Isak
Civ4 Scenario Designer
Actually, Snoopy's terrain mod can be added on top of DyP without any problems 
Double Your Pleasure
- Thread starter Kal-el
- Start date
RobO
King
Rory_20_uk, only those graphical mods that have a bearing on the changed functionality have been included. Others that are mod-specific, like the smiley resources and anotated build queue, are being offered as optional add-ons.
People should have a choice.
People should have a choice.
New idea after playing a game with Egypt (industrious, religious) in emperor. The serf unit seems to me like it should go with an expansionist civ rather than an industrious civ, for two reasons.
1) Having 2 mov + the worker action speed bonus makes for monstruously fast infrastructure building... way faster than it should be, imho, even for an industrious civ.
2) Being able to move workers 2 squares every turn translates directly into one thing during antiquity: lots and lots of roads. This seems to me to be most useful for an expansionist civ, which will thus be able to whip out roads really fast as it expands, keeping its empire linked up.
At the moment, the expansionists, as far as I saw, only get the ranger, (and that's it, no building bonuses like religious, scientific, etc). In my eyes that makes the expansionist trait a big flop. If they had the serf as well - or some other unit destined only to build roads REALLY fast - it would be more worth it.
As for the industrious bonus, the best imho would be slightly (25%) cheaper production improvements... but I suppose that's not possible with the editor... *sigh*... hmmm... how about giving them cheaper workers as opposed to faster workers? On the same line of thought, I've always found it strange that expansionist civs don't get cheaper or faster settlers... more thoughts to play with
Anyway, that game went rather badly, so I'm off to browse the strat forums to see if I can finally find a different research technique to keep up with the crazy high-level AI (other than spending all on gold and buying all my tech... which is not possible with the 60% max setting... *sigh*!!!
). It's crazy... I thought I was doing well, I had occupied a fair share of territory, and had managed to speed up to democracy and was preparing to swarm the romans with war chariots, then as I looked over their lands I was stunned to discover they already had irrigated squares, even though I was still only more or less 1/2 to 2/3 of the way through antiquity!!! Needless to say my war chariots got wiped out clean and quick by their knights... And I thought I was doing well...
Daniel
1) Having 2 mov + the worker action speed bonus makes for monstruously fast infrastructure building... way faster than it should be, imho, even for an industrious civ.
2) Being able to move workers 2 squares every turn translates directly into one thing during antiquity: lots and lots of roads. This seems to me to be most useful for an expansionist civ, which will thus be able to whip out roads really fast as it expands, keeping its empire linked up.
At the moment, the expansionists, as far as I saw, only get the ranger, (and that's it, no building bonuses like religious, scientific, etc). In my eyes that makes the expansionist trait a big flop. If they had the serf as well - or some other unit destined only to build roads REALLY fast - it would be more worth it.
As for the industrious bonus, the best imho would be slightly (25%) cheaper production improvements... but I suppose that's not possible with the editor... *sigh*... hmmm... how about giving them cheaper workers as opposed to faster workers? On the same line of thought, I've always found it strange that expansionist civs don't get cheaper or faster settlers... more thoughts to play with
Anyway, that game went rather badly, so I'm off to browse the strat forums to see if I can finally find a different research technique to keep up with the crazy high-level AI (other than spending all on gold and buying all my tech... which is not possible with the 60% max setting... *sigh*!!!
). It's crazy... I thought I was doing well, I had occupied a fair share of territory, and had managed to speed up to democracy and was preparing to swarm the romans with war chariots, then as I looked over their lands I was stunned to discover they already had irrigated squares, even though I was still only more or less 1/2 to 2/3 of the way through antiquity!!! Needless to say my war chariots got wiped out clean and quick by their knights... And I thought I was doing well... Daniel
kingjoshi
King
I guess this should go to the strategy section, but having rangers is a big advantage (on most maps) because you can more quickly explore the world. If you can get communications with all the civs first, then you can sell communication with other civs at high prices. Also, with fast rangers, you can find techs in huts faster, don't have to worry about barbarians as much, and then you can trade techs with the civs you find much earlier. Diplomacy is very important in the game and I don't think people use it properly. Always check with each AI every turn to see if you can buy a worker (which would lower their production of roads and improvements and increase yours tax free), trade resources or techs, keep good relations and such.
The fact that people do have arguments as to which trait is better implys to me that they are balanced pretty well. Though probably not perfectly balanced, it probably hints more to the fact that some traits suit certain people's style of play better than others, which makes perfect sense.
To me, religious and industrious used to be the two best traits. The more I played and after winning with all the civs, I realized that they do all have strengths. Some I'm better at utililyzing than others.
The fact that people do have arguments as to which trait is better implys to me that they are balanced pretty well. Though probably not perfectly balanced, it probably hints more to the fact that some traits suit certain people's style of play better than others, which makes perfect sense.
To me, religious and industrious used to be the two best traits. The more I played and after winning with all the civs, I realized that they do all have strengths. Some I'm better at utililyzing than others.
Rory_20_uk
Chieftain
"Alcoa used its experience gained in developing aluminum armor for the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the HMMWV (Humvee) and other military applications."
Seems like that there is a fair amount of Aluminium in some types of humvee - no ida about the differences though.
Seems like that there is a fair amount of Aluminium in some types of humvee - no ida about the differences though.
i dont think that it matter what they are made of in our world.
the only thing that should matter is, what you definately need (in larger quantities?) to produce a certain kind of unit.
destroyers can have wood hulls, WWII war planes were also sometimes manufactured with mainly wood (in japan for example).
an unarmored car can be produced with almost anything, if the need arises.
humans tend to be rather imaginative, if necessary.
most materialy can be substituted, like using hard coal instead of crude oil to produce petrol for the german army in WWII.
(the petrol was the same, they were not burning coal in the tanks )
the only thing that should matter is, what you definately need (in larger quantities?) to produce a certain kind of unit.
destroyers can have wood hulls, WWII war planes were also sometimes manufactured with mainly wood (in japan for example).
an unarmored car can be produced with almost anything, if the need arises.
humans tend to be rather imaginative, if necessary.
most materialy can be substituted, like using hard coal instead of crude oil to produce petrol for the german army in WWII.
(the petrol was the same, they were not burning coal in the tanks
)Rory_20_uk
Chieftain
That is true, but often the quality that is achieves can be a lot worse than using the proper materials. Destroyers made out of wood in modern warfare would desintegrate after 1 shot, I'd've thought. Making versions with and without a rescourse would be far too much of a headache I'd've thought - altohugh possible . The upgrade path might be slightly odd though...
Don't forget that the Japenese made a type of aviation fuel out of pine tree roots (not the most efficient of processes, but if you are desperate...)
But mentioning coal to oil raises a far more interesting question - could there be a possily small wonder to enable this petrochemical transformation to occur? To make the structure might be expensive, but I think that it is a very interesting thought for those civs without access to oil.
Don't forget that the Japenese made a type of aviation fuel out of pine tree roots (not the most efficient of processes, but if you are desperate...)
But mentioning coal to oil raises a far more interesting question - could there be a possily small wonder to enable this petrochemical transformation to occur? To make the structure might be expensive, but I think that it is a very interesting thought for those civs without access to oil.
sounds good, i think.
something else,
is the AI to AI trade rate correct?
check chieftain level, it says 110, shouldnt it be 100 or something?
cause the next level would be 103, then 106 etc.
something else again,
does anybody know of a way to OBSERVE a dyp game?
like to reveal the entire map, sit back and watch the AIs spread and battle?
i downloaded a trainer, but it says the bic file is not correct.
any help would be greatly appriciated.
something else,
is the AI to AI trade rate correct?
check chieftain level, it says 110, shouldnt it be 100 or something?
cause the next level would be 103, then 106 etc.
something else again,
does anybody know of a way to OBSERVE a dyp game?
like to reveal the entire map, sit back and watch the AIs spread and battle?
i downloaded a trainer, but it says the bic file is not correct.
any help would be greatly appriciated.
RobO
King
Morbius,
The MultiTool can reveal the map so that you can see the movement of the AI, but I don't think you can see inside their cities while you play (you can do that while inside the tool).
I suppose you could turn over control of your empire to the governers and watch them botch everything
.
Finally, there is a fog of war pcx file that can be modded. I have one that makes it grey instead of black (which I'm not using btw.
), but you could also make all the tiles in that file transparent. This will show borders but not the actual behaviour of the AI.
The MultiTool can reveal the map so that you can see the movement of the AI, but I don't think you can see inside their cities while you play (you can do that while inside the tool).
I suppose you could turn over control of your empire to the governers and watch them botch everything
.Finally, there is a fog of war pcx file that can be modded. I have one that makes it grey instead of black (which I'm not using btw.
), but you could also make all the tiles in that file transparent. This will show borders but not the actual behaviour of the AI.Rory_20_uk
Chieftain
After seeing another site, I had a thought: what acout clay as a resource for the game? To me it makes sence, as decent clay is very much required to make items of pottery. Venger has lifted a good piccie from Caesar 3: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26525
kingjoshi:
Shouldn't the expansionist trait be renamed as "explorer" then? Seems to me that they do an awful lot more of the latter than the former, and that's the main thing which bothers me I think. Also, I got bored of getting wiped out by barbarians in one game so since then I've disabled barbarians completely, so that there are not even any goody huts. Without barbarians the expansionist trait sure sucks! And it shouldn't be that dependent on the barbarian setting, should it? Cheaper settlers, now, though... that would make a big difference, even if they're only 5 or 10 shields less...
Anyway, not that anyone will care but I've sorted out what my problem was with my egyptian game. Should have attacked immediately and got the techs in peace treaty negotiations... forgot about that technique...
Laters,
Daniel
Shouldn't the expansionist trait be renamed as "explorer" then?
Seems to me that they do an awful lot more of the latter than the former, and that's the main thing which bothers me I think. Also, I got bored of getting wiped out by barbarians in one game so since then I've disabled barbarians completely, so that there are not even any goody huts. Without barbarians the expansionist trait sure sucks! And it shouldn't be that dependent on the barbarian setting, should it? Cheaper settlers, now, though... that would make a big difference, even if they're only 5 or 10 shields less...Anyway, not that anyone will care but I've sorted out what my problem was with my egyptian game. Should have attacked immediately and got the techs in peace treaty negotiations... forgot about that technique...
Laters,
Daniel
Rory_20_uk
Chieftain
Does a "zero" bombardment work? Basically units get atacked before they get to you. I'd've thought that units that are based around ranged attacks such as archers could be given this ability as it does add to the realism of their ranged weapons. What do you think?
Hrm...
Why do we get missionaries at all now that shamans and such cost only one pop? missionaries seem to be a big (BIG) downgrade from shamans... maybe settlers should still cost only one pop until you get to colonists...
Just my opinion.
Daniel
Why do we get missionaries at all now that shamans and such cost only one pop? missionaries seem to be a big (BIG) downgrade from shamans... maybe settlers should still cost only one pop until you get to colonists...
Just my opinion.
Daniel
RobO
King
When you get Despotism the extra food would be unbalancing if the settler units cost only 1 pop. This the introduction of the 2 pop settler units with the tech that gives Despotism.
Hmm... but I haven't switched to despotism yet. Couldn't support my horde of jaguar men in despotism (I'll still have to cut away 2/3 of it when I switch to republic!!)... so just because I discovered dynasticism now I can't expand properly anymore... it's a bit uncalled for imho. Maybe the missionary (and its non-religious equivalent) should be a unit you can only build in govt forms other than chiefdom (and anarchy I guess)...
Daniel
Daniel
Isak
Civ4 Scenario Designer
Kal-El's premise was to slow down early growth and expansion, and the 1-pop settler units were only introduced because the AI had problems with the "3 Food per Citizen" and "2 Pop Requirement" in combination - the AI just couldn't figure out how to expand at all, early on. So the 1-pop settler is basically a workaround for lacking AI capability. It is a workaround that we liked, however, so we're not currently considering it's removal, even if the situation should arise that Firaxis fixed this AI problem.
If you think it's unfair that you lose your sprawling ability with Dynasticism, you should have seen the mod before we introduced these 1-pop settlers
Consider it this way - Chiefdom should be great for a very small civ, but it is totally useless for controlling a large empire, and not at all good for expansion either (considering the tile penalty) - it is a Government that you are supposed to get out of a.s.a.p. - personally I would have liked to limit it even more by only giving 3 free units per Town, but I can't have things my way all the time
When making the switch from Chiefdom to Despotism, you will have major financial troubles if you have a lot of units, that is true, so I guess it's wise to disband some before making the switch. In the long run you should find that Despotism is a lot better than Chiefdom - if for no other reason, at least the fact that the tile penalty is lifted.
The idea about making Missionaries and Clans available under all but one govt is unfortunately not possible
Not that I would personally have wanted to do so, considering the above, but just so you know 
If you think it's unfair that you lose your sprawling ability with Dynasticism, you should have seen the mod before we introduced these 1-pop settlers
Consider it this way - Chiefdom should be great for a very small civ, but it is totally useless for controlling a large empire, and not at all good for expansion either (considering the tile penalty) - it is a Government that you are supposed to get out of a.s.a.p. - personally I would have liked to limit it even more by only giving 3 free units per Town, but I can't have things my way all the time
When making the switch from Chiefdom to Despotism, you will have major financial troubles if you have a lot of units, that is true, so I guess it's wise to disband some before making the switch. In the long run you should find that Despotism is a lot better than Chiefdom - if for no other reason, at least the fact that the tile penalty is lifted.
The idea about making Missionaries and Clans available under all but one govt is unfortunately not possible
Not that I would personally have wanted to do so, considering the above, but just so you know Hello, I'm new to these forums (posting at least), and I've dowloaded, played, and REALLY enjoyed this mod. Great job, everyone who's involved!
As for why I'm posting, I've made some modifications to the techs in civilopedia.txt, adding links for the resources, as well as adding the resources that become available with certain techs (there were a few missing). So if DJ54 doesn't mind and/or hasn't changed this part of the file yet, I can upload it and save him (a little) time.
OK, now, I have only one complaint about the mod I was playing as the Romans against the Greeks (though that doesn't matter) in the later industrial ages (v 0.83), and didn't feel like going to war just yet. I had a bunch of really productive cities, so I created some Secret Agents. Using them, I was able to capture one of their cities (it was defended with only a hoplite) and many of their workers WITHOUT REPERCUSSIONS!!! This all has to do with the attack of 1 that they have. Personally, I think that this is a little too powerful (stealing workers and cities without the AI giving a second thought). I know this is difficult to change, but maybe firaxis could add some new flags so that certain units (like those with hidden nationality) couldn't capture workers or cities. Until then, you might consider getting rid of the S.A.'s attack, but maybe this is what you wanted, in which case my post is moot.
Oh yeah, THIS MOD ROCKS!! hehe, sorry, had to do that
As for why I'm posting, I've made some modifications to the techs in civilopedia.txt, adding links for the resources, as well as adding the resources that become available with certain techs (there were a few missing). So if DJ54 doesn't mind and/or hasn't changed this part of the file yet, I can upload it and save him (a little) time.
OK, now, I have only one complaint about the mod
I was playing as the Romans against the Greeks (though that doesn't matter) in the later industrial ages (v 0.83), and didn't feel like going to war just yet. I had a bunch of really productive cities, so I created some Secret Agents. Using them, I was able to capture one of their cities (it was defended with only a hoplite) and many of their workers WITHOUT REPERCUSSIONS!!! This all has to do with the attack of 1 that they have. Personally, I think that this is a little too powerful (stealing workers and cities without the AI giving a second thought). I know this is difficult to change, but maybe firaxis could add some new flags so that certain units (like those with hidden nationality) couldn't capture workers or cities. Until then, you might consider getting rid of the S.A.'s attack, but maybe this is what you wanted, in which case my post is moot.Oh yeah, THIS MOD ROCKS!! hehe, sorry, had to do that
Greeko
Pallida Mors
I dont know if anyone has said this but, I think it would be cool if somehow you could change the game so that the more of resources you have the faster you can build the units that require them. That is only if you dont trade them or sell them.
OR Have units that require more of the same resource to build. i think the this resource idea is kind of dumb but, I think both this and the first idea would encourage multiple resource acquisition. (You know, just another thing to war about.)
AND I think it would be cool if you could increase the destruction radius on an ICBM/Tac Nuke. I would make my own nuke with instead of 3 by 3 radius make it 5 by 5. I think it would make nukes even more fearful. But global warming would go up faster too. So its an ok idea.
OR Have units that require more of the same resource to build. i think the this resource idea is kind of dumb but, I think both this and the first idea would encourage multiple resource acquisition. (You know, just another thing to war about.)
AND I think it would be cool if you could increase the destruction radius on an ICBM/Tac Nuke. I would make my own nuke with instead of 3 by 3 radius make it 5 by 5. I think it would make nukes even more fearful. But global warming would go up faster too. So its an ok idea.
Similar threads
