Epic Mod Ideas: Compilation of Suggestions

[Ozymandias]

They can have the settle strategy and still use the join city ability... It's just that it doesn't work, with settlers or workers... I tried it with a refugee unit, they joined them to cities. They won't do it with normal settlers either.

So only the units with the regular settler/worker abilities (full set of flags checked) could join cities, but the AI won't do it? -- or, I suppose the real question is, How were your refugee units configured?

Thanks,

Oz

 

[Dom Pedro II]

So only the units with the regular settler/worker abilities (full set of flags checked) could join cities, but the AI won't do it? -- or, I suppose the real question is, How were your refugee units configured?

Thanks,

Oz

I think that he was saying that Join City works, but the AI won't use it.

 

[Ozymandias]

I think that he was saying that Join City works, but the AI won't use it.

Ah. Gracias.

 

[Dom Pedro II]

I think that the pop cost military unit system can work, but it's going to require tweaking to other areas of the game...

 

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

I present: W.i.n.t.e.r's Experience Level Mod:

Ever felt the linear experience level was not quite what you were hoping for? Ever fiddled with it to make things better and then realised that in the end that made the game imbalanced: Fiddle no longer, for the solution has been found: the "3-4-6-8-Model" !!!

 

[Ozymandias]

I present: W.i.n.t.e.r's Experience Level Mod:

Ever felt the linear experience level was not quite what you were hoping for? Ever fiddled with it to make things better and then realised that in the end that made the game imbalanced: Fiddle no longer, for the solution has been found: the "3-4-6-8-Model" !!!

Looks very interesting -- I can't wait to try it out

-Oz

 

[Owain]

As an advocate for AI rights, I find fault with this concept... Now, the stupid AI, who doesn't seem to mind whether he's producing vets or regs will suffer more for that lapse in judgement, while humans, knowing better, will build their units strictly in cities with barracks.

I mean, its a good idea in theory, but what are you trying to accomplish exactly?

And what are you? Lazy? Use excel or something for your graphs! (JUST KIDDING! )

 

[WildWeazel]

To kill two birds with one stone (or AI units in this case), double or triple those HP's to reduce the chances of freak victories like spearman-vs-tank- sure, it will make the battles a little drawn out, but hey, we watch We Were Soldiers and Saving Private Ryan for hours on end, right?

And what are you? Lazy? Use excel or something for your graphs! (JUST KIDDING! )

It could be argued that the very existence of Excel proves that we are lazy

 

[Dom Pedro II]

It could be argued that the very existence of Excel proves that we are lazy

Yeah... anybody can use Excel to make a graph... it takes time and energy to do it by hand!

I too have greatly increased the HP for units, Weasel Op... I haven't doubled them, but I've made Conscript 4, Regular 6, Veteran 8, and Elite 10.

 

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

Yeah... anybody can use Excel to make a graph... it takes time and energy to do it by hand!

I too have greatly increased the HP for units, Weasel Op... I haven't doubled them, but I've made Conscript 4, Regular 6, Veteran 8, and Elite 10.

but U haven't doubled them ... almost fooled me hehe

As an advocate for AI rights, I find fault with this concept... Now, the stupid AI, who doesn't seem to mind whether he's producing vets or regs will suffer more for that lapse in judgement, while humans, knowing better, will build their units strictly in cities with barracks.

I mean, its a good idea in theory, but what are you trying to accomplish exactly?

And what are you? Lazy? Use excel or something for your graphs! (JUST KIDDING! )

Lol- actualy the grphics were quite good looking before I scanned them (scanner lights are not pencil line's friend). Definitly more effort than excel.

My point is: Basically the linear approach is faulty. Human beings don't get better in a gradual way- its not like u swallow one pill and get 1 point more efficient, then take a second pill and get another 1 point more efficient on top of it... etc, etc. In fact efficiency deriving from experience comes in an exponential learning curve. My concept combines linear and exponential models to forge one of two pairs of experience levels: 3-6 and 4-8 vs 3-4 and 6-8.

Civilizations that build a lot (especially military installations such as barracks) will be benefitting from this- as happens in real life: You train your troops and your troops will be better prepared for combat, you don't and they won't be as good. So far the use of barracks was greatly lacking: Regular units would far too easily gain a level and reach veteran status when at war, hence the enhanced gap between regulars and barracks trained units is a realistic feature. What I am trying to achieve is to effectively mirror the "class vs. mass" conceptuality... any AI oponent will in time build barracks, one sooner and one later (needless to say that also humans may well often chose to build a regular unit sooner, than a veteran one later)- and the lack of AI planning to building improvements is a flaw that was there before my idea, and shall persist after my idea, this nobody can change- better balancing within unit experience levels we can.

If fear of imbalance against the AI mounts, my advise would be to make barracks more expensive (they are reclessly cheap in my humble opinion! fixed costs for military installations should be higher than civilian ones)- but this is nothing that really faults my model

 

[Colonel Kraken]

Thanks for the hit point analysis, WINTER. That's good stuff.

 

[HooDoo]

All,

I didn't see this suggestion in the thread, but if it is there and I missed it, I apologize. I have a serious problem with the early use of irrigation. I have tried to tweak my game so that it is a little more realistic with the incremental changes that actually occurred with food production in history.

Like many others, I hate the early-game exponential proliferation of cities found in the Vanilla game. My game begins circa 10000 B.C., and I want basically 5000 years (200 moves) with minimal expansion, where even agricultural civs will have no more than 6-8 cities. Nearly all of my units cost 1 population point, so that factors in to city growth. I then try to simulate the natural progression of food production with a succession of settler units. The first units have a high shield cost of 70 and cost 5 population points. As a civ reaches certain milestones in its food production technology, it then has the ability to build a new settler unit for 4 pop points, then 3 ...

Use of the settler progression method, in combination with changing the population point/food cost ratio, the food effects available with changes in government, and then eventually the actual irrigation by workers gives me a much more realistic food production model. I haven't perfected it yet, but I'm happy so far.

 

[WildWeazel]

Like many others, I hate the early-game exponential proliferation of cities found in the Vanilla game. My game begins circa 10000 B.C., and I want basically 5000 years (200 moves) with minimal expansion, where even agricultural civs will have no more than 6-8 cities....

Nice ideas there, but the game is called Civilization for a reason, not Prehistory...

 

[Mithadan]

Nice ideas there, but the game is called Civilization for a reason, not Prehistory...

Bah! It just takes longer to get there, that's all, and the fun is in the getting there!

 

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

Nice ideas there, but the game is called Civilization for a reason, not Prehistory...

Who says pre-history couldn't have been civilized (in fact ancient -now underwater- city sites are currently being examined by scientists). They are said to pre-date minimum 8000 bc...

 

[LouLong]

Not sure if it has been posted or not but you cannot build units if they are dependant on a non-era tech.
2 possibilities then :

- make the units not need a tech and try to use the UU principle.
- put the tech in the former era (if possible)

 

[aaglo]

MOVEMENT POINTS
The current "withdraw" model sucks, as the difference in speed is not used: units with 3 MP and units with 2 MP works the same. [One cannot withdraw from the other]. My conclusion was : this feature is useless. Therefore, I had no remorse in getting rid of it. How? all the units have a minimum of 2 MP.

The minimum cost of all terrain is 2MP.

Why? Now I can use the ignore terrain flag with a real effect. If you make Camel with a bonus in desert, but desert cost is one, you miss the point. But if desert cost 2...--contributed by Steph

Say you have a "Desert Warrior" with a move of one. It may seem pointless to give the "ignore movement cost" of desert (modded to cost 2 MP). But, if you make a "Desert Warrior" army it will have a move of two, and will ignore desert movement cost.--contributed by Mrtn

These are great ideas. But when you use these ideas, make sure that you also:
- either decrease the terrain improvement costs or
- increase the worker strength.

This is because the movement cost factor of the terrain affects the terrain improvement time - unless you want to slow the workers down.

I had another idea, when I was meddling with things:
We could also have specialized workers. They could do all kinds of tasks, but they would be specialized to work on certain terrain types.
- Miners (lower worker strenght and ignore movement cost on hills & mountains -> increased worker speed on hills & mountains, but very slow on other places)
- farmers (the "regular" worker)
- lumberjacks (lower worker strenght and ignore movement cost on forests and jungles -> increased worker speed on forests & mountains, but very slow on other places).
- ect.

But I'm not sure, if AI would understand to use these various workers at all.

But these ideas could be used in various fantasy mods (dwarfs = miners, lizardmen = jungles & swamps, elves = forests, halflings = farmers)

 

[Pounder]

For about the last six months I play the epic game with worker defense of 1 and explorers attack of 1.

You still capture workers when you raze a city or capture a settler. I find that it brought back a couple of the elements I preferred in Civ2. They will stop a couple of the warrior and barb attacks in the ancient age. The animation is already in the game for the slave worker and I use a defend animation on the regular worker. Sure workers are not captured in the field anymore, they are killed while the attacker may take damage. It doesn't unbalance the game. BTW, I have never seen a worker get promoted more than once, would be very unlikely that a great leader would come out of a worker. It is a personal preference.

It made sense to me, that since the explorer has an attack animation, he should be able to take out at least one barbarian in his travels.

 

[aaglo]

Yes, the explorer has a sword (and attack animation to go with it). Atleast they (swords) were not made of paper (even though paper can cut through flesh too )

 

[mrtn]

aaglo, have you tried that miner idea? It sounds interesting...

Personally I prefer the explorer to keep attack and defense 0, as that lets it stay in enemy lands much longer. (12 turns or something, instead of 3)