Snerk
Smeghead
I second that too, the national wonders with UU are too expensive. I find it simply not to be worth building them.
Sevomod: Feedback
- Thread starter Sevo
- Start date
Uncle Anton
Lighthorseman
Um, while we're at it...
I've had just enough to drink this fine eve to feel the need to complement Sevo on his choice of Pedia entry for "Mounted Infantry"...
I mean, there's any number of fine Australian regiments he could've chosen to include as the descriptor - I guess considering the quality of the mod, I should've automatically assumed being the genius that he is that he'd choose the finest of the Australian Light Horse regiments as a natural inclusion...
*Cough* 10th Light Horse *Cough*
Not biased or anything
[ Ex-TPR, A Sqn, 10 Light Horse (RECON) ]
I've had just enough to drink this fine eve to feel the need to complement Sevo on his choice of Pedia entry for "Mounted Infantry"...
I mean, there's any number of fine Australian regiments he could've chosen to include as the descriptor - I guess considering the quality of the mod, I should've automatically assumed being the genius that he is that he'd choose the finest of the Australian Light Horse regiments as a natural inclusion...
*Cough* 10th Light Horse *Cough*
Not biased or anything
[ Ex-TPR, A Sqn, 10 Light Horse (RECON) ]
Sevo
Leaf on the Wind
Uncle Anton said:Um, while we're at it...
I've had just enough to drink this fine eve to feel the need to complement Sevo on his choice of Pedia entry for "Mounted Infantry"...
[ Ex-TPR, A Sqn, 10 Light Horse (RECON) ]
Of course. That was totally on purpose...
Zorn said:
Zorn: Great points, indeed. Many of them I agree with heartily. I do leave Mark V in only because they have blitz capability and as was subsequently described they can be used to make mulitple rapid attacks, if that's your style. But the mobile sam is definite crap at this point. I'm considering just deleting it. Also, I plan to extend the late game stages so that we get a little more time with those late units and techs.
Great points, great analysis. Thanks.
Quiet Man said:... I go away for a couple of months because Sevo says 3.0 is "the last update" and I take that at face value being totally content to immerse myself in 3.0 and what happens?
I haven't checked all of the posts; did anyone complain about whether or not tanks could/should or not capture a town, or has that finally been put to bed?
- New site
- New version
- New patch
- The Hitler thing resurrects itself ...AGAIN!
So, Sevo, while I'm waiting for 3.2 to finish downloading, thanks yet again for doing what you do for Civ IV.
Regards,
Quiet Man
Hey, QM. Good to hear from you. No, the tanks/towns issue seems to be at rest for the moment; I'm fairly happy with the current penalties and as Zorn pointed out the mobile infantry are more or less the bread and butter unit of the late game, as I had intended.
Good feedback all. How am I ever going to get through warlords if I can't even catch up with all I want to do with just vanilla??
Sevo, I've been using my suggested Barter changes for a couple of lengthy games, and they seem to work quite well.
There may be a better mix of +food and -money, but 20% and 33% seems to be okay. This definately makes Barter better than the starting civic, but not too overpowered IMO.
Oh, and thanks for finally including the option to remove the hidden resources.
There may be a better mix of +food and -money, but 20% and 33% seems to be okay. This definately makes Barter better than the starting civic, but not too overpowered IMO.
Oh, and thanks for finally including the option to remove the hidden resources.
Maatissi
Turvenuija
I already posted in this thread regarding the tech tree, but I fear my post got lost in that ******** Hitler-debate... 
I understood that Sevo already noticed my early-thread post on nuclear plant price, and the development of the area-power idea.
Zorn and Dr. Oak made good points about modern units, and I would also like to pinpoint a few things myself:
1. As Dr. Oak mentioned, the prerequistice for modern naval units is a bit odd, but this is also a tech tree problem, there seems to be something utterly wrong in the tech tree between physics/rifling-level and industrialism-flight-level. I remember the good old Civ II Fascist Patch in which mr. Strayer included his Dreadnought coal-burning old battleship as a successor for ironclads (or ship-of-the-lines). Then evolved battleships and cruisers, and finally the destroyer-class vessels as picket screens for ASW, AA.
2. Missiles, Infantry-SAM's appeared in 1950-60's... Where's the good old flak peppering the sky with black puffs? And how fast does the technology run from a Spit to an F-16? Mi-26 appearing too early, also. Even Hook is a very late toy compared to a propeller fixed-wing aircraft.
3. Positive add-ons so far: the Biplane and the Mark-V-tank, excellently filled the gaps in logical tech tree advance... Though we must all admit that in the first mod version they were published, they were utterly misplaced and unrealistically early achieved. This has been mostly corrected, and now we have a nice set of early modern equipment.
Of course I understand that there was a king idea of "alternative paths of development" in the original Civ IV and why not even in the mods... But has'nt there been a great deal of choice in technical development path since the very first Civ already - the very choice of "what to research next?" itself!
(I just played a game of Civ III where I mastered the Theory of Gravity before Magnetism and Metallurgy) - in other words: "Isaac Newton drafted his theory and we didn't know how to build cannons and frigates"... This is acceptable I think, just as it was in the original Civ possible to master Copernician Astronomy without developing hardcore mechanical sciences. (Bit like the Maya did in the *real world*)
As in Civ IV, I can accept a logic Artillery -> Rocketry as alternatively skipping Flight, but many units don't follow the same logic, unfortunately. It would be so helpful if Civ IV (sevomod) would display the tech tree like Civ III did, era per era, showing what leads to what. Then we could perhaps pinpoint the very problems in the late game logics.
The early tech tree in contrast, offers a marvelous number of choices to develop your civilization in an alternate way and strategy. (I guess there is more sensation of good gaming because of the religions and many detailed cultural aspects in Civ IV compared to the earlier versions.) The tech paradigm oddities are really a problem in games, where players are isolated beyond a body of ocean, as the tech leak corrects the "natural advancement of society" (even in the areas not emphazised by the player's choice). After all, all tech tree-systems are a construction of definitions and schemes in which we simulate the certain amount of "knowledge" the Civilization has mastered. So at a certain point even in the detail level, the modelling of societies' advance becomes a very semantic question - rather than one of realsim.
I think that in the future there should be a healthy peek into the tech trees of earlier Civ's, especially to the one in Civ III Conquests. The good old ideas of Strayer's Civ II mods should be also reviewed; the legendary zeppelins, dreadnoughts, Korean War era jets etc. units filling the gaps. (Where the heck is the cruiser? Repeating the tragic error of the Civ III again...
)
Tactical nuke was a nice idea too... actually also coincidentally implement by me in my Civ III mod a long time ago, inspired by the Civ II missile-launching submarines. (And by some weird phenomenon, there seems to be a very similiar line of thought following all Civ-designers and mod-builders when they modify their rulesets. The mod-builders very often add something that is then also added by the official designers. Anyone else experienced this funny coincidence repeating itself in every area of the game regardless of version?) I guess it is just a sign to boost our great discussions here in Civ forums. The love of the game.
And when we come to it: where are the bombers carrying free fall atomic bombs?
And for the completely irrelevant great person-debate, I have to say: keep the historic statesmen as statesmen... too many times I see listings where they are regarded as generals. Generals are those guys like Guderian, Rommel, Patton (especially), Hannibal and Scipio Africanus... The line has to be drawn somewhere, even as difficult it is. Of course there are tough cookies to decide like ie. Eisenhower, Tokugawa, Voroshilov, Mannerheim... Well, you got my point, someone should really brainstorm more great person names, adds a lot of atmosphere and even sensation of realism to the game. Could the list be optimized so you would get the great persons in correct chronological order? (No ancient Guderians, I mean...) For the sake of realism!
Thanks to Sevo for the enormous effort of making this truly great mod!
And of course also thanks to all you Civ-freaks out there for playing out so vigorously and posting ideas. Keep up the good work!
I understood that Sevo already noticed my early-thread post on nuclear plant price, and the development of the area-power idea.
Zorn and Dr. Oak made good points about modern units, and I would also like to pinpoint a few things myself:
1. As Dr. Oak mentioned, the prerequistice for modern naval units is a bit odd, but this is also a tech tree problem, there seems to be something utterly wrong in the tech tree between physics/rifling-level and industrialism-flight-level. I remember the good old Civ II Fascist Patch in which mr. Strayer included his Dreadnought coal-burning old battleship as a successor for ironclads (or ship-of-the-lines). Then evolved battleships and cruisers, and finally the destroyer-class vessels as picket screens for ASW, AA.
2. Missiles, Infantry-SAM's appeared in 1950-60's... Where's the good old flak peppering the sky with black puffs? And how fast does the technology run from a Spit to an F-16? Mi-26 appearing too early, also. Even Hook is a very late toy compared to a propeller fixed-wing aircraft.
3. Positive add-ons so far: the Biplane and the Mark-V-tank, excellently filled the gaps in logical tech tree advance... Though we must all admit that in the first mod version they were published, they were utterly misplaced and unrealistically early achieved. This has been mostly corrected, and now we have a nice set of early modern equipment.
Of course I understand that there was a king idea of "alternative paths of development" in the original Civ IV and why not even in the mods... But has'nt there been a great deal of choice in technical development path since the very first Civ already - the very choice of "what to research next?" itself!
(I just played a game of Civ III where I mastered the Theory of Gravity before Magnetism and Metallurgy) - in other words: "Isaac Newton drafted his theory and we didn't know how to build cannons and frigates"... This is acceptable I think, just as it was in the original Civ possible to master Copernician Astronomy without developing hardcore mechanical sciences. (Bit like the Maya did in the *real world*)
As in Civ IV, I can accept a logic Artillery -> Rocketry as alternatively skipping Flight, but many units don't follow the same logic, unfortunately. It would be so helpful if Civ IV (sevomod) would display the tech tree like Civ III did, era per era, showing what leads to what. Then we could perhaps pinpoint the very problems in the late game logics.
The early tech tree in contrast, offers a marvelous number of choices to develop your civilization in an alternate way and strategy. (I guess there is more sensation of good gaming because of the religions and many detailed cultural aspects in Civ IV compared to the earlier versions.) The tech paradigm oddities are really a problem in games, where players are isolated beyond a body of ocean, as the tech leak corrects the "natural advancement of society" (even in the areas not emphazised by the player's choice). After all, all tech tree-systems are a construction of definitions and schemes in which we simulate the certain amount of "knowledge" the Civilization has mastered. So at a certain point even in the detail level, the modelling of societies' advance becomes a very semantic question - rather than one of realsim.
I think that in the future there should be a healthy peek into the tech trees of earlier Civ's, especially to the one in Civ III Conquests. The good old ideas of Strayer's Civ II mods should be also reviewed; the legendary zeppelins, dreadnoughts, Korean War era jets etc. units filling the gaps. (Where the heck is the cruiser? Repeating the tragic error of the Civ III again...
)Tactical nuke was a nice idea too... actually also coincidentally implement by me in my Civ III mod a long time ago, inspired by the Civ II missile-launching submarines. (And by some weird phenomenon, there seems to be a very similiar line of thought following all Civ-designers and mod-builders when they modify their rulesets. The mod-builders very often add something that is then also added by the official designers. Anyone else experienced this funny coincidence repeating itself in every area of the game regardless of version?) I guess it is just a sign to boost our great discussions here in Civ forums. The love of the game.
And when we come to it: where are the bombers carrying free fall atomic bombs?
And for the completely irrelevant great person-debate, I have to say: keep the historic statesmen as statesmen... too many times I see listings where they are regarded as generals. Generals are those guys like Guderian, Rommel, Patton (especially), Hannibal and Scipio Africanus... The line has to be drawn somewhere, even as difficult it is. Of course there are tough cookies to decide like ie. Eisenhower, Tokugawa, Voroshilov, Mannerheim... Well, you got my point, someone should really brainstorm more great person names, adds a lot of atmosphere and even sensation of realism to the game. Could the list be optimized so you would get the great persons in correct chronological order? (No ancient Guderians, I mean...) For the sake of realism!
Thanks to Sevo for the enormous effort of making this truly great mod!
And of course also thanks to all you Civ-freaks out there for playing out so vigorously and posting ideas. Keep up the good work!
hi. Israeli unit shoudn't be talking Arabic. More like HebrewSevo said:
2. The Hasmonean dinasty used a lot of greek mersenaries, so I thing you may replace Hypiatis unit for Macedonian Mersenary. And delete cathaphractii for Israeli empire cause they probably used mersenaries also.
3. Try to arm Macabei with a warhammer. It's more historically true.
4. If you don't mind. I would reccomend adding Alexander Yanai to Solomon. His should be: Agressive, Expantionist.
5. Modern Armor = Merkavah IV.
6. Navy seal=(commando paratrooper) Lokhem Egoz.
7. Don't add Ariel Sharon!
=============================================
1. An Arab civ:
a) Knight = if you let me, I'll try to sent you the picture of they early medieval army(7-12 cent)
b) Great Persons: Muhammad Al-Tabari(historian), Najib Makhpuz(writer), Khalid b. Al-Walid(general), Jamal Al-Apghrani(stateman),Ahmad Urabi(general)
Tulx
Impossible Creature
sweetpete said:
Titi said:
Really thanks
Im not a modder myself so i had hard times trying to find the right thing Thanks again!Tulx
I found it was a pity privateers had only an exploration ability.
So, since historically they were used to attack and seize the cargo of enemy ships to disrupt commercial routes (even though they were not belonging to the Navy - they had a letter of marque to show their opponents they were not pirates!), I added a plunder ability: when they win a fight against caravels or galleons, they give you some gold:
An enemy galleon has been looted! 61 [ICON_GOLD] pillaged!
Of course, the same is likely to happen if it's an enemy privateer that sinks your vessel:
Your caravel has been looted! 58 [ICON_GOLD] pillaged! :lol
So, since historically they were used to attack and seize the cargo of enemy ships to disrupt commercial routes (even though they were not belonging to the Navy - they had a letter of marque to show their opponents they were not pirates!), I added a plunder ability: when they win a fight against caravels or galleons, they give you some gold:
An enemy galleon has been looted! 61 [ICON_GOLD] pillaged!
Of course, the same is likely to happen if it's an enemy privateer that sinks your vessel:Your caravel has been looted! 58 [ICON_GOLD] pillaged! :lol
bryanw1995 said:
You should ask Captain Kirk. "Khan!!! Khaaaannnnn!!!"
Seriously tho', people get way too caught up in these things. I mean, I don't see the point. The romans did shocking things too (starting a major religion as a byproduct) but you don't see people arguing for the removal of them as a player race. I mean, i called my guinea pig John Herod and no-one objected.
Meanwhilst, back in reality land, North Korea is building nuclear weapons, south korea and japan are thinking of responding in kind, and the destroyers of my country are steaming off to blockade it, which North Korea has announced is "an act of war". Although technically they've been at war with us continually since the Korean War was declared.
Some people really need a sense of perspective.
Sevo,
kudos again for your latest release, implementation of Dale's Combat Mod really kicks ass!
There are several lengthy suggestions so I'll try to keep this as short as possible.
1.)
As Soren Johnson states in his presantation, success of a game is partly dependant on killing unfun elements. There is one things I still find vastly annoying:
Spreading your religion. You can only have 3 missionaries at a time atm. This is very cumbersome, since you have to go back to the city were you Alt+built them and change the queue, then when you used a missionary, change again (especially annoying if the missis take only 1 turn to build...).
The stronger your religion(s) get(s), the easier it should become to spread it/them.
Why not give a +3 on the max number of missis for every hindu manir/christian cath/confucian academy etc. you build, say, to a max number of 9? Since you can only build them when you have a certain number of temples, they are a measure of the influence of your rel, and at that point you put quite resources in it to reach that.
2.)
2 small (?) fixes to the cities advisor screen: When I click on a city and then on "view", it goes to the city detail screen- but of a seemingly random city. Is this a bug or do I do sth wrong? Why does double clicking not open the city detail screen directly?
The other thing: Implement a pop-up that shows the chances for the different types of great people when you mouse over the gp-points of a city in the list. As it is now, if I want to decide where to build a wonder to support the generation of a certain gp type, I have to go to city detail screen, switch from city to city and mouseover the gp bar in each. Or is there another way?
Again, this is a small thing but very helpful.
Oh, and P.S.: The smartmap script works again with Sevo 3.2. It also fixes the stones issue, in my current game there's stones all around!
kudos again for your latest release, implementation of Dale's Combat Mod really kicks ass!
There are several lengthy suggestions so I'll try to keep this as short as possible.
1.)
As Soren Johnson states in his presantation, success of a game is partly dependant on killing unfun elements. There is one things I still find vastly annoying:
Spreading your religion. You can only have 3 missionaries at a time atm. This is very cumbersome, since you have to go back to the city were you Alt+built them and change the queue, then when you used a missionary, change again (especially annoying if the missis take only 1 turn to build...).
The stronger your religion(s) get(s), the easier it should become to spread it/them.
Why not give a +3 on the max number of missis for every hindu manir/christian cath/confucian academy etc. you build, say, to a max number of 9? Since you can only build them when you have a certain number of temples, they are a measure of the influence of your rel, and at that point you put quite resources in it to reach that.
2.)
2 small (?) fixes to the cities advisor screen: When I click on a city and then on "view", it goes to the city detail screen- but of a seemingly random city. Is this a bug or do I do sth wrong? Why does double clicking not open the city detail screen directly?
The other thing: Implement a pop-up that shows the chances for the different types of great people when you mouse over the gp-points of a city in the list. As it is now, if I want to decide where to build a wonder to support the generation of a certain gp type, I have to go to city detail screen, switch from city to city and mouseover the gp bar in each. Or is there another way?
Again, this is a small thing but very helpful.
Oh, and P.S.: The smartmap script works again with Sevo 3.2. It also fixes the stones issue, in my current game there's stones all around!
Hm. Dunno what the problem is with my sevomod, but it doesn't work, neither in 3.2 nor in 3.1 or 3.0 -strange. When I doubleclick on a city name on the list, it only performs a single klick (the build queue beneath the list switches onto the city), but it does not open the city detail screen. If it works for you, this seems a problem with my civ only, so you can scrap that suggestion!
Please do so and tell me if it works for you... I use the list quite often, even more so in the late-game stage where the number of your cities is really large. It gives you a lot you need to know on a glance but could use a little tweaking like I described to make it even more useful
Titi said:I found it was a pity privateers had only an exploration ability.
I added a plunder ability: when they win a fight against caravels or galleons, they give you some gold:
An enemy galleon has been looted! 61 [ICON_GOLD] pillaged!
Your caravel has been looted! 58 [ICON_GOLD] pillaged! :lol
Yeah, sounds good to me!
...but where does this gold come from?! Have you also implemented a loss of gold on the opponents side? In my opinion that should be implemented that way.
Another thing I dislike in all the CIVs, is the wrong use of galleons. In history, they were used as trade- or "native-treasure-hook"-ships. In CIV you only use them to carry troops. This was solved much more realistic in Colonization or other older games like Imperialism (II), where you had two types of fleets:
The trade-fleet and the war fleet.
I still miss the blocked harbours in CIV. You simply can still trade over sea, if you have built no single battle ship and your enemies armada is blocking the coast squares around your capital!
How can this be solved?!
