Rhye's of Civilization - the fastest loading mod Expanded

Rate this mod!

  • I can't play Civ without this: no more loading times!

    Votes: 203 66.6%
  • A good mod, but I won't play with it

    Votes: 54 17.7%
  • I don't like the map

    Votes: 13 4.3%
  • I don't like the terrain

    Votes: 9 3.0%
  • I don't like the additions

    Votes: 5 1.6%
  • I don't like the rules changes

    Votes: 21 6.9%

  • Total voters
    305
Status
Not open for further replies.
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
.

No, I can't limit a government to only some civs, except if I use the religions system and edit the tech tree again. Too much complicate.

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 .

I had thought of it.
But I need one for each gov. If I add it, of course every goverment must benefit of one building.
The concentration camp is OK for fascism. Absolute mon. could have a summer palace, with the same effects as the forbidden palace. Forb. palace could be given to theocratic mon.
any idea?
 
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?

It is a deliberate change I made to benefit of metropolis status faster. In this mod the cities producing settlers restart their growth, and rarely go past 10 in ancient and middle ages.


Asclepius said:
Also: CTD - missing Fusilier.INI in art/units file. Maybe a spelling error again?


of course ;)

FOR EVERYBODY:

replace

#ANIMNAME_PRTO_Colonial_Infantry
Fusilier

with

#ANIMNAME_PRTO_Colonial_Infantry
Flintlock Infantry
 
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.

I understand that they weren't a mass unit. But they were decisive in WWI and I think there's a difference between them and a true elite unit like say, the flamethrower

We spent some days in trying to make the upgrades tree fit correctly.
I think it is good now and needs no more changes!

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.

Guerrilla already goes in mountains etc. If I allow this to modern inf. (which already doesn't need resources) then guerrilla would be useless.

cemo1956 said:
Have you or even consider to use different aricrafts that could land on carriers ??

I have considered, but how can I do it? The only usable flag seems to be the "rebase" option. I removed the rebase from the biplanes, but I left it for the rest of the planes.

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.

There is no room! Remember that in this tech tree jet fighter comes immediately after advanced flight (which allows fighter and bomber).

BTW I could rename "Advanced Flight" -> "Radar".
What do you think? The old adv. flight icon fits perfectly!

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.

Yes this is more important. If there's a jet fighter, there could be a jet bomber too.
And there's another reason that tells me to do this.
Germans have the zeppelin which replaces the bomber. The hole between it and the stealth fighter is huge.

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.

Mmmmm. If the name is "jet bomber" or "heavy bomber", then it has to be a bomber. Something like the C-130 (a cold war era bomber iirc).

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)


NO ROOM!

Can anybody post a screenshot of the modern tech tree of the X-pack?
 
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.

And enslave results in...?
 
Warrior! The barbarians would slowly accumulate a horde of enslaved warriors. In fact, give the slaver unit 1.2.1 so it's harder to terminate them early on (and when it becomes easy, it's too late and the barbs have a ton of warriors.)
 
I'll try to put in an idea for fixing the republican-only AI.
It seems that AI doesn't suffer low unit support because it has an high bonus.
I could lower it.
And to compensate this, raise its starting treasury to 15 or 20, while reducing the player's gold to 5. This way we'll see how you can rush!
 
Swordsman doesn't require iron and lancer requires mustangs !

Why swordsman shouldn't require iron ?

Lancer only available for America ?
 
1) swordmer don't require iron deliberately, because they were weakened (3/1/1) and their cost was raised (40). Now every civ has the opportunity of a better offensive unit, and the iron importance is a bit reduced (otherwise who has iron wins.)
After all, swordsmen don't wear any iron plate

2)You're talking about american type of lancers - just like cavalry, a different unit which requires mustangs instead of horses is needed. Otherwise, what's the american horses use?
 
Excuse me Rhyes but amerindian mustang is the far son of european horses
 
Lachlan said:
Excuse me Rhyes but amerindian mustang is the far son of european horses
Exactly. The mustangs don't appear until after the Europeans arrive. That's why they're a separate resource.
 
If I recall correctly, I don't think Barbarians can enslave, which is sad because it would be pretty cool.
 
Jaguar said:
If I recall correctly, I don't think Barbarians can enslave, which is sad because it would be pretty cool.
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 :eek:. 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.
 
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 :eek:. 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.
I meant that I think that if you give Barbarians the enslave ability, it doesn't work and they never enslave. :(
 
Ouch! Tag that for a good idea down the tubes b.c. of an overly restrictive engine.
 
Rhye said:
A tranport plane?
In that case tell me some other bombers. A common bomber of the cold war would be better.
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.

The two most significant planes are the B-17 and the B-52. The 17 is a small bomber (relative size) designed for tactical bombing missions, and its the one represented in the Civ3 graphic - albeit a bit mangled and distorted. The B-52 flying Fortress is a several ton behemoth capable of lifting entire arsenals and is also nuclear-capable. It's a massive plane, and is the longest-serving aircraft in the history of military aviation.

The russians had several Tupolev models introduced for the same purpose, with varying designs and sizes. The Russians believed in "bigger is better", and thus the Tupolev models were the largest operational airplanes ever.

This site is a good introductory resource:
http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/?type=tupolev
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom