How to make your game more historicly acurate
- Thread starter FascistRepublic
- Start date
FascistRepublic
Warlord
So we still have more then half the civs to give a second uu, anyone else got ideas?
Fugitive Sisyphus
Escape Artist
FascistRepublic said:
Sorry I didn't see that you gave the minute man increased movement, I was just looking at attack\defense. Still I view the movement points as representing how fast a unit can travel from one location to another and how fast they can get ready for battle.
FascistRepublic said:
Ok, I can accept that explanation. It looked as if you had just arbitrarily gave them one less defensive point. Be sure to include a civilopedia entry to explain it though. I still like one extra hitpoint then -10 shields in terms of realism.
FascistRepublic said:
50 shields was a rather arbitrary choice by me. You would have to play around with the unit in-game to see what the proper shield value should be for game balance.
FascistRepublic said:
Though nitpicking has a negative connotation it is the purpose of this thread. Somebody started this thread nitpicking about the lack of realism in the game. Why should I not do the same?
FascistRepublic said:
I don't think there is any good (read realistic) way to eliminate cavalry fromt he build queue. The best idea I can come up with is to have them upgrade to a 20 shield 1/1/1 and (maybe)no upkeep police unit. It would be useless for combat but could be usefull for military police in cities, quelling riots, and reducing flip chances. Not that you would want to upgrade cavalry to this but it would remove cavalry from the build queue.
More on realism:
I know that there is a great debate on what the United State's traits should be but I believe one of them has to be commercial (capitalism, $, McDonalds, Coca-Cola, etc, Marshal Plan, etc).
I believe that China should be agricultural (rice and huge population). Rome instead should be industrious and militaristic (roads, colloseum, aquaducts, etc and military).
Commercialism is a Post-WW2 happening in the US. As I recall, the population of the US was mostly rural pre-WW2, and the 'urban revolution' didn't happen until after then. Historically, the US is more industrious and expansionist than anything else.
Fugitive Sisyphus
Escape Artist
Turner said:
So, your saying that the United States is more industrious instead of commercial because for the most of United States history, it was rural (little industry)? By that argument I think agricultural would make a better alternate trait. I admit I chose commercial mostly because of the United State modern (post WWII) characteristics but still I believe that early United States should be commerical. The Atlantic states' (i.e. the thirteen original states and especially New England) economies were extermely dependent on trade. British mercantilism was a major annoyance to the American colonies and the Embargo Act(1807) was an early attempt of the United States to exercise its commercial musscle. The act had little success but the resulting unemployment in the United States shows how much the country was dependent on foreign trade (.i.e. commmercialism).
FascistRepublic
Warlord
Turner said:
Technicaly, it became a suberban nation, but you got the idea. As I said a while back, all traits, save religios, fit Amercia in some way or another. Expansionist, Industrios, Commercial, and Agriclutrial make more sence then Seafaring, Militiristic, and yes, even Scientific. (We exprted a lot of cotton and other goods from the start, the Scicence really didnt come in till the 20th Century.
Yeah, you're right FR. But I think the Industrious & Expansionist combo fit America best. I see the other traits as being subsets of the I&E combo.... And even some of the other traits as subsets of those. We became seafaring because of being militaristic, which we became because of being expansionist....that kind of thing.
All in all, the I&E combo best represents the US, IMO. I've tried to think of different traits, but I keep coming back to I&E.
All in all, the I&E combo best represents the US, IMO. I've tried to think of different traits, but I keep coming back to I&E.
I think you're missing something with the ninja. It should be something like the spy from civ2, not an actually combat unit but able to attack. And it definitly should not require anything. A ninja could make a weapon out of anything. the stats should be 0/0/2 or 3 with "sub" invisiblity. When attacking, it would only be revealed if it loses, which would destroy it(suicide). It can be used as an invisible explorer and assassin, attacking specific targets. Ninja were not footsoldiers.
It's invisible, it won't be attacked. If discovered it will be destroyed. For the assassin strike it would be like a bombard unit only lethal. Not sure how strong it should be, maybe like a 40 shield cannon that's invisible and moves 2 and can remove upto 3 hit points in a strike.
FascistRepublic
Warlord
I have firmaly set in on the ninja's stats, and if we keep arguing, i'll give Japan another second UU.
FascistRepublic
Warlord
FascistRepublic said:
There you go. You suggested the extra speed yourself.
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
How about Phalanx for greece instead the regular Archer? 2.2.1
Yeniceri for Ottomans (not sure about english spelling. I first thought it is spelled "ieniceri", like in my language but I saw someone posting this name with at least one "y"). These guys were the Ottoman infantries. The Ottoman cavalries were called Sipahies, that's why they replace Cavalry in civ3. For this unit, 5/3/1, replacing Medieval Infantry.
For Carthage we should make a kind of War Elephant, since they had powerful ones!
I'm sure I could find something for Russia too, but I don't seem to have any idea right now.
Yeniceri for Ottomans (not sure about english spelling. I first thought it is spelled "ieniceri", like in my language but I saw someone posting this name with at least one "y"). These guys were the Ottoman infantries. The Ottoman cavalries were called Sipahies, that's why they replace Cavalry in civ3. For this unit, 5/3/1, replacing Medieval Infantry.
For Carthage we should make a kind of War Elephant, since they had powerful ones!
I'm sure I could find something for Russia too, but I don't seem to have any idea right now.
FascistRepublic
Warlord
Those sound good, as 4 war elephants of cathage, how about horse free 3/2/2 horesman, costing 20 extra sheilds?
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
I agree! But isn't 20 extra shields a bit too much? I mean the Numidian Mercenary already costs some extra shields. However I can see the point of making them more expensive. Not sure what would I choose between 10 and 20 extra shields. If you make them too cheap to build, they will conquer the world too fast...
I just had another idea, but not sure if it's good: How about 3/1/2, but ignoring the movement penalty from mountains and hills? Since Hannibal crossed the Alps with war elephants and attacked Rome from the North... But I'm not sure, is it possible to make them ignore only the penalty of mountains and hills, or you have to make them like a Conquistador, ignoring any movement penalty?
I just had another idea, but not sure if it's good: How about 3/1/2, but ignoring the movement penalty from mountains and hills? Since Hannibal crossed the Alps with war elephants and attacked Rome from the North... But I'm not sure, is it possible to make them ignore only the penalty of mountains and hills, or you have to make them like a Conquistador, ignoring any movement penalty?
