1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice
  6. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Rhye's Catapult

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Creation & Customization' started by Rhye, Mar 18, 2006.

  1. Rhye

    Rhye 's and Fall creator

    Joined:
    May 23, 2001
    Messages:
    9,468
    Location:
    Japan / South America
    the problem is: will there be a fall of Roman empire? Not always. And it could happen earlier or later, depending on casuality.
    France, Spain and England are quite close together, but not in the same turn.
    I've considered for all of them the earliest possible date (that isn't related to another people, like Gauls or Iberians)

    In general, the rules I've followed are the latter one (earliest date of the specific people, always followed but a couple of times), and to try to make a regular flow of births, without booms or bottlenecks, when possible.
     
  2. Gunner

    Gunner Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,389
    Location:
    Goochland, VA
    Just thinking about how civs will be created and stuff, I think the human player should definitely be susceptible to losing cities to a new civ. So a player playing as the Romans would lose at least some of his cities in France when France is created.
     
  3. Rhye

    Rhye 's and Fall creator

    Joined:
    May 23, 2001
    Messages:
    9,468
    Location:
    Japan / South America
    yes, this case applies to the human player as well.
     
  4. Rhye

    Rhye 's and Fall creator

    Joined:
    May 23, 2001
    Messages:
    9,468
    Location:
    Japan / South America
    while assigning starting units, i found that cannon placement is completely wrong. They come far too late, next to railroads and ironclads, while they were used since 1300. And they're very close to artillery too.
    So, though I wouldn't have wanted to touch the tech tree (at least in the basic game), I am thinking to move cannons back to Gunpowder, and decreasing their power. The problem seems caused by the lack of Trebuchet...
     
  5. Gunner

    Gunner Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,389
    Location:
    Goochland, VA
    In my regular Civ4 game I've moved cannons to Chemistry. I think that's a much better place for them. Gunpowder seems too ealry to me. I agree that adding a trebuchet unit would make things better though. I think Sharick is almost done making a trebuchet unit, so we could put it in. And besides, how could you call the mod Project Trebuchet and not even add that unit in? ;)
     
  6. IVZanIV

    IVZanIV Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006
    Messages:
    285
    I believe a trebuchet is in the works in the expansion pack.
     
  7. Aeon221

    Aeon221 Lord of the Cheese Helmet

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,900
    Location:
    Hiding from the Afro-Eurasians
    Cannons came before muskets!

    There is a very simple reason for it too: its easier to make a big thing capable of channeling an explosion than it is to figure out how to make a long thin one do it.

    Cannons before muskets please! It is historically accurate for Pikes to escort Cannons, but absolutely absurd for Riflemen to escort Catapults.

    I'm not really sure we even need a trebuchet. The gravity based version was not really prevalent, mostly because of the need for experienced engineers to build and operate them, and a torsion based trebuchet is essentially a catapult. Besides, it would make it more likely that we would see rifles and pults! ARGH! Gives me a hernia just thinking about how stupid that is!

    I'll just think about how much I enjoyed that scene in Star Wars 3, where that horrible actor got his face and legs burned off. Ahh, sweet relief!
     
  8. Rhye

    Rhye 's and Fall creator

    Joined:
    May 23, 2001
    Messages:
    9,468
    Location:
    Japan / South America
    probably we need 2 kind of cannons: an early one and a napoleonic one
     
  9. karmina

    karmina Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2003
    Messages:
    293
    Location:
    Germany
    Yes, the cannon issue bothered me from day one. They should be available at least together with gunpowder/musketmen, maybe even earlier.

    Of course, you can research chemistry->steel directly after gunpowder, but in most games it makes no sense. Why bother with cannons if you can get cavalry earlier?

    The availability of cavalry vs. knights is another thing I really hate about the vanilla tech tree: It's easier to get cavalry than knights! Often the best research path is CS slingshot -> Literature -> Music (and not only in culture games). Then you are very close to cavarly (Nationalism with the help of a GArtist or Liberalism, Paper->Edu->Gunpowder), while Guilds are relatively expensive to research and iirc equally far away (e.g you need naval techs).
    I've played many games where I researched Guilds after Cavalry & Liberalism, or even not at all. You really only need them for banking if your economy is lacking and victory is far away.
     
  10. Lachlan

    Lachlan Great Builder of Civs !

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2002
    Messages:
    2,072
    Location:
    European Union
    @All the followers of the thread : Is it possible to make air units and sea units work liike in Civ 2 or Alpha Centauri ...

    Because in Civ 3 and 4 i don'nt use them or so few...
     
  11. Rhye

    Rhye 's and Fall creator

    Joined:
    May 23, 2001
    Messages:
    9,468
    Location:
    Japan / South America
    just to let you know, i'm tweaking the sdk to try to expand the 18 civs limit. Weird results so far...
     
  12. Gunner

    Gunner Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,389
    Location:
    Goochland, VA
    I agree that having two types of cannons would probably be best. There really is a huge difference between early cannons and Napolonic ones.

    That would be really sweet if you could get it to work with more than 18 civs, Rhye. It would also help me with a little project I've been working on.
     
  13. Aeon221

    Aeon221 Lord of the Cheese Helmet

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,900
    Location:
    Hiding from the Afro-Eurasians
    Its hard to disagree there were major changes in cannon usage and power, but there were also some pretty major differences between early catapults and full gravitational trebuchets in terms of power. Adding in a second cannon upgrade before artillery just seems excessive. Besides, it would make more sense to add a faster late game artillery (2 moves instead of 1) than to add another marginal improvement mid game.
     
  14. karmina

    karmina Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2003
    Messages:
    293
    Location:
    Germany
    Huh? Privateers & Destroyers are essential for dominating the sea, securing your coastal tiles, and very powerful at wearing down city defenses because of their high speed.
    Can't comment about air units as I hardly ever use or need them, but I recall bombers are by far the best way to deal with city defenses.

    I agree though that sea units should be able to hurt land units, cause massive collateral damge, but on the other hand cannons & artillery should be able to destroy sea units. Both scenarios are historically important; many a riot or revolution was decided by mass slaughtering a city's population with naval bombardement.
     
  15. Aeon221

    Aeon221 Lord of the Cheese Helmet

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,900
    Location:
    Hiding from the Afro-Eurasians
    Yeah, its kind of annoying that the first time sea units are able to affect land units is when you build an Air Craft carrier.

    In fact, I saw a piece of code a while back that allowed bombardment. I'll hunt it up, since I think I posted on it.
     
  16. Blasphemous

    Blasphemous Graulich

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2002
    Messages:
    3,079
    Location:
    Jerusalem, Israel
    I knew I forgot something! I was going to mention that the popup policies would affect that colony alone by default, but the popup would have a checkbox for making it the policy in all colonies. It should also have the option to select colonies one by one to apply the new policy to.
    I think if we implement popup policies we should consider the idea of limiting control of these policies to the points at which a popup is triggered alone. This would be an effective way to curb the flexibility that a leader has about colonial policy. Instead of allowing a full screen of mini-civics for every colony, which would mean the leader can just come on in and start reordering things whenever he wants, we might want to let the leader intervene only when things start to change in the colonies, causing the issue to be brought up.

    This implementation sounds too crude imho. I'm no expert, like I said, but I think the transformation should be much more organic and not completely within the player's control. The player should have slightly indirect ways of keeping the colony as it is, like disallowing immigration, but colonies should always naturally aspire to become cities. It's not realistic that a ruler builds some improvement to turn the colony into a city.
    As to the gold bonus, that also sounds too crude. We need to make more use of cIV's realistic game mechanics. We can give a gold bonus per X trade routes, per resources, per citizen, etc. Like I said, we can give +1:gold:/resource for every two trade routes (so a colony with 4 trade routes would have +2:gold:/resource). We can give an option for a burst of overtaxation to net a pretty penny but get the colonists angry, or a subtler overtaxation that gets a bit of extra gpt/pop with a little anger and increased chance of revolt.
    One good way to make a Fall of Rome more likely is to make parts of the potential empire flip to new civs almost all at once. In other words, if you create a boom of post-roman civs, that can help make a realistic Fall of Rome.
     
  17. Aeon221

    Aeon221 Lord of the Cheese Helmet

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,900
    Location:
    Hiding from the Afro-Eurasians
    Man, if that happened to me and I was playing Rome, I would literally **** myself :p

    Talk about an unwelcome surprise.

    Perhaps there could be a slower transition? Something a bit less likely to cause heart attacks?

    I definitely think that there should be a tech check and region check before a civ is spawned. The tech check would assure appropriate spawns (If X has been reseached by at least 2 civs, spawn Y), and the region check would change the types and numbers spawned.

    If there are lots of enemy cities and a strong army in place, the region check would spawn a large number of military units and flip a few cities, but would not generate a settler. If, on the other hand, the area is empty except for a barb here or there, a goodly number of settlers with some mixed units should spawn.
     
  18. Aeon221

    Aeon221 Lord of the Cheese Helmet

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,900
    Location:
    Hiding from the Afro-Eurasians
    Just to make sure this does not disappear so easily :p

     
  19. Aeon221

    Aeon221 Lord of the Cheese Helmet

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,900
    Location:
    Hiding from the Afro-Eurasians
    Last yap

    I really REALLY like the Crowded effect, but I think the fort one is a good idea too. I can count on one finger the number of games I bothered to build a fort. Give it a lot of bonuses and strength and... well... then it becomes fairly useful.

    But the crowded thing is just brilliant!
     
  20. Gunner

    Gunner Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,389
    Location:
    Goochland, VA
    I don't think it would be too excessive to add an early cannon between the catapult and cannon. We could keep the cannon at steel and put the early cannon on gunpowder. If only just to keep me from being annoyed at using catapults with rifleman (which happens to me many times).

    The crowded effect seems pretty good to me. I wonder if the AI knows how to use it though?

    I would be in favor of keeping Greece as Greece. I know its technically more correct to have Macedonia but I think the game would play better as it is.

    @Blasphemous
    Civ is not a realistic game at all. You can press a button in regular Civ4 and prevent a city from growing. Essentially everything that the player does makes no sense if you take it in a litteral sense as the leader ordering that thing to be done. For example, since when did your country's leader order all of his citizens exactly where to work? And determine when and where to build a factory, university, or bank? The fact is that essentially everything in Civ4 is abstracted so that its fun to play. I honestly think that adding in little modifier popups for every single colony you have would end up being a pain to manage. I think my system would be much simpler and be more in keeping with the level of abstraction found in most of the rest of the game.

    Actually I don't think what either of us thinks is really that important, because I doubt that the AI would be able to handle either model very well (or even at all).

    Keep up the good work everybody :goodjob:
     

Share This Page