Favorite XML Tweaks

[grumbler]

You have found a flaw in my gripe. It would be better if Sentry also fortified you, but woke you, where as the regular Fortify meant "I don't care to move this unit". I can't count the number if times I've fortified a unit that I expected to come under attack soon, and then the enemy wandered away instead, and then I forgot to move that unit, and that's what I was really railing against. I'll correct that on my own list.

I think you would be best served to get rid of that particular gripe completely.

Sentry does fortify your unit. The fortification bonus is not dependent on giving the fortify command, but on the unit staying in place. Even if you only hit space each turn, you'll gain the bonus. You'll also keep the bonus if you wake a fortified unit. You'll lose it, if you move the unit or order it to perform an action (e.g. attack, pillage).

 

[JujuLautre]

Well, I don't know what happens to your civ, but lots of people here can open the screens when in diplo
The only moment when you can't open them is when you have a popup for any event (a random event, a tech learnt, a UN election...). That's annoying, ok.

Otherwise, I don't understand your previous comment about sentry and fortify; do you know that a unit with sentry gets the fortify bonus ?

 

[TheDS]

If you guys are right, then this complaint is invalid. Too late tonight to verify, but I've never noticed getting a fortify bonus unless I told it to fortify. I suppose I could be unobservant, or it could be a new thing to BtS or 3.17.

 

[JujuLautre]

You get a fortify bonus as long as your unit does not move, same as healing. Whether it is because the unit is in a transport, fortified, in sentry, heals or because you just told it not to move on the previous turn does not matter.

 

[Marshall Thomas]

Is there a way to remove "whipping" from the game and give slavery different attributes? If so, what do you like to change it to?

Also: Is it possible to mod open borders to only allow trade and not military access? Thanks in advance

 

[Gorman Truart]

I once changed Gandhi from spi/ind to phi/ind. Easy culture victory.

 

[Molon Labe]

Aside from the Sentry/Fortify gripe that appears to be a non-issue, I wholeheartedly agree with TheDS and his list. I would love if somebody could fix those issues.

Nothing else in this thread looked particularly inspiring to me as most seemed to make the game easier and remove decision making. To each their own.

 

[Siesta Guru]

I made a enormous amount of tweaks some day and made it into a mod but i always forget to load it Anyways some of those tweaks:

Guided missles have more range and give a small amount of colleteral damage.
Longbowman have 25% less city defense (I hate not being able to attack for such a long time because of these).
Triremes get a additional strenght point and can carry 1 unit (setller, worker, scout, spy, gp).
Monasterys dont obsolete.
Paratroopers and tactical nukes get a bit of extra range.
Prets are 7 power and have +10% city attack.
Ballista elephants + 1 strenght
Jaguar gets +25% against melee
Ironclads +1 strenght.
Explorers can attack.
Catapults -1 strenght and + 10% withdrawal chance
Carriers can carry a extra plane.

 

[TheDS]

I have removed the bullet point in question, and asked the mods to delete my subsequent posts about the topic, in the hopes it will not confuse later readers of the thread. If the posts aren't deleted, then I can at least edit them to say nothing, and you guys can edit your own posts or whatever. Thanks to those who pointed out my error!

@ Molon and like-thinkers
yeah, like I said, the bulk of my aggravation with this game is the interface stupidities. I mean, geez, we've had the technology to NOT screw these things up in the first place for what, 10 years now? 12? Longer? That's like 1000 years in computer years, so there really is no excuse for scroll buttons and tiny one-click buttons. But I don't think any of these things can be fixed with a simple mod.

Making the game easier to play is good. Making it easier to beat is unnecessary. I may not be a Deity player, but I do pretty well in an otherwise fair game. I have achieved my desired level of incompetence, and am now just experimenting to see what else works, or what neato things I can try.

 

[Jimmyballz]

Carriers can carry a extra plane.

That's a good idea. 3 planes is unrealistic!

Still one of my fav. XML tweaks is adding Great People.

Next One= GG David Petraeus

 

[Wolfshanze]

That's a good idea. 3 planes is unrealistic!

Why is three planes "unrealistic"? Is four planes realistic? Exactly how many planes are in a "plane"?

What if a plane represented 30 aircraft? What if a plane represents 100 aircraft?

If you want to say a carrier should carry more aircraft, that's one thing, but using the word "unrealistic" without us even knowing what ONE plane supposed to represent in numbers... well... that's one thing you can't label "unrealistic" without knowing what one plane is supposed to represent. Just sayin.

For me, I did my own "XML Tweaks" with carriers and what they carry... but I just added single-engined light bombers and allowed them to be carried on carriers.

 

[Siesta Guru]

Why is three planes "unrealistic"? Is four planes realistic? Exactly how many planes are in a "plane"?

What if a plane represented 30 aircraft? What if a plane represents 100 aircraft?

If you want to say a carrier should carry more aircraft, that's one thing, but using the word "unrealistic" without us even knowing what ONE plane supposed to represent in numbers... well... that's one thing you can't label "unrealistic" without knowing what one plane is supposed to represent. Just sayin.

For me, I did my own "XML Tweaks" with carriers and what they carry... but I just added single-engined light bombers and allowed them to be carried on carriers.

Hmm if you think 1 plane represents multiple planes, one carrier could also represent multiple carriers If both of them have the same scale, yes its unrealistic, using different scales is unrealistic aswell. So no matter how much airplanes it represents its unrealistic. Not that 4 planes is realistic

Note that i did that tweak because I thought it would be better balanced.

 

[Wolfshanze]

Hmm if you think 1 plane represents multiple planes, one carrier could also represent multiple carriers If both of them have the same scale, yes its unrealistic, using different scales is unrealistic aswell. So no matter how much airplanes it represents its unrelistic. Not that 4 planes is realistic

Hmmm... so what you're saying is, unless each carrier could carry approximately 70-90 planes, then it's unrealistic?

You didn't enlighten us with exactly how many units is what each unit represents? You can't call anything "unrealistic" unless you tell us first what the scale of units is...

Since neither you nor Jimmballz enlightened us all with what the unit scale is, nobody can say it is or isn't realistic... I'm not saying it is realistic, I'm saying without knowing the unit scale nobody can call it realistic or unrealistic... it's IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY.

If a WWII Carrier could carry 90 aircraft (many could), what if the unit scale is 30 planes per unit? Then three would be PERFECT. What if the unit scale is 100 aircraft per unit? Then three would be too many, and four would be insane.

Could a carrier represent more then one unit? Sure... it could also represent just one unit. In either case, who says that if one aircraft represents 30 aircraft, that one carrier would represent 30 carriers?

Carriers tend to operate in battlegroups with one carrier per group... aircraft tend to operate in squadrons, which could very easily be roughly 30 aircraft per squadron.

For example in the US Air Force an F-15 fighter wing will have 72 aircraft of 3 squadrons of 24 aircraft each... this would roughly equal a typical carrier load if each fighter unit represents one squadron.

Still for anyone to say "it's unrealistic", you have to know the unit scale... I'm still waiting for someone to tell me exactly what the unit scale is.

 

[Siesta Guru]

Hmmm... so what you're saying is, unless each carrier could carry approximately 70-90 planes, then it's unrealistic?

You didn't enlighten us with exactly how many units is what each unit represents? You can't call anything "unrealistic" unless you tell us first what the scale of units is...

Since neither you nor Jimmballz enlightened us all with what the unit scale is, nobody can say it is or isn't realistic... I'm not saying it is realistic, I'm saying without knowing the unit scale nobody can call it realistic or unrealistic... it's IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY.

If a WWII Carrier could carry 90 aircraft (many could), what if the unit scale is 30 planes per unit? Then three would be PERFECT. What if the unit scale is 100 aircraft per unit? Then three would be too many, and four would be insane.

Could a carrier represent more then one unit? Sure... it could also represent just one unit. In either case, who says that if one aircraft represents 30 aircraft, that one carrier would represent 30 carriers?

Carriers tend to operate in battlegroups with one carrier per group... aircraft tend to operate in squadrons, which could very easily be roughly 30 aircraft per squadron.

For example in the US Air Force an F-15 fighter wing will have 72 aircraft of 3 squadrons of 24 aircraft each... this would roughly equal a typical carrier load if each fighter unit represents one squadron.

Still for anyone to say "it's unrealistic", you have to know the unit scale... I'm still waiting for someone to tell me exactly what the unit scale is.

You didnt get my point...

If 1 aircraft represents 100 aircraft, then 1 carrier should represent 100 carriers. If these scales are not equal, you could call the scales used unrealistic so the game is unrealistic. If the scales are equal, then a carrier should be able to carry more then 3 planes, so its unrealistic. Either way, its unrealistic.

 

[Jimmyballz]

I'm not sure where to draw the lines on what is realistic, but 3 planes is too little. How many does the avg carrier hold, 90? Then there should be no limit, or at 90.

It would be the in the defender's best interest to sink that Carrier of the sucker who loaded all his planes on it.

And yes it would be dumb to say 3 is unrealistic but 4 is accurate
Also this could open up the valid arguement that more than 2 warriors can fit on a Galley.

 

[Wolfshanze]

You didnt get my point...

If 1 aircraft represents 100 aircraft, then 1 carrier should represent 100 carriers. If these scales are not equal, you could call the scales used unrealistic so the game is unrealistic. If the scales are equal, then a carrier should be able to carry more then 3 planes, so its unrealistic. Either way, its unrealistic.

You didn't get my point... who says every single unit in the game represents the exact same number of units?

You think one Infantry unit represents one man or 100 men?
You think one Battleship unit represents one battleship or 100 battleships?

I SERIOUSLY DOUBT that all unit scales are static across the board, and in-fact, this is quite rare, rather then the norm, in most games... it's very common that one unit counter could represent totally different amounts of men/equipment from unit to unit depending on what it is... I'm far more likely to believe that ONE PLANE is going to equal a lot more individual units then what ONE SHIP is going to equal... to think they both represent 30 planes and 30 carriers or 100 planes and 100 carriers is quite insane deductions IMHO.

It's far more likely that each unit represents some basic military formation...

Say:
one Ship counter equals either one ship or at most one flotilla (which is a dozen or less)
one Plane counter represents one Squadron (20-30 aircraft)
one Infantry counter represents one Battalion - which is 300 to 1,000 men

I could go crazy and say one infantry counter represents a division or corps, then you're talking 10's of thousands of men.

If that were the unit scale, would you also believe that a single carrier counter represents 10's of thousands of carriers?

Someone needs to define a unit scale before they become bold and say "this is unrealistic". Anyone who has played any wargames knows that a static scale across multiple types of equipment isn't only rare, it's almost completely unheard of... I can pretty much assure you the Firaxis designers aren't trying to say that one plane counter equals the same number of units that are in a single carrier counter, and if you think that's the case, you've got serious issues in dealing with games of this nature... unit scales between units almost always flex wildly in the most clearly defined wargames. It's very common for one naval counter to represent one ship while one infantry counter represents hundreds if not thousands of men. Also, aircraft counters tend to represent squadrons or wings of aircraft... none of which would equal (in numbers) what you'd see in an army counter of men.

Now it's true Firaxis didn't list a specific unit scale... but it is very common that unit scales differ between unit types in the same game. This is VERY COMMON in wargames of all types. What is almost completely unheard of, is what you suggest... that the unit scale is 100% static and the same for every single unit in the game... as-if one infantry counts as 100 men, one fighter represents 100 fighters, one carrier represents 100 carriers... that's never been a scale system I've heard of in any game ever. It's far more common to go by common formation scales, such as brigades, squadrons, flotillas or even single ships. None of which would have the same number of individual units in them across the board.

I'm not sure where to draw the lines on what is realistic, but 3 planes is too little. How many does the avg carrier hold, 90? Then there should be no limit, or at 90.

That would only be the case if you thought ONE PLANE COUNTER represents ONE PLANE... I doubt that to be the case... it's far more likely one plane counter represents multiple aircraft, and probably one squadron (which tends to be 20-30 aircraft)... which would (in-turn) make 60-90 aircraft on a carrier quite realistic.

 

[Siesta Guru]

[...] Enormous post [...]

Yeh i got that point, but i think its unrealistic if the scales arent static... Anyways, ill drop this, were getting a bit offtopic here and were likely not getting anywhere here Unless you have a comment that will blow my socks off ofcourse, feel free to post it.

Btw, what are these games you are referring to? I think civ is the only strategy game ive played that uses scales, im usually more into RTS.

 

[Wolfshanze]

Yeh i got that point, but i think its unrealistic if the scales arent static... Anyways, ill drop this, were getting a bit offtopic here and were likely not getting anywhere here Unless you have a comment that will blow my socks off ofcourse, feel free to post it.

Btw, what are these games you are referring to? I think civ is the only strategy game ive played that uses scales, im usually more into RTS.

Computer turn-based strategy games actually evolved from the old cardboard and counter board-games of the 70s and 80s... like Third Reich, Hitler's War and a lot of other games such as them from publishers like Avalon Hill... the turn-based format of Civ4 is actually a hold-out from games of yore such as these (and I played many of them before computers were in households). In those games, the instruction manuals (which were as thick as large books) would go into detail explaining that an infantry counter represented a single battalion of 1,000 men and that a single aircraft counter represented a single squadron of 30 planes and that a single ship counter represented a single ship...

These types of scales were very common in the old turn-based strategy games, and in-turn, carried-over to the computer turn-based strategy games. Early computer wargames from SSI like Storm Across Europe would go into detail explaining the same unit scales for in-game counters and what they were... they were NEVER static from totally different units (I can assure you none of them would have a single naval counter that represented the same number of units that was in a single aircraft counter)... this process continued to evolve in other games of this nature like Panzer General, Pacific General and other games that would list what each unit/counter represented...

While I can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that one aircraft counter doesn't equal one plane or that one ship doesn't equal 100 ships... I can surmize the intent of the game designers simply must be similar to the long lineage of turn-based strategy games that preceded the Civilization line of games... in that one counter often represents totally different numbers of individual units from one unit type to the next... it's a very common practice in these types of games.

You can't literally take the one counter equals one unit approach to game scale... when you seize a city with two full-strength axemen, do you honestly think that six men seized the city all by themselves (because you see three men in each counter)... or do envision the intent is that the unit represents a lot more then just three guys in skirts?

It's the same thing for aircraft... I'm certain one aircraft unit does not represent one plane considering this is a global warfare simulation game! Since ships are by far the single most expensive unit in the game, it is feasible to assume that one ship counter represents a singe ship (at least the expensive ones like Carriers and Battleships) while something like a much cheaper and easily produced thing like an aircraft counter could represent a squadron (like 30 aircraft).

Which brings you back full circle to the original point... it's entirely feasible to assume one ship is indeed one ship, while one fighter, might indeed represent 30 aircraft or so... which (in-turn) would mean three fighters per carrier could very well be "realistic".

Can I prove it? No... not anymore then anyone saying "A carrier with three aircraft is unrealistic, but four aircraft is more realistic". You can't prove a statement like that either without telling me what the unit scale is first (and please tell me where you get your ideas from on unit scale... I've at least explained where I get my ideas from, and I'd like to think it's a fairly good reference).

Not to say there is anything inherently wrong with having a four-unit capacity ship in the game... if you were to say the unit scale is 18 planes per counter, then four would be about right... but nobody said what the unit scale is, and if it's one plane counter equals one plane (I seriously doubt that is the intended scale) then your capacity should be anywhere from 70-90 cargo to be realistic!

 

[Siesta Guru]

great post, again a bit too long to quote it all

Yeh I can understand the need of and the logic behind different scales of units, but that doesnt really mean its realistic. I can understand why it doesnt take 2 weeks to build a tank in rts games, but that doesnt mean that building a tank in 20 seconds is realistic. But well.. Whats the definition of realistic?

Ah well we can both agree on one thing, his statement about 4 planes being more realistic then 3 is just wrong..

 

[Bushface]

Never mind the arguments on the lines of "how many angels can dance on the point of a pin?" - I'd welcome some help in playing with the XML files, but I'm no expert in such matters and I'm blest if I can find the appropriate files to make some of the changes I fancy, let alone making those changes.
For example, I'd like to make Granaries and Forges survive capture. In the file CIV4BuildingsInfos.xml, these buildings show a value for <bNeverCapture> of 0 and are liable to be destroyed when I capture the city (and indeed vanish far too often for my liking) whereas Libraries, Universities etc. show 1 and, being culture producers, are always destroyed. But an Academy, also showing 0, always survives. So how would I arrange for Granaries and Forges to share that most useful characteristic ?
An earlier poster recommended allowing duplication of buildings. I have tried the XML variation proposed, and it does not work: having built one Granary, for example, the build icon disappears, so I can't build another. Changing the permitted number of National Wonders, also in GlobalDefines.xml, does work, though it won't let me build two Ironworks - which is a pity.
Finally, could I make a plea to all those more knowledgeable than I to say exactly which of the multitude of XML files they have altered, and how ? Not just "can irrigate desert", but how that was achieved, in detail.