RtW: Add-On Pack 3 BETA for 3.17

[Healz]

Okay, had just wondered how things were going...

 

[ZeeGermans]

Hello!

I d/l'ed the beta AOP here for the BTS v3.17 and I went to load an old save (think it was from 3.13) and got a "failure.... somthin somethin" (it happened so fast I couldnt read what it said) and the game closed. Then I tried starting a brand new 1936 Hitler scenario and I noticed none of the RTW maps were in the menu.

What I did was, I was having issues getting RTW to start at all after I installed the AOP, so what I did was delete the whole RTW mod folder and I d/l'ed and installed the Full 3.17 Beta. I'm wondering if maybe there were none of the maps included in the new Beta maybe? I dunno. I'm not too tech savvy, but just wanted to let you know about this, maybe its a legit problem.

Danke!

 

[AngryHistorian]

Hello!

This is my first time actually posting anything on the civ forums here, but I figured it was necessary to point out "a few issues" in this new BETA. I think there needs to be several changes in this BETA version, so that the next addon will not be as bad as this BETA. Overall, I believe that the Road to War MOD is a very good idea, but there are several gaps in the historical accuracy in the Mod. I am in the middle of playing a multiplayer game using this mod, and I have found many flaws in the design of balance and historical accuracy. For example, my friend is playing as the United States and he has conquered almost all of the Americas because of the extremely little resistance- and with only the starting air power and 4-5 American early infantry. I really think that the other countries in the western hemisphere would have some resistance to offer, and a decent sized army to show for it. I, on the other hand am playing as Germany, yet all of the surrounding countries have larger armies than almost all of the countries in the ENTIRE western hemisphere. Seriously, I believe that the younger, western nations would have something to defend their countries, not just some miniscule border patrol/police force.

I know that it takes a large amount of time and effort to create unique units for every civilization, along with any other type of software design, but there needs to be some changes in the strength ratings of unique units to make a more balanced and historically accurate game. I noticed that Commonwealth and American units have, for the most part, the same strength. If you all have not noticed, there are MANY differences in both types of infantry. The weapons used by both factions are completely different, one using the standard British Lee-Enfield, and the other using the M1 Garand. Not to mention the amount of supplies that each typical soldier would have at his disposal. The American soldiers would have a lot more supply, and therefore more firepower. Without the flow of American supply to Britain, the British would not have much to show for on the battlefield. British and American planes should also be tweaked, both accomplished much, but they were not the same. Also, British and American tanks NEED to be tweaked. The Crusader could not even compare to the m4 Sherman. And why does the Chinese Sherman have 8 more strength than the M4??? THEY ARE THE SAME TANK! There were no modifications to the tanks sent to the Chinese, they were the same tanks sent to Western Europe for the American Army! Not even a veteran sherman with a 76mm gun upgrade could beat a M26 Pershing, which beats the Sherman in armor, firepower, and it had a low profile!

Speaking of tanks, why do the Soviets outbest any other armor? I realize that the T-34 had sloped armor and could beat many older German models, but still, the Soviet tanks had less firepower than their German counterparts. The Tiger's strength needs to be increased, because it could take out a Pershing on a head-to-head engagement. Still, the Pershing was better than the KV-1, which beats any other tank. Just because it had sloped armor, which the Pershing had as well. The KV-1 had a 76mm gun, but not as good armor, so a Sherman with a 76mm could beat it head to head, because both have sloped frontal armor. Both American tanks, the Sherman and the Pershing need to be increased, or the strength of the Soviet tanks decreased to provide better accuracy. And when does anyone hear about the might of the Italian armor??? Last time I checked, the German tanks were the best in quality, weight, firepower, and for some of the later models, armor thickness. The Italian tank's strength need to be decreased- they were not German panzers!

Still, I have many more issues that are not listed here, but need to be resolved before the next addon release! If anyone here wants to hear the rest of them, please reply, because I don't feel like typing all of this up in 1 post. This is a great mod Dale, I applaud you for making it, but these new Strength ratings and Geographical and Historical discrepancies need to be addressed! This Mod can be played the way you want to, but you can't change the way the units perform on the battlefield. Historical Accuracy is the key to these types of games. I havent found a WW2 game yet that hasn't had any problems with it, but I hope maybe this new addon might not have less than what I have seen already.

 

[Joe Harker]

The strength of units are blanced for better gameplay rather than historical accuarcy.

 

[Dale]

Hello!

This is my first time actually posting anything on the civ forums here, but I figured it was necessary to point out "a few issues" in this new BETA. I think there needs to be several changes in this BETA version, so that the next addon will not be as bad as this BETA. Overall, I believe that the Road to War MOD is a very good idea, but there are several gaps in the historical accuracy in the Mod. I am in the middle of playing a multiplayer game using this mod, and I have found many flaws in the design of balance and historical accuracy. For example, my friend is playing as the United States and he has conquered almost all of the Americas because of the extremely little resistance- and with only the starting air power and 4-5 American early infantry. I really think that the other countries in the western hemisphere would have some resistance to offer, and a decent sized army to show for it. I, on the other hand am playing as Germany, yet all of the surrounding countries have larger armies than almost all of the countries in the ENTIRE western hemisphere. Seriously, I believe that the younger, western nations would have something to defend their countries, not just some miniscule border patrol/police force.

Numbers of units are actually pretty historically accurate.

I know that it takes a large amount of time and effort to create unique units for every civilization, along with any other type of software design, but there needs to be some changes in the strength ratings of unique units to make a more balanced and historically accurate game. I noticed that Commonwealth and American units have, for the most part, the same strength. If you all have not noticed, there are MANY differences in both types of infantry. The weapons used by both factions are completely different, one using the standard British Lee-Enfield, and the other using the M1 Garand. Not to mention the amount of supplies that each typical soldier would have at his disposal. The American soldiers would have a lot more supply, and therefore more firepower. Without the flow of American supply to Britain, the British would not have much to show for on the battlefield. British and American planes should also be tweaked, both accomplished much, but they were not the same. Also, British and American tanks NEED to be tweaked. The Crusader could not even compare to the m4 Sherman. And why does the Chinese Sherman have 8 more strength than the M4??? THEY ARE THE SAME TANK! There were no modifications to the tanks sent to the Chinese, they were the same tanks sent to Western Europe for the American Army! Not even a veteran sherman with a 76mm gun upgrade could beat a M26 Pershing, which beats the Sherman in armor, firepower, and it had a low profile!

Speaking of tanks, why do the Soviets outbest any other armor? I realize that the T-34 had sloped armor and could beat many older German models, but still, the Soviet tanks had less firepower than their German counterparts. The Tiger's strength needs to be increased, because it could take out a Pershing on a head-to-head engagement. Still, the Pershing was better than the KV-1, which beats any other tank. Just because it had sloped armor, which the Pershing had as well. The KV-1 had a 76mm gun, but not as good armor, so a Sherman with a 76mm could beat it head to head, because both have sloped frontal armor. Both American tanks, the Sherman and the Pershing need to be increased, or the strength of the Soviet tanks decreased to provide better accuracy. And when does anyone hear about the might of the Italian armor??? Last time I checked, the German tanks were the best in quality, weight, firepower, and for some of the later models, armor thickness. The Italian tank's strength need to be decreased- they were not German panzers!

As pointed out previously a number of times, unit's have been balanced for fun, and not historical accuracy. Historical accuracy does not work in the context of the Civ4 engine.

Also note that the game is balanced with the 1939 - Europe and 1941 - Pacific scenarios having preference. I'm sure you can appreciate it is near impossible to balance 10 maps exactly.

Still, I have many more issues that are not listed here, but need to be resolved before the next addon release! If anyone here wants to hear the rest of them, please reply, because I don't feel like typing all of this up in 1 post. This is a great mod Dale, I applaud you for making it, but these new Strength ratings and Geographical and Historical discrepancies need to be addressed! This Mod can be played the way you want to, but you can't change the way the units perform on the battlefield. Historical Accuracy is the key to these types of games. I havent found a WW2 game yet that hasn't had any problems with it, but I hope maybe this new addon might not have less than what I have seen already.

Please list them, but I have already stated that AOP3 will be kept simple as a base to reach as broad a player group as possible. There is already one Mod-Mod (Blitzkrieg Mod) and talk of a historically accurate units Mod too. They are to cater for the Grognards.

 

[Dale]

Hello!

I d/l'ed the beta AOP here for the BTS v3.17 and I went to load an old save (think it was from 3.13) and got a "failure.... somthin somethin" (it happened so fast I couldnt read what it said) and the game closed. Then I tried starting a brand new 1936 Hitler scenario and I noticed none of the RTW maps were in the menu.

What I did was, I was having issues getting RTW to start at all after I installed the AOP, so what I did was delete the whole RTW mod folder and I d/l'ed and installed the Full 3.17 Beta. I'm wondering if maybe there were none of the maps included in the new Beta maybe? I dunno. I'm not too tech savvy, but just wanted to let you know about this, maybe its a legit problem.

Danke!

You won't be able to use saves from old versions with this one.

 

[MajorWinters]

I completely agree with AngryHistorian. Many of these discrepancies have been in the road to war since it was released. There are some new ones however. Oh, and Dale, you can make this historically accurate and still have it be fun. I mean come on, a german early infantry matches a Pz2??????? A KV1 is A LOT better then a TIGER???? There are hundreds more, well maybe one hundred. It would take hours to list them all and accurately describe them all. Hey, Dale, if you don't want to do it, then post the engine or whatever you use to modifiy the civ4 game files or whatever and I'll try to do it.

 

[AngryHistorian]

How is the BETA fun? Personally, I would rather play Axis & Allies for PC, even though that is probably the second most inaccurate WW2 game. Is it "fun" to realize that your M4 Sherman is weaker than the Chinese one, yet you are the one who gave them to the Chinese in the first place? Is it fun to see that your enemy units are better than yours, but shouldnt be in the first place? Is it fun to see hordes of units the AI builds charge through your territory and destroy all of your units because they were given a strength boost to make the game "balanced"? Historical Accuracy is the key to what makes a game fun. I didnt have many problems with the first version of RtW (the one that came with BtS) because it was fairly accurate and therefore, fun to play. Units were, for the most part balanced, and unique units were unique to the way they were in history! Once the second addon came in, I was very upset at the fact that Panzer IVs were considered better than Tigers because they cost less, moved farther and had the same strength as the Tiger. Still, the strength of the American B-17s and B-29s have not been close to what they really were, and that, frankly is disappointing and certainly not fun. Destroying the Maginot Line was also very hard in the fact that air units and artillery could only damage up to 50% of it. I'm glad that was fixed, but please, what a waste of air power that would be badly needed elsewhere. And destroying that thing by force of units would just be a waste of production and time. Also, Japanese units are, in my opinion underpowered a bit, because the Chinese have better ones. Japan was winning the war in China because they were more advanced, and had a better equipped army and air force. China was a crumbling nation split between Nationalists and Communists, not to mention European spheres of influence. The only good units they could get a hold of were gifts from other nations, mostly the Soviet Union and the United States. I don't see why a Chinese heavy tank (M4), let alone any other tank they get should have more strength, just because it is labeled "Heavy Tank." I understand that you need to appeal to a larger variety of gamers, but still, I think you should be able to pick a faction and play as though you were following the course of history, within certain limits of course. I mean, the game is meant for open play, all civ games are, but still, countries like Austria or Mexico are not meant to conquer the world. I really think you need to fix some of these strength issues Dale, because it doesnt make the game fun for gamers who aim for accuracy and realism. No game is ever realistic, but this new BETA is the farthest from realistic than the other versions of RtW.

Oh and by the way, yes the western nation's armies are, I agree, historically accurate, but still, there is nothing stopping any one country in the western hemisphere from taking over the Americas. The only possible threat would be Britain, but they only control the Falkland Islands. I know this is a flaw of civ, but could you think of any way to make the AI smarter in terms of diplomacy? In my global assault hitler-hirohito game, my friend has conquered both of the Americas but no one can stop him. And the "best" part is, is that I'm playing as Germany, so everyone hates me more than they hate America, although, they have been going on a conquering spree, and all I have taken is maybe 6 cities at most. And that gained me, what? Maybe 10 more squares of cultural influence? Yet my friend conquered only a few more, yet he owns all of North America and tons of natural resources! I gained maybe an undeveloped aluminum source and a pasture of pigs! Again Dale, I know that this isn't your fault, its the way Civ4 works, but is there any way for you to fix this?

 

[danrh]

How is the BETA fun? Personally, I would rather play Axis & Allies for PC, even though that is probably the second most inaccurate WW2 game. Is it "fun" to realize that your M4 Sherman is weaker than the Chinese one, yet you are the one who gave them to the Chinese in the first place? Is it fun to see that your enemy units are better than yours, but shouldnt be in the first place? Is it fun to see hordes of units the AI builds charge through your territory and destroy all of your units because they were given a strength boost to make the game "balanced"? Historical Accuracy is the key to what makes a game fun. I didnt have many problems with the first version of RtW (the one that came with BtS) because it was fairly accurate and therefore, fun to play. Units were, for the most part balanced, and unique units were unique to the way they were in history! Once the second addon came in, I was very upset at the fact that Panzer IVs were considered better than Tigers because they cost less, moved farther and had the same strength as the Tiger. Still, the strength of the American B-17s and B-29s have not been close to what they really were, and that, frankly is disappointing and certainly not fun. Destroying the Maginot Line was also very hard in the fact that air units and artillery could only damage up to 50% of it. I'm glad that was fixed, but please, what a waste of air power that would be badly needed elsewhere. And destroying that thing by force of units would just be a waste of production and time. Also, Japanese units are, in my opinion underpowered a bit, because the Chinese have better ones. Japan was winning the war in China because they were more advanced, and had a better equipped army and air force. China was a crumbling nation split between Nationalists and Communists, not to mention European spheres of influence. The only good units they could get a hold of were gifts from other nations, mostly the Soviet Union and the United States. I don't see why a Chinese heavy tank (M4), let alone any other tank they get should have more strength, just because it is labeled "Heavy Tank." I understand that you need to appeal to a larger variety of gamers, but still, I think you should be able to pick a faction and play as though you were following the course of history, within certain limits of course. I mean, the game is meant for open play, all civ games are, but still, countries like Austria or Mexico are not meant to conquer the world. I really think you need to fix some of these strength issues Dale, because it doesnt make the game fun for gamers who aim for accuracy and realism. No game is ever realistic, but this new BETA is the farthest from realistic than the other versions of RtW.

Oh and by the way, yes the western nation's armies are, I agree, historically accurate, but still, there is nothing stopping any one country in the western hemisphere from taking over the Americas. The only possible threat would be Britain, but they only control the Falkland Islands. I know this is a flaw of civ, but could you think of any way to make the AI smarter in terms of diplomacy? In my global assault hitler-hirohito game, my friend has conquered both of the Americas but no one can stop him. And the "best" part is, is that I'm playing as Germany, so everyone hates me more than they hate America, although, they have been going on a conquering spree, and all I have taken is maybe 6 cities at most. And that gained me, what? Maybe 10 more squares of cultural influence? Again Dale, I know that this isn't your fault, its the way Civ4 works, but is there any way for you to fix this?

Dale can't "fix " the AI. Its the way it is and we have to live with that. As has been said many times the units strengths are based more on what is needed to achieve a balance in game play rather than what is realistic. Every side is potentially playable in the scenarios which I personally think is a brave thing from Dale. Trying to achieve a balance whereby the Chinese can survive war but the posesions of the Empires etc fall in the Pacific can't be hard. Before getting too stuck into Dale try setting it up the way you'd like and testing for balance with every side not just your own favourites. All game design is a compromise and when constrained by the limits of an AI such as Civ 4 has the developer is seriously stuck between the provebial rock and the hardplace.

Dan

 

[MajorWinters]

Here are some of the problems with the new beta of rtw
-Chinese M4 is better then USA M4, also the chinese may never even get the sherman or B-17 because in open play the USA player can decide not to ship them to the Chinese
-German early infantry matches Pz2
-AI need to have better diplomacy skills
-Chinese B-17 matches USA B-29, NOT POSSIBLE
-Japanese units underpowered, they were better then the Chinese
-ALL OF RUSSIA"S UNITS ARE OVERPOWERED
-German tanks are underpowered
-USA infantry are a bit underpowered
-USA,England,Germany, maybe Russia need to have unique paratrooper units
-ONLY the USA should get marines, OR at the very least they should have a unique marine unit
-USA improved/advanced infantry need to be better then the English improved/advanced infantry, early English infantry>USA early infantry
-German jet bomber shouldn't be better then the B-29
-Italian stuff needs to be toned down, they were the worst with the exception of maybe the early french military
-if possible increase the size of the map, things are a bit to crowded together in Europe
-USA P-51 needs to be better then all other civ's improved fighters, it was only out classed by the german jet fighter
-B-17 and B-29 need to be buffed up, they were the best bombers of the war, B-17> all other improved bombers B-29> all other bombers
-

!!!!!!THIS IS NOT ALL OF THEM I WILL PERIODICALLY UPDATE THIS!!!!!!!

This is just a general list, i acually have thought out how to edit the units and make it historically accurate.

 

[AngryHistorian]

Dale can't "fix " the AI. Its the way it is and we have to live with that. As has been said many times the units strengths are based more on what is needed to achieve a balance in game play rather than what is realistic. Every side is potentially playable in the scenarios which I personally think is a brave thing from Dale. Trying to achieve a balance whereby the Chinese can survive war but the posesions of the Empires etc fall in the Pacific can't be hard. Before getting too stuck into Dale try setting it up the way you'd like and testing for balance with every side not just your own favourites. All game design is a compromise and when constrained by the limits of an AI such as Civ 4 has the developer is seriously stuck between the provebial rock and the hardplace.

Dan

Read what I said danrh, I understand that Civ4's AI cannot be modified by Dale. I understand the sometimes "loopy" Civ AI and I know that it cannot and should not really be fixed, because it is what makes civ games fun to play. However, I was merely stating that IF Dale could add something, such as a +1 relations boost with let's say Germany because they were a barrier between Communism and Democracy. And I havent placed all of the flaws I have seen with the BETA yet, if you had read my other post. Finally, yes, I agree that there should be a civ type gamestyle to this MOD, but there should also be historical accuracy to make this game better. Every faction may be playable, but still, there are accurate historical events, are there not? The game play and units should also be accurate as well, to make the game fun, challenging and open to many gamers. The MOD should be made to play so you can change history, but not to the point where everything is changed dramatically so that it doesnt make sense. Balance is important, but still, it is an historical MOD, so it should be accurate as well as historically balanced.

 

[VeteranLurker]

I agree that there are issues here, but also agree that all discussion of unit-balancing is best put somewhere else (e.g., in the thread for unit balancing).

My issue is a more generalized one: the AI is essentially lame. For me, it isn't so much that the units are unbalanced as it is that: 1) the AI doesn't build enough/correct units, and 2) the AI doesn't know much what to do with the units when it DOES have them.

I played an Open Mode, Global Scenario game as the USA up through 1943. Yeah, Canada and Mexico were easy to wipe out early. Central America, Brazil, and South America were disturbingly easy also -- they had more time to prepare (while I was building up, then while I was taking on Mexico and Canada), yet they had very little to show for the extra time spent. Same when I took the war to Australia, Africa, and Europe. Even in 1943 most cities had no more than 2-3 ground units to defend with (even though they had not been fighting other wars already), and these were usually anti-tank (very expensive) or cavalry (very ineffective). If they had fighters and/or anti-air, apparently they were not on 'intercept' mission. Naval units mostly sat in port for me to re-enact Pearl Harbor on them. The AI seldom uses bombardment, and usually only a token amount. When AI battleships or artillery attack, it is to the death, and obviously the AI cannot replace these in short order.

So, what DID the AI spend its time building from 1936 to 1943? Workers, apparently. Lots and lots of workers. I have captured dozens of workers, and let others evaporate when their civ fell. Now, some of these could also have been captured by the AI (at least in Europe, where a WWI-like stalemate had been going on for most of the game), but most were not. The AI also had built several settlers, but had not used them. This is clearly a flaw: if the AI can determine that there is no decent CIV-like place to settle, or it isn't going to build a transport to take them there, then it shouldn't build the settlers in the first place.

Basically, I think the issue is that the AI thinks in 'CIV' terms, not in 'WWII' terms. Settlers and workers are a CIV priority, not a WWII priority. One solution here would be to give each civ a proportionate amount of settlers and workers at start-up, but not allow them to build any more the rest of the game. The AI is good at protecting its workers. But why does France need a dozen workers in Africa when say 3-6 would have been enough? And if the AI knows how to use airbases or transports to move workers around, then there is another solution. I don't even know what all the workers were for, since I was usually not even bombing/sabotaging my soon-to-be resources to prompt any repairs. Yes, there are places worth settling in Open Mode (Iceland, Azores, etc), though I suspect only a human ruler would do so as these places are not very valuable in CIV terms (i.e., production, population, resources).

On the war preparedness side, only the USSR seems to consistently build-up its military as one might expect: 3 infantry in each city, plus planes/tanks at the front. I suspect this is because the USSR has superior production capacity, and does not have to 'build' culture/research/money to keep its economy going. Germany is limited initially in its production, the solution is to invade its neighbors, but the AI always seems to botch this. Japan has a similar problem: it always gets bogged down in China (even with successes it never seems to get anywhere), and never cherry-picks the weak neighbors like Philippines or Siam because it would require an amphibious assault (something the AI has the tools to attempt, but is unwilling to try). Same for Germany/Italy with weak European neighbors such as Greece and Norway -- these countries always persist for years, even when war is declared on them, because the AI cannot figure out how to invade them. In an earlier game, Italy was building paratroopers by the gross, but I don't think I ever saw a paradrop unless I did one myself (granted, this is difficult because they have to launch from an airbase, but perhaps then this is a logic flaw: no airbase, then don't build any paratroopers).

I played this at Noble (the default). I recall from earlier versions that higher difficulty only gives the AI more units, not the ability to utilize them better.

 

[Joe Harker]

@MajorWinter: As VL mentioned above, the units strength is for game balance only, not historical accuarcy, although i believe there was talk of making a historical accurate mod somewhere.

 

[MajorWinters]

MAKING IT HISTORICALLY ACCURATE WOULD BALANCE IT. I mean come on the russians have the production power to produce whatever they want in a very short amount of time. Couple that with the fact that their stuff is what it is now, and they now have hordes of good units, when they really should have hordes of bad units that the germans try to counter with just good units. The russian tanks weren't that good and thusly the germans now lose their one advantage, the fact that they have the best tanks. Yes the russians had sloped armor, but the only works in defense. I have just used the russians as an example i could go on and on.

 

[VeteranLurker]

ANother thing I noticed in Open Play: AI defensive pacts -- these are almost always worthless. Why? Because the pact is usually with someone halfway across the planet, who won't pose any kind of a threat for maybe a year if at all. Maybe if the AI would airlift units to the warzone an ally like that could help. Otherwise, it only convinces me who to attack next.

In the above game, Australia was allied with either Brazil or South America. I conquered whichever South American country I was interested in and didn't encounter any Australian units (except maybe a sub or a fishing boat) until my invasion taskforce reached Australia well over a year after DoW. The only one that worked was Canada and Mexico allying with each other, so I had to prepare to attack both at the same time. Other than a blip on the economic trade screen, most pacts are useless. Brazil and Norway? So what? I wiped out Brazil, sank a Norwegian fishing boat, and made peace with them later.

For pacts, I think the AI needs to add many more of them as time goes on to make it meaningful. Especially the smaller countries. And perhaps there can be some kind of diplomatic/cultural/something incentive to have alliances with countries which are actually nearby. Brazil and Norway? South AMerica and Australia? Who cares. Now, a Brazil, South America, and Central America alliance might make me think twice -- add Australia to THAT and it makes even more sense. Siam + Philippines + China + Australia... Norway + Sweden + Finland + Poland... Sure, form of religion/politics should have an adverse effect, less likelihood. But shouldn't these countries actually be interested in surviving?

This makes me wonder about victory conditions. As the human ruler, my goal is clear: conquer everyone or have the highest score at the end. What is Poland's goal? Or Siam? If these countries' AI can somehow be given an incentive to create permanent alliances, then maybe they would have a chance of actually winning (other than just by being steamrolled and having their surviving population slaving for the eventual winner). Imagine an alliance of Brazil/S.America/C.America/Mexico/Australia which suddenly allies with the UK. Guess who's in first place now! Keep in mind, this is Open Play, not Historical, and not even 'What-If', so this is really about playability.

 

[Joe Harker]

MAKING IT HISTORICALLY ACCURATE WOULD BALANCE IT. I mean come on the russians have the production power to produce whatever they want in a very short amount of time. Couple that with the fact that their stuff is what it is now, and they now have hordes of good units, when they really should have hordes of bad units that the germans try to counter with just good units. The russian tanks weren't that good and thusly the germans now lose their one advantage, the fact that they have the best tanks. Yes the russians had sloped armor, but the only works in defense. I have just used the russians as an example i could go on and on.

Unfortually the Civ 4 engine doesn't allow the mod to be historically accurate without completely screwing up gameplay, it would be lovely if it did, but at present it doesn't seem to be possible and i would rather have an enjoyable game with slightly odd strengths in historical terms than get ran over by a AI with super good production and very strong units. If you are finding the russians being too powerful may i suggest (if you know python enough) that you turn bitter winter off.

 

[MajorWinters]

I agree with you VeteranLurker, the AI needs to be more intelligent, however i still stand by everything i have said earlier, the units need to be tweaked to fit historical contexts. Now add in your idea of making the AI make more prolific alliances and decisions that will benefit them, and now all you people complaining about balance have got what you want. You could win the game as any faction, you just have to make the right decisions, and it would take more or less time depending on the faction you choose, ie play as USA take 7 years to win, play as Austrailia take 12 years to win

 

[MajorWinters]

Unfortually the Civ 4 engine doesn't allow the mod to be historically accurate without completely screwing up gameplay, it would be lovely if it did, but at present it doesn't seem to be possible and i would rather have an enjoyable game with slightly odd strengths in historical terms than get ran over by a AI with super good production and very strong units. If you are finding the russians being too powerful may i suggest (if you know python enough) that you turn bitter winter off.

Yes the civ4 engine does allow this, you just have to know what to do, and i'm sure Dale knows what he is doing. And that's the whole thing, YOU want an ENJOYABLE game. Besides the fact that this is only what YOU want, making it historically accurate would make it less enjoyable yes, but make it more challenging. So basically what you have just said is that you want an easy game that you can win rather then one that is hard and would make you think.

 

[AngryHistorian]

I agree with MajorWinters here. Yes, balancing the game to make it as though everyone had a chance to conquer the world and win the game would make it a bit more fun and a lot easier. However, you could just use these maps and the timeline, just keep the original civ4 units-that way everyone would have the same things. But with the unique units function, you can create a challenge for yourself to make a more difficult, yet still satisfying game. I mean, do you really think the Germans would consider it fair if the Russians received super powerful units just to make sure they wouldn't lose the war? Everyone has to adapt to challenges and learn how to overcome them, so the balance would just make it boring and too easy to win.

 

[Joe Harker]

Yes the civ4 engine does allow this, you just have to know what to do, and i'm sure Dale knows what he is doing.

Let's pose the question then, if Dale (or anyone else for that matter) could do this, why hasn't he done it already? There must be something stopping him doing it (even if it's just RL)

And that's the whole thing, YOU want an ENJOYABLE game. Besides the fact that this is only what YOU want, making it historically accurate would make it less enjoyable yes, but make it more challenging. So basically what you have just said is that you want an easy game that you can win rather then one that is hard and would make you think.

Mate, i played Britain on historical mode on Deity difficulty last night, trust me, i don't like an easy game, it just becomes boring very quickly. What i want though is a game where there is a bit of unpredictablity, so every major nation has a chance of winning in the hands of the player, i don't want one side to become overpowered. Anyway in the 1936 Europe mod the balance between Germany and Russia seems very good, the Germans don't slice through Russia completely in 1941 and the Russians don't hold of the Germans or advance that early either. If you turn bitter winter off that changes it to a German dominated war, so i have boost the Russians up even further, but it works for me.

Also could you try and be a bit more friendly, i am only trying to help