How to make your game more historicly acurate

[Marsden]

umm...no.

adding in infantry-type units for each civ does not constitute a switch over to a war mongering game. i don't buy this argument....
to each their own i say...but don't try telling me that it won't work or that it'll slant the game towards war mongering b/c it simply isn't true.

Sorry, I didn't mean to say that this would favor warmongering as that seems to be highly favored already, and is the only way I can win on the higher levels. It just reminded me of that old game, giving potentially arbitrary atributes to each civ's soldiers. How could one say that one civ's soldiers are better than another's thoughout the timespan of the game?
For example: one could certainly say Romes soldiers were better in the time from about 40BC to around 300AD, but you could also say the Romans of after 300AD are worse than average, as the legions were really not what they once were at this time. Another probably better example is the Ottoman empire, who went from an powerful force to the "sick man of Europe" over the centuries.

I think the whole UU concept was to favor each civ when they were in "ascendancy" although some never really were.

In theory, I really agree with you, but in practice I don't know how good it would work.

 

[El Justo]

Sorry, I didn't mean to say that this would favor warmongering as that seems to be highly favored already, and is the only way I can win on the higher levels. It just reminded me of that old game, giving potentially arbitrary atributes to each civ's soldiers. How could one say that one civ's soldiers are better than another's thoughout the timespan of the game?
For example: one could certainly say Romes soldiers were better in the time from about 40BC to around 300AD, but you could also say the Romans of after 300AD are worse than average, as the legions were really not what they once were at this time. Another probably better example is the Ottoman empire, who went from an powerful force to the "sick man of Europe" over the centuries.

I think the whole UU concept was to favor each civ when they were in "ascendancy" although some never really were.

In theory, I really agree with you, but in practice I don't know how good it would work.

my apologies if i seemed brusque

i agree w/ nearly everthing you posted.

however, your point that there are multiple variances in the strengths of the foot units is exactly my point. it seems to me that it is more historically accurate if the Ottomans have a line of foot units that are more reflective of their true capacities rather than the cut-n-dry spearman-swordsman-musketman-rifleman-infantry line.

would it work for an epic style game? maybe. it would certainly take lots of good research and some patience w/ adding all of the stuff into the editor and text files but it can certainly be done. the caveat though is that if you start adding in UUs for one, two, four or whatever civs, you have to be sure to even out the field and modify the other civs' line of foot units. this can be tedious but it is not impossible.

can it be done in scenarios? absolutely. in 2 of my larger scenarios, each civ has their own line of infantry and each line has the historical pros and cons reflected in their unit stats. are the unit stats really that different from one another? no. not really. in some cases, yes. although for the most part, it's for flavor graphics as well as the historical differentiation in a civ's military capacity, training, armament, etc. i mean, not all civs are created equal and i think that if the notion of "historiclly accurate" is raised, the Ottoman Rifleman should be inferior to, say, a British Rifleman. of course, i respect your opinion. this all is simply my experiences w/ the editor, testing it all through, and the AI behaviours.

 

[Turner]

Moderator Action: I said I would answer the question of off topic and who belongs here once and for all. Further discussion is neither warranted or desired.

 

[Marsden]

Actually, El Justo, you didn't so much seem brusque, I just didn't want to argue. I just thought of something, strange, but it would counteract my own argument of the previous post, and that is a forced upgrade/expiration date on outdated units.

Think about it, if realism is the goal, no one would keep spearmen on payroll while there are riflemen in the same army. Imagine the backlash and morale problems if men with spears were forced to defend against riflemen, most would run after the first volley.

So if units underwent some kind adjustment as the age changed, it would counteract the Immortals type situation. Immortals have such a good attack they can continue to be useable long into the middle ages almost to early industrial. Can you imagine spearmen and musketmen charging machinegunners? It happend at Omdurman, but that was an advance civ fighting a backwards one. And just like the age only changes for the civ that finishes the advances, then only their troops should upgrade/expire. Maybe when a unite expires due to obsolescence you should get half of the shields back.

 

[El Justo]

Actually, El Justo, you didn't so much seem brusque, I just didn't want to argue. I just thought of something, strange, but it would counteract my own argument of the previous post, and that is a forced upgrade/expiration date on outdated units.

Think about it, if realism is the goal, no one would keep spearmen on payroll while there are riflemen in the same army. Imagine the backlash and morale problems if men with spears were forced to defend against riflemen, most would run after the first volley.

So if units underwent some kind adjustment as the age changed, it would counteract the Immortals type situation. Immortals have such a good attack they can continue to be useable long into the middle ages almost to early industrial. Can you imagine spearmen and musketmen charging machinegunners? It happend at Omdurman, but that was an advance civ fighting a backwards one. And just like the age only changes for the civ that finishes the advances, then only their troops should upgrade/expire. Maybe when a unite expires due to obsolescence you should get half of the shields back.

okay. good

yes, i agree w/ your points.

you raise a good issue w/ the obsolesence of certain units.

unfortunately, it is not possible to receive shields back after an upgrade. iirc, there would be a "zero" upgrade charge for any units that share the same shield values or if the subsequent generationunit (the upgraded one) costs less than the previous unit.

i do have a small problem w/ the obsolesence of certain units in the epic game. it used to be really annoying to me to see spearmen, etc coming at my riflemen, etc. i guess there is a dash of realism to this as you pointed out but it is a tad bit unbalancing imho.

i suppose that there's ways to sort of fill in the gaps so to speak. by this i mean that instead of awarding each civ their own line of infantry, i would consider diversifying the existing generic unit lines so that there is a better transistion between one generation of foot unit to the next. for example, the flint lock musket could be added into the mix as well as a breach loading rifleman. one could even make a case for the introduction of smokeless gun powder in the late 19th century. obviously, this list could go on and on but i think you get my point

 

[choxorn]

Heress the list I have so far:

Muinetman, for america, 2/4/2 musketman, same cost, no ablitys.
U-Boat, for Germany, 24/12/5 8/2/2 battleship, 20 more sheilds, colateral damage.
Readcoat, for England, 5/5/1 Rilfelman, 10 less sheilds, no abilitys.
Tomahawker, for Iriqoius, 2/3/1 Pikeman, same cost, no iron required.
Gothic Kinght, for Celts, 4/4/1 Midevil infatry, same cost, no ablitys.
Longboat, For Vikings, 1/1/3 galley, same cost, can carry 4 units instead of 2.
Ninja, for Japan, 4/2/2 Midevil Infantry, 20 more shields, no iron required/all terrian as grassland.

To be updated.

I reccomend you change shield costs a little. Otherwise, the units will be too powerful. the U-Boat is wayyyy to powerful. Here are some some changes: Minuteman and Redcoat: spelled wrong. U-Boat, Gothic Knight, and Tomahawker: Increase shield cost. Longboat: More Attack. Ninja: One of the abilities in the Sengoku scenario.

 

[FascistRepublic]

I reccomend you change shield costs a little. Otherwise, the units will be too powerful. the U-Boat is wayyyy to powerful. Here are some some changes: Minuteman and Redcoat: spelled wrong. U-Boat, Gothic Knight, and Tomahawker: Increase shield cost. Longboat: More Attack. Ninja: One of the abilities in the Sengoku scenario.

Your points have been taken save one. I never played the Sengoku scenario, could you tell me some ninja abilities?

P.S. I added the spanish Explorers barge to the list.

Here's the list I have so far:

Minuteman, for america, 2/4/2 musketman, same cost, no ablitys.
U-Boat, for Germany, 24/12/5 8/2/2 battleship, 40 more sheilds, colateral damage.
Redcoat, for England, 5/5/1 Rilfelman, 10 less sheilds, no abilitys.
Tomahawker, for Iriqoius, 2/3/1 Pikeman, 10 more sheilds, no iron required.
Gothic Kinght, for Celts, 4/4/1 Midevil infatry, 20 more sheilds, no ablitys.
Longboat, For Vikings, 2/1/3 galley, 20 more shields, can carry 4 units instead of 2.
Ninja, for Japan, 4/2/2 Midevil Infantry, 20 more shields, no iron required/invisible.
Explorer's Barge, 1/3/5 Galleon, same cost, no abilitys.

To be updated.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

U-Boat, for Germany, 24/12/5 8/2/2 battleship, 40 more sheilds, colateral damage.

A 'U-Boat' is a submarine though.

 

[choxorn]

Here's the ninja abilities (that I remember):

Invisibilty (but no other land unit has detect invisible)
Hidden Nations (won't help since only japan can build them)
Attack from sea
Detect Invisible (but no other land unit has invisible)

So I think the one the ninja gets should be attack from sea.

 

[FascistRepublic]

They get invisible i guess.

 

[choxorn]

But no land unit has detect invisible. Some sea units do, but no land units.

 

[Plotinus]

Well, you could always give detect invisible to some other unit, or invent a new unit for everyone that has it.

 

[choxorn]

Well, I just think it should get the marine ability. Oh, and I have some new ideas for UU #2:
Byzantines: Cataphract (replaces knight)
Koreans: Turtle Ship (replaces Galleon Frigate)

 

[FascistRepublic]

So would those bounusus be attack, defence, movement, or an ability?

 

[choxorn]

Look at the Middle ages conquest for ideas about the cataphract. as for turtle ship, I now think it should replace a frigate, as it was a combat vessel, not a transport vessel. And it should have extra defense.

 

[Turner]

It would be pointless to give everyone a unit that has detect invisible. Especially if it was cheap. A more expensive unit, and it's too bad you can't limit the number of them, would be better.

I wish I still had the old .bix for DyP 1.5something. They had invisible units and units with detect invisible. It was pretty interesting. Add hidden nationality, and you could go to war with a civ without declaring. Just start taking their cities and pillaging their resources.

 

[Marsden]

unfortunately, it is not possible to receive shields back after an upgrade. iirc, there would be a "zero" upgrade charge for any units that share the same shield values or if the subsequent generationunit (the upgraded one) costs less than the previous unit.

Please let me clarify what I meant as I mixed the two together. If there are "involuntary" upgrades, then the player would have to pay for the upgrades of all of the units which just became obselete, example: learning feudalism would require the upgrade of all spearmen to pikes. If there is forced retirement, then the units disbanded because they are obselete should, as some compensation, return an amount of shields to the city they are in when disbanding occurs. example, all spearmen, now obselete on the learning of feudalism, turn in their spears and go home disbanding the unit but returning some material, possibly to create pikemen.

And I agree with you as at least one example already exists in civ 3 and that is the cruiser upgrade to ageis cruiser for 0 gold. When I get the chance to have ageis cruisers, which isn't often, I find it funny to take these old ships and completely refurbish them for no money!

But this makes me think of another thing regarding realism, the resource requirements. Most ships and all tanks and planes require oil. But they need it to be built, not used. You can buy oil for a 20 turn contract and start dozens of tanks and loose the oil but still finish them and use them afterwards. It's as if the tanks are "made" of oil rather than burn it. I think it would be interesting to if there was no oil to get a message when you try to move a tank or use a plane, "we can't operate our equipment without fuel"
Railroads, too, follow this pattern, as coal is needed to build them but not needed again to keep them running.

Just some more thoughts on the subject, thanks.

 

[FascistRepublic]

Turtle Ship is same as a frigate with 1 extra def, Catapract is 1 extra attack.

 

[choxorn]

Here's a list of the 2nd UU's:

Minuteman, for America, 2/4/2 Musketman, same cost, no ablities.
U-Boat, for Germany, 24/12/5 8/2/2 Battleship, 40 more sheilds, colateral damage.
Redcoat, for England, 5/5/1 Rilfleman, 10 less shields, no abilities.
Tomahawker, for Iroquois, 2/3/1 Pikeman, 10 more shields, no iron required.
Gothic Kinght, for Celts, 4/4/1 Medeival Infantry, 20 more shields, no ablities.
Longboat, For Vikings, 2/1/3 Galley, 20 more shields, can carry 4 units instead of 2.
Ninja, for Japan, 4/2/2 Medeival Infantry, 20 more shields, no iron required.
Explorer's Barge, for Spain, 1/3/5 Galleon, same cost, no abilities.
Cataphract, for Byzantines, 5/3/2 Knight, same cost, no abilities.
Turtle Ship, for Korea, 2/3/4 2/1/2 Frigate, same cost, no abilities.

 

[El Justo]

Marsden,

i must've missed you post. sorry about that

i agree about your upgrade points. i also believe that there should be almost no instances where there's a 'zero' upgrade charge. i mean, just the word 'upgrade' makes me think of an addition or supplement. and we all know that nothing's free in life or civ!

good points about the oil and coal. i agree. i've tried a new method for a scenario i'm working on (a ww1 mod) and i've made 2 seperate oil type resources. one is like a 'crude oil' or 'oil deposits' where one can build an 'Oil Fields' city imp if it's w/in the city radius. be careful though b/c it can 'Explode or Meltdown'. the second type is 'Petroleum Reserves' and it is the requirement for building certain units like fighters, and bombers, and tanks, and some sea units that were oil-fired. the net result is that i'm sort of skirting around the issue that you neatly described (ie - oil consumption rather than it being necessary to build units).