a carrier same as you don't need Saltpeter to build Rifleman. The game even says by the time they're developed Saltpeter is so abundant a specific resource isn't needed. Look up Rifleman in the Civlopedia.

I don't know what a "philophical stone" is, but I think you shouldn't get it till you develop Philosophy.

A seperate resource for elephants and Ivory would just be plain retarted.

 

[Red Door]

Copper, tin and timber are not resources placed on the map. They're also not as hard to come by.

You don't need Iron to build a carrier same as you don't need Saltpeter to build Rifleman. The game even says by the time they're developed Saltpeter is so abundant a specific resource isn't needed. Look up Rifleman in the Civlopedia.

I don't know what a "philophical stone" is, but I think you shouldn't get it till you develop Philosophy.

A seperate resource for elephants and Ivory would just be plain retarted.

No it wouldn't. Ivory is a resource of luxury. You don't see it in weapons. Elephants can be used for war. (War Elephant, Elephant Archer)

 

[Steph]

Copper, tin and timber are not resources placed on the map. They're also not as hard to come by.

You don't need Iron to build a carrier same as you don't need Saltpeter to build Rifleman. The game even says by the time they're developed Saltpeter is so abundant a specific resource isn't needed. Look up Rifleman in the Civlopedia.

I don't know what a "philophical stone" is, but I think you shouldn't get it till you develop Philosophy.

A seperate resource for elephants and Ivory would just be plain retarted.

Are you naturally dumb and agressive with everyone or do you make special effort just for us?

How can India can make War Elephants without Ivory? Where do they get the elephants from? Maybe if you added a Cloning technology they could somehow biochemically engineer them in the modern era, but what good would that do you?.

In a previous post, you find it terribly wrong that Idia can create War Elephants without Ivory (by the way, you don't create Elephant from Ivory, that's the opposite, you get Ivory from Elephant).

When I ironicaly point the lack of logic of your argument by reminding you that other units don't need the resources to be build, you just brush it out with rather stupid ideas. Like Tin is easy to get. Timber to. Sure. Try to enlist in a history lesson, and get info about Tin trade and it's importance, or the deforestation of Sardinia to get enough wood to build galleys, etc...

Carrier don't need iron because the designer decided in was not needed for balance/gameplay. Not because we have so many iron it doesn't count any more...

And about the philosophical stone, it should come with alchemy, not philosophy...

 

[WildWeazel]

Copper, tin and timber are not resources placed on the map. They're also not as hard to come by.

You don't need Iron to build a carrier same as you don't need Saltpeter to build Rifleman. The game even says by the time they're developed Saltpeter is so abundant a specific resource isn't needed. Look up Rifleman in the Civlopedia.

I don't know what a "philophical stone" is, but I think you shouldn't get it till you develop Philosophy.

A seperate resource for elephants and Ivory would just be plain retarted.

You're talking to quite possibly the greatest modder of us all, and you just called his idea ********.

The explanation in the pedia is a way of explaining away a gameplay decision logically. Do you think that the Navy builds its Carriers without iron because iron is common? That doesn't even make sense. The reason Carriers don't require iron is to balance gamelplay. Otherwise it becomes impossible to play the game without access to all strategic resources.
As for copper, tin, and timber, Firaxis decided not to include them in the game, but that doesn't mean someone can't add them. Those are all common resources in mods. If you're that worried about making War Elephants require the proper resources for realism, then why not Spearmen, Galleys, and Carriers?

 

[TexasJim]

Ivory and elephants both come from elephants. You can't have one without the other.

The game say's Saltpeter is not required because it's so abundant. You can take that up with Sid if you want to argue about it.

Maybe tin, etc. should be a resource on the map but it isn't. Ivory on the other hand, is.

 

[Aion]

Ivory and elephants both come from elephants.

This thread is absolutely pointless. But hilarious