[MOD] Realism:The Third Resurrection

[Mexico]

i found this note in sevomod 3.0 (2.9z) mode anI think it is good realistic idea:

Infantry--The importance of infantry was somewhat lost in the vanilla game. Once you reached modern armor you could just bang out hundreds of super-tanks and use them for everything, assuming you had a little air support. This isn't very realistic. This version is attempting to begin to re-emphasize the role of infantry in modern warfare. The first step in this direction is that mechanized units, support units, and cavalry units CANNOT CAPTURE CITIES! The role of Tanks and Cavalry is in the field where their mobility and firepower can be put to use. You can still beat down all of the defenders in a city with armor, but you'll need some sort of infantry unit to actually capture and hold an enemy city. In the future there may be additional changes to increase the importance of keeping infantry in cities.

whot you think about this?

 

[Houman]

Mexico, This idea is actually really good! Thanks. I will take care of it.

I am glad we have now a full-time (even if it is just for this release) Python modder in our team. Now I can take care of adding the promised new units and adding the promised features.

BTW, Does the Contracting out the Mercenery still collide with a button from Plotlist 2.03 ? Or is it ok now?

Cheers
Houmie

 

[Los Tirano]

I disagree about cavalry not being able to capture cities. If an army of keshiks, camel archers, knights, or chariots took a city they could hold it. Anyone taking to the streets would be ridden down. And if necessary the troops would just dismount to deal with any problems in the city. I agree with the modern armour change though. Because whole armies of tanks just isnt right and everyone does it.

However, if cavalry cant take cities this will have consequences for civs with cavalry UU's. Mongolians will be stuffed and unable to conquer anyone because their great units wont get them actual cities. There wasnt a mongolian axeman invasion. So this would mess up realism greatly. Moving infrantry to cities will take the fun out of war because by the time infrantry gets there the cities in most cases will be too well fortified.

Conquistadors wont be able to take the Americas because they cant take cities . Likewise Knights will only be a nuisance and not a real threat.

Some units such as dragoons mainly used their horses for transport and fought on foot, so theres another problem with it. Knights didnt always fight on horseback either. Often fought as heavy infrantry when the need arose. i.e. defending a city.

So i dont think we should be so eager to curb the usefulness of cavalry. Because really, they are infrantry on horses, and being higher than commoners would help to keep them in check. How would mostly unarmed peasants prevent fully armoured mounted knights form taking their city once the soldiers were dead?

 

[Mexico]

I disagree about cavalry not being able to capture cities. If an army of keshiks, camel archers, knights, or chariots took a city they could hold it. Anyone taking to the streets would be ridden down. And if necessary the troops would just dismount to deal with any problems in the city. I agree with the modern armour change though. Because whole armies of tanks just isnt right and everyone does it.

However, if cavalry cant take cities this will have consequences for civs with cavalry UU's. Mongolians will be stuffed and unable to conquer anyone because their great units wont get them actual cities. There wasnt a mongolian axeman invasion. So this would mess up realism greatly. Moving infrantry to cities will take the fun out of war because by the time infrantry gets there the cities in most cases will be too well fortified.

Conquistadors wont be able to take the Americas because they cant take cities . Likewise Knights will only be a nuisance and not a real threat.

Some units such as dragoons mainly used their horses for transport and fought on foot, so theres another problem with it. Knights didnt always fight on horseback either. Often fought as heavy infrantry when the need arose. i.e. defending a city.

So i dont think we should be so eager to curb the usefulness of cavalry. Because really, they are infrantry on horses, and being higher than commoners would help to keep them in check. How would mostly unarmed peasants prevent fully armoured mounted knights form taking their city once the soldiers were dead?

yes, you are right, but from my point of view, that "not capturing flag" is only for Modern era unit, as modern cavalry, tank, gunship, artilery... not for early mounted unit...

 

[AvianAvenger]

-nice video link, I(along with just about every other australian) just wish that j.h. would stop kissing bushs arse. hmpf.. all events that have happened in the war and continue to happen can only be described as been dodgy at best. They should make whoever votes for war fight it themselves...

now back to the topic at hand...
Tanks & helicopters can destroy buildings.. knights can raze buildings... to say that in game one of these units cannot attack a unit inside of a city.. where as in life if they were given the order they would still try is just not realistic & stupid.
Perhaps they should be given a penalty instead. something like -25% attack due to lack of maneuverability.

-edit
oh and another thing... something that pisses me off with the game is the inability to airlift units to anything other than a city, perhaps you should make it able to airlift anywhere.. or if you dont like that idea make it so you can airlift to forts(they really need to be buildable anywhere).
Also paratrooper units would also be good addition.

 

[Los Tirano]

lol dodgy, i like that. I read a book a while ago that ran with the argument that feudalism had more legitimacy than democracy because the nobles and kings were expected to go to war when they declared it. As a noble, you might have privileges during peace-time, but when war was declared you had to prove your mettle. One of the problems in democracy is that the president or prime minister is safe away from the fighting, he can give his orders, but he isnt involved as a medieval king were. He can just keep ordering people to die.

I wonder if a helicopter unit really could take a city? Pilots could try to keep order, instruct them to obey and any movement that got out of hand would face the scrambled helicopters as they cleared the streets. Hmmmmmm.

 

[AvianAvenger]

lol dodgy, i like that. I read a book a while ago that ran with the argument that feudalism had more legitimacy than democracy because the nobles and kings were expected to go to war when they declared it. As a noble, you might have privileges during peace-time, but when war was declared you had to prove your mettle. One of the problems in democracy is that the president or prime minister is safe away from the fighting, he can give his orders, but he isnt involved as a medieval king were. He can just keep ordering people to die.

haha... never heard that point of view before. But image what would happen if every leader was a Napoleon

I wonder if a helicopter unit really could take a city? Pilots could try to keep order, instruct them to obey and any movement that got out of hand would face the scrambled helicopters as they cleared the streets. Hmmmmmm.

Okay maybe not the helicopters... but remember its not a matter of how well they can keep order but whether they could take out the units within.
Also while the unit is depicted by a gunship it still represents a squad made up of chinooks & personell and so on. That adds up to alot of men each with combat training and the physical capabilities to occupy a city. The only thing they dont have is the combat experience to provide adequate defense for a city while deployed in one which is already adequatly represented by the lack of a defensive bonus.

-edit
~perhaps a -unrest/angry modifyer for armored units within a city.. after all no one likes martial law.

 

[Los Tirano]

Imagine what would happen if every leader was required to be at the site of the wars they declared, leading their troops? Would Bush like to be in Iraq?

Could we have a leader unit? Appearance updates like a great person. If it dies the game is over. Always found it strange that you take their capital and never get them. Should have a movement of three though. So it can move to other cities with ease.

 

[jeffdawgfan]

Since I was in the first gulf war...(IF Daddy Bush had finished the job then we would be in the mess we're in now) i wanted to comment on this subject.

Tanks capturing cities...It would be suicide to drive a M-1 throught the streets of a just overrun city without infnatry support. Defenders can hunker down and then pop off RPG's, LAW's, etc all day long and pick the tanks off one by one. Mech Infantry is a little better of as they can dismount, go building to building and get support from their Bradley, BMP,BTR or whatever transport they are using. For capturing a city though, it takes dedicated infantry going door to door to flush out remaining defenders, snipers, etc.

Regarding Air Units capturing cities....I can't see a couple of Apache pilots voluntarily landing and defending a overrun city with 9mm pistols. Even Air Calvary just doesn't have the heavy weapons or man power to do it alone.

Interesting historical note. Remember the CNN report form first Gulf war when a whole brigade (not sure but was like 600-700 Iraqi soilders tryed to surrender to a single Apache Chopper. That poor pilot and his gunner did not know what the hell to do. That had not happened before. He could land and guard the prisoners with a pistol or stay airborne and use his chain gun but had limited fuel Poor guy probaly had post traumatic stress symdrom from that one episode.....

I agree with previous note. I think that armored units in a city should be at 1/2 strength or less due to mobility restrictions and inability to fire accurately. What good are wire-guided missles and laser range finders when your enemy is ducking in and out of buildings 50 yards away??? Also firing the main gun on a M-1 on buildings in close proximity usally brings down whole walls that if not damage can block the tank or APC so that it can not move at all. Modern tanks were designed for a war that was never fought. The M-1, Challengers, T-80's etc were made for a large Battle of Kursk type scenario to be fought in the Fulda gap of Europe that never took place. Not made for street fighting.

Again...My 2 cents worth.

 

[Nightravn]

Definitely agree with the comments that Tanks should have a hard time capturing cities and another way we could limit the number of tank and such is to quadruple(or more) the cost of them. Tanks/Aircraft/Ships etc are very expensive where as people are cheap..

 

[Spartan117]

Interesting historical note. Remember the CNN report form first Gulf war when a whole brigade (not sure but was like 600-700 Iraqi soilders tryed to surrender to a single Apache Chopper. That poor pilot and his gunner did not know what the hell to do. That had not happened before. He could land and guard the prisoners with a pistol or stay airborne and use his chain gun but had limited fuel Poor guy probaly had post traumatic stress symdrom from that one episode.....

thats got to be traumatic but funny for me

if tanks cant take cites or have hard time then an actual land transport should be included thatt is faster then infantry and can transport more then 1 unit.. oh and i think there should be an addition of like modern infantry, america new UU could be navy seal that replaces advanced infantry or modern infantry

i love the idea of better use and inccreased need of infantry...

 

[Los Tirano]

I dont want to add more work for the team (it would put back the next release date ) but the Leaders mod adds more leaders and more ways to play each civ. Its is a good one. Maybe an idea for the future.


@Mexico: Huzzah! Glad its goin in.

 

[Mexico]

I dont want to add more work for the team (it would put back the next release date ) but the Leaders mod adds more leaders and more ways to play each civ. Its is a good one. Maybe an idea for the future.

i don't know if there is more Leader mods, but in next release is already implemented Leader mod. We found some python bugs in incoming release (most of them is in other mods), but I hope that we can make it in time. (Now I'm working on assassin module, work is so slowly because of long-time testing)

 

[Houman]

@Los Tiranos & ALL

If you mean the Militray Leader where you get generals to fight on the field like Civ 3, then yes it is already implemented. And the old Great General will be almost removed completely. We might implement this Idea the Team had created:

The Walls give much less basic defense bonus. Since unprotected walls do not do much. If you city is being attacked, you have to chance to take away some citizens from work and make them as soldier specialist. These guys only produce 1 hammer like the citizen however they also give bonuses to the wall because now it is guarded. This actually make sieges of a city more realistic, right now the army has to occupy every single field around a city before making it starving. However if the gates are already secured, how can the citizens from the city go happely to work in the outer fields?

This way a least the city can improve the defense and production (since everyone is panicking and preparing for the siege) however since these citizens cannot work on the field, there will be starvation. Or the player do not use the soldiers, do not starve but have less defense and normal production.

The question is if AI can handle it. We have to test... But the Great General as it was until now, with all these military academies will be deleted in next release. They were overpowered.

Regards
Houman

 

[Houman]

@French guys & other Military experts

I need data on RENAULT FT17. All I know it was the best WW1 Tank and worst WW2 Tank.

I checked a bit the Wikipedia, but have really no time for research.
For now the MarkV is the standard WW1 Tank for all Civs. The French get instead the Renault.

MarkV has combat 20, cost 120
FT17 shall get combat 21, cost 130

Any objection?

EDIT: According to some sources the WW1 Tanks like MarkV were no match for the cavalry. Is that true? Shall I give a general -25% for WW1 Tanks against Cavalry? Whats about Renault?

Thanks
Houman

 

[Feilong]

@French guys & other Military experts

I need data on RENAULT FT17. All I know it was the best WW1 Tank and worst WW2 Tank.

I checked a bit the Wikipedia, but have really no time for research.
For now the MarkV is the standard WW1 Tank for all Civs. The French get instead the Renault.

MarkV has combat 20, cost 120
FT17 shall get combat 21, cost 130

Any objection?

EDIT: According to some sources the WW1 Tanks like MarkV were no match for the cavalry. Is that true? Shall I give a general -25% for WW1 Tanks against Cavalry? Whats about Renault?

Thanks
Houman

Hi Houman,

About MarkV being no match for cavalry I found this :
"The side armour of 8 mm initially made them largely immune to small arms fire, but could be penetrated by the recently developed armour-piercing K bullets. There was also the danger of being overrun by infantry and attacked with grenades."

So I think the penalty to the MarkV shoud be against Grenadier and Machinegunners.


About Renault F17:
"Renault FT 17
General characteristics
Length 5 m
Width 1.47 m
Height 2.14 m
Weight 6.5 t
Suspension vertical springs
Speed 7 km/h road
? km/h off-road
Range 65 km
Primary armament 37 mm gun or 7.92 mm machine gun
Secondary armament none
Armour 22 mm
Power plant petrol
39 hp (29 kW)
Crew 2 (commander, driver)"

Renault F17 was indeed more powerfull than MarkV tank: "• Armament:
-Two 6-pounders & Four .303 Lewis MG (Male), Six .303 Lewis MG (Female)."

I think the differences in combat and price that you wrote are adequated.

Hope this helps,

 

[snafusmith]

You also have the option of using my A7V as well. One of the worst WW1 tanks...

 

[Houman]

@Feilong,

Thanks for this information. I have adjusted the Grenadier to 75% defense vs Early Tanks. A Danger for MarkV but only 50:50 chance against a Renault.

Machinegunner gets 10% defense vs. Early Tanks. It can hurt early tanks badly, if used as defense but however it has problems killing them unless hidden on a defense terrain like hill or forest.

Machine gun also gets 50% vs Mounted.

 

[Houman]

You also have the option of using my A7V as well. One of the worst WW1 tanks...

Oh thanks. The Renault was just the first one. hehe I am also planning to implement A7V (a German one right?) and maybe some other good unit from yours.

But now that also Germans get their WW1 Tank, it is a bit weird having a MarkV as a general Early Tank for the rest of civs. Is there any WW1 Model I could use for the common WW1 instead of MarkV? Or lets say did the British had a more famous WW1 Tank than MarkV?


Regards
Houman

 

[Feilong]

But now that also Germans get their WW1 Tank, it is a bit weird having a MarkV as a general Early Tank for the rest of civs. Is there any WW1 Model I could use for the common WW1 instead of MarkV? Or lets say did the British had a more famous WW1 Tank than MarkV?


Regards
Houman

As for the Tanks that fought in WW1 and their respective "Nationality":

* Mark I | Mark IV | Mark V | Medium Mark A Whippet: British
* Schneider CA1 | Char St. Chamond | Char St. Chamond "M17": French
* Renault FT M17 mitrailleur | Renault FT M17 canon: French & American
* A7V: Germans