RtW: Add-On Pack 3 BETA for 3.17

[Chamboozer]

I noticed that in every game the UK moves its capital out of London and into Delhi, Suez, or based on the scenario, Cairo. This seems extremely odd to me? Any ideas as to why it does this?

Also, in historical mode, people can change religions. Was funny seeing Hitler turn democratic after conquering France.

 

[Omathaar]

Funny you'd mention that because in my mod that is going to be a key component: once your unit occupies any enemy tile it becomes yours until the enemy recaptures it.

I love that idea The modbuilder has got to be able to place national borders wherever he wants, without regard for the game's idea of where cultural borders should be. I'm playing Global 1936, and Essen's borders seem to take up the southern Low Countries...that means that Essen gets a farm that I think may be supposed to be Amsterdam's, and so Essen's growing way fast, but also it means I can waltz right past the Maginot line without having to DoW on Low Countries! Shouldn't the German player have to wait for war with Low Countries before being able to bypass the Maginot Line?

I like the oil ideas, not letting Germany or Japan have it before they should...but make it possible (tho probly not easy) for them to get oil the ways they did historically (not quite sure what those ways were).

 

[Omathaar]

Again about the borders: I took mainland France, then Republican Iberia's culture spread over southwest France, Italy's spread over southeast, and Britain and Low Countries' spread over the north. So my cities are revolting, and I can't get troops to them without airlifts cause I can't pass thru Low Countries or Iberian territory. New culture/borders rules would be really nice for the final version!

btw, thanks for all your work Dale and co! This mod is still amazing!

 

[Fin Imperial]

I've just finished playing Japan, and I have several questions about it.

I think Japanese are bit overrun since Chinese infantry, tanks, and airforce are superior in strength, and China has oil. Since Japan doesn't have, they can't build planes, navy, or even tanks and they're pretty much stuck.

And why doesn't USSR declare war on Japan in 1945? USSR would then join Allies, and Axis wouldn't have to be split up. Besides, the invasion of Manchuria was a second reason for Japan's surrender.

Does Vichy France even show up? Axis finished France in Europe, and I, believing it a bug, attacked to Africa in hopes of triggering Vichy France. France was taken, but no Vichy event. Why?

 

[Joe Harker]

Any ideas as to why it does this?

This is a guess, but i think the computer see's those cities it moves the capital as more central in the Empire and a city right in the middle, might cut maintance costs for civ as a whole as a lot of cities like Singapore are closer to the capital and have less maintance cost as a result.

 

[Omathaar]

Yeah, I had the same problem for Vichy France, it never showed up.

 

[Chamboozer]

I actually think Japan is overpowered just sligtly because of their air force potential. In the historical game I focused my entire army on getting the Chinese oil fields, and upon succes built 60 bombers and 32 fighters over the next 24 turns. Once I declared war on the Pacific Nations, I was able to conquer every single one of them (including british India and Australia) without a problem, and currently posess all the american and canadian cities on the west coast. Its the middle of 1942.

I noticed that the Axis don't have any land access to greece at all because of Turkish cities. Istanbul's culture need to be toned down.

One of the best things about this game is that it gives you the ability to play a "What If..." WWII game, something rarely seen. The problem is, it isn't like that. You get unfair advantages no matter who you are playing as. A specific example is Poland/Britan/France. If germany invades any of them in Open Play, the others will not declare war on you. This isn't how it would have been, so it negates the purpose of "What If". I think Poland/UK/France should all begin the game with a Defensive Pact to make it much more interesting. Similar things should be enacted for other countries in the game.

Also, foreign relations should begin with small presets. For example, Germany should begin with a +2 to all Democratic countries (with whatever in-game excuse will fit it best) because of its anti-communist take. This is the actual reason why the Allies didn't do much against the Nazis before WWII. They feared the spread of Communism. This will also help Germany to secure vital oil trades in the Global scenario, at least for before the wars begin.

These types of things will make it feel like we are actually playing in WWII, instead of just a giant map with contries on it using WWII era units.

 

[Chamboozer]

Sorry - bad info. Those countries joined the Allies, but didn't DOW Axis.

 

[VeteranLurker]

For the culture problem, if it cannot be turned off, I wonder if there is a way to make it grow only very-very-very-very slowly instead, so that it effectively is turned off? Similarly, removing culture effects for buildings might help, as long as those buildings retain their happiness-making effects. That way, even if one of the AI countries does something bizarre like setting the culture slider to 100%, nothing would actually change.

I think the problem/frustration with Open Play is that many want it to be "what-if" in a historical sense (e.g., what if Germany invaded England instead of Russia, what if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor), but what it really is is the usual CIV free-for-all -- you against the AI countries, all of the AI countries against each other (USA says: "The nasty Canadians are plotting against us all!"), no allies unless you make them yourself. The "what-if"ers want to play with a more historical scenario, probably somewhere between Random Events and the current definition of Open Play. I wonder if there is a way to build in enough event modifiers (or whatever it is called) to make this work. For example, "if Germany sets a ground unit in England, then German relations with all Democratic nations is -1", each city taken is -1 for all non-same-religion nations, etc. It would have to be quite detailed/complicated to make a difference, but that may be what many folks are asking for. As mentioned above, setting the various alliances/defensivepacts would also help make it what-if instead of free-for-all.

 

[Chamboozer]

For the culture problem, if it cannot be turned off, I wonder if there is a way to make it grow only very-very-very-very slowly instead, so that it effectively is turned off? Similarly, removing culture effects for buildings might help, as long as those buildings retain their happiness-making effects. That way, even if one of the AI countries does something bizarre like setting the culture slider to 100%, nothing would actually change.

I think the problem/frustration with Open Play is that many want it to be "what-if" in a historical sense (e.g., what if Germany invaded England instead of Russia, what if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor), but what it really is is the usual CIV free-for-all -- you against the AI countries, all of the AI countries against each other (USA says: "The nasty Canadians are plotting against us all!"), no allies unless you make them yourself. The "what-if"ers want to play with a more historical scenario, probably somewhere between Random Events and the current definition of Open Play. I wonder if there is a way to build in enough event modifiers (or whatever it is called) to make this work. For example, "if Germany sets a ground unit in England, then German relations with all Democratic nations is -1", each city taken is -1 for all non-same-religion nations, etc. It would have to be quite detailed/complicated to make a difference, but that may be what many folks are asking for. As mentioned above, setting the various alliances/defensivepacts would also help make it what-if instead of free-for-all.

Well, for the most part it keeps its feel when it comes to invasions of democratic countries because you get a -1 for all democratics when you attack one. One thing I don't like is that its hard to get open borders with them because they all begin annoyed toward you.

Simple things like
If Japan declared war on either Chinese civilizations, they end their wars with each other (if possible) and declare war on Japan. no permanent alliance because they cant be broken after the (possible) defeat of Japan.

Also, as with Vichy France, will the capitulation of the Italian government to the Allies after the fall of Rome and cites to the south ever be implemented in historical play? It could grant northern ones to Germany and the southern ones to a new, Democratic government.

When it comes to culture, perhaps it can be done in a different way.
Tiles join a civilization when the civilization's culture percentage is greater than any others on that square. Maybe after the conquest of a city, the surrounding tiles can be coded to turn 90% of the capturing Civ's culture. For example...
-Germans capture Paris. After revolution is over, the surrounding tiles turn 90% German, instead of 0%.

 

[Omathaar]

When it comes to culture, perhaps it can be done in a different way.
Tiles join a civilization when the civilization's culture percentage is greater than any others on that square. Maybe after the conquest of a city, the surrounding tiles can be coded to turn 90% of the capturing Civ's culture. For example...
-Germans capture Paris. After revolution is over, the surrounding tiles turn 90% German, instead of 0%.

Wow, that's not a bad idea! It wouldn't solve the preset borders problems (like Istanbul having too much culture), but it would help a lot.

Another thing tho: in AOP 2, De Gaulle's France disappeared after Vichy France activated. Did De Gaulle reappear in some fashion after D-Day? (I never played that late... ) Cause he should, shouldn't he?

And I've been able to use air units (when I have oil) to just crush everyone. I never played to D-Day, cause I as Germans controlled Britain and Eastern US long before. I love my planes, but I think they are way too cheap.

I think the problem/frustration with Open Play is that many want it to be "what-if" in a historical sense (e.g., what if Germany invaded England instead of Russia, what if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor), but what it really is is the usual CIV free-for-all -- you against the AI countries, all of the AI countries against each other (USA says: "The nasty Canadians are plotting against us all!"), no allies unless you make them yourself. The "what-if"ers want to play with a more historical scenario, probably somewhere between Random Events and the current definition of Open Play. I wonder if there is a way to build in enough event modifiers (or whatever it is called) to make this work. For example, "if Germany sets a ground unit in England, then German relations with all Democratic nations is -1", each city taken is -1 for all non-same-religion nations, etc. It would have to be quite detailed/complicated to make a difference, but that may be what many folks are asking for. As mentioned above, setting the various alliances/defensivepacts would also help make it what-if instead of free-for-all.

That probly would be crazy complicated, but so worth it. My ideas: NO Permanent Alliances, just huge friendliness bonuses with allies (I wanna be able to betray Italy as Germany ), so human player can do whatever, but computer players will still play their parts well. We need some events like Vichy France (uber-friendly but not permanently allied with Germany, so human Germany can betray and occupy them when they want to) and the Spanish Civil War, and the Anschluss and Munich Agreement... Okay, I think we should keep most of the events, but enable everyone to DoW whenever they want. As long as computer players' attitudes lead them to play their parts (Czechoslovakia attacked Germany in 1937 for me in Free Play ), but human players can decide when and where they war.

Could AI attitudes be tweakable through the XML for their leaderheads? How willing they are to get involved with you in a war, how likely they are to DoW on a friend, etc?

 

[sk8er AG]

cannot download 3.17 because of "update error" for some reason any help is welcome

 

[Omathaar]

I had so much trouble DLing 3.17 I got all sorts of errors like that. But then I found one site that DLed it just fine for me (sorry, don't remember exactly where)...I dunno, just google other download sites and keep trying em? Wish I had a better idea, but that worked for me.

 

[Chamboozer]

That probly would be crazy complicated, but so worth it. My ideas: NO Permanent Alliances, just huge friendliness bonuses with allies (I wanna be able to betray Italy as Germany ), so human player can do whatever, but computer players will still play their parts well. We need some events like Vichy France (uber-friendly but not permanently allied with Germany, so human Germany can betray and occupy them when they want to) and the Spanish Civil War, and the Anschluss and Munich Agreement... Okay, I think we should keep most of the events, but enable everyone to DoW whenever they want. As long as computer players' attitudes lead them to play their parts (Czechoslovakia attacked Germany in 1937 for me in Free Play ), but human players can decide when and where they war.

Could AI attitudes be tweakable through the XML for their leaderheads? How willing they are to get involved with you in a war, how likely they are to DoW on a friend, etc?

I've found that civilizations are always use the excuse "we've already got our hands full" to not go to war, and thats because the game has the AI set to be Aggressive. Its also why civs like USA will go on a campaign of conquest across north and south america in open play.

IMO in historical mode, when France turns vichy, all French units need to be gifted to the UK. I had an army of at least 100 units evacuated to GB, and when I went Vichy, they all disappeared. There goes half of the allies' army.

And also, I agree with you on airplanes, its the #1 problem with the mod ATM. They need to take about 1.5 times as long to build, and bombers need to take 1.7 times as long as they do now (and need to be tweaked to do more collateral damage, but not individual damage)


The issue with changing something like that is that it will make countries like Japan so weak that they will have trouble winning the game.

 

[Omathaar]

Everyone's been saying that Japan needs stronger infantry...would that be historically accurate? What kind of strengths would be historically accurate for Japan?

 

[Omathaar]

And Dale, or anyone who knows the XML files, there are some lines in CIV4LeaderHeadInfos.xml that seem promising for tweaking AI behavior, especially in terms of aggressiveness or willingness to get involved in war:

<iBaseAttitude> is that how friendly they are in general?
<iBasePeaceWeight> is that how much they value peace over war?
<iDogpileWarRand> does this one determine how willing they are to get involved?
There's all sorts of stuff in this file, but I don't understand what all of it refers to. But you can tweak how much they care about "religious" similarity/difference, how much war or peace affects their attitude...there's so much here! Anyone know this file very well?

Of course, allies on both sides did seem to drag their feet getting involved in the real war. US took forever, and Italy didn't join Germany right away, and Japan wouldn't declare war on Russia when Germany hoped they would...

 

[Chamboozer]

Theres some historical errors when it comes to French territory, Dale. The french controlled a small part of northeast South Amerca (they still do today) and also Madagascar. You need to put French cities there.

 

[dwhee]

Theres some historical errors when it comes to French territory, Dale. The french controlled a small part of northeast South Amerca (they still do today) and also Madagascar. You need to put French cities there.

Understandable, but right now pretty much all of the vassal states of Europe yield too much production anyway. I think Dale should really focus on getting Europe right before all the vassal states get represented.

 

[Chamboozer]

Understandable, but right now pretty much all of the vassal states of Europe yield too much production anyway. I think Dale should really focus on getting Europe right before all the vassal states get represented.

Of course. It's really the problem that because in Europe all the cities are crushed together there's less production for each individual one.

I forgot to mention, the Low Countries should be in control of the Congo at this time, not the British. Also, a Portugese (republican Iberian) and British colony in southwest Africa got switched around. The one just northwest of South Africa should be british if i'm not mistaken, and the one above that should be Iberian. Newfoundland should still be british, but I think I saw you say that that wouldn't be changed before.

Just had another CTD. Japan Historical. Controlled all of pacific islands, india, australia, america/canada, UK islands, southern denmark and Greek island. around February 1944. Something in the AI's behavior is causing it to do something that crashes the game in the global scenario. I really cant figure out what it is or who it is, though. It's happened twice to me now, both on global. one as Germany open play, the other; this.

Anyone else experiencing a CTD during a computer player's turn?

 

[Omathaar]

Those kinds of crashes baffle me. Good luck, Dale!

Understandable, but right now pretty much all of the vassal states of Europe yield too much production anyway. I think Dale should really focus on getting Europe right before all the vassal states get represented.

By 1936, Europe's been developing for centuries longer than any of its colonies. So could you make some basic sort of building or something to represent that development, prerequisite for all factories? And make this "Development" building take a crazy long time to build. Only developed cities would have it, and developing colonies or other small nations would almost never be able to get it built, and that would represent accurately and effectively the big development difference.

Japan's mainland could have these Development buildings, but (I think) China shouldn't, and that would make a big difference. Planes can be expensive and Japan can lack oil early on, but still they'll have that huge industrial advantage over China (and that's realistic, isn't it?). As of now, when I play as Japan I'm able to use Great Engineers to really beef up the production on Japan's scattered Pacific islands, but that doesn't seem right. The islands should be little more than indestructible aircraft carriers, shouldn't they? Japan's mainland should be the main factory that has to fuel everywhere else, right? And if it takes one of these Development buildings to make a place have any industrial capacity, then even Great Engineers on those little islands won't be able to do that much.

And this way, tiny Europe, Britain's main island, and Japan can all be much more powerful than sprawling China or Brazil, even if a human plays China or Brazil.