[mod] TOTAL REALISM 2.0

[Spartan117]

@kristopherb

musketmen era in real life, covers a very long span. regular adoption in european military is arouund 1500ce. the musketeer represents only a fraction of musketmen era and is yet the french representation for musketmen. I still think redcoats should be left as UU for musketmen and maybe the riflemen should also have redcoat graphic.

@anybody

jsut a side note, i understand that the minutemen for america were very important and 'unique' but the continental army were still superior to minutemen. just my opinion, maybe the graphics for Americas musketmen should look like continenetal soldier instead.


I think my suggestions and questions got lost in the last 10 pages. My posts were originally post #1703 and #1725. I think they should be looked at

@houman

welcome back, how was the wedding?

are you still looking for a unit editor/designer/someone who makes units..

 

[Los Tirano]

JahtheIII, i checked it up with an expert on military history at uni here and you are mostly right. Of course lepers were driven out of communities, but he couldnt think of any active attempt to plague another country with them.

But, some extra information, the bodies of plague victims were hurled over the walls during medieval sieges, to shorten the siege and kill or sicken everyone inside.

So, while plague or leper attacks are not historically accurate (that we know of), everyone here no doubt knows about the nice blankets of the diseased that were given to the Native Americans, who contracted smallpox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Fort_Pitt

So instead i propose a 'Blanket trader' unit that is a one shot unit that adds +4 to +6 to unhealthiness for 10-20 turns to an enemy city.

 

[carnivore]

any news on the update , cous now this mod is unplayble , which is very disapointing

 

[WarKirby]

But, some extra information, the bodies of plague victims were hurled over the walls during medieval sieges, to shorten the siege and kill or sicken everyone inside.

So, while plague or leper attacks are not historically accurate (that we know of), everyone here no doubt knows about the nice blankets of the diseased that were given to the Native Americans, who contracted smallpox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Fort_Pitt

So instead i propose a 'Blanket trader' unit that is a one shot unit that adds +4 to +6 to unhealthiness for 10-20 turns to an enemy city.

I already proposed disease ammo for catapults in a big package of ideas i posted a few weeks back. Search for posts by warkirby

As for the blanket trader, I think this is a bad idea. Nations would be naturally suspicious of foreign traders to begin with, and the diplomatic repercussions would outweigh the benefits of such a tactic. Maybe against barbarians though.

WarKirby

PS: Hope you guys fix the religion stuff soon

 

[Hian the Frog]

Los Tirano, Warkirby,

I have just finished te read your last posts about plague, diseases, .... I think there is an idea that could be developped. As you know, in medieval times some catapult ammos were in fact bodies of humans or animals died of diseases (Plague most of the time, smallpox, ...) So, why not a one shot catapult (or an other unit if your prefers) that adds an amount of unhealthy points as suggested Los Tirano.

The same system could be used for chemical weapons. Remember the German's use of these weapons against British and French troops during WWI. This unit could add unhealthy points to cities, but also could lower the HP of ennemy units (from one third to an half).

This kind of unregular warfare is as old as warfare itself. In ancient times, wells were poisoned, fields were covered with salt,... Every thing was made to lower the resistance of bodies and minds. I would like to add this kind warfare. I think that there is a group of players like me who prefer using indirect and vicious ways to destroy their foes instead of massive and brutal attacks.

The Frog

 

[Hian the Frog]

All,

It's about Musketeers. I still don't understand why this UU is the French one. Musketeers were in fact only a very very small part of the French Army at that time. They all came from the old but poor nobility and acted as Guards of the King and assault troops. They used Muskets of course, but as Noble their main weapon was rapier. Furthemore, Musketeers ,as a group, were quickly disbanded. Their sense of Honor was so great (if not stupid) that they fought (and killed) each others and every body that insulted them, even if lightly. Many young Nobles died because of this "honor". As they quickly became too dangerous for the country, they were disbanded. It was also at that time that our kings decided to forbid the carry of weapons (from sword to fireamrs) unless special case.
Furthemore, why giving them 2 MP ? Fast movement was not their main quality. As i already says, they were either Guards of the Kings or special assault team. For exemple, the "real" d'Artagnan (Captain of the Musketeers )died during the siege of Maastricht (Netherlands) during the War of Holland. His Musketeers were used as strike force to take a part of Maastricht's fortification... It would be better to give them bonuses in attack and/or defense of cities.

About Redcoats: i would rather saw them as musket troops as Spartan117 wrote. English Redcoats were very differents from French Musketeers. The main quality was their discipline. It was nearly impossible to destroy Redcoats when they were attacked. They were stronger on fields than in siege, and even more stronger as defenders. Many battles won by the Britt were defensive one. Look at the conquest of India, wars of the 17th century,... British won either by outnumbering their opponents or using defensive tactics.
Furthemore, there was not great progress in firearms manufacturing and use until 1850-1860 and the creation of Rifles and "modern" artillery. What are the wars the British made at from that time (1850) to WW I ? Some wars of conquest in India, in Soudan, in Afghanistan, in South Africa,in China... some crushes of Revolts (Egypt, India) and two "small" real wars (Crimea, Boers). I think that the team of Civ4 use Redcoats as english UU to show us their power during UK Golden Age ( more or less the 19th century).


The Frog.

 

[JahtheIII]

JahtheIII, i checked it up with an expert on military history at uni here and you are mostly right. Of course lepers were driven out of communities, but he couldnt think of any active attempt to plague another country with them.

But, some extra information, the bodies of plague victims were hurled over the walls during medieval sieges, to shorten the siege and kill or sicken everyone inside.

So, while plague or leper attacks are not historically accurate (that we know of), everyone here no doubt knows about the nice blankets of the diseased that were given to the Native Americans, who contracted smallpox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Fort_Pitt

So instead i propose a 'Blanket trader' unit that is a one shot unit that adds +4 to +6 to unhealthiness for 10-20 turns to an enemy city.

Germ or Biological warfare units might be an interesting addition.

I think they would have to have some of the same drawbacks as there are in real life.

I Germ Warfare unit could be sent to a city (after researching proper techs and spending a bunch of hammers to build), and spread a disease. This would have a limited duration negative health effect, and to make it fair, would affect the health of any military units in a radius around the infected city.

This would mean if you used Germ Warfare as an offensive weapon, you wouldn't be able to enter the cities adjacent squares while the disease was still present, or at least you would start to lose HP from your military units if they were stationed too close.

Infections could also spread from Civ to Civ, although I imagine this is harder to code, so that you would be wary of using these tatics against Civs too close to your own, because it could very well make it's way back to your cities.

I didn't read the wikipedia article about the blankets, but I've always wondered since hearing about that, who delivered the blankets to the Indians? Someone who was already sick? Or someone who was willing to take one for the team?

 

[Eidalac]

Well, you could just give early seige units a 'deseased/infective' promotion option. This would decrease the damage they do but have a fixed % of causing a desease outbreak in a city they attack. When one occures, it then kills random number of people each turn and has a % of spreading to units in the town or to other cities connected via trade routes.

This of course would cause a pretty big diplomatic hit with all civs (save for if you used it against barbs.), and if it started to spread then everyone would quickly hate your guts.

Units with the Medic promotions as well as some buildings would reduce the chance of the desease taking hold and spreading.


Still, IIRC, most of the time this type of tactic was used IRL it's main intent was to scare the pants off the people in the city, as if it did lead to an outbreak the attack probably wouldn't want to move his army inside the place.

 

[JahtheIII]

I'm going to email the savegames to your bugs@gmail addy, but thought I would post a couple of details here.

I'm one of the people who have had a CTD problem in the area of turns 350-400 or so.

Had been playing as Russia, so I tried playing through as Spain, which Mexico had a question about a few pages back.

Got a little further, and encountered a CTD in the mid 700's AD.

Only difference this time was that instead of getting a CTD at the end/begining of a turn, this happened at the exact time I used a Catapult to attack a Roman unit on an adjoining square.

I'm guessing this isn't all that much help as all signs point towards a problem somewhere with the ranged bombardment code.

But as opposed to the other CTD's that I've had, this one was unique in that I was sure I caused it, it didn't happen somewhere else during someone else's turn, so it's pretty direct evidence when you see it.

Hope all is well with the TR team, chasing the bugs has to be more annoying than doing the actual coding in the first place I would have to imagine.


GL!

 

[Burrito_X]

Whats with all the talk of new units?

Has anyone actually played through a full game without CTD's?

I think the discussion of new units is kind of pointless until the mod can actually be played through. Instead of depating plague vs musketeers, should we be playing the game, finding the CTD's, and trying to find a pattern so that the devs can more easily fix the bugs.

Burrito

 

[Hian the Frog]

Whats with all the talk of new units?

Has anyone actually played through a full game without CTD's?

I think the discussion of new units is kind of pointless until the mod can actually be played through. Instead of depating plague vs musketeers, should we be playing the game, finding the CTD's, and trying to find a pattern so that the devs can more easily fix the bugs.

Burrito

Interesting point of wiew. Remember that most of us are not guys that know about coding and so on... So, we talk about ideas to improve the mod. Is it forbidden ? We all know that there is CTD. What can we do if we don't know about coding ? "Shut up" until the Team fix them... Be serious Man ! We all get bored by CTD. So, we talk to try to make this great mod even more realist, playable and fun. Be cool !

The Frog

 

[Ankenaton]

Spartan117

@Redcoats, Continental Army & Minutemen. Agree with you that Redcoats should stay. Definitely prefer Continental Army graphic over Minutemen (whose role is definitely overstated).

Los Tirano

@Like the Eye of Horus avatar you just plugged in; fits in nicely with the signature line.

 

[Burrito_X]

QUOTE:
we talk to try to make this great mod even more realist, playable and fun. Be cool !


Understood, no intent to deflate people's enthusiasm for history. And I understand that coding can be very difficult. But the more of us play to a CTD and try to find out exactly what action or changes cause the CTD, the easyer it will be for the devs to find the bug. Frankly, considering that the 2.0 version also had CTD;s, at this point if I had to choose between new content and making the mod stable, I would choose the latter. Talk of new units, is essentially talk of MORE work! As as someone who has modded seriously in the past, I always found it irritating when all everyone would do is talk of more work for me to do, without wither A. learning how to mod so that they can help, or B. playtesting extensively to find the specific unit or even that casues crashes. In the interest of the Golden Rule, I am just *suggesting* that perhaps we can pay back the dev's kindness of developing this mod by aggressively playtesting.

Anyway, as history buff as well, nothing personal at all against people's enthusiasm.

Burrito

 

[Spartan117]

QUOTE:
we talk to try to make this great mod even more realist, playable and fun. Be cool !


Understood, no intent to deflate people's enthusiasm for history. And I understand that coding can be very difficult. But the more of us play to a CTD and try to find out exactly what action or changes cause the CTD, the easyer it will be for the devs to find the bug. Frankly, considering that the 2.0 version also had CTD;s, at this point if I had to choose between new content and making the mod stable, I would choose the latter. Talk of new units, is essentially talk of MORE work! As as someone who has modded seriously in the past, I always found it irritating when all everyone would do is talk of more work for me to do, without wither A. learning how to mod so that they can help, or B. playtesting extensively to find the specific unit or even that casues crashes. In the interest of the Golden Rule, I am just *suggesting* that perhaps we can pay back the dev's kindness of developing this mod by aggressively playtesting.

Anyway, as history buff as well, nothing personal at all against people's enthusiasm.

Burrito

well realism team wre busy doing ther own things. houman went to a wedding. so until they return to the forums, everyone enjoys discussing different things that they think could be done to make the mod even more "realistic". There were many pages( i think like 2) that addressed different bugs with the game.

I am not a programmer , i can only offer moral support and suggestions and dont have time to play test the game, to pinpoint different bugs currently.

all i can say is good luck to the realism team in creating one of the best "composite" mods out htere if not the best....

How does one start a seperate project in the project and mod development thing. Currently ther is kael's mod, TAM, and rhye's civilzation. What if Realism mod was there?

 

[miserable09]

When civ 4 first came out, I bought it the day it came out, played it for about a week, and hated it so much I packed it away to never trouble me again...

A week or so ago I installed your mod and have been up late nearly every night since! FANTASTIC FREAKING job!!!!! Is there a paypal account somewhere or someplace we can give thanks? You guys deserve it...

My first question is I notice the mod has some of the features in warlord. I don't have warlord installed but I notice I'm getting stuff like the great wall and great generals. What gives?

Second is around religion, how come sometimes I can make missionaries, then suddenly I can't, then I can again, etc.

That's all, great job again!

 

[Houman]

Poor Houmie, so much to read so little time. I have overflown most of the improvement discussions. We have to focus on existing bugs then there will be time for improvement.

I am now bug fixing the stuff a bit out. For those discussions about religions, we have changed them, I m wondering that you guys don;t know it.

Ancient Religions:
Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism do not spread over your borders. They are local religions.

Historical: Hinduisum was based on caste and therefore only meant for local people.

Judaism was a tribal religion with a tribal god (Jahwe) until their captivity by the Babylonians and their deportation into Babylon. The Jews were morally devastated since their view was that Jahwe can only protect Childeren of Israel in the motherland and not in Babylon.

After the fall of Babylon through Cyrus the Great, the Persians freed all the Slaves incl. the Jews and rebuilt their temples in Jerusalem. In this first contact between Jews and Zoroastrians, the Jahwes role changed as protector of lands of Israel to a universal god that is able to protect the Jews everywhere. This new role as well as the idea of Paradise and hell was adopted in Judaism from Zoroastrianism. Despite this transform in Judaism about 550BC, Judaism remained a local religion.

Zoroastrianism, which was the first monotheistic religion with an universal message, never tried to send missionaries into other countries. The term or will of Missionaries was not regarded as an option. but rather than everyone else from the conquered areas was free to worship who ever they wished. They are historical records about conversion into Zoroastrianism however these were not common since missionaries were not throughly promoted. It became more and more important when it was already too late - the Arab Muslim invasion had already taken over Persia.

Taoism is set also to local since it never spread beyond China. (I m not sure here though)

Therefore all the ancient religions are set as local. This has another great effect that you don't get too early too rich (through a shrine).

Islam, Buddism and Christianity are modern religions that can spread normally and maybe even taking over the ancient ones...

There is another rule; Islam and Judaism are additionally dominant and do not allow any other faith in their lands. Only expection is their holy city which allows other religions. (Ok in case of Jerusalem true, but Mecca not really) A dominant religion looses its dominancy once the state religion is different.

We really have to work on a FAQ...

Houman

 

[WarKirby]

The ancient religions can't spread over borders? I don't see how that is logical. I read your post, detailing how each of these religions never properly spread, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have. If the spanish had never existed, maybe the aztecs would still be around

Civ is a game, not a history book. Realism is important, but nerfing 4 of the religions because they didn't do so well in real life is going too far methinks. The whole point is to provide a 'what if' for history (and have fun!). I think this goes against the spirit of the game.

WarKirby

PS: I hunted down my original diseases ideas post. It's post 990 on page 50

 

[WarKirby]

this post was an accident. Could a moderator delete it?

 

[Houman]

Warkirby,

As you can see, we have not set this from beginning, since we wanted to give this new chance to history as well. But there are several game mechanics problems that came between:

1) Using our cool Religion COmponent feature (Dominant,local religion, disappearing Holy city if religion neglected with an existing shrine etc) and set Judaism as local and dominant meant in the ancient times the world was spread into two halves Hindusim and Zoroastrianism. Because of these every one was happy with you and it became quite cheesy.

2) Some people used the weakness/spoil of building quickly the Stonehendge, researching Dualism and building a Zoroastrian Shrine on top of it. While Zoroastrianism spread without any real threat into the world the incomes at holy city went into the skies.

3) Most people were complaning that ancient religions were so strongly rooted that new religions such as Christianily, Islam and Buddhism were not able to spread.

With this new change we solve all three problems at once.
No Money cheating, no happy hippo AI friends, no hinderness for later religions but these religions can still be defended against new ones.

Don;t you think this is indeed more challenging as well?

BUg report, working on Zoroastrian pink temple bug and MI24 & KA50 bug. Testing now the fixes...

Can someone please give me a little list what bugs else are annoying ( i see only feature requests). Ok the CTD obviously lol...

Houman

 

[WarKirby]

I have another solution. Make a certain tech needed to build the shrine. Something at or past the level of taoism so that it is not so profitable until later

To assist spreading of newer reigions, give a bunch of free missionaries to kickstart relgions like islam and taoism.

Reduce the tech cost of philosophy and it's prerequisites so there is less of a gap between religions starting. Divine right also.

With a little tweaking, this could solve those problems without nerfing anything.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On another note, how are you supposed to defend older religions. In my recent game, almost the entire world declared war on me because they were all buddhist, and I could not survive the onslaught.

I was forced to renounce Zoroastrianism and take up buddhism to prevent my own destruction. If you remember, I founded buddhism myself and did nothing to encourage it's spread.

WarKirby