Jaguar said:Something strange is going on here. I see a Barbarian ballista wandering around near Carthage.
I tought I had deleted all of them, but it seems I missed one.
Jaguar said:Something strange is going on here. I see a Barbarian ballista wandering around near Carthage.
Lachlan said:Solution 1 : I suggest also a new system of governments :
why not create a flavor system of governments with differents stats ?
"Nazism" in Germany, "Fascism" in Italy or "Franquism" in Spain
.
Lachlan said:Solution 2 : Why not add a wonder for each government ?
"Auschwitz" beneath Fascism could give a "Concentration Camp" in each cities of your civilization : + 100% productivity but 4 unhappy citizens![]()
Of course it is only an example .
Asclepius said:Re: RoCX 0.5: I don't know if this has been mentioned already (I can't keep up with the speed of this thread!) but towns need an aqueduct to grow past size 5 (instead of 6) and cities need a Hospital to grow past size 10 (instead of 12). Is this a deliberate change that I have missed?
Asclepius said:Also: CTD - missing Fusilier.INI in art/units file. Maybe a spelling error again?
cemo1956 said:Have come across some thoughts.
The machinegunner and that upgrade. Can anyone see tons of machinegunners running around as defensive units as in Civ3 Conquest version of Pacific WW2 scenario. Machinegunners are just few units and mostly used as a group inside an infantry unit. IMHO I think these gunners should be kept to a minimum. How I don't know, or perhaps create them only from a certain small wonder or a city building.
cemo1956 said:Then Modern units as such are much more powerful and different than if you compare spearmen vs pikemen and so on. The Modern Infantry is also a pleasant upgrade. Just a small thought that perhaps the Modern Infantry unit could go everywhere, and Mech Infantry not in mountains.
cemo1956 said:Have you or even consider to use different aricrafts that could land on carriers ??
cemo1956 said:Also (and I know you might protest) 1 generation of jet fighters and just 1 generation of bombers (with prop, not thinking on stealth bombers) are very very thin. In my games the prop-fighter always appears very short and then you are stuck with one type of jet-fighter for the rest of the game. Why not have upgrades of the jetfighter within the present tech advances.
To see this just consider the evolution of jet aircrafts. The P-80 Korean war fighter couldn't hold a candle to later F-8, F-4 during the Vietnam era. The present generations of F-14, F-15, F-18 are then much much more advanced then those Vietnam fighters.
Thanks to Wyrmshadow, Ripptides and others a whole fleet of flavor jets can be built cosnider what civ-nation you have. Very versatile.
cemo1956 said:Then perhaps more important is the bomber issue. Today one have the classic prop-bomber (looks like bad B-17). Then you got to go with Stealth bombers, which only the USA have in the real world.
cemo1956 said:Why not, Rhye, consider adding what many nation do have for bombers a jet attackbomber. If no upgrades after that civ3-bomber with prop to a jet attackbombers we could think of fine created units for many nations.
Tornado for England, Germany, Italy
A-10 or F-105 for USA
several options for Russia and China in Migs and Su fighterbombers.
The Harrier would be fine for many as a carrierbased bomber.
I could go on but I'm not sure you buy the idea. After all planes just pops up fast on ones monitor and then they are gone, not as ground or naval units.
cemo1956 said:However if you consider this later on I would be happy to come up with a more precise plan.
Propfighter (many flavors like Spits, Me109. P51) - early jetfighters (F-86, Mig-15) - modern jetfighters all-purpose ones (Su-27, Mig-29, F-16)
Civ3 Bombers (with all flavors He-111, Betty, Lancaster, B-17) - Jet bombers (just take your pick in what's not selected as pure jetfighters)
Blasphemous said:Well, I guess I don't need to test the Kamikaze after all.
Thanks Jaguar.
I just had idea, I don't know how realistic it is but it can be pretty cool. Barbarian Slaver units. Just a few of them. They would have 1.1.1 and the enslave (warrior) ability, and the capture ability. That way Barbarians could amass captured units and do a bit extra damage. A few horse archers in the east could be removed since the barbs would now slowly gain power rather than being totally destructive throughout the ancient age.
Just a thought.
Exactly. The mustangs don't appear until after the Europeans arrive. That's why they're a separate resource.Lachlan said:Excuse me Rhyes but amerindian mustang is the far son of european horses
Yeah, that's the point. In fact, you can have seperate barbarian slavers that look the same and have the same name, only that one kind produces warriors, one produces catapults, one horse archers, etc. You could even have a tiny amount of weak slavers that produce another kind of slaver when they enslaveJaguar said:If I recall correctly, I don't think Barbarians can enslave, which is sad because it would be pretty cool.
I meant that I think that if you give Barbarians the enslave ability, it doesn't work and they never enslave.Blasphemous said:Yeah, that's the point. In fact, you can have seperate barbarian slavers that look the same and have the same name, only that one kind produces warriors, one produces catapults, one horse archers, etc. You could even have a tiny amount of weak slavers that produce another kind of slaver when they enslave. Each could have slightly different stats to control how long they survive and thus how much they enslave (high attack for a slaver would mean it can raid civs for slaves, high defense means it could block expansion, high movement would mean it can harass civ troops). This way you can control how much the horde grows and for how long. Could be pretty cool. They can even start off only with slavers and slowly accumulate a horde as more and more civilized units fall victim to barbarian slavers.
Sh3kel said:Rhye, the C-130 you mentioned earlier is a transport plane known as the "Hercules".
Jaguar said:I meant that I think that if you give Barbarians the enslave ability, it doesn't work and they never enslave.![]()
Well my knowledge of bombers is limited because to the best of my knowledge the IAF doesn't operate any, but there are a few models worth mentioning - particularily the American and Russian ones.Rhye said:A tranport plane?
In that case tell me some other bombers. A common bomber of the cold war would be better.
Rhye said:I'll try to see what happens