[mod] TOTAL REALISM 2.0

Working on it. :)

We would like to publish it this weekend. This patch improves the Vanilla Game a lot - however it is still only 50% of the new features in the upcoming WarLords: Total Realism. :)

I will update you guys this evening how far we got, I suppose the release would be on Sunday afternoon though. It depends ...

Houman
 
Hello Creators of this great mod.

I have one question regarding diplomacy.
Civilization itself improved a lot with many different aspects but diplomacy stayed almost the same - very poor. I was shocked, because Infogrames in meantime made Master of Orion III, with the best diplomacy options I ever seen in strategic games civ-like. Why not to implement some good and tested ideas from MoO? What we have now?

• contact
• open borders
• defensive pact (only when not at any war)
• permanet alliance (can be sign once and forever)

What about multinational alliances (like NATO, Warsaw Pact), non-agresion pacts, embargo on given resources, economic agreements, etc.

Next thin is United Nations, when few resolutions can be discussed.
Why not to add some more like:

• declaring war to one chosen civilisation
• declaring embargo on specific resource to chosen civilisation
• declaring cease any relationships with chosen civilization
• disarmament agreements
• ultimatum to stop war between two civs

etc.
Is it possible in general with current code of the game?
 
ok thanx, Houman your mod is brilliant its what the game should have been like. The only thing is the slavery civic option and of course icbm's , rebellions are a bit to common happening every few turns or so, otherwise i think its almost perfect.
 
Vertico said:
Hello Creators of this great mod.

I have one question regarding diplomacy.
Civilization itself improved a lot with many different aspects but diplomacy stayed almost the same - very poor. I was shocked, because Infogrames in meantime made Master of Orion III, with the best diplomacy options I ever seen in strategic games civ-like. Why not to implement some good and tested ideas from MoO? What we have now?

• contact
• open borders
• defensive pact (only when not at any war)
• permanet alliance (can be sign once and forever)

What about multinational alliances (like NATO, Warsaw Pact), non-agresion pacts, embargo on given resources, economic agreements, etc.

Next thin is United Nations, when few resolutions can be discussed.
Why not to add some more like:

• declaring war to one chosen civilisation
• declaring embargo on specific resource to chosen civilisation
• declaring cease any relationships with chosen civilization
• disarmament agreements
• ultimatum to stop war between two civs

etc.
Is it possible in general with current code of the game?


I agree. Diplomatic model must be reworked.
 
i did some astonishing discovery regarding 2.0 - original music fits civ4 better than TR1 + ancient music is good suprice for first 2 games, nater its getting annoying not to mention its a bit too quet.

And can you improve TR by adding Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 rules :p ?

(this post is made to show how bored some folks are waiting for next pach)
 
Hey Guys,

Mexico wasn't yet online. I am afraid the Patch will be released then tomorrow. There is still a last thing to do.

Sorry for waiting.

Houman
 
Houman, Mexico


I saw that you have incomporated Dale's MAD mod in your patch.
Have you reworked that mod in a way that nuke dont destroy the whole city? Destroying a whole city is a very bad idea that ruins the game. I allways turn off raize city option in my games beacuse I hate to loose wonders from game. Nuclear war should cripple national economy and production base (of course in CIV game, not in reality) and not erase the map...
Is there be a tactical nuclear mislle in your mod?


Regards
 
purger30 said:
Houman, Mexico


I saw that you have incomporated Dale's MAD mod in your patch.
Have you reworked that mod in a way that nuke dont destroy the whole city? Destroying a whole city is a very bad idea that ruins the game. I allways turn off raize city option in my games beacuse I hate to loose wonders from game. Nuclear war should cripple national economy and production base (of course in CIV game, not in reality) and not erase the map...
Is there be a tactical nuclear mislle in your mod?


Regards

@ purger30,

Even if i agree with you about the lost of wonders when a city is razed, i can really tell you that a nuke attack would destroy most of them. Imagine.... The Eiffel Tower. I don't know if you ever saw it, but (as a Frenchmen) i can tell you that this wonder made of iron (not steel) would be easily destroyed, either by the powerfull winds created by the explosion or by the hot fire ball that would melt the tons of iron... Most other wonders would also be destroyed.

About mass destruction weapons, i would rather like to add what we call in France the "weapons of the poor": Chemical Weapons. Because Uranium 238 and Plutonium 235 are nearly impossible to trade, to transform,.... most of the less advanced (but rich enough) countries try to built this kind of mass destruction weapons.
For game purpose, it could a weapon that only affect pop and units in the same radius than a nuclear one, and with a slighter less diplomatic malus. Its range could be important but not all around the planet (Chemicals products don't like cold temparatures of high atmosphere). About techs, Chemistry would be needed at least, and either assembly line or artillery (remember German's use of chemical weapon by artillery bullets in WW I ).

What do you think of that, guys ?

The Frog
 
The idea for a new chemical bomb sounds good. Perhaps it kills a unit of population and then adds 20 unhealthiness so that the population drops by two over the next two turns. Effect on military units is that it drops them to half strength, or a third if that is more accurate. Make them a good side cheaper than nukes, because more states can build them as opposed to nukes, as Hian points out.

Sorry purger, but we are talking about real nukes here. Wonders are expensive and time consuming to build but they are just constructions that are vulnerable to the awesome power of nuclear weapons. Im all for cities being totally gutted, the wonders smashed to tiny bits. Nothing should be totally invincible and impervious, perhaps destroying a wonder could be the beginning of a war?

But this new chemical bomb idea wouldnt destroy wonders or buildings.
 
Hian the Frog said:
@ purger30,

Even if i agree with you about the lost of wonders when a city is razed, i can really tell you that a nuke attack would destroy most of them. Imagine.... The Eiffel Tower. I don't know if you ever saw it, but (as a Frenchmen) i can tell you that this wonder made of iron (not steel) would be easily destroyed, either by the powerfull winds created by the explosion or by the hot fire ball that would melt the tons of iron... Most other wonders would also be destroyed.

About mass destruction weapons, i would rather like to add what we call in France the "weapons of the poor": Chemical Weapons. Because Uranium 238 and Plutonium 235 are nearly impossible to trade, to transform,.... most of the less advanced (but rich enough) countries try to built this kind of mass destruction weapons.
For game purpose, it could a weapon that only affect pop and units in the same radius than a nuclear one, and with a slighter less diplomatic malus. Its range could be important but not all around the planet (Chemicals products don't like cold temparatures of high atmosphere). About techs, Chemistry would be needed at least, and either assembly line or artillery (remember German's use of chemical weapon by artillery bullets in WW I ).

What do you think of that, guys ?

The Frog
Yes I like the idea of chemical weapons, because as I pointed out in an earlier post about Iraq and its supposedly hidden nukes; it takes billions of dollars of infrastructure. And it is not something that you can cobble together in your backyard. It is one thing to have the theoretical knowledge to build nuclear weapons; you also need a massive industrial base with skilled technicians to bring it off. So chemical weapons would be a good addition.
 
Ankenaton said:
Yes I like the idea of chemical weapons, because as I pointed out in an earlier post about Iraq and its supposedly hidden nukes; it takes billions of dollars of infrastructure. And it is not something that you can cobble together in your backyard. It is one thing to have the theoretical knowledge to build nuclear weapons; you also need a massive industrial base with skilled technicians to bring it off. So chemical weapons would be a good addition.

Pleased to read that you like and Los Tirano like this idea.... I don't know what Houman and Mexico think about the idea. We will asked them...;) Los Tirano's idea is good when he says that a city would lose one pop and 20 health points... I really like this idea.

And yes you are right about the cost of nuclear weapons. France is the third nuclear power of the world after USA and Russia (I'm not proud of that, Nuke are among the worst human creations) and it cost the country many money. But it gives us a security as i explain in a last post. French's doctrine of use of nuke is clear and simple, if not primitive: there will be no more forces that would occupy or destroy our country (as it was with Germany in 1870-1871, 1914-1918 and 1940-1945) , we will "shoot" them if they try ! :crazyeye: :crazyeye:

The Frog
 
Yes, as horrible as nukes are, they do provide security. I am sure that mutually assured destruction has prevented quite a few wars. When so much effort has been expended over centuries in the creation of a country and a unified people you cant just leave your citizens open to invasion. An unfortunate next stage in providing security, but one that is now necessary.

Also, to make them easier to make, chemical weapons should require laboratories, so you have the infrastructure and necessary specialists, but not need uranium. More ideas for the future, im really looking forward to the next patch.
 
Top Bottom