MAP development
- Thread starter kbrennan7654
- Start date
It is. DL here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=7077
In addition, this might be useful to fit all the civs scoreboardwise: http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=10972
In addition, this might be useful to fit all the civs scoreboardwise: http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=10972
Do we need this fort thing? For one I would like to see how the other mods we have that adjust culture work before adding more. But if we really need it, I'm sure it can be merged in.
Should we even be spending time focusing on realistic troop placement? Won't the AI move all the troops around on the first turn anyway?
Thanks JEELEN. I'm pretty sure, but not certain, that the scrolling scoreboard is already a part of WoC.
Should we even be spending time focusing on realistic troop placement? Won't the AI move all the troops around on the first turn anyway?
Thanks JEELEN. I'm pretty sure, but not certain, that the scrolling scoreboard is already a part of WoC.
Genghis_Kai
GEM modder
I don't really mind. It is only a bonus. Regardless, I can still use forts to replace those cities on remote islands which are for military purposes only. This can reduce the number of cities a bit. It can't avoid however,someone 'stealing' other people's military base by sending a settler and build a city to replace the fort.
I think the initial placement of unit is relatively important, at least for those nations at war. I am sure the hard work you guys spent to build those new units deserve a bit of time invested on where they should locate instead of randomly allocating them.
I think the initial placement of unit is relatively important, at least for those nations at war. I am sure the hard work you guys spent to build those new units deserve a bit of time invested on where they should locate instead of randomly allocating them.
im happy for cyprus to be EU.
Kai is right about unit placement, there are hundreds of thousands of troops deployed around the world on peacekeeping missions, security, sovreignty patrols and fighting. At least 500,000 by my estimates and thats not insignificant. I can always make another list
Kai is right about unit placement, there are hundreds of thousands of troops deployed around the world on peacekeeping missions, security, sovreignty patrols and fighting. At least 500,000 by my estimates and thats not insignificant. I can always make another list
ok good call guys. Just don't get your hopes up about the AI keeping troops in realistic places. For example, I suspect the USA will move its troops out of South Korea right away.
Maybe we should try to get that fort mod merged before we do unit placement... from the sounds of it, giving the USA a fort in South Korea would give them a tile with their culture, that the AI would defend? That's what that mod is for I guess?
Maybe we should try to get that fort mod merged before we do unit placement... from the sounds of it, giving the USA a fort in South Korea would give them a tile with their culture, that the AI would defend? That's what that mod is for I guess?
With unit placement and army size we also have to think about the burden this may put on some people's computers. I mean, I tried to 1940 GEM scenario (think how many troops each country has in that!) and each turn (I took two before shutting it off) took around 5-10 minutes to load. We also want to make this game playable too, and sometimes reality has to sacrificed so the U.S.A. won't send its South Korean troops to conquer N. Korea or China on the second turn.
ianinsane
Prince
Did you reduce all graphics to minimum? At first I didn't and I had the same waiting times. Then I did and it doesn't take a minute now to load each turn.
Yes, make sure you have all graphics on low.
Our main scenario will be one that takes a minute or more between turns for most people, that much is for sure. There is no way to make what we are making and avoid that.
A second scenario will probably follow in time that will be smaller, and load faster.
Our main scenario will be one that takes a minute or more between turns for most people, that much is for sure. There is no way to make what we are making and avoid that.
A second scenario will probably follow in time that will be smaller, and load faster.
Genghis_Kai
GEM modder
Adhesive86
Warlord
The latest Africa solution looks fantastic.
So does the 52 civ list!
I agree Cyprus to EU. There may be British troops there, but as it is only a staging post and not a production centre for the UK this is best represented by open borders and an EU city.
I also think it is a good idea to represent any large and/or strategic military bases, especially the likes of ascension and diego garcia. Seems you're already on that.
The issue about the US- Iraqi/Afghan ownership as described by DVS: Understandable in the short term that you don't want US troops pulling out, but in the long term surely the US isn't expecting to maintain ownership? Indeed US forces are actively working towards a pull out leaving independent, friendly governments are they not? They'd surely be vassals? Is it possible to write python for the nations to be granted independence representing ultimate realism?
Anyway, just because I don't agree doesn't mean i'm right. The mod looks fantastic.
So does the 52 civ list!
I agree Cyprus to EU. There may be British troops there, but as it is only a staging post and not a production centre for the UK this is best represented by open borders and an EU city.
I also think it is a good idea to represent any large and/or strategic military bases, especially the likes of ascension and diego garcia. Seems you're already on that.
The issue about the US- Iraqi/Afghan ownership as described by DVS: Understandable in the short term that you don't want US troops pulling out, but in the long term surely the US isn't expecting to maintain ownership? Indeed US forces are actively working towards a pull out leaving independent, friendly governments are they not? They'd surely be vassals? Is it possible to write python for the nations to be granted independence representing ultimate realism?
Anyway, just because I don't agree doesn't mean i'm right. The mod looks fantastic.
Adhesive86, the USA can always make a vassal out of Iraq, by using BTS' colony feature on the city info screen! But if they do it too soon and remove too many of their troops, before ridding the region of barbarians, it will get overrun. I think this is perfectly realistic.
Also, since we have merged in the revolutions mod, there is a chance a new, hostile civ will form in Iraq, if the USA doesn't manage it properly.
"Indeed US forces are actively working towards a pull out leaving independent, friendly governments are they not?"
I haven't seen any evidence of this, other than talk on TV (which is usually the opposite of the truth). Anyway, that's another discussion, we are just going to try an represent what is happening RIGHT NOW, since predicting the future even slightly is very generally difficulty. So far the US has not reduced troops at all, they have only escalated the war.
"The latest Africa solution looks fantastic."
Yes it sure does, let's all thank Genghis for that!
P.S. Your sig makes me laugh. I almost got kicked off my hockey team as a child for pointing that out.
Also, since we have merged in the revolutions mod, there is a chance a new, hostile civ will form in Iraq, if the USA doesn't manage it properly.
"Indeed US forces are actively working towards a pull out leaving independent, friendly governments are they not?"
I haven't seen any evidence of this, other than talk on TV (which is usually the opposite of the truth). Anyway, that's another discussion, we are just going to try an represent what is happening RIGHT NOW, since predicting the future even slightly is very generally difficulty. So far the US has not reduced troops at all, they have only escalated the war.
"The latest Africa solution looks fantastic."
Yes it sure does, let's all thank Genghis for that!
P.S. Your sig makes me laugh. I almost got kicked off my hockey team as a child for pointing that out.
Mattygerst
King
Hehe...not to get too political:
But the USA just built an embassy in Iraq that is larger than the Vatican that will need permanent heavy-duty military presence. Not to mention the US-owned military installations. Also, we have a 25 year construction contract that is enforced with the military. I don't think the USA will be leaving quite as soon as you imagine, if ever (look at Korea).
But the USA just built an embassy in Iraq that is larger than the Vatican that will need permanent heavy-duty military presence. Not to mention the US-owned military installations. Also, we have a 25 year construction contract that is enforced with the military. I don't think the USA will be leaving quite as soon as you imagine, if ever (look at Korea).
...and then there is the oil deal they made last year. Think that will last without US troops? No chance. It is the exact same companies they threw out 30 years ago. lol
@Genghis_Kai: something I forgot in our PM conversation:
I am in the process of adding modern highways as a new route, in between roads and railroads. The idea is to have this route in developed countries, and the older roads more prominent in less developed ones. I hope this doesn't throw a monkey wrench into your road and railroad placement work.
For example; I was thinking Canada should have one major stretch of the modern highway from coast to coast, and to each major city, but the older roads elsewhere. The USA will have the new highways everywhere. This way railroads don't have to be ubiquitous in developed countries; we can have them only where real rail lines exist.
Let me know what you think about this, if you don't like it, I'll scrap it.
I am in the process of adding modern highways as a new route, in between roads and railroads. The idea is to have this route in developed countries, and the older roads more prominent in less developed ones. I hope this doesn't throw a monkey wrench into your road and railroad placement work.
For example; I was thinking Canada should have one major stretch of the modern highway from coast to coast, and to each major city, but the older roads elsewhere. The USA will have the new highways everywhere. This way railroads don't have to be ubiquitous in developed countries; we can have them only where real rail lines exist.
Let me know what you think about this, if you don't like it, I'll scrap it.
Genghis_Kai
GEM modder
I think the highway idea is interesting, but may not be practical in CIV.
The problem is that most railway are running parallel with highways in developed countries. Say in Australia, I can't think of any major highway (we call them freeway) that doesn't run parallel to a railway.
The problem is that most railway are running parallel with highways in developed countries. Say in Australia, I can't think of any major highway (we call them freeway) that doesn't run parallel to a railway.
Genghis_Kai
GEM modder
Actually if you could change the graphics, I would prefer changing the railway graphics. The roads stand out quite well from the map in CIV, but the colour of the railways are so light that I always have to zoom in to confirm they are there - very annoying when doing railway placement for the entire map.
Similar threads
