Donkey Puncher
Prince
hey do you guys any progress reports I cant wait to see how this shapes up for civ 4
RAR 4 CIV discussion thread
- Thread starter Isak
- Start date
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
I will second the call for a slowing down of exploration-perhaps by making more terrain types impassable (at least at the start of the game). Also, anything which raises the status of navies gets a big THUMBS UP from me 
.
Also, if you are interested, please check out my civicInfos and techInfos mods-they may come in handy for what you are doing here.
Aussie_Lurker.
.Also, if you are interested, please check out my civicInfos and techInfos mods-they may come in handy for what you are doing here.
Aussie_Lurker.
Healz
General
I think though that the value of the workers and improvements shouldn't be adjusted as MaxRiga you just about die of boredom want for anything to be built. That is even adjusting the cost of the workers, so that they take a shorter time to complete. It just doesn't suit the time period of the game how long it takes ot work the countryside.
Donkey Puncher
Prince
I hope you include all the extra wonders just like dyp.
Donkey Puncher
Prince
I also liked the the progress of mounted unit in the old dyp horsemen,knight s,crussiars, calvry, dragoons etc.
Healz
General
I agree. I also liked the way that there were extra helicopters such as the AH-64D Longobw included. It was really cool to see that helicopter which I am now waiting on to recur in Civ IV in a new improved skin. Hopefully when I upgrade my computer in January 2007 it will now show all skins.
Donkey Puncher
Prince
hey guys just curious for a update
Healz
General
Some sort of modification of Air Power to do a mission where a fighter goes to a foreign city and looks for foreign fighters ie. Air Aggressor. Also I would like to see fighters and bombers get combat related promotions. Healz.
Drogear
Prince
Any update on the progress?
Donkey Puncher
Prince
hey guys any crumbs to tease us with
Healz
General
Yes, agreed any crumbs of an update on progress to tease us with?
Donkey Puncher
Prince
will you guys be adding any of the new civs from the likes of amra or civ gold
Healz
General
Yes, do give us information please? I would like to know at least a part of how you intend to develop this mod.
darkedone02
The Suggestor
Make sure it don't causes a lot of lag, cause lag is the biggest problem for me on my computer, even when I have good computer specs.
Healz
General
I agree about the low lag idea... Healz.
Donkey Puncher
Prince
hey guys any update would be very appreciated thanks
Donkey Puncher
Prince
will you guys use extra civs like the ones from civ gold
Healz
General
But if you slow everything down, is it likely that anyone will get to the final era by the end of the game? Even on someone like American on epic pumping out science, I still fail to make the modern era by the end of the game.
Anthropoid
Grognard fantome
I loved DYP and RAR for C3C. I'd agree about the economic warfare, additional units, and most of the other comments above. While I don't often finish a game because I like to play very long games (my own slight changes to Civ4 make the game last longer, units produce relatively faster, and thus allow amassing of more units to be used before they go obsolete), I think "slowing" the game down is generally a good thing. I've got two suggestions: (1) some suggestions for units and (2) comments/gripes/ideas for geography and scale .
First, some ideas for units. I know you guys will have lots of great units, but just some barebones ideas for the overall structure of changes that could be effected by making some slight changes to the existing units.
Archers (3), should (in addition to their current bonuses of +50% city and +25 hill) get a slight bonus against siege weapons (+25%?). I THINK that this will exentuate the mixed arms agenda of the game effectively.
Spearmen (4) should get +25% against mounted (=5), and +25% against melee (=5), general purpose ancient infantry.
Axemen (5) stay with +50% against melee (=7.5 vs 5 spears).
Horsemen should be a strength 5 (slightly weaker than a sword), but are otherwise fine as skirmishers who can sometimes run away.
Swordsmen should stay strength 6, but should get a bonus against melee weapons, not against cities.
Catapults (3) should come with MATHEMATICS instead of CONSTRUCTION, and should have +50% versus city, as well a+50% against melee (+50%). The city defenders of the ancient and classical era are archers (4.5 vs 5.25), spears (6 vs 4), and swords (6 vs 6).
With MACHINERY we then get Crossbowmen (4), +50% city defense (6), +25% hill defense. At strength 4 it counters catapults (6 vs 3) as well as +50% against melee (6 vs 6 for swordsmen in open, and 7 vs. 6 defending a city against melee). I had remembered crossbows being developed AFTER longbows, but in any case, that would involve even more Tech changes. Crossbows should also get a bonus against knights, say +50% (6 vs. 7 in the open, 8 vs. 7 if defending a city, 9 vs. 7 if defending a city on a hill).
CONSTRUCTION then gives us a better siege systems (e.g., siege towers, sappers, etc.) which can be represented by the unit trebuchet (3) +100% city attack. This unit is a partial counter to the crossbow as city defender (6 vs. 6), but not very good for much else.
Knights come with with GUILDS (7) +50% vs. melee (10.5 vs. 5 for spears, vs 6 for swords, or 9 for pikes). This makes knights good for what they were actually used for, dominating the open battlefield, but not good for attacking cities defended by crossbowmen (7 vs. 8 at best).
Longbows comes with FEUDALISM (4) +75% city defense (7), +25% hills (5), +75% vs. knights (7 vs. 7 in the open, 8 vs. 7 on hills, 11 vs. 7 defending a city, and 12 vs 7 defending a city on a hil).
Pikes, rather than being a counter to mounted units (+100% in the game settings), should simply be a counter to swordsmen, whereas longbows should be an intermediary counter to knights, and then arquebusier a pretty much total counter to knights.
Pikes (6) +50% vs. melee, +50% vs mounted (comes with ENGINEERING) are simply improved infantry, better spears, better armor, better organization. They are equally good at attacking or defending on the open battlefield (9 vs. melee and mounted), but not great at taking cities (6 vs. 7 if a longbow or crossbow are defending the city).
Longbowmen, the medieval city defender should be countered by a late medieval arty weapon of some sort, say a Trebuchet (4) +100% city attack (8 vs. 7 for longbow defending a city, 8 vs. 6 for crossbow defending a city), which should come with CIVIL SERVICE.
Macemen (6), the equivalent of "men-at-arms" late medieval professional / mercenary soldier types, should come with BANKING. These guys should be good at attacking cities (+75% city attack = 10.5 vs. 7 for a longbow or crossbowmen defending a city), fair at fighting knights (+10% against mounted = 6.6 vs. 7), but not exceptional at defending cities . Since swordsmen are also a 6 strength unit, macemen should also get a +20% against melee to make them ONLY slightly stronger than these classical era units (7.2 vs 6 for swordsmen, but only 7.2 vs. 9 for pikemen). Alexander the Greats infantry would not have been a lot different from those which Henry IV used at Agincourt). So macemen are good at storming cities, but not particularly good at fighting pitched open-area battles (7.2 vs. pikemen at 9).
Macemen will be good for storming cities (10.5 vs. 7 for the best city defenders), but out in the open, crossbows (6 vs. 6 on flat ground and 8 vs 6 on hills) will remain a reasonable defender against such forces, and large infantry forces, pikes (9 vs. 7.2) can still mow down these hired attackers.
Instead of musketman with GUNPOWDER, lets have arquebus with GUNPOWDER. Strength of 5, but 100% against mounted, shield cost slightly less than what a pikeman costs. This gives us a unit that can finally standup to the knight (read, penetrate their armor), but is not particularly good for much else, i.e., remains vulnerable to even ancient style masses of pikes and swordsmen, longbows or crossbows.
NATIONALISM gives a slight counter to the first primitive firearms in the form of cuirassiers (11).
With REPLACEABLE PARTS lets have flintlock (6) with +75% against arrow units (9 vs. 7 for the best city defenders or arrow units), +25% vs. melee units (8 vs. 6 for pikes or swords, 8 vs 4 vs. spears), +75% vs. mounted (9 vs. 11 for cuirassiers, or 9 vs. 7 for knights). Whereas the very first firearms were only good as a counter to knights, and because they were slow and cumbersome needed defense against virtually any other unit, matchlocks are more versatile, they can actually attack and take a city, or defend a city, and defend themselves in the open battlefield, except they are underpowered relative to the cuirassiers. Whereas the arquebus was simply a counter to knights on the open battlefield, the matchlock is actually STARTING to force changes in the late medieval tradition of defending cities with longbows and crossbows.
-=-=-=-
Second geography and scale. This issue has a bit less salience to a RAR type of mod, but maybe it will give you guys some ideas.
The thing that irritates me about most C3C world maps is they are way too small. The idea of their being "one tile" space between Washington and Baltimore is preposterous for a "world map." I know why it happens this way: limit to ~500 cities in C3C (or at least earlier unpatched versions of it). Also, I know that, when a map gets truly huge, it slows down the game, but that just means buy a faster/bigger chip and more memory!
Based on the fact that Baltimore-Washington is ~39 miles apart, and Essen-Dusseldorf is ~23 miles apart, and using a 3 tile gap between cities rule, the IDEAL size for maximum accuracy would be 7.5 miles per tile. Now, I know, that is probably impossible using existing technology and the Civ4 engine.
Using the figures of 24,900 (Earth circumference) and 9750 miles (distance between 77-degrees north lat, and 64-degrees south lat that needs to be represented between the mostly irrelevant polar zones) we get the following size for an ideal Earth map that would allow enough open space to actually allow individual units (division size or smaller) to be used realistically (ideally 7.5 mile hexes).
1300 tiles north-south axis
3320 tiles east-west axis
Is this utterly impossible? If so, what would be the MAXIMUM possible size map to generate in Civ4 Warlords? What processor-hogging aspects of Civ4 would need to be turned OFF to make playing such a massive map possible?
STACKING LIMITS? limiting any hex to an absolute max of 8 or something might be a very good move in terms of strategy (less for mts, jungles etc., perhaps more for coast, and ocean). Most war games, including good computer-based war games like The Operational Art of War III have stacking limits.
http://www.digitalriver.com/dr/sat5/...CID=119338&PID =832786&PN=1&V1=832786&CUR=124&DSP=&PGRP=0&ABCODE= &CACHE_ID=119338
Also, is there another Warlords patch else mapmaker edition impending that might prompt one to delay starting on making such a huge map?
Here is what someone had to say to this in another thread:
The scenarios that would be facilitated by a truly massive scale map would be:
Age of Discovery
Hundred Years War
Age of Imperialism
American Civil War
Era of Battleships
WWI
WWII
Korean Conflict
Vietnam Era
The Cold War
The Gulf War I and II
War on Terror
I've been a player in the ongoing PBEM "The Cold War" for over a year now, and I think that a very big Earth map in Civ4 Warlords would provide a foundation on which to get some modder going on a similar mod for Civ4.
The biggest Civ4 map of which I am aware so far is Gengis Kai's (90 x 210) map. Has anyone played the Genghis Kai's Giant map (90 x 210), or a larger Civ4 map through to the 21st century? If so, what are your system specs and what sort of turn times did you have at the end? Just curious, because that would be a good litmus test of the viability of making even larger maps.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showth...184684&page=11
The realism/strategy ideal of 1300 x 3320 size map is probably impossible based on existing technology, and the way the game is set up, i.e., a memory hog because of fancy graphics, etc.. However, MAYBE 650 x 1660 could be made to work by resetting things in the game that eat up lots of processor time? I'm just seeking feedback, and do not mean to impugn the exemplary work of others.
The map I'm talking about making might NOT be very suitable for an epic "all of human history" sort of experience, but would require that most cities be pre-placed, and that settlers not be buildable, and that AI behavior be carefully shaped to insure that it suited the specific scenario. However, all of that are even further elaborations on the foundational work which needs to be done which is simply having a maximum sized Earth map! The bigger the map, the more suitable it will be for a variety of scenarios, and thus, my raison de posting item #2 in this post.
Also, to clarify about the issue of the viability of massive map games given the game being limited (at present) to only 24 civs, I do not think that this is an issue. For example, El Justo's TCW mod has a few more than 24, something like 30 I think for the SP version. However, the MP version has only 8 civs. This is done simply by combining Latin America into a single tribe, combining Canada, Australia, NZ, England, etc., into the UK, etc. So, I don't think that being limited to 24 tribes would be an insurmountable impediment to taking the sort of prospective map I'm discussing (i.e., a very LARGE Earth world map, with enough room for say, 8 or 10 communities in Vietnam alone?).
An example of how to reconcile 24 tribe slots with a massive Earth map with the example of a WWII scenario. 24 slots for tribes would allow all the major players to have a slot, and leave a few extra slots for "non-aligned powers" or something like that. This is how the "Kamikaze Contest" map for WWII works: all of Latin America, large portions of Africa, and a few other sundry places are in the "neutral powers" "nation" The have limited numbers of cities and buildings, can only build immobile defensive units, and IIRC, cannot trade techs. Thus, they sit there, and if one of the active players or AIs WANTS to start taking over that territory, they can allocate their resources in that way, but generally because of how the scenario is set up (VP tiles, etc.) this is a losing venture. However, because the territory is THERE it provides for an interesting set of alternatives, and also more realistically presents the geographical factors impinging on a simulation of the WWII era.
So in sum, the lack of civ slots would not present a serious difficulty for making good scenarios of the sort I present in the list using the sort of very large map I'm thinking of making. I just need to know how big the maximum sized Civ4 map can/should be!
Someone in another thread commented that my list of potential scenarios that a truly massive Civ4 map could facilitate was interesting, but questioned whether (for example) a good "Vietnam War Scenario" might best be served using a map that represented mostly only Vietnam. Actually I think that a proper Civ scenario for "Vietnam War" must actually be about the "ERA" and not simply about the strategy and tactics of war in that particular theatre. There are already excellent games (e.g., TOAW III) that focus on the military aspect of most wars in the last 200 years, which Civ is not in any position to improve on because of the game engine.
However, what the modern-war scenarios in games like TOAW III do not cover, which Civ is well suited to cover, is the balance and interplay between warfare, social, technological, political, and cultural factors. But in order to accurately represent such factors, what would be needed (at minimum) is a map that presents a sufficient number of communities in both of the key nations: Vietnam, China, and Russia all had troops on the ground in Vietnam. Thailand, Cambodia were theatres of war, and if memory serves Thailand had a contingent of troops in the FWP nations, which also included: Australia, New Zealand, Korea, and possibly at least one other nation I'm forgetting . . . oh yes! the United States!
So at minimum, a Civ-Style simulation or alternate history scenario for Vietnam must include all (or at least some) of each of these nations. A map like the one used in the C3C "War in the Pacific" scenario might suffice, but I think that properly representing Vietnam might actually require a large scale map in which Vietnam is disproportionately large (and Pacific Ocean small) compared to the rest. However, a whole Earth map that was at the "ideal" scale of 7.5 miles per tile would also serve very nicely (if it wasn't impossible because of game speed issues).
So, there is a purpose behind my interest. A Civ4 map that is the MAXIMUM POSSIBLE size would have applications, and if it existed, some prospective modders who were interested in making one of the above listed scenarios might take it up as a project (probably not me!). The existing "large" Civ4 maps (e.g., Genghis Kai's Giant Map at 90 x 210) are probably well-suited for an epic "all of human history" sort of game, but what I'm targetting is something a bit different. Specifically, a map that is suited for simulating modern global history (in which most cities are pre-built and capacity to build more is dramatically limited), or specfiic segments of that ~500 year period.
All these points about geography and scaling do not relate directly to RAR, but I do think that they are of worth for you guys to consider. I'm not a modder, but I do make maps, so if I can ever figure out what the maximum size is that will work, I will make a truly massive Earth map for Civ4 Warlords.
Maybe certain bells-and-whistles parts of the game will need to be turned off to make it possible to run a map at a truly massive scale. I think even getting half way to the ideal size of 7.5 mile tiles (1300 x 3320 size map) by having 15mile tiles (650 x 1660) would be a serious improvement for many scenarios IF it was playable. The current best for Civ4 is 118 mile tiles (90 x 210) and the best I've seen for C3C is the Huge The Cold War 1950s Map with 70 mile tiles (354 x 325).
Given that the minimum distance we are seeking to be able to simulate is that between either Essen-Dusseldorf or Washington-Baltimore (23 and 39 miles respectively), another possible solution would be to reduce the space between cities to 1 tile, and make the tiles represent 30 miles, which would require a map of (325 x 830). My sense is that, this is about the maximum that one "unit" (a division/brigade for modern) can reasonably be expected to cover (and that is stretching it). For example, several of the modern scenarios in the TOAW III game have maps that are Division/Brigrade level units with maps that are 14 km hexes (8.4 miles).
So, if RAR can be in any way designed (or if an alternate "MASSIVE SCALE" version can easily be setup by making some minor changes in the aspects of the game that eat up processor time), I'd love to help out with that, and also I'll volunteer to make the massive scale Earth map. It might take me a year, but I'd do it. I've finished several maps for C3C.
First, some ideas for units. I know you guys will have lots of great units, but just some barebones ideas for the overall structure of changes that could be effected by making some slight changes to the existing units.
Archers (3), should (in addition to their current bonuses of +50% city and +25 hill) get a slight bonus against siege weapons (+25%?). I THINK that this will exentuate the mixed arms agenda of the game effectively.
Spearmen (4) should get +25% against mounted (=5), and +25% against melee (=5), general purpose ancient infantry.
Axemen (5) stay with +50% against melee (=7.5 vs 5 spears).
Horsemen should be a strength 5 (slightly weaker than a sword), but are otherwise fine as skirmishers who can sometimes run away.
Swordsmen should stay strength 6, but should get a bonus against melee weapons, not against cities.
Catapults (3) should come with MATHEMATICS instead of CONSTRUCTION, and should have +50% versus city, as well a+50% against melee (+50%). The city defenders of the ancient and classical era are archers (4.5 vs 5.25), spears (6 vs 4), and swords (6 vs 6).
With MACHINERY we then get Crossbowmen (4), +50% city defense (6), +25% hill defense. At strength 4 it counters catapults (6 vs 3) as well as +50% against melee (6 vs 6 for swordsmen in open, and 7 vs. 6 defending a city against melee). I had remembered crossbows being developed AFTER longbows, but in any case, that would involve even more Tech changes. Crossbows should also get a bonus against knights, say +50% (6 vs. 7 in the open, 8 vs. 7 if defending a city, 9 vs. 7 if defending a city on a hill).
CONSTRUCTION then gives us a better siege systems (e.g., siege towers, sappers, etc.) which can be represented by the unit trebuchet (3) +100% city attack. This unit is a partial counter to the crossbow as city defender (6 vs. 6), but not very good for much else.
Knights come with with GUILDS (7) +50% vs. melee (10.5 vs. 5 for spears, vs 6 for swords, or 9 for pikes). This makes knights good for what they were actually used for, dominating the open battlefield, but not good for attacking cities defended by crossbowmen (7 vs. 8 at best).
Longbows comes with FEUDALISM (4) +75% city defense (7), +25% hills (5), +75% vs. knights (7 vs. 7 in the open, 8 vs. 7 on hills, 11 vs. 7 defending a city, and 12 vs 7 defending a city on a hil).
Pikes, rather than being a counter to mounted units (+100% in the game settings), should simply be a counter to swordsmen, whereas longbows should be an intermediary counter to knights, and then arquebusier a pretty much total counter to knights.
Pikes (6) +50% vs. melee, +50% vs mounted (comes with ENGINEERING) are simply improved infantry, better spears, better armor, better organization. They are equally good at attacking or defending on the open battlefield (9 vs. melee and mounted), but not great at taking cities (6 vs. 7 if a longbow or crossbow are defending the city).
Longbowmen, the medieval city defender should be countered by a late medieval arty weapon of some sort, say a Trebuchet (4) +100% city attack (8 vs. 7 for longbow defending a city, 8 vs. 6 for crossbow defending a city), which should come with CIVIL SERVICE.
Macemen (6), the equivalent of "men-at-arms" late medieval professional / mercenary soldier types, should come with BANKING. These guys should be good at attacking cities (+75% city attack = 10.5 vs. 7 for a longbow or crossbowmen defending a city), fair at fighting knights (+10% against mounted = 6.6 vs. 7), but not exceptional at defending cities . Since swordsmen are also a 6 strength unit, macemen should also get a +20% against melee to make them ONLY slightly stronger than these classical era units (7.2 vs 6 for swordsmen, but only 7.2 vs. 9 for pikemen). Alexander the Greats infantry would not have been a lot different from those which Henry IV used at Agincourt). So macemen are good at storming cities, but not particularly good at fighting pitched open-area battles (7.2 vs. pikemen at 9).
Macemen will be good for storming cities (10.5 vs. 7 for the best city defenders), but out in the open, crossbows (6 vs. 6 on flat ground and 8 vs 6 on hills) will remain a reasonable defender against such forces, and large infantry forces, pikes (9 vs. 7.2) can still mow down these hired attackers.
Instead of musketman with GUNPOWDER, lets have arquebus with GUNPOWDER. Strength of 5, but 100% against mounted, shield cost slightly less than what a pikeman costs. This gives us a unit that can finally standup to the knight (read, penetrate their armor), but is not particularly good for much else, i.e., remains vulnerable to even ancient style masses of pikes and swordsmen, longbows or crossbows.
NATIONALISM gives a slight counter to the first primitive firearms in the form of cuirassiers (11).
With REPLACEABLE PARTS lets have flintlock (6) with +75% against arrow units (9 vs. 7 for the best city defenders or arrow units), +25% vs. melee units (8 vs. 6 for pikes or swords, 8 vs 4 vs. spears), +75% vs. mounted (9 vs. 11 for cuirassiers, or 9 vs. 7 for knights). Whereas the very first firearms were only good as a counter to knights, and because they were slow and cumbersome needed defense against virtually any other unit, matchlocks are more versatile, they can actually attack and take a city, or defend a city, and defend themselves in the open battlefield, except they are underpowered relative to the cuirassiers. Whereas the arquebus was simply a counter to knights on the open battlefield, the matchlock is actually STARTING to force changes in the late medieval tradition of defending cities with longbows and crossbows.
-=-=-=-
Second geography and scale. This issue has a bit less salience to a RAR type of mod, but maybe it will give you guys some ideas.
The thing that irritates me about most C3C world maps is they are way too small. The idea of their being "one tile" space between Washington and Baltimore is preposterous for a "world map." I know why it happens this way: limit to ~500 cities in C3C (or at least earlier unpatched versions of it). Also, I know that, when a map gets truly huge, it slows down the game, but that just means buy a faster/bigger chip and more memory!
Based on the fact that Baltimore-Washington is ~39 miles apart, and Essen-Dusseldorf is ~23 miles apart, and using a 3 tile gap between cities rule, the IDEAL size for maximum accuracy would be 7.5 miles per tile. Now, I know, that is probably impossible using existing technology and the Civ4 engine.
Using the figures of 24,900 (Earth circumference) and 9750 miles (distance between 77-degrees north lat, and 64-degrees south lat that needs to be represented between the mostly irrelevant polar zones) we get the following size for an ideal Earth map that would allow enough open space to actually allow individual units (division size or smaller) to be used realistically (ideally 7.5 mile hexes).
1300 tiles north-south axis
3320 tiles east-west axis
Is this utterly impossible? If so, what would be the MAXIMUM possible size map to generate in Civ4 Warlords? What processor-hogging aspects of Civ4 would need to be turned OFF to make playing such a massive map possible?
STACKING LIMITS? limiting any hex to an absolute max of 8 or something might be a very good move in terms of strategy (less for mts, jungles etc., perhaps more for coast, and ocean). Most war games, including good computer-based war games like The Operational Art of War III have stacking limits.
http://www.digitalriver.com/dr/sat5/...CID=119338&PID =832786&PN=1&V1=832786&CUR=124&DSP=&PGRP=0&ABCODE= &CACHE_ID=119338
Also, is there another Warlords patch else mapmaker edition impending that might prompt one to delay starting on making such a huge map?
Here is what someone had to say to this in another thread:
The scenarios that would be facilitated by a truly massive scale map would be:
Age of Discovery
Hundred Years War
Age of Imperialism
American Civil War
Era of Battleships
WWI
WWII
Korean Conflict
Vietnam Era
The Cold War
The Gulf War I and II
War on Terror
I've been a player in the ongoing PBEM "The Cold War" for over a year now, and I think that a very big Earth map in Civ4 Warlords would provide a foundation on which to get some modder going on a similar mod for Civ4.
The biggest Civ4 map of which I am aware so far is Gengis Kai's (90 x 210) map. Has anyone played the Genghis Kai's Giant map (90 x 210), or a larger Civ4 map through to the 21st century? If so, what are your system specs and what sort of turn times did you have at the end? Just curious, because that would be a good litmus test of the viability of making even larger maps.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showth...184684&page=11
The realism/strategy ideal of 1300 x 3320 size map is probably impossible based on existing technology, and the way the game is set up, i.e., a memory hog because of fancy graphics, etc.. However, MAYBE 650 x 1660 could be made to work by resetting things in the game that eat up lots of processor time? I'm just seeking feedback, and do not mean to impugn the exemplary work of others.
The map I'm talking about making might NOT be very suitable for an epic "all of human history" sort of experience, but would require that most cities be pre-placed, and that settlers not be buildable, and that AI behavior be carefully shaped to insure that it suited the specific scenario. However, all of that are even further elaborations on the foundational work which needs to be done which is simply having a maximum sized Earth map! The bigger the map, the more suitable it will be for a variety of scenarios, and thus, my raison de posting item #2 in this post.
Also, to clarify about the issue of the viability of massive map games given the game being limited (at present) to only 24 civs, I do not think that this is an issue. For example, El Justo's TCW mod has a few more than 24, something like 30 I think for the SP version. However, the MP version has only 8 civs. This is done simply by combining Latin America into a single tribe, combining Canada, Australia, NZ, England, etc., into the UK, etc. So, I don't think that being limited to 24 tribes would be an insurmountable impediment to taking the sort of prospective map I'm discussing (i.e., a very LARGE Earth world map, with enough room for say, 8 or 10 communities in Vietnam alone?).
An example of how to reconcile 24 tribe slots with a massive Earth map with the example of a WWII scenario. 24 slots for tribes would allow all the major players to have a slot, and leave a few extra slots for "non-aligned powers" or something like that. This is how the "Kamikaze Contest" map for WWII works: all of Latin America, large portions of Africa, and a few other sundry places are in the "neutral powers" "nation" The have limited numbers of cities and buildings, can only build immobile defensive units, and IIRC, cannot trade techs. Thus, they sit there, and if one of the active players or AIs WANTS to start taking over that territory, they can allocate their resources in that way, but generally because of how the scenario is set up (VP tiles, etc.) this is a losing venture. However, because the territory is THERE it provides for an interesting set of alternatives, and also more realistically presents the geographical factors impinging on a simulation of the WWII era.
So in sum, the lack of civ slots would not present a serious difficulty for making good scenarios of the sort I present in the list using the sort of very large map I'm thinking of making. I just need to know how big the maximum sized Civ4 map can/should be!
Someone in another thread commented that my list of potential scenarios that a truly massive Civ4 map could facilitate was interesting, but questioned whether (for example) a good "Vietnam War Scenario" might best be served using a map that represented mostly only Vietnam. Actually I think that a proper Civ scenario for "Vietnam War" must actually be about the "ERA" and not simply about the strategy and tactics of war in that particular theatre. There are already excellent games (e.g., TOAW III) that focus on the military aspect of most wars in the last 200 years, which Civ is not in any position to improve on because of the game engine.
However, what the modern-war scenarios in games like TOAW III do not cover, which Civ is well suited to cover, is the balance and interplay between warfare, social, technological, political, and cultural factors. But in order to accurately represent such factors, what would be needed (at minimum) is a map that presents a sufficient number of communities in both of the key nations: Vietnam, China, and Russia all had troops on the ground in Vietnam. Thailand, Cambodia were theatres of war, and if memory serves Thailand had a contingent of troops in the FWP nations, which also included: Australia, New Zealand, Korea, and possibly at least one other nation I'm forgetting . . . oh yes! the United States!
So at minimum, a Civ-Style simulation or alternate history scenario for Vietnam must include all (or at least some) of each of these nations. A map like the one used in the C3C "War in the Pacific" scenario might suffice, but I think that properly representing Vietnam might actually require a large scale map in which Vietnam is disproportionately large (and Pacific Ocean small) compared to the rest. However, a whole Earth map that was at the "ideal" scale of 7.5 miles per tile would also serve very nicely (if it wasn't impossible because of game speed issues).
So, there is a purpose behind my interest. A Civ4 map that is the MAXIMUM POSSIBLE size would have applications, and if it existed, some prospective modders who were interested in making one of the above listed scenarios might take it up as a project (probably not me!). The existing "large" Civ4 maps (e.g., Genghis Kai's Giant Map at 90 x 210) are probably well-suited for an epic "all of human history" sort of game, but what I'm targetting is something a bit different. Specifically, a map that is suited for simulating modern global history (in which most cities are pre-built and capacity to build more is dramatically limited), or specfiic segments of that ~500 year period.
All these points about geography and scaling do not relate directly to RAR, but I do think that they are of worth for you guys to consider. I'm not a modder, but I do make maps, so if I can ever figure out what the maximum size is that will work, I will make a truly massive Earth map for Civ4 Warlords.
Maybe certain bells-and-whistles parts of the game will need to be turned off to make it possible to run a map at a truly massive scale. I think even getting half way to the ideal size of 7.5 mile tiles (1300 x 3320 size map) by having 15mile tiles (650 x 1660) would be a serious improvement for many scenarios IF it was playable. The current best for Civ4 is 118 mile tiles (90 x 210) and the best I've seen for C3C is the Huge The Cold War 1950s Map with 70 mile tiles (354 x 325).
Given that the minimum distance we are seeking to be able to simulate is that between either Essen-Dusseldorf or Washington-Baltimore (23 and 39 miles respectively), another possible solution would be to reduce the space between cities to 1 tile, and make the tiles represent 30 miles, which would require a map of (325 x 830). My sense is that, this is about the maximum that one "unit" (a division/brigade for modern) can reasonably be expected to cover (and that is stretching it). For example, several of the modern scenarios in the TOAW III game have maps that are Division/Brigrade level units with maps that are 14 km hexes (8.4 miles).
So, if RAR can be in any way designed (or if an alternate "MASSIVE SCALE" version can easily be setup by making some minor changes in the aspects of the game that eat up processor time), I'd love to help out with that, and also I'll volunteer to make the massive scale Earth map. It might take me a year, but I'd do it. I've finished several maps for C3C.
Anthropoid
Grognard fantome
Additional ideas of a strictly military operations nature, that I take primarily from the three Matrix Games (see the link in the above post): TOAW III, War in the Pacific, and War Plan Orange.
1) Include more factors that make units more dependent on the civ size (slower building, and/or require population to build, more maintenance, and/or cause more war weariness when dead). But don't have units die unless they are "routed," which occurs when they cannot retreat, either because they have no movement left, are interdicted, are actively engaged on their flanks or surrounded. Might not be possible in the game engine, but it might be interesting.
2) Give most units a Zone of Control, but give some units a "recon" ability that allows them to retreat (sometimes).
3) Stacking limits (e.g., city 8, grassland/flood 8, plains 7, hills 6, forest 5, jungle/tundra 4, desert 3, mountain 2, water tiles 16? [the limite for water tiles would require some additional thought]). Have one ancient (ca Roman Empire era) Tech like "garrison" that allows stacking limit to increase by 1 and increases defense by 25% or some such. Medieval version (castle) increases defense by 50% and stack by 1. Gunpowder version increases stack to 2 and defense to 50%. Modern version (bunker) increases stack by 2 and defense by 75%.
4) Give us a reason to have navies: specifically econimic/trade/resource units that are produced locally because of resources/buildings/techs, that must be loaded onto transport vessels and shipped back to the home town. Make these a BIG part of the game right from the early eras.
5) Warships. This is just an idea but it might be neat to have something similar to what they have in the Matrix Games War in the Pacific and War Plan Orange. Specifically, ships have three survivability/damage statistics (systems, flotation, fires). They also have a stat called "endurance" which is basically how much fuel they have, and their weapons have different effectiveness against various types of opponents (e.g., torpedoes, gun diameter, range, etc.). I realize that, Civ is a different game engine, and that not all of this should be attempted in Civ 4. However, is it "realistic" that a "galley" produced in the year 3500 BC can manage to circumnavigate around a large size planet in the span of the next 1000 years simply by hugging the coastline!?
Distinguishing damage into at least two types: systems damage constituting loss of either manpower or machinery/material on the ship itself (sails, engines, weapons). System damage does not make a unit sink, but it causes the unit to progressively lose its attack and movement. Flotation damage represents the actual integrity of the vessel(s) hull(s), and requires either going to a base, or having a self-healing ability to prevent it from accumulating. This would facilitate requiring ships that are otherwise floating fine to return home because their weapon, cargo, or recon systems are no longer functioning. Flotation damage, if not healed should eventually lead to a ship sinking, unless it has the ability to repair itself while remote from a base.
In combination with these changes, the issue of "endurance" could be dealt with in Civ4 by having all ships have a maximum "range" away from a homebase, beyond which they begin to take flotation damage. Techs, great leaders joined to a ship, etc., could make a ship either more resistant to wear-and-tear on long-trips, else more able to repair themselves when they take damage. Additional techs, skills, leaders could also allow a ship to repair systems damage.
A related issue to that of ship endurance is the issue of "fuel." Labor should be the major source of "fuel" for ships in the ancient era, but the era of sail should perhaps make ships less dependent on labor resource spots on the map. Labor depots, or "replenishment depots" (stocked with hemp, cotton for sails, coopers, etc.) could be built at remote locations (probably as a city improvement that depends on having some resources like lumber, cotton, tar, labor, etc.). Then with coal ships, we would need coal replinishment depots (and or collier vessels) and sources of coal. Coal ships that travel beyond their "range" from a coal depot should be reduced to 1 movement point, and start taking flotation damage. Then of course, we have the switch to petroleum-based engines in the early 20th century, and the need to revise all those coal depots into oil depots. Lastly, nuclear-powered vessels would be able to go where they want with only the occasional refitting back at home port.
6) Resources: if at all possible, represent resources in measurable UNITS (tons of grain, barrels of win, barrels of oil) and allow surpluses to be accumulated (albeit with shelf lives of one or two turns leading to decay of some resources) which can be hoarded to change the market, or traded to desperate clients in trickles or in lump sums. I realize this is a big change, and I don't blame you guys for not tackling it. It is frankly shameful that Firaxis has continued to rely on such a simply gross measure of resources to date.
7) Improvement of resources via technological advances: the following foods did not exist in Europe prior to their discovery in the new world in ~1500:
allspice
amaranth
artichoke
avocado
kidney/lima/butter/pole/kidney/navy/haricot/snap/string/frijole etc bean
blackberry
blueberry
cacao (chocolate)
cashew nut
cassava/manioc/tapioca
black cherry
corn/maize
cranberry
concord grape
guava
huckleberry
papaya
peanut
pecan
capsicum/chili/cayenne/paprika/sweet pepper
pineapple
popcorn
potato
pumpkin/squash/vegetable marrow/gourd
quinoa
raspberry
wild rice
sassafras
sunflower
sweet potato
tomato
turkey
vanilla
Many are now profitably cultivated on large scale back in the Old World and in other parts of the world. In short, although the "tomato" resource did not exist "on the map" in the Old World, at some point after 1500 it DID start to exist on the map in the Old World, and this is not dependent on any Old World nation having territory in the New World or on it trading with a New World partner. In short, there should be technologies, and projects that allow resources to be "transplanted" to new locations. Related to this, technologies should allow for certain resources to produce more or better results (something that was pretty common in RAR and DYP).
1) Include more factors that make units more dependent on the civ size (slower building, and/or require population to build, more maintenance, and/or cause more war weariness when dead). But don't have units die unless they are "routed," which occurs when they cannot retreat, either because they have no movement left, are interdicted, are actively engaged on their flanks or surrounded. Might not be possible in the game engine, but it might be interesting.
2) Give most units a Zone of Control, but give some units a "recon" ability that allows them to retreat (sometimes).
3) Stacking limits (e.g., city 8, grassland/flood 8, plains 7, hills 6, forest 5, jungle/tundra 4, desert 3, mountain 2, water tiles 16? [the limite for water tiles would require some additional thought]). Have one ancient (ca Roman Empire era) Tech like "garrison" that allows stacking limit to increase by 1 and increases defense by 25% or some such. Medieval version (castle) increases defense by 50% and stack by 1. Gunpowder version increases stack to 2 and defense to 50%. Modern version (bunker) increases stack by 2 and defense by 75%.
4) Give us a reason to have navies: specifically econimic/trade/resource units that are produced locally because of resources/buildings/techs, that must be loaded onto transport vessels and shipped back to the home town. Make these a BIG part of the game right from the early eras.
5) Warships. This is just an idea but it might be neat to have something similar to what they have in the Matrix Games War in the Pacific and War Plan Orange. Specifically, ships have three survivability/damage statistics (systems, flotation, fires). They also have a stat called "endurance" which is basically how much fuel they have, and their weapons have different effectiveness against various types of opponents (e.g., torpedoes, gun diameter, range, etc.). I realize that, Civ is a different game engine, and that not all of this should be attempted in Civ 4. However, is it "realistic" that a "galley" produced in the year 3500 BC can manage to circumnavigate around a large size planet in the span of the next 1000 years simply by hugging the coastline!?
Distinguishing damage into at least two types: systems damage constituting loss of either manpower or machinery/material on the ship itself (sails, engines, weapons). System damage does not make a unit sink, but it causes the unit to progressively lose its attack and movement. Flotation damage represents the actual integrity of the vessel(s) hull(s), and requires either going to a base, or having a self-healing ability to prevent it from accumulating. This would facilitate requiring ships that are otherwise floating fine to return home because their weapon, cargo, or recon systems are no longer functioning. Flotation damage, if not healed should eventually lead to a ship sinking, unless it has the ability to repair itself while remote from a base.
In combination with these changes, the issue of "endurance" could be dealt with in Civ4 by having all ships have a maximum "range" away from a homebase, beyond which they begin to take flotation damage. Techs, great leaders joined to a ship, etc., could make a ship either more resistant to wear-and-tear on long-trips, else more able to repair themselves when they take damage. Additional techs, skills, leaders could also allow a ship to repair systems damage.
A related issue to that of ship endurance is the issue of "fuel." Labor should be the major source of "fuel" for ships in the ancient era, but the era of sail should perhaps make ships less dependent on labor resource spots on the map. Labor depots, or "replenishment depots" (stocked with hemp, cotton for sails, coopers, etc.) could be built at remote locations (probably as a city improvement that depends on having some resources like lumber, cotton, tar, labor, etc.). Then with coal ships, we would need coal replinishment depots (and or collier vessels) and sources of coal. Coal ships that travel beyond their "range" from a coal depot should be reduced to 1 movement point, and start taking flotation damage. Then of course, we have the switch to petroleum-based engines in the early 20th century, and the need to revise all those coal depots into oil depots. Lastly, nuclear-powered vessels would be able to go where they want with only the occasional refitting back at home port.
6) Resources: if at all possible, represent resources in measurable UNITS (tons of grain, barrels of win, barrels of oil) and allow surpluses to be accumulated (albeit with shelf lives of one or two turns leading to decay of some resources) which can be hoarded to change the market, or traded to desperate clients in trickles or in lump sums. I realize this is a big change, and I don't blame you guys for not tackling it. It is frankly shameful that Firaxis has continued to rely on such a simply gross measure of resources to date.
7) Improvement of resources via technological advances: the following foods did not exist in Europe prior to their discovery in the new world in ~1500:
allspice
amaranth
artichoke
avocado
kidney/lima/butter/pole/kidney/navy/haricot/snap/string/frijole etc bean
blackberry
blueberry
cacao (chocolate)
cashew nut
cassava/manioc/tapioca
black cherry
corn/maize
cranberry
concord grape
guava
huckleberry
papaya
peanut
pecan
capsicum/chili/cayenne/paprika/sweet pepper
pineapple
popcorn
potato
pumpkin/squash/vegetable marrow/gourd
quinoa
raspberry
wild rice
sassafras
sunflower
sweet potato
tomato
turkey
vanilla
Many are now profitably cultivated on large scale back in the Old World and in other parts of the world. In short, although the "tomato" resource did not exist "on the map" in the Old World, at some point after 1500 it DID start to exist on the map in the Old World, and this is not dependent on any Old World nation having territory in the New World or on it trading with a New World partner. In short, there should be technologies, and projects that allow resources to be "transplanted" to new locations. Related to this, technologies should allow for certain resources to produce more or better results (something that was pretty common in RAR and DYP).
Similar threads
