Bobby Lee
Confederate General
seems to be lots of those...
Suggested EXISTING rule edits to improve realism or gameplay.
- Thread starter Mojotronica
- Start date
Hunter
Civ Addict
I find that if you want to have helicopters that can truly support the ground forces I recomend having two types:
1) the Civ standard with one of two possible changes to its stats. Give it a higher transport ability or allow it to carry 1 of anything (not unrealistic when you look at the real version)
2) have a unit like the Uh1 and give it an ok attack or a light bombard with a transport of 1-2 foot units. Give it a mobility greater then tanks and the AI will use them for attack roles while you can also use it to transport troops. this gives you a technical edge but not one that unbalances the game to much.
Mojotronica
Expect Irony.
Bobby Lee
Confederate General
ok, ill try to stop bein nice and posting comments and ill keep my mouth shut from now on. (who made u the post police??) oops did i say that?
Mojotronica
Expect Irony.
Using Luxary resources as requirements for additional "Unique" Units.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50603
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50603
Mojotronica
Expect Irony.
Using the Default Money Resource flag in the editor.
(This enables the possibility of a goody hut revealing a permanent Resource or Luxary when activated.)
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50129
(This enables the possibility of a goody hut revealing a permanent Resource or Luxary when activated.)
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50129
First, kudos to Steph for a brilliant manipulation of unit variables to create a more in-depth unit list. Especially love the machine gun vs anti-tank gun thing 
However, I have some concerns with that, which might be answered by those who have already implemented this kind of system:
In a stack containing various types of bombard units, how does the game select which unit will give bombard support, considering that only one can bombard per combat? I would imagine that it simply chooses the one with the highest bombard strength, which would then easily result in your stack shooting with the anti-tank gun at the infantry (given that the AI would attack first with that) and the machine gun at the tank (following up the infantry attack).
I suppose it's possible the programmers bothered to make a more complex formula comparing bombard strength, RoF, the attacker's HP, to optimize the bombard defence... but then I find that unlikely.
For example, the procedure for choosing the defender is a bit too simple and often to the disadvantage of the defence - I've twice lost an army of 3 Cavalry units because the game figured it'd be a better defender than just another Pikeman. It's true, technically, but we all understand that it's often better to just lose a cheap defender than risk a very valuable one. Apparently the game doesn't consider the shields value of the defending units.
I don't expect Firaxis to improve the formula for this - a better solution would be a possibility for the player to manually select defenders and their supporting bombard units, and maybe even (if they really want to get this right) create a sequence of defenders, in the face of a massed attack.
Anybody else, btw, ever been bothered by these problems? Maybe I'm being too pedantic
However, I have some concerns with that, which might be answered by those who have already implemented this kind of system:
In a stack containing various types of bombard units, how does the game select which unit will give bombard support, considering that only one can bombard per combat? I would imagine that it simply chooses the one with the highest bombard strength, which would then easily result in your stack shooting with the anti-tank gun at the infantry (given that the AI would attack first with that) and the machine gun at the tank (following up the infantry attack).
I suppose it's possible the programmers bothered to make a more complex formula comparing bombard strength, RoF, the attacker's HP, to optimize the bombard defence... but then I find that unlikely.
For example, the procedure for choosing the defender is a bit too simple and often to the disadvantage of the defence - I've twice lost an army of 3 Cavalry units because the game figured it'd be a better defender than just another Pikeman. It's true, technically, but we all understand that it's often better to just lose a cheap defender than risk a very valuable one. Apparently the game doesn't consider the shields value of the defending units.
I don't expect Firaxis to improve the formula for this - a better solution would be a possibility for the player to manually select defenders and their supporting bombard units, and maybe even (if they really want to get this right) create a sequence of defenders, in the face of a massed attack.
Anybody else, btw, ever been bothered by these problems? Maybe I'm being too pedantic
hr_oskar, what does it matter? It is a free bombard you get on the attacker. You don't loose the bombarding unit if it fails with the defensive bombard. I suppose it just choose the highest bombard first.
About loosing Armies, that's another matter, and I think there will never be a solution for that. Too bad.
About loosing Armies, that's another matter, and I think there will never be a solution for that. Too bad.
Some people miss the Swamp terrain from civ2.
folketsfiende realised that you can have the Swamp in the game. If you want it in Flood Plain, you just create a bonus rescource called Swamp. "But what do you do about the 3 food on flood plain?", I hear you cry. (Come on, cry a bit!
)
The thing is that you can give negative values for rescources, so the "bonuses" from Swamp are just -3 food. This gives you a worthless square, which with irrigation and a road just gives you 1 food and 2 trade (and disease).
QED, or something.
I hadn't realised this, so I suppose at least some of you hadn't either.
folketsfiende realised that you can have the Swamp in the game. If you want it in Flood Plain, you just create a bonus rescource called Swamp. "But what do you do about the 3 food on flood plain?", I hear you cry. (Come on, cry a bit!
)The thing is that you can give negative values for rescources, so the "bonuses" from Swamp are just -3 food. This gives you a worthless square, which with irrigation and a road just gives you 1 food and 2 trade (and disease).
QED, or something.
I hadn't realised this, so I suppose at least some of you hadn't either.
Procifica
ACW Scenario Creator
Problem with this, is swamps aren't always located in Flood Plains, a good example of this would be southwestern Florida.
Main problem with Civ3 is it was made too much on the CHEAP!
Main problem with Civ3 is it was made too much on the CHEAP!
alpha wolf 64
Byte me
arent the everglades a giant flood plain?
Procifica, what's the problem? Can't you just make the swamp appear in other terrain? If you want it in Florida, just make it appear in grassland or jungle or something. Of course you can wish for a real swamp that your workers aren't able to drain until the industrial age, but then you could wish for fixed diplomatic settings.
Colonel Kraken
Deity
Originally posted by mrtn
Some people miss the Swamp terrain from civ2.
folketsfiende realised that you can have the Swamp in the game. If you want it in Flood Plain, you just create a bonus rescource called Swamp. "But what do you do about the 3 food on flood plain?", I hear you cry. (Come on, cry a bit!
The thing is that you can give negative values for rescources, so the "bonuses" from Swamp are just -3 food. This gives you a worthless square, which with irrigation and a road just gives you 1 food and 2 trade (and disease).
QED, or something.
I hadn't realised this, so I suppose at least some of you hadn't either.
Well, Mrtn, this is an absolutely excellent suggestion, and I'm glad you brought it up. This is the kind of stuff that this thread is for. Thanks!
TrailblazingScot
I was kittenOFchaos
From what I have scan read, this thread has a wealth of good information
Just a trick I'm putting into one of my scenarios at the moment (god knows if I release it, I am that lazy) is to make sea unpassable to wheeled units and to make galleys a wheeled unit. A simple way of stopping the A.I galleys getting too adventerous
The advantage is especially clear on a world map where you are trying to stop the galleys going from N.America to Europe without having loads of ocean to get in the way
Disadvantages...I could see galley traffic jams where one galley is going one way up a coastline and another coming the other way is blocked by the galley of another civ
Just a trick I'm putting into one of my scenarios at the moment (god knows if I release it, I am that lazy) is to make sea unpassable to wheeled units and to make galleys a wheeled unit. A simple way of stopping the A.I galleys getting too adventerous
The advantage is especially clear on a world map where you are trying to stop the galleys going from N.America to Europe without having loads of ocean to get in the way
Disadvantages...I could see galley traffic jams where one galley is going one way up a coastline and another coming the other way is blocked by the galley of another civ
Well as I said, I'm being quite pedantic, so I understand if some don't find this to be worth considering
However, you must consider that if your entire stack is defeated, partly because your bombarding units did not shoot in the most efficient order, you will lose all those units.
But I was discussing this in the context of Steph's scheme (see above), where there is more specialization of bombard units
About loosing Armies, that's another matter, and I think there will never be a solution for that. Too bad.
But still, don't you think the solution I suggested is fairly simple to implement? I'm not talking about losing armies in general, I'm talking about losing an army totally unnecessarily because the game figured it would be the best defender (which is true enough, it's just that I don't always want my offensive army to defend, because it's not expendable).
About the swamps... yes, I happened to think about that today, while I was making a list to myself of all the features from the previous games which were left out in Civ3, features which weren't unpopular at all or in any way inappropriate to Civ3. I can only conclude that the Firaxis team was too rushed to get the job done properly
Since I mentioned it, here's a short list from the top of my head of those left-out features:
* Embassy reports - scientific advances, revolutions, conquests; this is important stuff, which I can after all find out through my advisors, but I will have to do that job, every turn if need be, thank you very much.
* Terrains - swamps, arctic.
* A horde of editor functions available in Civ2.
* Displaying movement in fractions (while moving on roads), so that it's actually possible to see how much move a unit has left.
* A "display terrain only" button, that lets you easily see the lay of the land under all that clutter of fortresses, cities, railroads, and units.
* A past record of how many of each unit you've destroyed from each civ, and how many you've lost (available in Civ1); I always loved this one
* An overview of your maintenance - how many of each different city improvement you have in your empire, and how much they're costing you (from Civ2).
* A city list which displays what each city is building and their progress with it, in the format '(shields completed/shields left)' (from Civ2).
* Displaying the number of shields completed in the city menu - with a readable number! I guess I'm too stupid to vote since I can't count with my eyes all those shields I've spent on the Pyramids...
* Along with the overview of how many of each unit type you have, show also how many of them are in production (from Civ2).
Yes, some of you may have forgotten all those nice things we used to have (grumble, grumble), and some of you may never have known them at all!
Since I mentioned it, here's a short list from the top of my head of those left-out features:
* Embassy reports - scientific advances, revolutions, conquests; this is important stuff, which I can after all find out through my advisors, but I will have to do that job, every turn if need be, thank you very much.
* Terrains - swamps, arctic.
* A horde of editor functions available in Civ2.
* Displaying movement in fractions (while moving on roads), so that it's actually possible to see how much move a unit has left.
* A "display terrain only" button, that lets you easily see the lay of the land under all that clutter of fortresses, cities, railroads, and units.
* A past record of how many of each unit you've destroyed from each civ, and how many you've lost (available in Civ1); I always loved this one
* An overview of your maintenance - how many of each different city improvement you have in your empire, and how much they're costing you (from Civ2).
* A city list which displays what each city is building and their progress with it, in the format '(shields completed/shields left)' (from Civ2).
* Displaying the number of shields completed in the city menu - with a readable number! I guess I'm too stupid to vote since I can't count with my eyes all those shields I've spent on the Pyramids...
* Along with the overview of how many of each unit type you have, show also how many of them are in production (from Civ2).
Yes, some of you may have forgotten all those nice things we used to have (grumble, grumble), and some of you may never have known them at all!
zulu9812
The Newbie Nightmare
This thread isn't for features wishlists - it's EXISTING rule edits to improve realism or gameplay.
Procifica
ACW Scenario Creator
No, it is a giant set of swamps. There are no rivers or anything there to create a "flood plain". At one time, a large part of the United States was covered with swamp and marsh type land. Since then, most of it has been drained and cleared.
pdescobar
Moo, baby. Moo.
And since we are only discussing EXISTING rules, I should point out that this wish...
We now return you to your regularly scheduled rule thread
... is in-fact in the game. It's called the "Clean Map" Option, toggled by CTRL-SHIFT-M. To set what is and is not hidden, hit CTRL-SHIFT-N.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled rule thread
Similar threads
