Anthropoid
Grognard fantome
More stuff . . . sorry this is so much, I just have lots of ideas, and your previous mods have been so amazing, you are my only hope!
I think ROP abuses should still be an option; albeit one which will stigmatize you forever.
The reputation and friendship things still need tweeking.
The idea that an artillery unit has to frontally engage an opponent to the extent that the unit is routed and evaporates is lame.
All of these lame elements are simply reflections of them attempting to achieve game balance. The game is balanced, but at the cost of certain tactical and strategic avenues being made into farce.
The real problem here is that many of us like to use smart tactics, and Civ4 offers less capacity to use tactics than did Civ3. The extent of tactics in Civ4 comprises: anticipating what units will be most efficient in attacking your enemies; anticipating what promotions will be most effective; having your units arrayed in proper mixes in stacks so that you maximize their effectiveness and minimize their harm. The problem is this: the arraying part is completely farcical given that the scale of the game is strategic, not tactical. Thus, what the game makers have sought to do is include a bit of tactics into a strategic level game, but it is at the cost of silly things like artillery which engages in frontal charges and dies by the droves.
The designers would have done far better, introducing a tactical overlay, if they had included some elementary supply/moral factors (besiegers have both defenders erode at a given rate) rather than the introduction of suicide units.
While I disliked the "death stacks" of artillery in civ 3, a unit density limitation would have solve the problem nicely and cleanly; combined with a limited ratio of artillery to : cities, else support units, else SOMETHING!
Artillery should not DIE from attacking, it is absurd! They have made it this way simply because they could not figure out how to make the Civ AI use arty effectively (which is baffling, because bombardment units certainly work fine in the hands of programmed opponents in other game engines) and they wanted to foil this human vs. AI exploit.
In a way, supply IS included in the game what with the gold cost for units in enemy territory. But I think that the potential to bring out some of the things some of us are missing in mods is not that difficult.
First, make arty (and ships) able to bombard like planes, and lower their attack ratings and make their bombard ratings separate from their "strength" ratings.
Second, create a new unit type called "headquarters." Numbers of headquarters allowed is dependent on the scenario but it could be pre-set, could be based on pop size, techs, or numbers of cities (for the standard epic game, a combination of cities and techs is the advisable default setting, say for e.g., 1 HQ per capital, 1 per each 2 cities beyond that up to a max of an additional 4, 1 additional at two, five, seven, and 12 million population, and discovering certain techs allows one additional, something like that). Headquarters are necessary for: (1) to build arty units (say e.g., that you can build 3 arty for each HQ or something like that); (2) give combat and/or healing bonuses to units adjacent; (3) increase stacking limit by 33% (or some such).
Third, stacking limits.
Fourth, give almost all units a Zone of Control: this will force adjacent enemy units to engage and not simply be able to move around freely as if the enemy was not even there.
Fifth, teach the AI how to fortify its borders!
Sixth, insofar as seige operations go, you can't really starve out a city or position. I also am disappointed that CIV IV didn't develop some type of communications/supply/logistics environment- the North Korean blitz was halted by airpower and destroyed by MacArthur's flank attack, both logistic strikes.
To give you some more ideas here is a quote from Psweetman who posted in a thread of gripes about Civ4 over at 1BC
ADDIT: add a couple additional terrain types as in past RARs, allow deserts to be built on based on techs, and differentiate mountains into mountains and snow-capped. Mountains having a really high movement cost, and snow-capped being impassable except to a few very specialized units of some sort.
I think ROP abuses should still be an option; albeit one which will stigmatize you forever.
The reputation and friendship things still need tweeking.
The idea that an artillery unit has to frontally engage an opponent to the extent that the unit is routed and evaporates is lame.
All of these lame elements are simply reflections of them attempting to achieve game balance. The game is balanced, but at the cost of certain tactical and strategic avenues being made into farce.
The real problem here is that many of us like to use smart tactics, and Civ4 offers less capacity to use tactics than did Civ3. The extent of tactics in Civ4 comprises: anticipating what units will be most efficient in attacking your enemies; anticipating what promotions will be most effective; having your units arrayed in proper mixes in stacks so that you maximize their effectiveness and minimize their harm. The problem is this: the arraying part is completely farcical given that the scale of the game is strategic, not tactical. Thus, what the game makers have sought to do is include a bit of tactics into a strategic level game, but it is at the cost of silly things like artillery which engages in frontal charges and dies by the droves.
The designers would have done far better, introducing a tactical overlay, if they had included some elementary supply/moral factors (besiegers have both defenders erode at a given rate) rather than the introduction of suicide units.
While I disliked the "death stacks" of artillery in civ 3, a unit density limitation would have solve the problem nicely and cleanly; combined with a limited ratio of artillery to : cities, else support units, else SOMETHING!
Artillery should not DIE from attacking, it is absurd! They have made it this way simply because they could not figure out how to make the Civ AI use arty effectively (which is baffling, because bombardment units certainly work fine in the hands of programmed opponents in other game engines) and they wanted to foil this human vs. AI exploit.
In a way, supply IS included in the game what with the gold cost for units in enemy territory. But I think that the potential to bring out some of the things some of us are missing in mods is not that difficult.
First, make arty (and ships) able to bombard like planes, and lower their attack ratings and make their bombard ratings separate from their "strength" ratings.
Second, create a new unit type called "headquarters." Numbers of headquarters allowed is dependent on the scenario but it could be pre-set, could be based on pop size, techs, or numbers of cities (for the standard epic game, a combination of cities and techs is the advisable default setting, say for e.g., 1 HQ per capital, 1 per each 2 cities beyond that up to a max of an additional 4, 1 additional at two, five, seven, and 12 million population, and discovering certain techs allows one additional, something like that). Headquarters are necessary for: (1) to build arty units (say e.g., that you can build 3 arty for each HQ or something like that); (2) give combat and/or healing bonuses to units adjacent; (3) increase stacking limit by 33% (or some such).
Third, stacking limits.
Fourth, give almost all units a Zone of Control: this will force adjacent enemy units to engage and not simply be able to move around freely as if the enemy was not even there.
Fifth, teach the AI how to fortify its borders!
Sixth, insofar as seige operations go, you can't really starve out a city or position. I also am disappointed that CIV IV didn't develop some type of communications/supply/logistics environment- the North Korean blitz was halted by airpower and destroyed by MacArthur's flank attack, both logistic strikes.
To give you some more ideas here is a quote from Psweetman who posted in a thread of gripes about Civ4 over at 1BC
psweetman1590 (8/13/2006)
psweet, what do you mean by saying that wars historically have favoured the attacker? Would you like to post some proof for this claim?
Even in eras where wars have been resolved by pitched battles on field, a strategic defender has almost always better access to supply, giving an operational advantage. Many a battle has been fought in circumstances favouring the defender due to the supply problems of the attacker forcing him to press for an engagement.
I'm not talking tactically, I'm talking strategically, as befits discussion of a strategy game. You want proof?
How many wars have you seen where a nation adopted a defensive stance in a war with an equal (relatively) and won?
Yet this happens all the time in cIV. I declare war, and if I invade right away, my offensive stalls. Always. But if I sit back and let them invade me. I will crush them. Always. This is plain not how it's supposed to work. And even after I crush the AI invading force, I still have to plow through their cities with large stacks.
Can you explain why using a large sum or artillery counters the whole idea that it isn't a form of blitz styled tactics?
In real life, it isn't. But this is because in real life a nation doesn't sit back in the cities and dig in there; they form a line at the frontier. In real life there are supply lines and morale. In real life if you can punture that frontier line, disrupt the supply lines and suround an enemy, they will often surrender. This does not happen in civ. And thus, the artillery's main job in the blitzkreig - to weaken the line so a breakthrough is possible - is non-existant in cIV (nor is it present in civIII, but there are ways to work around it there).
Alright, since that isn't as clear as I would like it to be, I'll give you examples of lightening war, one from real life, one from civ III, and one from cIV.
Life: The artillery batters the frontline. The defenders are weakened, their defenses blown apart, and their will to resist shaken to one degree or another. Now the tanks roll in, blasting the defenses aside and peircing a hole in the front. The enemy sends reinforcements to plug the gap, but the tanks are moving too quickly to be pinned down by infantry and the airforce prevents enemy armour from arriving on the scene. The infantry moves up and enlarges the hole, expanding it and pushing the defenders back yet farther. Meanwhile, more and more armour pour through the gap. They swing around the enemy, causing havok to reign in their supply areas. They quickly surround the enemy, who, realising they are surrounded and completely cut off from supplies, eventually surrender.
The upshot here is to defeat your enemy without having to actually fight him too much. In well conducted offensives, you capture far more than you kill. Can't happen in civ games (pity) but it can be simulated in a way....
Civ III: I invade and take a city in the corner of an enemy's empire without any supporting bombardment (lets see you do that in cIV, by the way), and the enemy is drawn to that section of the empire with all of his troops. But after advancing as far as his armies can, he finds he has been ambushed. The artillery blasts every road leading into the area and punishes the invading enemy mercilessly. I lack the forces necesary to kill all of them in one turn, but I have given them no route to escape by either. I do not even bother attempting to kill them all, as they pose no threat now, and I instead use all of my remaining firepower elsewhere. Because I did not bother cleaning up the straglers near the city I just captured, I can afford concentrate my forces, and by the end of that turn I have taken three key production and resource centers. From here on they will not be able to challenge me in a meaningful way, as I have utterly crushed their ability to wage war.
The point here was that I outmaneuvered my enemy (the basis of the blitzkreig), and defeated him really without having to fight the majority of his forces (the end result of the blitzkreig).
cIV: I declare war on an enemy, but sit back. I know that if I invade him first I'll merely be smothered by catapults and my assualt cannot be made to succeed. So I wait and, true to form, the AI invades me. So, I smother HIM with catapults, and wipe out his offensive conclusively. Now I can finally invade. After three turns of marching, my forces finally reach the enemy city (even my fast pillagers had to wait, as they could accomplish nothing against the city without the artillery). I bombard the defenses down to zero, then start throwing my artillery away in the effort to reduce the strength of the garrison. After doing so, I attack. But, no matter what unti I choose to attack with, they always pull something out to counter it, and I still cannot find a way to gain a favorable edge. Anyhow, after capturing the city, I now need to wait for more artillery to catch up to the invasion force. So, two turns later, I start out again, and two turns after that I reach the next town...
Now, reading that, here's my conclusion:
Just because you are forced to use artillery and combined arms in cIV doesn't make blitzkreigs possible. WWI used combined artillery and infantry, and you can't possibly call that a blitz can you? Second, the principle objectives of the blitz are: victory through maneuver; and defeating the enemy with as little time and effort as possible.
Is the first present here? No, the enemy has more than ample time to shift his forces to meet each new threat you pose to him there. How about the second? No, infact, because the campaign is so slow, you allow the enemy a lot of time to produce new units and so the whole thing becomes the attrition model, which is the opposite of the blitz, or war of maneuver.
Does that answer your questions now?
ADDIT: add a couple additional terrain types as in past RARs, allow deserts to be built on based on techs, and differentiate mountains into mountains and snow-capped. Mountains having a really high movement cost, and snow-capped being impassable except to a few very specialized units of some sort.