Blasphemous said:
I could send the swordsmen to the marines chain, giving them amphibious ability. Berserks would replace swordsmen but would come later and cost as they cost now.
Rhye's of Civilization - the fastest loading mod Expanded
- Thread starter Rhye
- Start date
- Status
I could send the swordsmen to the marines chain, giving them amphibious ability. Berserks would replace swordsmen but would come later and cost as they cost now.
Blasphemous
Graulich
If you do that, you should still have a Raider unit available with some early tech (possibly Bronze) and then have it upgrade to Swordsman a bit later on (not with Iron Working.)
The line should then be:
Raider 1.1.1 -> Swordsman 3.1.1 or 2.1.1 (-> Berserk 5.2.1) -> Colonial Marine 6.3.1? -> WWII Marine 8.4.1 -> Modern Marine 12.6.1 (-> USMC 14.8.1)
There's a bit too much of a gap for everyone but the Vikings between Sword and Col. Marine. But I don't know what unit under what name and what animation would go there. Whatever it would be, it would be replaced by Berserkir, and the stats for this unit should then be 4.1.1 with a cost of Berserkir -10 or -20 (since 5 attack in the early middle ages is ALOT).
The line should then be:
Raider 1.1.1 -> Swordsman 3.1.1 or 2.1.1 (-> Berserk 5.2.1) -> Colonial Marine 6.3.1? -> WWII Marine 8.4.1 -> Modern Marine 12.6.1 (-> USMC 14.8.1)
There's a bit too much of a gap for everyone but the Vikings between Sword and Col. Marine. But I don't know what unit under what name and what animation would go there. Whatever it would be, it would be replaced by Berserkir, and the stats for this unit should then be 4.1.1 with a cost of Berserkir -10 or -20 (since 5 attack in the early middle ages is ALOT).
Blasphemous said:
Too many. For each unit I add, I must find flavour animations for them: remember this.
You don't know what unit under what name because in that time there were no name and no unit for that role. Some infantry were loaded into the ships, that's all.
The solution I propose is a compromise between the original idea (having simply an early marine) and your full line.
Now it is:
warrior->swordsman->urban militia->partisan->guerrilla
--nothing-->spearman->pikeman->fusilier etc.
--nothing-->marine (high cost, they have to be built on scratch)
and i propose:
warrior->spearman (consider that it comes later than original tech tree) -> pikeman etc...
--nothing-->swordsman->colonial infantry->marine
--nothing-->urban militia (consider that it is low cost)->partisan->guerrilla
Blasphemous
Graulich
And where does the Modern Infantry fit in?
BTW, this is another reason I think it's a bad idea to do the whole flavour thing - just because of the falvour issues you rule out things that could add alot to the game, and frankly I don't care how the units look as long as they are high-quality animations. It's also possible not to make flavours of some units.
BTW, this is another reason I think it's a bad idea to do the whole flavour thing - just because of the falvour issues you rule out things that could add alot to the game, and frankly I don't care how the units look as long as they are high-quality animations. It's also possible not to make flavours of some units.
Khift
Prince
I propose a change in thinking here:
Instead of classifying units into lines considering what they used (Spearman -> Pikeman, Archer -> Crossbowman) perhaps these units should be classified into how they fought? Sounds like a no-brainer, I know, but I don't see it happening here. One thing that I honestly can't stand in Civ3 (RoC included) is how heavily you have to rely on shock units. (Horsemen, Knights, Cavalry, Tanks, Modern Armor.) This really sickens me - where is the offensive infantry? And, in that manner, why is everything so tangled up?
Here is my idea of how the lines should look:
Offensive Infantry - Expensive to build but generally all purpose infantry, traditionally well trained and prepared for invasions abroad.
Spearman (3.2.1) -> Men-at-Arms (3.3.1) -> Pikeman (4.3.1) -> Fusilier (6.4.1) -> Mobile Infantry (8.6.2) -> Mechanized Infantry (16.12.2)
Defensive Infantry - Of average cost and training, generally used as standing armies or as guards for defenseless units.
Archer (1.3.1) -> Crossbowmen (1.4.1) -> Musketmen (2.5.1) -> Riflemen (4.6.1) -> Infantry (6.10.1) -> Modern Infantry (8.14.2)
Guerilla Warriors - Cheap, ragtag armies that rarely stand up to the heat but on occasion come in use.
Warrior (1.1.1) -> Swordsmen (2.2.1) -> Partisan (2.3.1) -> Militia (2.4.1) -> Guerilla (5.6.1) -> TOW Infantry (8.10.1)
Shock Troops - Expensive, fast, and packing a punch. The use of these units should be the exception, used only in extraordinary conditions I.E. when you have high production and low unit support and only need the best, when you need to operate a far reaching strike, or as units to take on the toughest defenders in a city since they can retreat. All have blitz as well; they are shock troops, after all.
Horsemen (3.1.2) -> Knight (4.3.2) -> Cavalry (6.3.3)
(nothing) -> Tank (14.8.2) -> MBT (18.12.3)
Offshore Invaders - Expensive and generally weak, but being able to attack from the sea is a great advantage.
Raider (2.1.1) -> Amphibious Army (3.2.1) -> Colonial Marine (5.3.1) -> Marine (12.8.1)
Explanations for unclear units:
Men-at-Arms - Meant to represent the well organized late antiquity and early medieval armies. Really bad name, needs a better one. The Legion would replace this. Available with a tech off of Warrior Code and Iron Working called Military Organization or some such.
Pikemen - Meant to represent the armies from between the age of the Knight and the age of the Musket. Renaissance armies, essentially.
Mobile, Mechanized and Modern Infantries - Self explanatory, just wanted to point out that the second movement point is due to armored trucks that transport these troops. Oh, and Mobile Infantry is available at Mass Production.
Amphibious Army - Really really really bad name; I couldn't think up a good one. Meant to represent the armies used during the Punic wars, which is where amphibious warfare first developed. Available with the previously mentioned Military Organization tech.
The only major problem I can see with this is which line should be conscripted. I can see real life examples of all three - think of the barbaric armies of swordsmen from the Germanic tribes, think of the massive conscription machine that Napoleon relied upon for his fusiliers, and think of how conscription was in WWI and WWII. I suppose it fits the Defensive Infantry line the best, though, because not all conscription armies were rag tag, and Napoleon's conscription machine was definitely the exception.
Maybe later I'll flesh this out with costs, defensive bombardment, and some graphs.
Instead of classifying units into lines considering what they used (Spearman -> Pikeman, Archer -> Crossbowman) perhaps these units should be classified into how they fought? Sounds like a no-brainer, I know, but I don't see it happening here. One thing that I honestly can't stand in Civ3 (RoC included) is how heavily you have to rely on shock units. (Horsemen, Knights, Cavalry, Tanks, Modern Armor.) This really sickens me - where is the offensive infantry? And, in that manner, why is everything so tangled up?
Here is my idea of how the lines should look:
Offensive Infantry - Expensive to build but generally all purpose infantry, traditionally well trained and prepared for invasions abroad.
Spearman (3.2.1) -> Men-at-Arms (3.3.1) -> Pikeman (4.3.1) -> Fusilier (6.4.1) -> Mobile Infantry (8.6.2) -> Mechanized Infantry (16.12.2)
Defensive Infantry - Of average cost and training, generally used as standing armies or as guards for defenseless units.
Archer (1.3.1) -> Crossbowmen (1.4.1) -> Musketmen (2.5.1) -> Riflemen (4.6.1) -> Infantry (6.10.1) -> Modern Infantry (8.14.2)
Guerilla Warriors - Cheap, ragtag armies that rarely stand up to the heat but on occasion come in use.
Warrior (1.1.1) -> Swordsmen (2.2.1) -> Partisan (2.3.1) -> Militia (2.4.1) -> Guerilla (5.6.1) -> TOW Infantry (8.10.1)
Shock Troops - Expensive, fast, and packing a punch. The use of these units should be the exception, used only in extraordinary conditions I.E. when you have high production and low unit support and only need the best, when you need to operate a far reaching strike, or as units to take on the toughest defenders in a city since they can retreat. All have blitz as well; they are shock troops, after all.
Horsemen (3.1.2) -> Knight (4.3.2) -> Cavalry (6.3.3)
(nothing) -> Tank (14.8.2) -> MBT (18.12.3)
Offshore Invaders - Expensive and generally weak, but being able to attack from the sea is a great advantage.
Raider (2.1.1) -> Amphibious Army (3.2.1) -> Colonial Marine (5.3.1) -> Marine (12.8.1)
Explanations for unclear units:
Men-at-Arms - Meant to represent the well organized late antiquity and early medieval armies. Really bad name, needs a better one. The Legion would replace this. Available with a tech off of Warrior Code and Iron Working called Military Organization or some such.
Pikemen - Meant to represent the armies from between the age of the Knight and the age of the Musket. Renaissance armies, essentially.
Mobile, Mechanized and Modern Infantries - Self explanatory, just wanted to point out that the second movement point is due to armored trucks that transport these troops. Oh, and Mobile Infantry is available at Mass Production.
Amphibious Army - Really really really bad name; I couldn't think up a good one. Meant to represent the armies used during the Punic wars, which is where amphibious warfare first developed. Available with the previously mentioned Military Organization tech.
The only major problem I can see with this is which line should be conscripted. I can see real life examples of all three - think of the barbaric armies of swordsmen from the Germanic tribes, think of the massive conscription machine that Napoleon relied upon for his fusiliers, and think of how conscription was in WWI and WWII. I suppose it fits the Defensive Infantry line the best, though, because not all conscription armies were rag tag, and Napoleon's conscription machine was definitely the exception.
Maybe later I'll flesh this out with costs, defensive bombardment, and some graphs.
Blasphemous
Graulich
Khift, I definately like the general direction of it. One problem I noticed in your suggestion is that modern defenders are (like in normal Civ - and this is bad) too weak to properly hold up against the contemporary attackers and shocks. Modern war hardly ever involves massive exachnage of land (and I mean post-WWII wars here) and so it should be pretty hard to win over a city. If you keep defense stats the way you suggested them, there should be a cheap modern city imp called Garrison or Army Base that adds 50% defense to compensate. It has to be relatively cheap so it can be built quickly.
Khift
Prince
The actual numbers I used were nearly completely arbitrary, to be honest with you. I figured that major discrepancies like that would be noticed when more eyes looked at it anyways. I just knew what I'd like for each unit and went from there.
Blasphemous
Graulich
Another thing I noticed is you missed the Chariot, Horse Archer and Lancer. Or maybe you don't want them in.
Khift
Prince
I also missed the Camel Rider and Elephant Archer.
Sad thing is, though, that I can't see a reason to include any of those, except as flavour units. Chariots could be used as Horseman replacements in the really really ancient civs, Camel Riders as Horseman replacements for alot of moslem civs, and the Horse Archer might be suitable for a Knight replacement in Asia if they had a code of chivalry. (I can't say I know much about Horse Archers, though.) Elephants weren't used enough in my opinion to justify their use anywhere; Hannibal's army had some 10,000 foot soldiers and 40 elephants. Good for use in real armies as moral boosters for your troops and demoralizers for your enemies, not good for a unit in a huge-scale game like Civ3. Lancers are redundant since my revision combined light and heavy cavalry - the differentiation between light and heavy cavalry makes a difference in the division level, but not at the civ level.
Sad thing is, though, that I can't see a reason to include any of those, except as flavour units. Chariots could be used as Horseman replacements in the really really ancient civs, Camel Riders as Horseman replacements for alot of moslem civs, and the Horse Archer might be suitable for a Knight replacement in Asia if they had a code of chivalry. (I can't say I know much about Horse Archers, though.) Elephants weren't used enough in my opinion to justify their use anywhere; Hannibal's army had some 10,000 foot soldiers and 40 elephants. Good for use in real armies as moral boosters for your troops and demoralizers for your enemies, not good for a unit in a huge-scale game like Civ3. Lancers are redundant since my revision combined light and heavy cavalry - the differentiation between light and heavy cavalry makes a difference in the division level, but not at the civ level.
Blasphemous
Graulich
Well, Camel Riders should prehaps simply be an upgrade of the horseman with the same stats and price, except that it requires camels and ignores desert movement. Most civs won't have both Horses and Camels anyway, and those that have them will find the desert thingy universally useful.
About Horse Archers, maybe they could be fit in between Horseman and Knight.
About Elephant Archers, I guess they really don't need to be put in because of the scale thing.
About Lancers, fine.
EDIT: What about Chariots?
About Horse Archers, maybe they could be fit in between Horseman and Knight.
About Elephant Archers, I guess they really don't need to be put in because of the scale thing.
About Lancers, fine.
EDIT: What about Chariots?
Aeon221
Lord of the Cheese Helmet
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,995
I like Rhye's plan best. I think it changes the least, maintains the basic structure. To be honest, amphibious before the colonial is absolutely absurd.
It was a well known fact that an amphibious assault would fail in the ancient world; they were not even attempted!
Even river crossings were dangerous, but without ships like the WWII landers, able to drop troops directly onto a beach, a mass assault is not possible; ancient armies lacked propulsion independent from the elements!
I was asking for a slight fudging of history in requesting colonial marines; they existed, but they functioned more as infantry than as marines in the modern sense. The term marines is simply a bastardization of marine infantry, or, more colloquially, just dudes on a boat with guns. Starting with anything earlier than a Renaissance unit is simply incorrect!
Blas is right. One word proof that horse archers need to be in there: Mongolians. Nuff said ;p
If they didnt prove how much more effective light cavalry is than heavy, nothing will.
If we are going to change anything about the mod's units, I would suggest a general weakening of heavy cavalry, as every major military force has proved how worthless they are. If you arent going to weaken them you should slow them down, as they were even more worthless without their infantry support.
It was a well known fact that an amphibious assault would fail in the ancient world; they were not even attempted!
Even river crossings were dangerous, but without ships like the WWII landers, able to drop troops directly onto a beach, a mass assault is not possible; ancient armies lacked propulsion independent from the elements!
I was asking for a slight fudging of history in requesting colonial marines; they existed, but they functioned more as infantry than as marines in the modern sense. The term marines is simply a bastardization of marine infantry, or, more colloquially, just dudes on a boat with guns. Starting with anything earlier than a Renaissance unit is simply incorrect!
Blas is right. One word proof that horse archers need to be in there: Mongolians. Nuff said ;p
If they didnt prove how much more effective light cavalry is than heavy, nothing will.
If we are going to change anything about the mod's units, I would suggest a general weakening of heavy cavalry, as every major military force has proved how worthless they are. If you arent going to weaken them you should slow them down, as they were even more worthless without their infantry support.
Khift
Prince
You ever built a Chariot when you weren't playing Egypt?Blasphemous said:
Blasphemous
Graulich
Well, I always end up building one or two to upgrade in time... But often the first one turns into a Horseman build before I'm done.Khift said:
Khift
Prince
So... you're saying that organizing a force to ride up to shore in shallow hulled large rowboats, jump off, and storm a fortress was infeasible before gunpowder was invented? That's all amphibious warfare in civ3 is, after all, just the organization of forces so that the home "camp" if you will is on boats as opposed to on solid ground. The idea that every single force until modern marines had to land their troops, organize them there, and then attack the fortress seems absurd to me.Aeon221 said:
Good point, except where would they fit? One thing I had proposed was to combine heavy and light cavalry into one unit, giving it the strength of heavy and the speed of light to reduce redundancy in units and simplify the chain. Perhaps the knight should be renamed, then?Aeon221 said:
Something I proposed as well. I fully agree with you.Aeon221 said:
Well, the horseman would be moved a little earlier to compensate. And to be honest with you, I think I've had no more than three times when I even had the chance to build a chariot; I always took longer to find a horse resource and get it connected than I did to research riding.Blasphemous said:
Aeon221
Lord of the Cheese Helmet
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,995
Actually Khift, yes! It was completely impracticle, as ridiculous as it sounds in that context.
Ancient armies had to land a ways away and march in; think Marathon, think Syracuse!
Lemme put it this way: soldiers in the ancient world wore bronze and iron armor. Floats real good, dont it? ;p
Even the Vikings had to land away from a fortified position to attack it!
Why? Because raids are one thing, and invasions are another. The action you describe is a raid!
Out of curiosity, does anyone know when the rowboat was invented? Haha I never thought about that before.
Did excel calculations for Atk vs. Cost, Def vs. Cost, and Atk vs Def for infantry units.
Got some interesting data, but mostly discovered that excel is worthless and I will have to use it simply to record data.
Internet cutoff, see yall tomorrow. Rhye will email you what I have then too!
Ancient armies had to land a ways away and march in; think Marathon, think Syracuse!
Lemme put it this way: soldiers in the ancient world wore bronze and iron armor. Floats real good, dont it? ;p
Even the Vikings had to land away from a fortified position to attack it!
Why? Because raids are one thing, and invasions are another. The action you describe is a raid!
Out of curiosity, does anyone know when the rowboat was invented? Haha I never thought about that before.
Did excel calculations for Atk vs. Cost, Def vs. Cost, and Atk vs Def for infantry units.
Got some interesting data, but mostly discovered that excel is worthless and I will have to use it simply to record data.
Internet cutoff, see yall tomorrow. Rhye will email you what I have then too!
Khift, you're right in some sense, and I thank you for your effort, but how can I throw away all the work I did until now? I spent several days in thinking how to make that archers/spearmen inversion of the stats work, and how to make the lines cohetent with 2 different kinds of cavalry cohexisting, together with camels and elephants
here's some history of marines warfare
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/mil/html/mh_032500_marines.htm
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/mil/html/mh_032500_marines.htm
another one
http://www.exwar.org/Htm/8000PopA2.htm
it seems that amphibious warfare existed in ancient times, but was ineffective.
here's Civ3 civilopedia:
#DESC_TECH_Amphibious_Warfare
^
^
^A combined land and sea attack, usually associated with the capture of a beachhead or coastal area, is known as amphibious warfare. First
attempted by the ancient Persians during the Battle of Marathon in 490 BC, successful coordination of amphibious assaults are considered to
be among the most complex military operations. When ship-mounted guns were developed, naval vessels would open fire on ground forces
and gun emplacements while merchant ships were used to land troops and supplies. The first modern amphibious assault took place at
Gallipoli during World War I. Poorly planned and executed, this assault failed, but served as an example of the need for perfect coordination
of forces in this type of attack. As battlefield communications improved, and the range of ship-mounted weapons increased, amphibious
warfare became increasingly successful, and played a vital role in World War II. Today, amphibious operations are augmented by fast,
armored landing vehicles; hovercraft that are capable of moving troops to and across the beach; and airborne assistance from planes and
helicopters.
http://www.exwar.org/Htm/8000PopA2.htm
it seems that amphibious warfare existed in ancient times, but was ineffective.
here's Civ3 civilopedia:
#DESC_TECH_Amphibious_Warfare
^
^
^A combined land and sea attack, usually associated with the capture of a beachhead or coastal area, is known as amphibious warfare. First
attempted by the ancient Persians during the Battle of Marathon in 490 BC, successful coordination of amphibious assaults are considered to
be among the most complex military operations. When ship-mounted guns were developed, naval vessels would open fire on ground forces
and gun emplacements while merchant ships were used to land troops and supplies. The first modern amphibious assault took place at
Gallipoli during World War I. Poorly planned and executed, this assault failed, but served as an example of the need for perfect coordination
of forces in this type of attack. As battlefield communications improved, and the range of ship-mounted weapons increased, amphibious
warfare became increasingly successful, and played a vital role in World War II. Today, amphibious operations are augmented by fast,
armored landing vehicles; hovercraft that are capable of moving troops to and across the beach; and airborne assistance from planes and
helicopters.
Rhye, you seem to be drowning in suggestions here but I have another that you actually might like 
Colonization of Africa and America doesn't seem to work that well so introduced with Astronomy or Mercantilism - The Colonial Harbour.
Same effects as Harbour but with extra shield and food production to make the colonies worth having. Could even give it some culture to speed up land grabbing and courthouse effects to stop corruption. Basically a cheap and fast manner of giving all of the useful improvements to a far away colony that ordinarily would take all game to build. It is important that it can not be built in a city that already has a Harbour to stop European cities growing too fast, don't know if that's possible though. By the time Astronomy has been researched all cities next to the coast should have built a harbour. At the moment colonies appear too late in the game to be of any significance and grow too slowly due to corruption to be of any use.
Might be better if you went back to the original harbour solution and removed the Dock idea as the AI doesn't seem to use it.
Colonization of Africa and America doesn't seem to work that well so introduced with Astronomy or Mercantilism - The Colonial Harbour.
Same effects as Harbour but with extra shield and food production to make the colonies worth having. Could even give it some culture to speed up land grabbing and courthouse effects to stop corruption. Basically a cheap and fast manner of giving all of the useful improvements to a far away colony that ordinarily would take all game to build. It is important that it can not be built in a city that already has a Harbour to stop European cities growing too fast, don't know if that's possible though. By the time Astronomy has been researched all cities next to the coast should have built a harbour. At the moment colonies appear too late in the game to be of any significance and grow too slowly due to corruption to be of any use.
Might be better if you went back to the original harbour solution and removed the Dock idea as the AI doesn't seem to use it.
Asclepius said:Rhye, you seem to be drowning in suggestions here but I have another that you actually might like
Colonization of Africa and America doesn't seem to work that well so introduced with Astronomy or Mercantilism - The Colonial Harbour.
Same effects as Harbour but with extra shield and food production to make the colonies worth having. Could even give it some culture to speed up land grabbing and courthouse effects to stop corruption. Basically a cheap and fast manner of giving all of the useful improvements to a far away colony that ordinarily would take all game to build. It is important that it can not be built in a city that already has a Harbour to stop European cities growing too fast, don't know if that's possible though. By the time Astronomy has been researched all cities next to the coast should have built a harbour. At the moment colonies appear too late in the game to be of any significance and grow too slowly due to corruption to be of any use.
Might be better if you went back to the original harbour solution and removed the Dock idea as the AI doesn't seem to use it.
Yes I removed the dock. AI didn't seem to understand its real use. The result was that there were docks but few harbours, and this meant out-of-date naval units.
I'm afraid the only thing that can be imposed is to require a buillding, not to require that there ISN'T a building. I already foresee harbors+colonial harbors in big cities in Europe, and nothing in the colonies
- Status
