[mod] Warlords: Total Realism 2.3a

[timberwoolf]

As a matter of fact, why shouldn't some nations get major advantages over others, at certain eras. Actually, I'v been talking about it for quite a long time...
However didn't find to much people who liked the idea. Everyone loves the balanced system, while I prefer realism over balance.


--------------------------------------------------------------------

About the production- I think that it's too fast. You can easily build all the improvments in each city, and when advance to producing huge armies( which is bad). Maybe besides increasing the units support cost, you should slow the production process? I think that building every single improvment in every single city is unrealistic. Maybe you'v got another opinion about it?
If you significantly increase the hummer cost for most improvments( units included) it will make the game much greater( at my opinion).

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

As a matter of fact, why shouldn't some nations get major advantages over others, at certain eras. Actually, I'v been talking about it for quite a long time...

You already have that to some extent though. Some Civs get much better traits, and if you're playing the big earth map, much more strategic and rich starting positions, less competition, and of course more effective unique units. But doubling movement on roads compared to other Civs? That'd make the Romans an instant no-brainer in any scenario, especially with their suped up early melee units. Essentially double mobility would too severely imbalance everything.

As for your psuedo/caravan roads? Just my opinion, but I think the absolute LAST thing this mod or any other mod needs is more worker micromanagement. Honestly that's the first thing that will get me to toss any mod back to the trash heap and one of my two major criticisms of SMAC. New resources are fine. But I want to strangle the mere thought of ANY new improvements on land or sea from the minds of any mod developers. The game has more than enough options for workers already.

On production, I'd agree to an extent. Late game you do build things too quickly. But this newest version has also introduced A TON of new, often quite redundant buildings that I'm not really a fan of either. I've worked pretty hard to overcome my deep-seated builder tendencies, I still feel compelled to build everything on the list (though I don't)...and seeing a 3 page list of unneeded buildings is a bit annoying.

This latest version is growing on me and it does make some improvements. But it does approach at times the kitchen sink tendency that I've criticized on other mods. The early game is much more interesting than the late.

 

[timberwoolf]

It's not professional to say- "and seeing a 3 page list of unneeded buildings is a bit annoying."

It should be so, that one city will produce more units, while the other will produce more science or culture, and building all the buildings in each city should be a rear phenomena. I play civ for a long time, and I prefer to have a lot of options, so I can decide what buildinga I will have to skip and what I should really build subject to the situation in the game.

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

It should be so, that one city will produce more units, while the other will produce more science or culture, and building all the buildings in each city should be a rear phenomena. I play civ for a long time, and I prefer to have a lot of options, so I can decide what buildinga I will have to skip and what I should really build subject to the situation in the game.

What you call options, I often call pointless minutiae that can burden a game and make it unwieldy. More is not always better. In fact quite often its the opposite. This applies in all forms of art and entertainment...just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

In the late game of this mod there are literally dozens upon dozens of new buildings that do some variation of a 5-10% bonus to shields or revenue. Considering I'm banking like a madman by that point and producing everything in my major production cities in 1-3 turns (big wonders excepted), I don't really see the point of piling it on more. So you go a while with no new buildings to create...so what. Letting a city build workers/wealth/research or troops for a while without the need to change it can be pretty peaceful at times.

I'd rather make late stage buildings cost more rather than simply adding more of them. That said, there's always going to be some issues with that. On a random map, most of the cities aren't going to be well enough placed to build those late buildings in a reasonable time if you increase the cost too much. But in the standard earth map provided by TR, there's literally a resource every other square...which would make them rather easy to build if you simply balanced things for the random maps.

In short, options are fine. Myself I'd rather have a well balanced, highly polished gaming experience. Predictably that requires significant content and options, but there is such a thing as overkill.

 

[timberwoolf]

I'm thinking about making most of the " important" buldings rear.
To make the bonuces cumulative, and allow to build only 7 universities for each nation and ect( so you will prefer to build the science buldings in the same cities ). So you'l have to calculate and to think, there to build these buildings, in order to get the greater effect.

EnlightenmentHK- I belive, that we just have diffrent views on the game- I prefer it to be more complex, and you prefer it, being more simple.
Offcourse, there is no answer to the question- who is right and how is wrong.
I personally always looked on civ, as a game which is more complex then the usual strategic games, where you just have to build a lot of troops. I play civ only becouse you'v got to think in order to win.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Actually, the late game (from Industrial Age) is not yet functioning exactly like we wanted it to - hence the whole lot of buildings. The main reason there are so many is that you have to build all the resource conversion buildings for all the resources you have in every city you have - which shouldn't be the case as soon as we implement global output for these. What you see now is a working, yet temporary solution. When the converter is fixed, you'll only need as many industrial buildings as you have instances of a particular resource (actually, you just won't be able to build more) - and then they will also get much more expensive, as their usefulness will increase. This will also mean less micromanagement.

 

[BareJag]

As a matter of fact, why shouldn't some nations get major advantages over others, at certain eras. Actually, I'v been talking about it for quite a long time...
However didn't find to much people who liked the idea. Everyone loves the balanced system, while I prefer realism over balance.


--------------------------------------------------------------------

About the production- I think that it's too fast. You can easily build all the improvments in each city, and when advance to producing huge armies( which is bad). Maybe besides increasing the units support cost, you should slow the production process? I think that building every single improvment in every single city is unrealistic. Maybe you'v got another opinion about it?
If you significantly increase the hummer cost for most improvments( units included) it will make the game much greater( at my opinion).

There have to be some small diffrences between countries, so you can play diffrent styles. That makes it more intresting. One strattegy maby not work against all nations. In this way, the game is more realistic, because you can't win though nations using a single tactic or strattegy. A deffeats B, who deffeats C, who deffeat A. The strength can be a weakeness against another one. Try this is FreeCiv (linux) or civilization 2. This is a more intresting a diffrent way.


Both increasing the costs of building, and increase the support costs, it won't do mutch to the gameplay, exept of lowering the number of troops. Practicaly, this means that the smallest unit's are bigger (deflation of hammers ). Because the strength of them is rellative, and have nothing to do whit the reality, exept for the proportions between them. That means that it will be inpossible to have a effective army for small nations. In the reality, troops can be divided in to smaller groops whit less power, but on post in terrain whitch otherwhise would be deffenceles. This is the only way to have an effective deffence in small nations whit long borders.
But some buildings maby is too cheap, at least in higher levels.

Instead I'dd like a higher cost of sience, but I think that's possible to change in the .ini file somewhere.

 

[xbeanerx]

Yes finaly a date for bts i will be counting the days!!
can you please add more leaders to the mod and can i play with 30 civs instead of 24?

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Yes finaly a date for bts i will be counting the days!!
can you please add more leaders to the mod and can i play with 30 civs instead of 24?

You misread - I gave the date for the last Warlords version. And yes, there will be (actually, already are - added them a week ago) more leaders (and more civs for BtS version, when it comes).

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

EnlightenmentHK- I belive, that we just have diffrent views on the game- I prefer it to be more complex, and you prefer it, being more simple.

No, though I do prefer discussions with a little less condescension. Seriously, adding more crap does not mean you've created a more complex game...it just means you have more crap. But feel free to continue implying that I'm a naive simpleton who simply can't appreciate the more nuanced things in life. (or Civ)

Myself, I want a challenging, in depth strategic gaming experience. That is not gained by simply having more stuff. That can be gained by adapting existing elements and peppering in new ones where appropriate, always with an eye towards improving and/or expanding gameplay and realism. (and when those two are in conflict, make an appropriate judgment call) I'm not trying to create a false dichotomy here, but I'd generally take a polished, well-balanced product over one with more 'stuff' anyday. IMO, a creator of any piece of entertainment should always ask a few questions before adding something to their work. A: Is it necessary? B: If not, is it interesting and/or does it add something new and compelling to the gameplay? C: And of course, is the game better for it. If the cumulation of 'stuff' begins to detract from the experience rather than enrich it, at that point you really need to do some hard evaluation on these things.

That said, the latest TR patch was a HUGE expansion in some respects (many more techs, TONS of buildings) from the previous. But it did fix some issues. No more 'SUPERTECHS' and it placed several intermediate techs in there to prevent the usual slingshotting tendency. It neutered the horses a bit (no more cavalry only armies on higher levels) by making them less effective against cities. Placed 'build research' further back so that you couldn't sprint through the early techs by snatching up Alphabet early. (early on being about the only time Build Research is incredibly useful) I think it definitely improved the early game. The mid/late industrial seems to have a bit too much stuff at the moment IMO. And I generally am MAFing too much to get much further beyond that. (I've yet to hit modern armor on the earth map.)

Actually, the late game (from Industrial Age) is not yet functioning exactly like we wanted it to - hence the whole lot of buildings.

As for the buildings, tying them to finite resource amounts would make more sense, their placement more strategic, and importance increased. And it might actually let me get a few more turns before I MAF every save. Look forward to that change.

 

[xbeanerx]

can terrorism be added i would like to play as arabs build UU called jihadest go to a rival city blow my unit up and kill civilians in thet city along with building is this posible?
Can William wallece be added as king of scots?
Brave hart is one of my favorite movies and wallace kicked British ass!!!
One last request if posible can cannibalism be added i think it would be fun to eat or sacrafice your slaves that you captured for extra food or city happines the more you eat the faster your city grows! Torture should be added to get extra spy points say you capture a spy and you have options to kill,torture or exchange for gold back to his country choose to torture you get extra spy points against your rivals.

 

[BareJag]

How about giving mounted some kind of a small attackbonus in forts?

 

[Ankenaton]

We're STRICTLY non-commercial.
Although, if any of the teammembers ever gets near the place where you live, we accept beer.

LOL! I am only a stone's throw away in The City (New York City) He better have the best beer in the world waiting for me.

 

[Ankenaton]

My Conclusion i finish playing Rise of Man ,viSa and TR and hands down TR is a Better Mod I mean WOW what a masterpiece you people out did your self.
I am very impressed with the way this work of art has been put together any civ4 fan will love this Mod this is the way a game should be develope.
I reasonly Played Rise of Man kind, viSa and the last Mod to play was TR
i payed very close attencion to detail,graphic and movement this mod is moved so smooth and fast at the same time i notice that the movements are diffrent than those of the original game the graphics are better and it has its own original content this Mod should be Nominated for Mod of the year.
I also played fall from heaven II is a good mod but i already have World of Warcraft with all its expasion packs i rather play that game instead of that Mod.
TR offers just that TOTAL REALSIM IS a Masterpiece Not to be missed this is the kind of Mod that makes you feel sorry for dumb asses that do Not play video games

P.S does TR have a website where i can Donate some cash via Paypal you guys deserve it."Great Mod" Outstanding.

Maybe I can cross the street from NYC and catch you up with a beer or two. LOL.

 

[Ankenaton]

In times of war, the millitary police allso do the same work as the civilian police in civillian areas. And it's specialliced on close(city-)deffence in areas whit small numbers of troops compared to the area they're deffending.
I am a millitary police in the reserve, so I think i know what we're supposed to do


In some countries the millitary police allso work aside the civillian police in times of peace, in ways that not are too good for the civilians. There the millitary police are used to prevent upprisings and to keep the people calm.

In the United States, National Guard (State Militias) troops fall under the separate state Governors to help deal with natural disasters and to assist local/state police to enforce the law. During wartime the President can "nationalize" a state's guard force and bring them into the active duty military. A lot of heavy units and/or specialized units are kept as Guard or Reserve with contingency plans for rapid mobilization. So your point is valid.

 

[Hian the Frog]

In the United States, National Guard (State Militias) troops fall under the separate state Governors to help deal with natural disasters and to assist local/state police to enforce the law. During wartime the President can "nationalize" a state's guard force and bring them into the active duty military. A lot of heavy units and/or specialized units are kept as Guard or Reserve with contingency plans for rapid mobilization. So your point is valid.

Quite an interesting idea. You are right. We should have a look at it.

In France, it's not really possible to have such a kind of "National Guard". In fact, in all Europe.... These troops are forbidden in our old continent. Either they have already disappeared, or they will. Our history made our european deputies vote a law to avoid these para military units. We never forget that both dictatorial political systems (Communism and Nazism/Facism) heavily used these kind of troops. We all know what happened in Italy, Germany, or Russia during the first part of the 20th century.

Hian the Frog

 

[Hian the Frog]

To All:

HAPPY NEW YEAR !​

 

[Propunk]

Guys, for the next release I'd like to make a few suggestions:

1) For the sake of realism (and of the players' fun as well ) there should be at least three generations of jet fighters before stealth. Moreover, stealth ought to be one of the last techs available. It's totally unrealistic to go straight from 1st generation jet to stealth fighter. For example: USAF: 1st gen - f-86 sabre, 2nd - f-4 phantom, 3rd - f-15 eagle, and only then on to stealth.

2) The same applies to tanks. Three tank generations after early tank would be awesome.

3) The protective rate of the SDI is overdone. It should be about 50%. In addition, it is another item that should be pushed to the very late game, because even today there's no country that counts with a system that effective.

I understand that all I suggested would require loads of work due to unit addition, so please don't think I'm trying to demand anything. It's just that this is the best civ4 mod ever and I'd love to see these changes in it.

Congrats on everything you guys have accomplished so far. Looking forward to the next release. (Are we there yet? )

 

[Ankenaton]

Quite an interesting idea. You are right. We should have a look at it.

In France, it's not really possible to have such a kind of "National Guard". In fact, in all Europe.... These troops are forbidden in our old continent. Either they have already disappeared, or they will. Our history made our european deputies vote a law to avoid these para military units. We never forget that both dictatorial political systems (Communism and Nazism/Facism) heavily used these kind of troops. We all know what happened in Italy, Germany, or Russia during the first part of the 20th century.

Hian the Frog

Yes I can understand the difference. In the United States the first military units were county or state militias that later became nationalized into a national army. The American Civil War (especially for the Union side) you see that over two thirds of the units were made up of volunteer state militias that were nationalized. They would have regimental names such as 54th Massachusetts; 5th New York; 1st Vermont; etc. Their were also federal Union regiments made up of federal troops; with regimental numbers only, no separate state names. The Confederate side was made up almost entirely of state raised regiments. After the war, most of the Union militias were demobilized or disbanded (the Confederates were disbanded) and only small National Guard forces using the regimental state names from the war were kept. The First World War was the next large scale use of state militias/national guards on the battle field. Up until then the Federal Army was relatively small in comparison to the size and power of the United States. Understandable as both national borders were/are safe from invasion (Canada and Mexico) and with the U.S. being primarily a naval power at that time. Furthermore after the Civil War their were no real threats against national/federal authority; as no governor of a state could reasonably/rationally depend upon his state militia to either a) be loyal only to the state and b) attempt to secede from the Union with any chance of real success. So there never developed in the United States any real fear of states militias. Also the main difference between these types of forces in the United States (National Guards) is that they are very different from para-military and/or interior ministry troops found in Europe. In the U.S. the individual militias are sworn to uphold the constitutions of their individual states as well as that of the Federal government. What is ironic is that many of the state's constitutions go even further in the protection of individual rights than the Federal/National Constitution. So in the U.S. the reverse would be true. We have a law known as "Posse Commitatus" that expressly forbids national Army troops from performing state and/or local police functions. And when they do perform such duties, special legislation enabling them too must be approved. A similar situation with the Navy and Coast Guard. During war time the Coast Guard is nationalized and falls under the Department of the Navy; during peace time the Coast Guard performs police and interdiction functions along the coasts of the United States and the high seas adjacent to them. A U.S. naval vessel like wise requires special permission to perform such duties in U.S. waters. So in Europe para-military and interior troops are used by leaders and the state to carry out their will (often illegally); whereas in the United States National Guards form a bulwark against such actions. The President (though it is never refused) has to ask permission of the various state governors to nationalize their Guards and Congress must provide funding to mobilize them. Lastly, Guard troops also hold civilian jobs and are known here as "weekend warriors" because of it.

 

[BareJag]

Regarding to the half-independent millitary organisations

Continuation on the diskussion whit Ankenaton

The millitary organisations in Finland since 1917
In Finland we have no such organisation at all. (type National Guard)
But in the begining, allso we had a system alike yours in the mid 1800s. After the declaration of independence in 1917, there was two mayor groups who kept the order. One of them was called "skyddskår", in swedish, (deffence -guard?/-corps?), allso called "the wite", led by Carl Gustav Mannerheim, a former cavallerygeneral of tsaristic Russia, who had came back home to Finland after the russian revolution. These white mainly was countryfolk who owned what they lived on, and those who owned the fabrics (here we ever have had meny "landowners" like in other countries, only a few near the south coast.)
The other ones was the red guard, whit the fabric-workers and cottagers. These was called "the red" These was lead by te later known traitor Otto Ville Kuusinen. These had marginal support from the newly founded Sovjet. Both the red and white was localy organised independently in every parish.
Unfortunaley, these didn't liked each others so mutch. As the red cooperated whit traitors. The war begun in local incidents in the parishs, and grew bigger. The red side's affairs whit the russians automaticly lead Germany to the side of the white. Therfore Mannerheim wanted to show the world that Finland are strong enougth whitout the germans. Germans was soon to landfall in Hanko, the southern cape of Finland, so Mannerheim led a decisive battle, finaly broke and surrounded most of the red guard outside Lahtis before the germans had time to something of inportance. The "red guard" was disbanded, and the white became the official army.

When the winterwar begun by a sovjet artilleryattack in Mainila (of corse they said it was our cannons, whitch in fact was stationed far out of range, for preventing misstakes) attack in 1939. All sinds by red and wite was forgiven. Former red and white fought side by side against the sons of the steppe, in a figth alike davids figth against goliat. A new half-millitary organisation was created on volutarily basis, called "Lotta Svärd", who consisted by womens, and they did the women's work in the front. They was nurses, they cooked, mannaged the phones, and all those things womens did in all countries having frontlines.

After the continutation war, we was designated as guilty of the war like the germans. But we had our own war. The vestern allied forces couldn't give more than promisses, when the steam-roller came, so asking for help from thr germans was our own way to survive.
But when the cold war was at an end in the early 1990s, the russians finaly plead themself guilty for starting both the winterwar 1939-40 and the continuation war 1941-44.

However, after the war, a controll-commission lead by russians and sovjet-friendly finns, was put into action. One of these finns was Hertta Kuusinen, the traitor Otto Ville Kuusinen's wife. All types of organisations not supporting the "red idea" was forbidden. Wartime and heros prewartime leaders, like marshalk Mannerheim, Pressident Risto Ryti, and meny meny others saw them self being pictured as criminals and warmongers, because they hand been the leaders when we stopped the hordes of Stalin, and whatever what would had followed. But someone said durring the postwar trials; "what a minor thing is some good men's glory, when saving a whole people?"
This typical sovjet "coup atempt" hopefully failed because of whole the finnish peoples love of the country. Late in the 1950s the frontiers could begin to meet again on officialy basis whitout being pictured as warmongers.

So the only former "independent" millitary organisation who survived the finnish civil-(independence-) war, was forbidden after the continuation war. And so did all newly created organisations from the war.