Suggested EXISTING rule edits to improve realism or gameplay.

[Procifica]

Originally posted by Jaybe
Since unit strengths are as much a matter of training/tactics as equipment, it is quite arbitrary what A/D/M you give them (so leave them alone).

Does anyone have experience after moving Republic/Democracy gov'ts yet? Instead of moving Demo to follow Sanitation, I put it after Nationalism. Haven't played yet.

I REALLY like this idea...Democracy after Nationalism fits MUCH MUCH MUCH better than Communism.

The "democracies" of America and France came after a wave of Nationalism spawned in Revolutions.

Communism should be after either Industrialization or Corporation.

 

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Procifica
Communism should be after either Industrialization or Corporation.

Interesting! How could good ol' Karl write Das Manifesto before the "de-humanizing" effects of factories?

 

[Procifica]

Buckets: Nice tech tree there. I like it.

 

[Procifica]

Originally posted by Jaybe

Interesting! How could good ol' Karl write Das Manifesto before the "de-humanizing" effects of factories?

Exactly my point. I'm not sure which would be better, I'm thinking after Corporation would be more appropriate, but its open to debate.

Below is a list of unit changes I'm compiled (excluding air units and carriers, and missiles):

Warrior: 1/1/1 C: 10
Archer: 1/2/1, 2/1/1 C: 20
Spearman: 2/2/1 C: 30
Swordsman: 4/2/1 C: 40
Chariot: 1/1/2 C: 20
Horseman: 2/1/2 C: 30
Cataphract: 3/1/2, C: 40 (add tech which requires Monarchy and Horseback Riding)
Catapult: 0/0/1, 5/2/1 C: 40
Galley: 1/1/3 C: 30 (requires Map Making)
Trireme: 2/1/3 C: 40 (requires Republic?)

Medieval Infantry: 6/3/1 C: 50 (requires Feudalism)
Knight: 5/4/2 C: 70 (requires Chivalry) (Chivalry leads to Invention instead of Feudalism)
Crossbowman: 1/1/1, 5/1/1 C: 50 (requires Invention)
Pikeman: 2/4/1, C: 50 (requires Invention)
Arquebus: 7/2/1 C: 60 (requires Gunpowder)
Musketman: 6/6/1 C: 80 (requires Chemistry)
Dragoon: 7/3/2 C: 80 (requires Chemistry)
Hussar: 9/4/2 C: 100 (requires Military Tradition)
Bombard: 0/0/1, 8/2/1 C: 60 (requires Gunpowder)
Cannon: 0/0/1, 12/2/1 C: 80 (requires Metallurgy)
Caravel: 3/2/4 C: 60 (requires Astronomy)
Galleon: 5/2/4, 5/1/1 C: 80 (requires Navigation)
Frigate: 6/3/5, 6/1/2 C: 100 (requires Magnetism)
Ship of the Line: 8/4/3, 8/1/2 C: 120 (requires Magnetism)

Rifleman: 8/10/1 C: 110 (requires Nationalism)
Cavalry: 10/5/2, C: 120 (requires Industrialization?) (Industrialization requires Nationalism)
Infantry: 12/15/1 C: 150 (requires Replaceable Parts) (Replaceable Parts requires Electricity and Corporation)
Note: Purpose of the changes in techs listed in Cavalry and Infantry is to insure that Rifleman comes before Infantry)
Tank: 20/18/3 C: 200 (requires Motorized Transportation) (cannot fortify, wheeled)
Artillery: 0/0/1, 20/2/2 C: 120
Ironclad: 10/10/3, 10/1/2 C: 150 (requires Steam Power) (Electricity now comes before Steam Power, like it should be)
Destroyer: 16/12/6, 16/1/2 C: 180 (requires Steel)
Cruiser: 20/16/5, 20/2/2 C: 220 (requires Combustion)
Battleship: 24/20/4, 24/2/3 C: 260 (requires Mass Production)
Submarine: 24/8/3 C: 180

Mech. Infantry: 18/20/2 C: 180
Modern Tank: 28/24/3 C: 240 (cannot fortify)
Modern Infantry: 32/24/2 C: 270 (requires Smart Weapons)
Modern Armor: 40/32/3 C: 300 (cannot fortify) (requires Smart Weapons)
Modern Artillery: 0/0/1, 32/2/2 C: 160 (requires Rocketry)
Radar Artillery: 0/0/1, 45/2/2 C: 200
Nuclear Submarine: 32/12/4 C: 240
AEGIS Cruiser: 32/24/5, 32/5/3 C: 300 (replaces Battleship)
Modern Destroyer: 24/18/6, 24/3/3 C: 240 (replaces Destroyer) (requires Robotics)

Note: Anywhere where I didn't list a tech requirement or anything else, it means no change in that aspect.

To those who like the Age of Sail to last longer, my switching of Electricity and Steam Power does make it a little longer and more realistic.

Whoever posted the AEGIS cruiser change (I really liked it, and forgot who posted it), thank you for the idea, you get credit for it despite my modification.

Critique this as you like.

 

[Rocoteh]

A Fighter unit (WW2) should not have a chance to
survive combat against a F-15 unit.
Hypothetical:
Let us assume that Iraq should have (for some absurd
reason) 2 000 MiG-3 fighters.

These (hypothetical) fighters should have zero value
against F-15, F-16,F-14 and F-18.

 

[bill dot]

I think the submarine units should be more powerful; possible ideas i) a free attack, that is the sub wins its first battle against a unit that cannot see it (reflecting the element of surprise) and ii) an attack bonus against "transport" units (reflecting the role of subs in disrupting shipping in WWII)

 

[Procifica]

Bill Dot: your first suggestion isn't really possible with current Civ3 rules (though they are made invisible, which can sorta result in a free attack against units which can't detect invisibility). The second suggestion...Submarines already have an attack of 8, transports I believe have a defense of 3. That's pretty good odds of winning.

If you look at my list of changes above, you'll see that I've GREATLY improved subs.

 

[Jaybe]

Rocoteh, how are you going to make prop fighters have no chance against jets with the current editor (the premise of this thread)?

Also, obsolete fighters DO occasionally win against jets. Props are more maneuverable than jets, and if they can get within gunnery range, the odds are more even. Of course, jets can (if they WANT) go much faster and disengage. In dogfights, it is all a matter of who can sight the other first and get on the other's tail. In (early) Vietnam, obsolete MiG-17 jets were downing American F-4's with too much regularity.

Vietnam gave rise to Red Flag dogfighting exercises here in Nevada, and reintroduction of guns on fighters which were too dependent on air-air missiles. Currently, it is more a matter of superior training and total omniscience (AWACS aircraft) which determine air superiority. The Iraq affairs have never been a "fair fight" (but who starts a war if you are going to fight "fair", without numerical and/or tech superiority).

 

[Rocoteh]

I don`t see a problem to change with the current editor.

Give F-15: Attack 32 Defense 20 +5HP Cost 400

It works well for me in my personal mod.
Also: I was comparing WW2-fighters with F-15.
Comparing MiG-17 with F-4 is a another thing.

I want to stress the quantity to quality move since WW2.

Compare RAF today, 468 combat aircraft with numbers 60
years ago and you will see what I mean.

Then again ,CIVIII/PTW is a game using extreme abstraction.
One can not say: Look these stats are right! Those are wrong!
In my opinion that`s a factor that make CIVIII/PTW
interesting to work with.

For those who want maximum realism I recommend
Century of Warfare.

The very high level of abstraction in CIVIII/PTW is
in fact the prime reason to why few hardcore wargamers
are CivFanatics.

 

[alpha wolf 64]

to make a comment on the battleships, altho none have been built since WW2, the 4 Iowa-class BB werent greatly modernized to carry tomahawks and modern electronics. the real reason they got mothballed was their high maint cost, which cant be reflected in civ terms the US actually had started construstion on a super class of B late in the war but scrapped them when it was decided that there were enough BB to support naval operations. had the war lasted longer, or another naval war occurred, i suspect that the BBs would have had a much longer useful life.

 

[zulu9812]

Originally posted by Procifica
Steph: How does a Rifleman or Infantry unit take less damage than say a Knight? I'd say the Knight has a better chance of taking a bullet than a unarmored soldier of today (assuming no other type of support).

Steel won't protect against direct bullet-fire. Even modern kevlar helmets are for protection from shrapenl, rather than direct protection from a sniper's bullet.

 

[thestonesfan]

It's a heck of a lot easier to shoot a few charging Knights off of their horses than to overcome a line of riflemen. I should know.

Seriously, the A|D|M values also need to represent improved tactics and higher numbers of combatants, unless you change the HP values, which is good for representing numbers. A rifleman in combat is far more effective than a Knight.

 

[mrtn]

Originally posted by Mojotronica
What is the difference between a Spearman and a Warrior, as presented in Civ?

Bronze weapons and light armor?

This is simulated in the game by giving them an additional point of defense, but they are no better on offense than a Warrior.

Is this accurate? Should Spearmen be A=1, D=2? Or A=2, D=1? Or even A=2, D=2?

...

I have said before, that I see the Archer as the defensive unit, and the spearman as the offensive. I have also modded the Immortal to be based on this offensive spearman, giving it 3/1/1. This is still a mighty ancient attacker, and it frees up the 4/2/1 stats, to be given to the gallic swordsman, as their movement of 2 is ridicoulous. This Immortal is later updated to one of Kryten's fine hoplites, which I use as Swordsmen-replacements in the mediterranean area.

I have played with the moved governments since February, with no side effects.

I have also modded Communism to require Nationalism (as before) and Industrialisation, a la Marx.
And Replaceable parts to require Electricity (as before) and The Corporation. This means that you have to get two more tech's to get Replacable Parts (and Infantry) and also that the wait for tanks are thus reduced two techs.

I have also tried to alter the worker actions, to make them take longer time, as this:
As it used to be:
mine 12
irrigation 8
fortress 16
road 6
railroad 12
plant forest 18
clear forest 10
clear jungle 16
clear pollution 24

After:
mine 16
irrigation 10
fortress 20
road 8
railroad 16
plant forest 20
clear forest 16
clear jungle 24
clear pollution 30

This way, there are less a chance that there will be roads and stuff in every square on the map 1200 AD.

 

[thestonesfan]

I made "Clean Pollution" take 2 turns to perform, since it is so ridiculously annoying and completely unrealistic. I also made it so no building caused pollution.

Pollution should affect happiness, not render a square completely worthless.

 

[Mojotronica]

Posted by GEChallenger:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49981

 

[Mojotronica]

Links to several threads about using sea resources:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=900868#post900868

Works, but not in the way the Modder would hope, and the AI can't make use of it...

 

[Mojotronica]

Plus some discussion of defense.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49918

 

[_Impreza_]

Maybe 2 Types of Nuclear Submarines? Attack, and Ballistic Guided missile subs? Also Nuclear subs should have much better attack strength, this implying Attack versions. With units attack and defence this is hard because if u dont know how many soldiers one unit of infantry means how can u question their abilities?

 

[Colonel Kraken]

Originally posted by Steph
I almost forgot something. The cost. The shield cost should be lower than it is in civ III (4 turns to build a knight? That means 100 years!). My goal is basically to have the units, except settlers, buildable in one turn (for a normally developped city), except for tanks, planes, small ships (they will need 2 turns), and bigger ships (3 turns).
However, every units will cost population:
- For infantry / cavalry : 1 point if the unit has 1 HP, 2 if it has 2 HP, 3 if it has 3 or 4 HP.
- For chariot / armor : usually 2 points
- For planes and ships : 1 point.
The upkeep cost will also be a lot higher.

So this means you will be able to build your army rather fast, but:
- It will take a big toll on your population
- It will be very expensive to maintain.
So, how to solve it?
First, build your army to the limit of free maintenance for protection. When you need to attack, build fast a new army, fight short wars, and when the war is over, go back to the cities, and... join it! Every unit will have the join city command, to represent demobilization.

These are some great ideas. One question: you say, "The upkeep cost will also be a lot higher." How is this accomplished? I thought Firaxis hardcoded maintenance costs of all units to 1 gold per turn. This has been one of the biggest gripes for modification.

Originally posted by thestonesfan
I made "Clean Pollution" take 2 turns to perform, since it is so ridiculously annoying and completely unrealistic. I also made it so no building caused pollution.

Pollution should affect happiness, not render a square completely worthless.

Excellent points!

 

[_Impreza_]

"These are some great ideas. One question: you say, "The upkeep cost will also be a lot higher." How is this accomplished? I thought Firaxis hardcoded maintenance costs of all units to 1 gold per turn. This has been one of the biggest gripes for modification."

This can be countered by making terrain give more commerce.