Rhye's of Civilization - the fastest loading mod Expanded

[Lachlan]

Feedback on the choice of this unit ?

 

[Sh3kel]

Another thing I'd like to put in the discussion:
- the T-34 with slighly better defense (as the increased movement is already taken by the Panzer)

Up until the battle of Stalingrad in 1943, the only reason the russians used the T-34 was because it was nothing but an up-armored tractor chassis with a medium-caliber tank cannon and turret. It was a cheap piece of equipment which could be mass-produced by an entirely and utterly untrained crew of workers.
The T-34 should therefore be loyal to its historical counterpart - a less powerful tank overall, but one that is cheaper by the dozen.

In 1943 the first T-34 '43 models began showing up, which were essentially even-more up-armored tractors with a heavier tank turret. The turning point of the war also led to the introduction of several heavier tank models, which rendered the T-34 the tank which withstood the storm and charged into Berlin - but not the mainstay of the Russian army for long enough to be considered a reliable and sturdy piece of machinery.

 

[Sh3kel]

Now, on with the work:
2) I want to know if ANY of {Cruiser, Destroyer, Battleship, Submarine, Carrier} are post WWII only and which one were from WWII on (no WWI).

Naval warfare, much to the dismay of many enthusiats, has been rendered all but obsolete due to flying.

In the early years of WW2 the ship-mounted guns on many battleships, cruisers and even destroyers had a range which was beyong the range visible from the ship's tower. You needed spotter planes to spot your hits, which made naval battles very heavily reliant on planes and very vulnerable to submarines, which led to the predominant role of subs in the late years of the war.
The introduction of reliable sonar systems into the naval scene made submarine warfare more difficult and risky, and the high costs of building reliable and general-purpose subs also made it a task simply not worth invensting in. Admiral Donitz was amongst the first to realize that in order for his tactics to work, he would need to sink an impossibly high ammount of tonnages per tonnage lost, and that it would require too many subs and was simply not cost-effective. He quickly withdrew his sailors to the eastern front when the Russians started driving for Berlin.

There have been no major advances in naval battleclasses except for the introduction of Anti-Aircraft capable vessels and nuclear submarines, that is if you do not take into account the introduction of originally-land based technologies such as cruise missiles. There are virtually no post-WW2 ships because flight has rendered sailing all but obsolete as a means of war.

 

[Rhye]

Many thanks, Sh3kel.

I managed to split the existing single modern units in 2.

Now it is:

ironclad->dreadnought->battleship
....->destroyer->modern destroyer
carrier->modern carrier
cruiser->AEGIS cruiser.

I've added the new animations to dreadnought, destroyer (an early destroyer, with the standard anim moved to the modern destroyer) and carrier (a WWII one).
Modern cruiser and destroyer are the last naval unit and can carry missiles.

The only thing I'm not sure is if the split of the carrier is worth its evolution. Did it evolve much since WWII?

 

[Rhye]

Considering Sh3kel's comments, I ask again the question

Russian UU?

- the cheaper and earlier R7 ICBM
- the Mig-29 (which would take the stats the F-15 had)
- the T-34, cheaper tank

 

[Blasphemous]

One or both of the modern ships should have the unlimited cruise missile ability (meaning a bombard with the same range, rating, and ROF as a cruise missile.) In reality a modern ship does not need to go into port to replenish its supply of missiles, it can be supplied at sea and that is truly done. You could make the ROF and rating of the ship a bit lower than that of the cruise missile, for balance's sake.

 

[Blasphemous]

Considering Sh3kel's comments, I ask again the question

Russian UU?

- the cheaper and earlier R7 ICBM
- the Mig-29 (which would take the stats the F-15 had)
- the T-34, cheaper tank

The T-34. Being able to swarm with more tanks than usual is a real advantage. Maybe you can make them really really cheap, with -2 to def and to att, and without blitz. The result would be a very large amount of slightly weakened units that can only attack once a turn. Russia would be able to afford building it in very large amounts and so overcome the disadvantage of each specific unit. As long as they don't have blitz, two slightly weakened tanks would not be better than one regular-strength one. But three of the weakened ones would be.

 

[Rhye]

The animation of that unit show the gun firing. A ship firing to a distant enemy with the gun isn't a good show.

 

[Blasphemous]

The animation of that unit show the gun firing. A ship firing to a distant enemy with the gun isn't a good show.

Both of them? Can't you find an animation of either a modern cruiser or a modern destroyer that shows it firing missiles?

 

[Sh3kel]

Many thanks, Sh3kel.

The only thing I'm not sure is if the split of the carrier is worth its evolution. Did it evolve much since WWII?

The difference between a classical Diesel Powered Carrier (designated CV in the US navy, will be refered to as CV henceforth) and a Nuclear Powered Carrier (CV-N - USN Designation) is like day and night.

A CV will have a smaller carrying capacity due to its need to carry fuel for the propulsion of the carrier as well as for the aircrat on board. CVs tend to have shorter operation ranges, be much smaller and overall carry less punch all due to the constraints of fuel capacity and size.
A CV-N tends to be much larger and have very long operational ranges due to their reliable power sources - Nuclear power is not only safer than diesel in terms of fire hazards, but it also allows for a much higher transformation of energy ratio than diesel. A CV-N can also be a larger craft due to the added propulsion granted by the nuclear based engines, not to mention the fact that since the fuel consumption can be limited to the aircraft on board only, it is only natural that it be made a bigger ship with a larger carrying capacity and a greater operational range.
CV-Ns also happen to be incredibly costly in comparison to diesel.

Instead of having the Carrier evolve, make it possible for a Nuclear Carrier to appear on the playing field with the discovery of fission. The nuclear carrier will have one-two additional movement points to stand for its improved mobility - however it must require Uranium and be more costly than its regular, diesel counterpart.

 

[Rhye]

i don't find a destroyer with that animation

 

[Lachlan]

Big problem Rhye

I played Expansion Beta as German when "error reading file"

Settings : ALL "victory condition" disabled + 5/5 agressivity of AIs

 

[Rhye]

The difference between a classical Diesel Powered Carrier (designated CV in the US navy, will be refered to as CV henceforth) and a Nuclear Powered Carrier (CV-N - USN Designation) is like day and night.

Are modern destroyers nuclear powered, too?

 

[Chukchi Husky]

Are modern destroyers nuclear powered, too?

The main propulsion system of modern destroyers are gas turbines.

 

[Rhye]

Big problem Rhye

I played Expansion Beta as German when "error reading file"

Settings : ALL "victory condition" disabled + 5/5 agressivity of AIs

Edit pediaicons.txt

replace
#WON_SPLASH_BLDG_Colony_Ship
with
#WON_SPLASH_BLDG_Colony_Ship_Project

 

[Rhye]

I have found a couple of animations for modern destroyer and Aegis cruiser with a missile attack.
Both units are oversized so they should require some resizing work. Before doing that I want to be sure that this is EXACTLY what you want (no ability to carry any missile, but bombard power/ROF/range as cruise missiles have). For both? Or only for one of the two?

 

[Aeon221]

One of them should be able to carry cruise missiles; might as well make it the destroyers, since the cruisers are more useless (lacking anti-sub sighting)

I would go with the T-34, but dont make it too much weaker. If you plan to make it so that three equal a normal tank, you are going to screw Russia over very badly... although so did the real world, so maybe it will all work out regardless ;p

Considering that spotters are required for ships to reach full bombardment capability (according to our well read amigo above ;p), why not give battleships ranges slightly further than they can see? Three squares maybe? That way you need other ships, or airplanes, to see what you are shooting at.

Finally, can we do something about the Middle East crowding and the Persian settlement of India? Even pumping shipmoves doesnt stop them!

I think India needs some bonuses to production to allow it to pump out settlers faster, and Byzantium needs to be moved. I might do a test game with them moved to SE Asia to see how it affects gameplay.

Does anyone have a better idea for a name than Modern Destroyer? Something snazzy and badasterix? ;p

 

[Rhye]

In case we choose the T-34, I'd make it cheaper but not weaker. Possibly I'd add an ignore forest cost, like cossacks.

One more thing: the ability to carry a missile automatically includes tactical nukes, not only cruise missiles. Is it realistic?

 

[Blasphemous]

It doesn't have to include tac nukes. Remember that thread where there was a breakdown of hwo to seperate the two?
I think one ship should carry and one should have the unlimited missile bombard thingy. Don't care which has which. But make cruise missiles stronger than the unlimited missile bombard so there's an advantage to using them.

 

[Rhye]

It doesn't have to include tac nukes. Remember that thread where there was a breakdown of hwo to seperate the two?

post the link please

I think one ship should carry and one should have the unlimited missile bombard thingy. Don't care which has which.

Instead I care - it should be based on real facts (which I don't know)