SevoMod 3

Yarmoss said:
Mobile infantry should be able to take cities.
I think that any unit with the ability to transport and unload infantry, like an IFV, should be able to capture a city. However, I agree that tanks, aircraft, and helicopter gunships, or any vehicle (or animal) that only carries its organic crew (or rider) should not.

Great upgrade, Sevo.:goodjob:

Quiet Man
 
Sevo,

Can we annotate Wonders that have city radius limits. e.g. Statue of Zeus only works in the city it was built. Iron Works requires - no wait I don't think that DOES need iron/ coal in city radius now (Does it ?) Hmm. Any way we can make these clear ?

CanNOT believe the work you guy/s have put into this !! Mwah !
 
I've played my first hour now with the mod and it looks great! However i do have a couple of questions, hope someone can help.

What are those symboles that are along the upper line of the unit box at the bottom of the screen? Havent seen those before. And is the fx endurance speed changed? It feels much faster now, just like normal.. hmm. And what is the glace option in the foreign advisor? And can you get the vanilla comerce symbole back like in the previous sevomods?

Anybody knows?

Also, a tiny text bug.. see screenshot.
 

Attachments

  • Civ4ScreenShot0001.JPG
    Civ4ScreenShot0001.JPG
    97.4 KB · Views: 233
:)
Tanks is a support to infantry. I myself am a soldier in the danish Army and I know for certain that no tank division can capture a city without the infantry.
I have been a member of a tank crew and that is why I know that it ain´t possible to hold a town with a tank. You have to drive out the enemy infantry by cleaning all the buildings in the city and secure them.
Urban Guerilla Warfare is extremely dangerous for tank divisions if they are not supported by infantry because the enemy could hide easily and take out all the tanks with anti tank units. You will loose some infantry units trying to cleanse a town for enemies, but that is why we need tanks and artillery to soften the defenders and back the infantry up.
I don´t know what you guys, who don´t like Sevo´s new addition, have based your oppinions on, but if you don´t have military experience to back it up then I suggest that you accept the reality facts!

Once again Sevo.....You Rule!:king:

Aragorn7
 
Aragorn7 said:
:)
Tanks is a support to infantry. I myself am a soldier in the danish Army and I know for certain that no tank division can capture a city without the infantry.
I have been a member of a tank crew and that is why I know that it ain´t possible to hold a town with a tank. You have to drive out the enemy infantry by cleaning all the buildings in the city and secure them.
Urban Guerilla Warfare is extremely dangerous for tank divisions if they are not supported by infantry because the enemy could hide easily and take out all the tanks with anti tank units. You will loose some infantry units trying to cleanse a town for enemies, but that is why we need tanks and artillery to soften the defenders and back the infantry up.
I don´t know what you guys, who don´t like Sevo´s new addition, have based your oppinions on, but if you don´t have military experience to back it up then I suggest that you accept the reality facts!


Aragorn7
Woah there Aragorn !!! WE do get it ! And I don't see anyone who doesn't like Sevo's 'new addition'. It's brill - most of the stuff has been about clarification and suggestions for refining.

Given your military experience could you provide SPECIFIC comments on the questions raised - for instance: should IFV be able to take a city ?
 
hi
i do not know if it is possible (didnt play the new version yet)
but if it isnt : maybe you should make tanks ,maybe the uu of the mongols (keshik i think) and maybe some other units able to raze cities without capturing them. not that i use the raze city option a lot, but i think it would make the game more realistic.
 
From ancient warfare to pre WWI wars, capturing cities
didn't involve any house to house fights.
The two armies engaged in battle usually at the city outskirt
and if the invading army won, it captured not only the city
but the whole province.

Horse archers Knights and Cavalry played a decisive role in winning
those battles.

Don't forget the Mongole Horse archers which stormed and conquered
most of Asia and a part of Europe.

So it's true that capturing fortified cities and castles involved
siege weapons archres and foot soldiers but those few highly
expensive Knights gave the final blow, sometimes merely by entering
the city.

Later on with the appearance of cannons which made city
walls obsolete Cavalry supported by cannons became the decisive
force in battles and 'city capturing', the term used in the game
for winning a battle over a territory with a city within.

About modern warfare, tanks are still the decisive force, supported
by armored infantry (Mechanized Infantry) and air force.

We have to distinguish 'City capturing' from City clearing.
By entering a city with tanks and having controll over its
outskirt and skies, we have captured the city if not cleared it though.

Please don't Stalingrad or Berlin me, in those cities both armies were present.

In game concepts, we kill the defending units so the tank enters
a city with no enemy units, clearing the city is exactly what several turns
of city revolt does.


If we start to pick on the abilities of Horse archers or tanks to capture
a city, why stop there ? what about an archer ?
Anyone heard of archers capturing a city ?
So we need a swordsman or warrior to do it ?

If we want to diversify the game, so be it!

But please stop picking on realism, Is it realistic to have endless ammunition
and combat supplies ? What about food and water supplies ? Should we construct
supply convoys ?

What about Coffee ? ever heard of a modern soldier functioning without it ?
Just kidding.
 
Dusty4prez said:
For anyone who doesn't really like the change that lets only infantry capture cities can be easily changed. Just go to units-> unitinfos and change <bnocapture>1</bNoCapture> to <bNoCapture>0</bNoCapture>

Thanks.

Um, WTF? I just started a game with the latest version of SevoMod, with patch 1.61, and there is absolutely no HUD whatsoever?
Please explain?

Edit: I've cleared all caches and still no change. I have all the latest drivers (6800GT) for everything. The HUD appears without SevoMod loaded - the effects are only seen once a game is loaded with SevoMod. I am playing on the EarthMap v1.2 from this forum.
 
Hi again!

I only said that tanks could not take control of cities without infantry!
Which in fact is realistic since I am educated in that field.
The early warfare with cavalry and horse archers is different from modern days. And I must say....I don´t have any experience in that field unless my name is Methusalem :) !

Of course you are right about the knights and mongolian horsearchers, no doubt about that they could capture cities without infantry.......if the cities did not have city walls though!!
A fortified city with walls and forts has to be taken with infantry units.
First you have to breach the walls with siege weapons or climb the walls with infantry before you can take the city.
Cavalry is used in open battlefields or against unprotected cities without walls. Anyone who disagrees??

Aragorn7
 
sickre said:
Thanks.

Um, WTF? I just started a game with the latest version of SevoMod, with patch 1.61, and there is absolutely no HUD whatsoever?
Please explain?

Edit: I've cleared all caches and still no change. I have all the latest drivers (6800GT) for everything. The HUD appears without SevoMod loaded - the effects are only seen once a game is loaded with SevoMod. I am playing on the EarthMap v1.2 from this forum.

I've had the same problem... with other mods as well.

The way I fix it is to his ESC, go to Options, then to Graphics, and change the antialiasing to a different setting. Then the HUD will show up. Then I just change the antialiasing back, and it's good to go.

Odd I know, but it works.
 
I had the HUD problem too but only with Poland. I'm on an ATI card so its not an Nvidia thing
 
Aragorn7 said:
Hi again!

I only said that tanks could not take control of cities without infantry!
Which in fact is realistic since I am educated in that field.
The early warfare with cavalry and horse archers is different from modern days. And I must say....I don&#180;t have any experience in that field unless my name is Methusalem :) !

Of course you are right about the knights and mongolian horsearchers, no doubt about that they could capture cities without infantry.......if the cities did not have city walls though!!
A fortified city with walls and forts has to be taken with infantry units.
First you have to breach the walls with siege weapons or climb the walls with infantry before you can take the city.
Cavalry is used in open battlefields or against unprotected cities without walls. Anyone who disagrees??

Aragorn7
at least someone knows what he's talking about :)

I think biggest problem people have is to make a difference between
1) capturing
2) moving into a city,
3) destroying it

option 1 and 2 with only tanks?? :) if discovery is right that is suicide :)
option 3, normally big armies use big bombers to do that..or artillery..or just nuke it :)

you need tanks as backup for breaching fortifications, for support in open field, for fast moving actions(soldiers dont run 80kmh) for alot of things..and yes patton used his tanks to fight german armoured devisions..but he didnt keep his tanks in german cities to capture them..at least not in the area my family lives..my grandpa told me alot how the americans moved..and if im right they moved with the big devisions around the cities and sending in armoured support for the infantery..and that was then!! look at CNN today..how it's in iraq..i see 30soldiers and 1 tank in each picture..tank for psychological effect mostly..it's the infantery that is really occupying the city..if im correct..US armored devisions fought at the airport of Bagdad..and they moved IN and OUT very fast the first day Bagdad was in range..but they didnt stayed there to capture the city really..like i said, in and out..that's what CNN published..this picture of the war what i can remember from CNN backs the (only infanterie capture)...I mean..if tanks could really capture a city..wouldnt the US army do it? :) instead of waiting for the infantery? :)
 
Aragorn7 said:
:)

...but if you don´t have military experience to back it up then I suggest that you accept the reality facts!
Aragorn7

Um, has somebody been bouncing around inside his tank without a helmet once too often? :crazyeye:
 
sweetpete said:
What are those symboles that are along the upper line of the unit box at the bottom of the screen? Havent seen those before. ...And what is the glace option in the foreign advisor?

I have the same questions. Also, my Military Advisor screen is blank. The interface is there, but nothing appears (leaderheads, units, maps, etc.)
Have I not set some switch correctly?

Thanks in advance.

Quiet Man
 
My sole point is a game related one!

If the city is left unprotected, and I mean no troops of any
kind, any unit besides airborn units should be able to capture it.

If an archer is capable of doing it, so is a tank or horse archer.

Doesn't matter what kind of units participate in a siege,
and the kind of troops used to crash the the garrison.
 
sweetpete said:
Also, a tiny text bug.. see screenshot.

I agree. I get this same problem. It seems to only happen during the MP screens or custom games. IE, this screen pops up.
 
I started a game with the abyssinian and the flags showed up white.

Also the introduction quote from the leader of the cherokee (i think, the one with as leader the montezuma cousin's ;) with red skin and a black strip on the eyes) is missing, it appear one of the usual TXT_CIV_THIS_OR_THAT_MESSAGE error, even if I don't remember which one.
 
Top Bottom