Ideas Dump
- Thread starter temurleng
- Start date
Maniacal
the green Napoleon
i wouldnt mind a ww2 scenario or something similar that doesnt involve a horde of units
PrinceScamp said:
By that you would be referring to Zweiter Weltkrieg, avaialble here at civfan. It has a much lower city and unit density that the typical Red Front style scenario.
see this page
http://www.civfanatics.com/civ2/reviews/zwk.php
temurleng
Another Dumb Message
I did say I'd link stuff- http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=133513
And, for those who haven't heard/seen some of the stuff Smiley's doing:
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=132281
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=133521
And, for those who haven't heard/seen some of the stuff Smiley's doing:
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=132281
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=133521
temurleng
Another Dumb Message
1) Fun with Partisans
Change the Partisan to air domain, settler role. Give a range of 1 and a movement of, say, 5-10. For an added twist, do not allow one (or more) of the civs able to spawn these former partisans to be able to build engineers or settlers.
As interesting as this unit would be, what use it would have, I don't know- unless...
Say you're trying to simulate a refugee problem, like Rwanda or Darfur. Rename "partisans" as "refugees". The human civ would be swarmed by the vastly superior opposing force (the government in Sudan or either the Hutus or Tutsis in Rwanda), losing their cities, getting only refugees in return. The Refugees' limited movement/range would force the player to build a "city" ("refugee camp"?) nearby, rather than sending the refugees halfway around the world to irrigate/road somewhere. The alternative is that you could choose to make the terrain nearby unable to support cities, eliminating the wisdom for the human-controlled Refugee civ to build "cities". Airbases, then, would become crucial- a bunch of empty airbases, strategically placed and made to look like UN shelters (owned by the "UN" civ?). Alternately, the airbases could be fashioned as refugee camps themselves. Combining the two possibilities about appearance of the airbases, they could be designed to look like refugee camps until the UN begins to exert itself in the crisis. Then, the cities.gif would change the airbases to UN shelters and events would create high-defense, no-move UN units (owned by the Refugee civ, though
) to protect the refugees on the same squares as the shelters.
Events could also be used to sprout sea-domain, carrier-role UN units (Humvees?) when "global indignation of the horrors perpetrated in Rwanda/Darfur propels the international community into action", though you'll have to give the UN units to the Refugee civ, not the UN civ itself. You could choose to put these UN units on land, effectively making them more airbases, or try to place them on reworked "water". If you put them on "water", you'll have to figure out the whole "where/how do I place the 'water' ?" issue- one way I can think of is to put a two square outer rim of "water" (making it impassable for land units), followed by an outer realm of true land, which would be the UN designated safe haven for refugees. The scenario objective, then, would be to get as many of the refugees into this haven as possible.
2) Different Type of Warfare
If I remember my history right, in the Persian-Roman wars, the two sides had distinct advantages. The Romans were great at siegecraft, while the Persians masters of cavalry warfare. Airbases allow the scenario-creator to attempt to replicate this.
Only the Romans would be given the airbase-building tech, and airbases would be renamed Military Camps. A military engineer (with alpine abilities) would travel in front of the main army building a Camp two squares away from the city where the invasion would start. The siege engines (as air-domain paradropable units; max paradrop range set at 2) would then paradrop into the camp. The next turn, the engineer would build another Camp, 2 squares away from the previous Camp, again followed by the siege engines. The engineer would continue doing so until the siege train has moved right up to the walls of the city.
The Persians, lacking the ability to conduct an effective counter siege (no siege engines), would have to intercept and destroy the army before it has a chance to begin laying siege. Cavalry would have to scour the zone between Roman and Persian territory. To make it more interesting, the Persians could be forced into Fundamentalist government (Zoroastrianism; unchangeable once the scenario starts) and the Fanatic slot could be called the Cataphract, a two move, offensive armored horse-rider, akin to knights.
If it becomes an issue, there are two potential ways I can think of off the top of my head to make certain the human-controlled Romans dont try to use siege engines specifically meant to attack cities instead to attack armies in the field:
A) All Persian cavalry could be given the Pikeman ability, and give siege engines a movement of two, while field engines (war machines meant to attack armies in the field) receive a movement other than 2. Since all Persian cavalry would have a role of offense, the AI would use them on the attack, no matter how good they defend against siege engines;
B) More extremely, all terrain is given a defense of x2. This would have no impact on the siege engines ability to defend (defensive factor would equal 1), but would seriously reduce the appeal of a siege engine attack on a unit in the field. It would have to be made certain that the terrain the Persian cities are on is not also similarly valued, and that either the terrain between the Romans and Persians cant support cities, or that no cities can be built.
A) or B) can be used separately or in conjunction.
Change the Partisan to air domain, settler role. Give a range of 1 and a movement of, say, 5-10. For an added twist, do not allow one (or more) of the civs able to spawn these former partisans to be able to build engineers or settlers.
As interesting as this unit would be, what use it would have, I don't know- unless...
Say you're trying to simulate a refugee problem, like Rwanda or Darfur. Rename "partisans" as "refugees". The human civ would be swarmed by the vastly superior opposing force (the government in Sudan or either the Hutus or Tutsis in Rwanda), losing their cities, getting only refugees in return. The Refugees' limited movement/range would force the player to build a "city" ("refugee camp"?) nearby, rather than sending the refugees halfway around the world to irrigate/road somewhere. The alternative is that you could choose to make the terrain nearby unable to support cities, eliminating the wisdom for the human-controlled Refugee civ to build "cities". Airbases, then, would become crucial- a bunch of empty airbases, strategically placed and made to look like UN shelters (owned by the "UN" civ?). Alternately, the airbases could be fashioned as refugee camps themselves. Combining the two possibilities about appearance of the airbases, they could be designed to look like refugee camps until the UN begins to exert itself in the crisis. Then, the cities.gif would change the airbases to UN shelters and events would create high-defense, no-move UN units (owned by the Refugee civ, though
) to protect the refugees on the same squares as the shelters.Events could also be used to sprout sea-domain, carrier-role UN units (Humvees?) when "global indignation of the horrors perpetrated in Rwanda/Darfur propels the international community into action", though you'll have to give the UN units to the Refugee civ, not the UN civ itself. You could choose to put these UN units on land, effectively making them more airbases, or try to place them on reworked "water". If you put them on "water", you'll have to figure out the whole "where/how do I place the 'water' ?" issue- one way I can think of is to put a two square outer rim of "water" (making it impassable for land units), followed by an outer realm of true land, which would be the UN designated safe haven for refugees. The scenario objective, then, would be to get as many of the refugees into this haven as possible.
2) Different Type of Warfare
If I remember my history right, in the Persian-Roman wars, the two sides had distinct advantages. The Romans were great at siegecraft, while the Persians masters of cavalry warfare. Airbases allow the scenario-creator to attempt to replicate this.
Only the Romans would be given the airbase-building tech, and airbases would be renamed Military Camps. A military engineer (with alpine abilities) would travel in front of the main army building a Camp two squares away from the city where the invasion would start. The siege engines (as air-domain paradropable units; max paradrop range set at 2) would then paradrop into the camp. The next turn, the engineer would build another Camp, 2 squares away from the previous Camp, again followed by the siege engines. The engineer would continue doing so until the siege train has moved right up to the walls of the city.
The Persians, lacking the ability to conduct an effective counter siege (no siege engines), would have to intercept and destroy the army before it has a chance to begin laying siege. Cavalry would have to scour the zone between Roman and Persian territory. To make it more interesting, the Persians could be forced into Fundamentalist government (Zoroastrianism; unchangeable once the scenario starts) and the Fanatic slot could be called the Cataphract, a two move, offensive armored horse-rider, akin to knights.
If it becomes an issue, there are two potential ways I can think of off the top of my head to make certain the human-controlled Romans dont try to use siege engines specifically meant to attack cities instead to attack armies in the field:
A) All Persian cavalry could be given the Pikeman ability, and give siege engines a movement of two, while field engines (war machines meant to attack armies in the field) receive a movement other than 2. Since all Persian cavalry would have a role of offense, the AI would use them on the attack, no matter how good they defend against siege engines;
B) More extremely, all terrain is given a defense of x2. This would have no impact on the siege engines ability to defend (defensive factor would equal 1), but would seriously reduce the appeal of a siege engine attack on a unit in the field. It would have to be made certain that the terrain the Persian cities are on is not also similarly valued, and that either the terrain between the Romans and Persians cant support cities, or that no cities can be built.
A) or B) can be used separately or in conjunction.
Note that you can do this via a CityTaken/CreateUnit event.
ALso, the AI doesn't knwo how to build Airbases and rarely ever uses them. (You can use Airbase units--immobile land unit with Carrier ability--but the AI air untis will still prefer cities over theses, as is the case with the Airbase tile improvement.
I've toyed with the idea of recreating UN presence: they belong to an 'Independent' civ and attacking them will cause everyone to declare war on you.
Can't spawn sea units on land terrain but you can, for example, change the RR terrain (which you probably won't use due to the infinite movement screwing up the scen) to a Grassland image and put it on an Ocean tile (i.e. place the RR on a land tile, then change the land tile to Ocean).
Saving refugees is boring. Better to defend the Refugees while they escape--assuming you can get the AI to do it.
The siege warfare idea is good but again, don't expect the AI to do any of that (I assume all this is meant for MP).
The 2vsHorse ability isn't particularly effective and I still have my doubts as to whether it works at all.
The terrain idea is interesting.
ALso, the AI doesn't knwo how to build Airbases and rarely ever uses them. (You can use Airbase units--immobile land unit with Carrier ability--but the AI air untis will still prefer cities over theses, as is the case with the Airbase tile improvement.
I've toyed with the idea of recreating UN presence: they belong to an 'Independent' civ and attacking them will cause everyone to declare war on you.
Can't spawn sea units on land terrain but you can, for example, change the RR terrain (which you probably won't use due to the infinite movement screwing up the scen) to a Grassland image and put it on an Ocean tile (i.e. place the RR on a land tile, then change the land tile to Ocean).
Saving refugees is boring. Better to defend the Refugees while they escape--assuming you can get the AI to do it.
The siege warfare idea is good but again, don't expect the AI to do any of that (I assume all this is meant for MP).
The 2vsHorse ability isn't particularly effective and I still have my doubts as to whether it works at all.
The terrain idea is interesting.
Similar threads
