• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Suggested EXISTING rule edits to improve realism or gameplay.

You can set support costs for units individually for each government. In DyP, for example, Federal Republic has a 4 gold per tern maintenence for each unit. Keep in mind that this is a global change. That is, for that government, everything from a warrior to a nuke has the same 4 gold per turn. (although you can make some units "free" with a flag on the unit screen; still, it's all or nothing as opposed to a more realistic and complex cost range)
 
Zealot

Available w/ Polytheism

Upgradable to Fanatic? (Don't know how this works since it requires a Pop point...)

A=4, D=0 (Capturable!), M=1

Cost = 20s + 1 Pop point (Can be "Joined")

Powerful ancient era unit that may be captured and used against it's spawn Civ. May be used to increase City size too.

Using them inhibits Civ expansion, but provides a powerful unit early at a cheap price.

***

Fanatic

Available w/ Monotheism

A=6, D=0 (Capturable), M=1

Cost = 30s + 1 Pop point (Joinable)

Upgrade for the Medieval era.
 
well not gonna give all ideas away but probarly the next version of the world 2003 will be ground breaking stuff with ideas etc.
 
I reackon artillery should be leathel, also terrain should be worth alot more etc.
 
Originally posted by _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.

You can modify the upkeep cost in the government tab of the editor (at least in PTW). In my mod, the upkeep for monarch and despotism is high (5/units), because it represents mercenar army. It is lower for democracy and republic (conscriptions), and even a bit lower for comunism.
 
Well i reackon if this was meant to be a comment connecting to lack of money i reackon that more commerce should be in terrains this will make for a more exciting and challenging game especially at deity. None of these solutions though are capable of setting costs for each unit.
 
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).

And following your above figures as examples, I'd say a tank has a MUCH better chance of living than Infantry (8 vs. 12), and has much higher firepower too.

I don't understand your first remark. Do you mean the rifleman should have a better defense than a knight (second sentence?), or the opposite (first sentence?)
Knight = 6/4/2, 2HP. Rifleman = 8/6/1, 4 HP. Infantry = 10/8/1, 4 HP. So defense increase with firepower, camouflage, tactics, etc.

About the tank. True. The tank seems better. So an AT unit with a high attack but low ROF (and lethal land bombardment) can destroy a tank, or at least damage. A MG with high ROF but lower attack is better against infantry.
Second, Tanks cost more, are wheeled, and needs ressources. Infantry do not.
Third, infantry can fortify, but tanks cannot. With an increase of the fortification bonus, this means that a tank is better than unprepared infantry in the open. But infantry unit fortified in jungle is a lot better at defense than a tank in a plain.
 
Well i reackon if this was meant to be a comment connecting to lack of money i reackon that more commerce should be in terrains this will make for a more exciting and challenging game especially at deity. None of these solutions though are capable of setting costs for each unit.
 
So a knight should be slaughtered by a infantry every time cos there is no chance. Realistic Unit firepowers, i reackon we should just go to extremes of being a riflemens stats being far ahead of a knight by atleast 5 on both attack and defence and then we take another leap with tanks etc. Then there is no getting away with it for the computer.
 
Originally posted by Civanator

That is the cost of an army, and an army can attack land units.

Yes, and then again, high abstraction:
What represents an Army(CIVIII/PTW) in modern times?
How many divisions? The whole U.S. Army 2003 =10 divisions.
Germany Army 2003= 6 divisions.

One should also remember the U.S. and N.AT.O. "come
as you are war doctrine". Future wars will be won with forces
"on hand" day1 of the war.
No more WW1 and WW2 mobilization and 10% of
population in arms.

U.S. Air Force have 736 F-15. How many does a F-15 unit
represent?

Again, with the level of abstraction, I see no problem.
Choose stats that you think is right.
That`s one of the great aspects of CIVIII/PTW.
 
I'm contemplating a government change and here's why: having done some playtesting i'm finding that the ai researches more and more slowly through the ages, especially in the industrial and modern ages. (Example: ancient - 160 turns, mid - 100, ind - 231 !) There's alot of reasons why but i suspect the real problem is that the ai switches Govs alot. Once they have Democracy and Communism, they will stick with dem for peace time, com for war time and rarely go back to monarchy or republic. And because Dem has high war weariness, they will need to switch alot. I mean, the ai does not conduct efficient quick wars.... anyway, i'm theorising that changing the war weariness of democracy to low will alleviate some of this, but it needs to be tested!

Just to follow up, (i mean if we can discuss something other than adm values...;) ) i've done two tests and had good results. So, here's what i did: democracy was changed to a low war weariness. Another change to take note of is i moved communication trading to navigation, so that tends to slow down research for non expansionist civs dramatically. i created a map where i had one settler and the ai could not contact me, just let the ai's duke it out. I took note of the first civ to hit a new age and here's the numbers:

mid 50 ad 130 turns
ind 1515 163
mod 1876 110

and with a slightly higher tech rate:

mid 10 ad 128
ind 1675 197
mod 1961 126

So now the ai reseaches more like the human and i can more easily control the ages via the tech rate - hence no tanks in 1400.
 
OK, I have now figured out the REAL issue behind all of this....

1) The editor is horribly bad
a) We need to be able to make certain units have bonuses against certain other units (ex: tanks get bonus against infantry...antitank gets bonus against tanks... etc.)
b)We need to be able to change the upkeep costs for units individually
c)we need less things hardcoded
d) We need a better/smarter ai (it doesn't comprehend artillery!!)

I could go on in other areas but this is essentially a military post.

As to the tech tree.... Buckets ur data is interesting.... personnally the tech rate doesnt much bother me and i believe (im not sure how accurate this is) that i had heard at one pt. that alot of the time we dont immediately use the technology we have (ex. i do know that the M1A1's initial plans were made in the late 70's while it wasn't really implemented until like the 80's (mid 80's to late 80's i think?)

As to Procifica's original posting about how like knights can kill infantry upon occassion this is what i've done to prevent such issues: I have given attack and defense points for eras i.e.:

Medieval era- +4
Late Medieval Era- +9
Industrial- + 15
Later Industrial- +30
Modern Era- +35

This has worked for me to a huge extent... though i will admit that I have made a few tweaks and adjustments to individual units along with how i think things should work.

(I don't think those were my actual numbers but they're close.)
 
oh i forgot one thing...

In all of my mods and scenarios that i have made...havent published many of them :(.... i have always given cavalry an attack rateing that is the same as that areas version of infantry because Cavalry in no era ruled the battlefield the way that they do in CivIII and in reality where only good if the enemy broke up formations ( think about it... the Islamic Cavalry at Poitiers, the persian cavalry against Alexander's Phalanx, the French Cavalry at Waterloo couldn't break the British square formations) The cavalry could only break disciplined infantry if it had the ability, the time, and the resources to lap around and flank it and or hit it from the rear. Now granted thier are exceptions to the rule... though a few of them i don't count because I don't believe that infantry was good enough/wasn't motivated properly (like dictatorships and such).
 
one of the things i did was to lower the science research from 100% depending on gov type (mon=70, dem=90,etc). this allowed the AI some gold and slowed overall research. the influx of gold allows the AIs some money for unit upgrades altho the AI s seem to have no concept of saving for a rainy day. you can also increase the minimum number of turns for a new tech to be researched.
 
The Changing Face Of History
-------------------------------
Here is something that I posted some time ago, in this old thread….
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=452949&highlight=thatcher#post452949
Many of you will have already seen it, but I thought I’d post it here as well.

As you all know, a civilization’s leader changes appearance with each new era, adopting more modern looking clothes.
Well….why not give them a new FACE in each era as well!
That way, each civilization can have four different leaders instead of just one. :)

Example: the English could have:-
Boudicca in the ancient period
Henry in the medieval period (there are 8 to choose from!)
Queen Victoria or Churchill in the industrial/WW2 period
Thatcher in modern period (NOT a favourite of mine, but very influential)

France could have:-
Vercingetorix in the ancient period
Louis in the medieval period (this time you have some 18 to choose from!)
Napoleon in the industrial period
De Gaulle in the modern period

And so on.
As for the ruler's name, you could just give then a nice general-purpose name in the CivEditor such as 'the leader of the XXXX people', but their real name could be part of the 'Leader Animation', like this......






The Problem With The Americans (in the game I mean!)
--------------------------------
This is only really a problem in ‘historical real-world’ scenarios. In a random game, anything goes.
(Not many people are going to like this, but you never know....someone might. :crazyeye: )

Having America in the game in 4000BC leads to ridiculous discussions such as what units they should have in the Ancient & Medieval periods....should they have chariots? (but there were no horses in the Americas until the Spanish imported then in the 16th century), and as the Americans are derived from mostly English stock, should they also have Knights & Longbows? (but these were never used in America).
These are old debates. But what is the alternative?
The most common solution is to have them there from the start, but to treat them as another Native American people like the Iroquois, and to have them ‘suddenly’ able to build European type units in the middle of the Middle Ages, thus representing the European colonization.
This is possible, but it completely avoids the true situation, which is that the colonization of America was the biggest land-grab in history: it was a European led civilian invasion.
Well....maybe there is another alternative....

From 1774AD to 1900AD (63 out of 540 Civ3 turns, or just 12% of the game), England and America followed independent paths.
BEFORE this period, Englishmen & Americans were essentially one and the same!.
And AFTER this period, Britain & the United States have been extraordinarily close allies, co-operating extremely closely in almost every major war (and may well do so until 2050AD), with the United States as the dominant partner.
I’m sure you have all heard the phrase: “Britain is the 51st state of the USA” :lol:

So what you COULD do....if you really,really wanted to....is to use the “Changing Face Of History” article outlined above to give this joint ‘English-American’ civilisation the following:-
Ancient Period = an ancient English leader.
Middle Ages = a Medieval English leader.
Industrial Age = either an American or English leader (Abraham Lincoln or Queen Victoria)
Modern Times = an American leader (showing that they have become the dominant partner in the alliance)
(Canada, Australia, and New Zealand would also be represented by this ‘English-American’ civilization)

“But” I hear you cry, “what about the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812?”
Well, the war of 1812 was only a spat that had no effect on world history, and some important wars (such as the American Civil War) are already totally ignored by Civ3.
(The American War Of Independence only lasted for 4 civ turns, so perhaps the 3 or 4 turns of anarchy following this joint nation’s change to Democracy could represent this historical event?)

Now I would be the FIRST person to admit that this far from a perfect solution.
But it may be preferable to distorting some 5,775 years of human history by trying to shoe-horn a nation into the game from the start that we all know shouldn’t be there.

(....see....I told you that you wouldn’t like it.... :D )
 
I have long considered the possibility of creating region specific unit progression (possibly unique units to an area such as mounted archers for the Mediterranean and Asia) for each time period. The American nations would be limited in the first two eras to certain types of units such as: Archers (with Bowman stats if not higher) Warriors (again with higher stats) and possibly Horsemen. USA would be an exception to the rule in the late Middle Ages around Pikemen they would gain a technical advantage. The other American nations would only be able to build musket men later but will have higher stats since they will not be able to build riflemen (which also will slow any US or European conquest untill the Early Industrial). Only the USA would be able to build ships until some time in the industrial era.

As for the other regions I have not yet given there development much thought. European nations would most likely play out much that same as they already do.

The tech tree would level off during the WW1 era (mid Industrial) and then in the modern era change so that the modern superpowers again have the advantage. Making it harder for nations like the Zulu (man do they really anger me they are always trouble :mad: ) to become modern superpowers. The non-superpowers would use more Guerrilla units and Mech-Infantry instead of Modern Armor.

But its still just an idea I am kicking around that I think might add to the game play.
:)
 
Originally posted by _Impreza_
So a knight should be slaughtered by a infantry every time cos there is no chance. Realistic Unit firepowers, i reackon we should just go to extremes of being a riflemens stats being far ahead of a knight by atleast 5 on both attack and defence and then we take another leap with tanks etc. Then there is no getting away with it for the computer.

Why no change? A few Knights trying to charge a infantry regiment equipped with automatic rifles, fortified in a forest indeed has very few chances.

But against the same infantry caught in the open, the infantry has a defense of 8, the knight an attack of 6.

The chance is low, but still there.
 
Over the past year, whenever I saw a thread that discussed changes to the game I thought sounded interesting, I would copy and paste it to a Word document.

Here's what I have so far. It is unedited; some of it may be old, but some of it's good stuff. You may recognize it as some of your own work. :D (I didn't save who it was quoted from). These are not my changes! Just other people's ideas.




Renamed "Map Making" to "Sailing," and transeferred the "trade maps" ability to "Navigation." The world was getting discovered too fast. This slows it down some. Good world maps didn't come about until men could safely navigate the oceans.

Moved "trade communications" from "Writing" to "Astronomy" This was an attempt to slow down the tech trading. It helps some.

Moved "Military Alliances" & "MPP" to nationalism. I'm really pleased with this change so far. From my perspective, Ancient wars were mostly one on one. It wasn't until later when nations became nations that all the politics behind warfare started to come about.

I made all ancient units upgrade to at least rifleman. I just don't like to see warriors running around in 1903.

added several buildings I felt were more than needed: school, college, church, stock exchange, newspaper, observatory, etc. the computer players just love them. they build/get them before other normal game improvements. this is specially noticeable when bombarding a city, even a small one.

Worker Jobs:
Railroads now become available with Industrialization
Irrigation now requires Pottery
Mining now requires Masonry

Improvements:
Barracks now require Warrior Code
Temple and Cathedral now reduce corruption.

Optimal number of cities (corruption):
From To
Tiny 12 16
Small 14 19
Standard 16 22
Large 24 30
Huge 32 40

What I am doing now is increasing the tech minimum to 8 and maximum to 80. It lets me play war with my early units. I was finding that by time I had enough legionaries or swordsmen or samurai to launch a decent attack the AI was building infantry and tanks - or at least it seemed that way . So now I have large stacks of early Romans on the rampage - until they run into large stacks of early Egyptians and Persians.

If I might add, a two case example.

Attacker Attack=5 5hps
Defender 1, defense 5, 10 hps
Defender 2, defense 10, 5 hps

Defender 1 has a 50% chance to avoid taking damage (and inflict it in return). It can survive 9 such hits, and dies on the 10th.

Defender 2 has a 66% chance to avoid taking damage (and inflict it in return). It can survive 4 such hits, and dies on the 5th.

Moreover, if defender 1 survives 5 attacks by the attacking unit before killing it (ie 50%), he still has 5 hps which puts him on an equall footing with the attacker right behind the first one.

Whereas if defender 2 survives with 2 hits, he is significantly weakened against the next one.


I would also mention someone elses idea in a mod. Infantry low defense high hps, tanks high defense low hps. This allows for two specific kinds of anti-unit artillery, which will be relatively ineffective against the wrong unit. Anti personnel with high rate of fire but low attack (kills infantry well and quickly, passable against tank) and anti-tank with low rate of fire but high attack (hits and kills tanks quickly, hits infantry easily but takes several turns to kill).
I remember there was a HUGE debate about this months back. The fact is, Chariots DO come before horse riding. That's why they rode chariots, cos they couldn't just ride the horses. This may be surprising, but mostly has to do with the fact that horses then were very different from horses today. They were too small to ride, and it took centuries of breeding to get them to ridable size (there was yet another leap in horse size later that allowed Knights with all that heavy gear). BTW, I've been in places in Indonesia where the horses today as still laughably small and completely unrideable.

So something like Horse Breeding is perhaps better than Horse Riding.

CITIZENS
Tax collectors - Give 3 gold, require Currency
Scientists - Give 3 science, require Invention

TERRAIN
Jungles also have Game and Incense
Plains also have Game
Flood Plains also have Game
Tundra turns into Grassland with global warming

WORLD SIZES
Tiny: Min distance = 14, optimum cities = 16, science = 80
Small: Min distance = 16, optimum cities = 20, science = 100
Standard: Min distance = 18, optimum cities = 24, science = 120
Large: Min distance = 20, optimum cities = 32, science = 160
Huge: Min distance = 24, optimum cities = 40, science = 200
Minimal Tech time: 2 turns (If you do it high, you can only get tech by trading)
Max Tech time: 80 turns
Chance to Intercept air Missions: 66% (changed from 50%)

Tax collectors renamed "Merchants" and produce 2 coins. Come with currency.
Scientists produce 2 beakers. Come with education.
All units have twice more hitpoints
All bombard units have twice their rate of fire
Swordsmen-like upgrade to riflemen (to do it with 1.17, you have to make your swordsmen upgrade to legionaries and legionaries upgrade as immortals, and then immortals upgrade to riflemen).
Longbowmen upgrade to riflemen
Frigates, privateers and Man-o-wars upgrade to destroyers
Ironclads upgrade to battleships.
Cavalry upgrade to Tank. (as you see it, I don't like having tons of useless units in my production list)
Galleys have 4 moves; Caravels have 6; Frigates, Galleons, Man-o-wars and Privateers have 8; ironclads and subs have 10; Carriers and nuclear subs have 12; Every more modern sea unit has 15.
French are white, Barbs are pink, English are red, Romans are orange.
Added some city-names.
Airports produce + 50% gold.
Increased optimal city #s by about 25% and added "reduces corruption" flag to police station. I like to play on a modified MarlaMap, reducing corruption is a must. (I also changed almost all tundra on that map to mountain, which eliminated about 100 AI towns from the game - turns took too long, otherwise. Besides, a metropolitan greenland just doesn't sit well with me...)

A ton of stuff was moved around; most resources now appear several advances before you can use them, to give more time to trade or plan. Every Small Wonder now has a prerequisite tech, so that it appears on the tree. Some units were moved also, so that every tech now gives something (unit, wonder, modified rule); no more worthless prerequisite techs.

Removed Theory of Gravity tech (moving the wonder to Physics), added Nautical Science (off Invention, required for Astronomy) which gives Caravels and Privateers; Privateers no longer require Saltpeter but can't sail on oceans until Caravels do.

Amphibious War was moved MUCH earlier (off of Steam Power, required for Combustion), and gives Ironclads (now 6(4)/4) and Marines (which are now 6/4/1).

Some techs now have more requirements; Electricity is now needed to get Steel, which keeps people from rushing to Replaceable Parts.

New buildings:
Armory: a late-game City Walls, basically gives the 100% Metropolis bonus even to towns, and helps defend against bombardment
Sewer System: reduces pollution by a set amount (3 or 4, I'm still tweaking), at Sanitation. This is great, since it allows you to make Factories in the Industrial era without having totally out-of-control pollution.

Harbor was split into Docks (+food, ancient era), Harbor (trade links, middle ages), and Shipyard (veteran units, middle ages); Docks are a prerequisite for the other two.

New Small Wonders:
Internet (research bonus, one happy person in each city, one unhappy person in each city, and a few other things)
Hollywood (one happy person in each city, increases money in home city)
Taj Mahal, Statue of Liberty, Arc d'Triumph: act like Forbidden Palace, but each has extra requirements (Cathedral, Harbor, and two victorious armies), higher costs (400/500/600), and comes later in the game than the ones before it.

New Great Wonders:
Theory of Relativity (acts like Theory of Evolution but comes in the Modern Era)
KGB (acts like the Great Library but comes at Espionage)

Citizens: like a lot of other people, I made Tax Collectors and Scientists come at later techs and add 2 instead of 1.

Units:
HP goes 3/4/5/7. Naval units move much faster. All bombardment units have Rate of Fire doubled (to make up for the HP scaling) and their range increases by 1 (usually). Swordsmen and naval vessels upgrade. Archer units have a defensive bombard ability (range 0, rate of fire 1, power = attack power) which makes them good support units to stack with the main attack. More units have Zone of Control. Armies get Blitz. Submarines have hidden nationality. Battleships get Blitz (so they can bombard like crazy).

Barbarians are Swordsman, Knight, Privateer. Now, they're an actual threat; their conscript level still works against them, but it's no longer safe to use Warriors to scout everywhere.

Then, in a later version I added a dozen or so new units; some Sniper-type units (the continuation of the Archer line), some attack infantry (so it now goes Swordsman - Man at Arms - Marine - Paratrooper - SEAL, with Samurai being a UU replacement for Man at Arms), a skirmisher line (like the Impi), an upgraded Worker (the Engineer; he can be airlifted and is 0/1/2; faster, and is destroyed instead of captured), the Pirate (upgraded Privateer), Trebuchet (between Catapult and Cannon), some modern units (Modern Battleship, Supercarrier), the Balloon (0/0 Air unit, only does the Recon command), and two new varieties of Army.
 
Basically guys we need to get all these thoughts together and ask for things to be changes for chat on Friday. I reackon Carrier bug is very big problem.
 
Top Bottom