Suggested EXISTING rule edits to improve realism or gameplay.

Similar for Unit Ideas. This is a compilation of unedited ideas I copy and pasted.






"Either the Merrimack or Monitor could have singlehandedly destoyed the compbined French and British fleets from the Napoleonic Wars earlier in the century."

That says to me that Ironclads need to be much better than they are now, and post Ironclads even better than that.

Ironclad guns were actually greatly different. Check out this quote: "By the mid 1850's the greatly improved cast iron guns, combiined with improvements in shell projectiles, had greatly increased the power of naval ordance. This was dramatically demonstrated in 1853, when a Russian squadron armed with the new shell-firing guns destroyed a Turkish fleet at Sinope. This demonstrated the devastating potential of improved naval ordnance, and revealed the total vulnerability of wooden ships to these weapons."

(I also wouldn't be averse to getting rid of the historically inaccurate (and very lamely named!) Chinese Rider unit, and, lacking a better graphic, giving them the Crossbow unit earlier than any other civ, which certainly would be worth a lot (or make theirs stronger, as the Age of Kings game does). The Chinese were using Crossbowmen as big parts of their armies back in 300 BC! Then the Rider graphic could be used for the Cataphract unit. We also have a Junk unit graphic we could use as UU, though Crossbow was really their "thing")

Cataphract (intermediate step between Horseman and Knight, the numbers of which are the very different 4A 1D and 8A 6D in your scheme of things. In fact, Horseman is weaker than Chariot - that's not right. Also comes with Stirrup)

If you want a Musketman Rifleman intermediate, then Fusilier is a better name. The way I understand it, Grenadiers were essentially elite Fusiliers, not really different in weaponry or anything else, just the elite instead of veteran or regular, in Civ3 terms.

If you do have Fusilier, then all the disparate types should upgrade into that, not Rifleman, cos its with Fusilier that the variety of Musketman, Pikeman, Crossbow, Longbow, etc ended. Pikemen/Halberdiers were still being used up until that point (1700s) as a more defensive thing, while Musketmen were more offensive. Maybe that's what you were thinking with Rifleman and Grenadier, but there really wasn't the offensive / defensive infantry split at that time like there was pre-Fusilier.

Probably equal offensive and defensive numbers, or slight defensive advantage. Big jump from them to Rifleman. The big change here from Musketman is Fusiliers have ring bayonets, which allow them to be offensive and defensive, whereas Musketmen needed to be mixed with Pikemen to have them defendable.

"The introduction of the rifle musket and its conoidal bullet in the decade between 1850 and 1860 was the have the greatest immediate and measurable revolutionary impact on war of any new weapon or technological development of war before or since. When and if tactical nuclear weapons appear on the battlefield, presumably they will have an even greater effect. But certainly not even the high explosive shells, airplanes or tanks of the 20th century were to have effects of contemporary scale and significance comparable to the rifled musket in the early days."

I would boost that and Fusiliers to 2 move, and then adjust other numbers around that time accordingly (Artillery now 2, Howitzer 3, Cavalry, Tank 3). That would be more historically accurate too (modern inventions like canned food, changes in signalling and depot systems allowing troops more mobility even if they don't have railroads and roads to use. Napoleon was really the first to take advantage of this increased mobility even for infantry).
 
Ironclad guns were actually greatly different. Check out this quote: "By the mid 1850's the greatly improved cast iron guns, combiined with improvements in shell projectiles, had greatly increased the power of naval ordance. This was dramatically demonstrated in 1853, when a Russian squadron armed with the new shell-firing guns destroyed a Turkish fleet at Sinope. This demonstrated the devastating potential of improved naval ordnance, and revealed the total vulnerability of wooden ships to these weapons."

Is it about guns? At this time it was more about ramming ships which was the future.
 
I think, if I have history right (Spock, "If memory serves."), great advances in gun technology were starting to take place. The "Parrot" gun packed a tremendous punch. The British started adding (IIRC) rifled guns to their "Ironclad Frigates", such as the HMS Warrior.

Wooden ships simply could not stand up to such an onslaught.
 
"I think, if I have history right (Spock, "If memory serves."), great advances in gun technology were starting to take place. The "Parrot" gun packed a tremendous punch. The British started adding (IIRC) rifled guns to their "Ironclad Frigates", such as the HMS Warrior.

Wooden ships simply could not stand up to such an onslaught"

As i remember ships were fitted with battering rams after a battle between Italians and someone else or something when battering rams worked. As memory serves after this time this was thought to be the future, but incidently HMS Victory on training in the Med subsequently got caught by one of these new tatctics while on manuevures and was sunk.
 
cool, but it was kinda interesting in the transition of naval vesels through the victorian era.
 
Ok, here is information I researched in detail for Harlan and Alpha Wolf, probably more than a year ago. It has to do with naval vessels/units that I thought should be in the game.

One of the things I found lacking in Civ3 was a logical progression of naval vessels. As with all the units in Civ3, I think naval units should progress in an orderly fashion, in logical progression from era to era. What I mean is: each successive ship should be more powerful/better performing/more useful than the last. This only makes sense as, who would think that a ship (or any unit for that matter) obtained from a recent advance would be weaker or only as strong as a ship obtained from an old tech.

With that in mind, it makes sense to me that each ship is more powerful/useful than the last, even if that means a little a-history. Also, to that end it would seem that you would then only introduce new units when there is a pretty good leap in technology/ability.

I have found the following links that give us pretty good insight into Ancient to Middle Ages naval history.

This information, along with a info from a book I have at home on the history of warfare, I would propose the following types of naval units in Civ3. What I'd like to see is a mostly independent progression of cargo ships and warships.

ANCIENT ERA:

TRADER: A relatively long ship with a wide beam for carrying cargo. Has one square rig sail for power and no oarsmen so as not to take up cargo room, such as the ancient Phoenician traders.

GALLEY: A unireme or bireme class galley of the earlier Greek type. The first ship made for war with a prow ram as the main armament and a small contingent of missile firing soldiers. These ships were very maneuverable. Ramming was the principal means of attack.

POLYREME: The quintessential development of the bireme/trireme. Much larger than the galley with many banks of oars, with prow and underwater ram, catapults, and missile firing troops. Unfortunately, since they could be outmaneuvered by the smaller Galley, their success was not assured. These vessels were designed to carry a good sized contingent of troops. Such galleys and variants of them remained useful well into the 15th Century.


MIDDLE AGES:

CARAVEL: The sailing ships of Magellan and Columbus, these ships were built for cargo and designed with living quarters. Although not especially faster than galleys, the new sail design allowed the ship to sail into the wind and was much more sea worthy than galleys.

GALLEON: Developed from the carrack (which was a refinement of the caravel) with a larger haul and better rigging, these ships were designed to haul more and travel the oceans. Although previous ships had guns, Galleons carried more and better weaponry. Galleons changed the way naval battles were fought, from close in grappling/ramming sessions to firing long range cannon. These ships were dual purpose platforms used for merchants and warships.

FRIGATE: The British defeat of the Spanish Armada, a battle between war Galleons, necessitated sailing ships designed strictly for war. Developments in navigation, rigging, haul design, and number and complexity of guns immensely increased the war fighting capabilities of these ships. Frigates typically had 38 to 54 guns. Frigate refers to vessels with one row of guns; frigates were used for scouts, commerce interdiction, and screening.

SHIP-of-the-LINE: These ships were the culmination of years of sailing warship design and experience. They ranged from 3rd rate 64 gun ships to the 1st rate 130 gun behemoths designed to fight ship to ship in the line of battle. Sailing warships at their zenith.

MERCHANTMAN: Design of merchant ships continued from the galleons of the 15th century into the Indiamen used by the Dutch East India Company traveling to India with gold to bring back spices and other goods to Europe. Development continued into the Clipper ships of the 19th Century. Large, fast, durable, such ships found usefulness into the 20th Century.

INDUSTRIAL:

IRONCLAD: Development of the steam engine and screw propeller brought about another breakthrough in warship design. The famous Monitor and Merrimack were odd designs attempting to find a fit for the new technologies; they were unwieldy and better suited for coasts and rivers. Britain's HMS Warrior, however, was a hybrid of the contemporary frigates and a much better design than the Monitor or Merrimack. Warrior was revolutionary - at a stroke, all existing ships were rendered obsolete. Warrior housed all her main guns, engines and boilers within an armored iron hull, and could be driven by both steam and sail. The combination of iron hull, armor-plating, breech loading guns and powerful steam screw propulsion meant that she could outrun and outgun any ship afloat.

DREADNOUGHT: As steam warships got bigger, heavier, and fitted with more armor, the engines had to get increasingly larger. The reciprocating steam engines became so large, in fact, that the engine rooms would nearly fill half the ship. Then, a breakthrough in engine design came at the turn of the century: the gas turbine engine. With several compression stages, these engines could harness nearly all the energy the old engines wasted. These engines required a fraction of the room of previous engines and produced thousands more horsepower. Leaps in screw design, turret design, and rifled, breach loading guns all made for a revolution in warship design. HMS Dreadnought is the most famous, rendering previous warships obsolete.

TRANSPORT: The advent of powerful steam engines allowed for the construction of enormous cruise liners and cargo ships, such as the Lusitania. These ships were the principal means by which governments could ship men and materiel across the oceans. Even though specialized landing craft were developed in WWII, these were merely tactical in nature to carry out the landing assaults. Transports were the raw moving power of navies.

DESTROYER: Dreadnoughts ruled the seas, then something developed that shook everyone up: the torpedo. Striking below the waterline, torpedoes could easily capsize a dreadnought. With the development of torpedo boats to use these new weapons, came torpedo boat Destroyers --shortened to just destroyers. Destroyers took over the role of both torpedo boats and destroyers and became the primary weapon against the new threat of submarines.

SUBMARINE: The effective development of the diesel engine, powerful batteries, torpedoes, and pressurized hulls resulted in the creation of the submarine. Although slow, submarines' underwater diving ability made them deadly when employed in packs and set across shipping lanes ready to ambush transports and targets of opportunity.

BATTLESHIP: Refinements in hull design, armor, guns, weapons control, damage control, and propulsion made dreadnoughts better and better and became known as super dreadnoughts. Such line-of-battle-ships, or just battleships, came to their zenith with the commission of the U.S. Iowa class battleships. These behemoths housed 9 independently firing 16", radar-controlled guns and bristled with secondary armament. Refinements in engine power allowed these beasts to keep up with carriers at 33 knots and were thus called fast battleships. Retrofitting in the 1980s, modernized a couple of these ships with anti-ship missiles and close in weapons systems and other refinements. No contemporary armament could match the awesome power of shore bombardment with the 16" guns and the armor was so thick that no modern missile could bring her down. Unfortunately, the cost of operating these massive displays of might was prohibitive for a peace time navy and they were decommissioned in the 1990s.

AIRCRAFT CARRIER: The attack and devastation of Italian ships in port by British carrier-launched planes at the beginning of WWII, sent shivers down the spines of some navies. Against the wishes of WWI Admirals, the plane would become the premier naval weapon, striking with more power and at a greater distance.

MODERN:

MISSILE DESTROYER: The development of guided missiles such as the U.S. Harpoon and French Exocet, allowed navies to attack targets with near impunity "over the horizon." Because of the curvature of the earth, RADAR can only see so far. With the help of scouting helicopters or other means, ships can launch missiles toward a target and allow the missile's on board computer and RADAR to target and destroy enemy ships. The extreme speed of the missiles, their low-altitude flight, and final "pop-up" makes them very difficult to destroy. Quantum leaps in SONAR technology along with on-board, sub-hunting helicopters makes these vessels very effective against submarines.

NUCLEAR ATTACK SUB: The development of nuclear powered propulsion revolutionized submarine design. Now, subs are able to travel faster underwater than above water and keep up with surface fleets, attacking proactively. Developments in SONAR, low-cavitation screws, and wire-controlled, high-speed, high-explosive torpedoes make nuclear attack subs some of the deadliest anti-ship platforms in the world. Many attack subs have now been fitted with anti-ship missiles as well.

BOOMER: Nuclear subs make ideal platforms for ICBMs. Stealthy and always moving, they provide imminent threat to any nation that would seek to initiate a nuclear attack. Such subs can carry over a dozen ICBMs with several multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicles (MIRVs) each. One such sub can take out a multitude of cities.

SUPER CARRIER: Initially, carriers had one straight flight deck and operations were constricted and chaotic at launch and recovery. Shortly after WWII, the angled flight deck was developed which allowed launch and recovery operations to proceed simultaneously. Heavy jet aircraft necessitated a means to propel them to launch speed, thus, the steam catapult was developed. It didn't take long for carrier operations to become a finely tuned orchestra of operations. Modern carriers, based on the USS Nimitz are often called super carriers because of their immense size. Nuclear powered engines allow a nation to use these carriers to project its power around the world. Only the U.S. has the budget to sustain these immensely costly behemoths.

AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT SHIP: Years and years of amphibious assault experience have culminated in very specialized assault ships and attack craft. The USS Tarawa is a prime example. The size of a small carrier, it houses transport and attack helicopters, VTOL close-support jets, and a multitude of landing craft. Marines, Special Forces and other troops can launch a simultaneous airmobile/amphibious assault onto a hostile beach with a high chance of success. These ships are well defended and have a hospital of several hundred beds. These ships are the epitome of amphibious assault.

AEGIS CRUISER: The threat of a saturation attack by hundreds of anti-ship missiles led the U.S. to develop a ship specifically designed to counter that threat. Spectacular developments in RADAR technology allows the AEGIS Cruiser to independently track and target over one hundred missiles at once. Named after the shield of Zeus, these ships are missile shields for today's carrier battle groups. AEGIS cruisers also have the latest SONAR and carry helicopters, anti-ship missiles, and ground attack cruise missiles.
 
Originally posted by Colonel Kraken
Ok, here is information I researched in detail for Harlan and Alpha Wolf, probably more than a year ago. It has to do with naval vessels/units that I thought should be in the game.
Click to expand...

that was a long time ago :) I ended up with so many crashed that for awhile I had given up. After I came back, it took months to figure out that the multiple levels of taxman/scientist/entertainer was causing the crashes. Every time I captured a city that did not have the same level as I did, either better or worse, the game could not handle it and the crashed. I never did get the whole modified tech tree into play. I just started yesterday resequencing the unit list so that barbs are first, then common units, then each civ will get a full list of units, this way I can add flavor units without messing up the build queue. I've added so many flavor units that I have trouble finding them when they pop into the queue. I had been playing with the concept that early barbarians would have a good attack but no defense so they could be captured and turned into slaves, but no luck so far. I even tried to make them settlers to see if they'd build a city, but even after removing fortify, they still fortify on their villages, so I suspect that barb behavior is hardcoded. My next goal will be to use the civ traits as a way to allow civs to have a dominant era. but the extra hardcoded benefits keep throwing me off the goal.
 
ok i'm way way lost... like way back there ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~> "THE BEGINNING"

just thought id say that.... could we get all of this simplified and put into laymans terms? how does all this apply to wut is being done? ETC.!!!
 
Originally posted by _Impreza_
I reackon artillery should be leathel, also terrain should be worth alot more etc.
Click to expand...

Artillery though isn't lethal, even in modern battles. This is very unrealistic.
 
Originally posted by Steph


It's a bit more complex. Defense = capability of a unit to avoid taking damage. HP = capability of a unit to remain on the battlefield when taking damage.

So a small size unit as less HP than a big unit (at the same level of experience). But when the unit gain experience, it gains also HP, not because it has more people, but because it can still fight with more losses.
Ex: Standard infantry = 3000 troops, 3 HP. We can suppose it is "destroyed" when it takes 50% losses. So losing 3 HP means it has taken 1500 casualties, everyone is running (check Kryten munits animations for death : all of them are not dead!). With an increase of experience, it gains a 4 HP. This means the units could take 2000 casualties instead of 1500 before being virtually destroyed.
Specialized infantry now have 2000 troops (2 HP). It is destroyed when 2 HP have been taken (1000 deads). With a 3rd HP, it remains on the battle field after 1500 deads.
Click to expand...

This is what I meant by the Rifleman vs. Knight example.

Though looking back, I don't understand why I posted it.

A knight would have a harder time dodging a bullet, with all that armor on.
 
Originally posted by Steph


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.
Click to expand...

Ok, my point here, was that Tanks should be IMPROVED. :)

Their attack and defense values should be significantly higher than Infantry.
 
Originally posted by Bobby Lee
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.)
Click to expand...

The first part there, the REAL issue, I agree with completely.

Also, its interesting to note that a, b, and c were all a part of Civ2 (far as I know).

How did you increase attack/defense values for eras? Or did you just up all units by like +4 or +9 in both areas? This would though, create ALOT of imbalances. I think %'s would be better.
 
Originally posted by Steph


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.
Click to expand...

The Knight still has a decent chance of winning. That is the problem. A group of Knights vs. Riflemen defending, there should be no conclusion as to who's going to win.

Now, a group of Riflemen attacking Knights, again, same thing...The Riflemen could shoot the Knights from a safe distance.

I tend to side with Impreza here...the odds of winning should be further reduced for Knights (as per my unit stats list, which no one seems to be looking at :()
 
Quote: I made all ancient units upgrade to at least rifleman. I just don't like to see warriors running around in 1903.

I don't see a purpose for this with PTW, since even in Civ3 all ancient units except Swordsman can be upgraded to at least Industrial Age units (I've personally upgraded Spearmen to Infantry before).
 
Quote: Railroads now become available with Industrialization

Disagree with this one...railroads and steam power do sorta go together. :)

Quote: Irrigation now requires Pottery
Mining now requires Masonry

I don't see how irrigation needs pottery.

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

Barracks change is good. Temple/Cathedral is a good idea, but unbalances gameplay.

Quote: 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.

Problem here is, if you don't really find any other civs, 8*82=too many turns to get all techs before 2050.

Quote: 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 like this idea....steph, Impreza, maybe you two could implement something similar to this in your respective mods/scenarios?
 
Originally posted by _Impreza_
Ironclad guns were actually greatly different. Check out this quote: "By the mid 1850's the greatly improved cast iron guns, combiined with improvements in shell projectiles, had greatly increased the power of naval ordance. This was dramatically demonstrated in 1853, when a Russian squadron armed with the new shell-firing guns destroyed a Turkish fleet at Sinope. This demonstrated the devastating potential of improved naval ordnance, and revealed the total vulnerability of wooden ships to these weapons."

Is it about guns? At this time it was more about ramming ships which was the future.
Click to expand...

By the 1700's most naval battles were fought with guns on ships. Ramming wasn't really done as much. In the American Civil War, the only "RAMS" were the Ironclad Rams of the Confederacy.

I agree, the Ironclad should be MUCH better than any wooden ship, especially in defense.

Dahlgren guns, which were typically used on ships by 1860 in the United States Navy, sometimes came in sizes as large as 100 pounder. That is a BIG BIG gun for this time period. These guns could tear through a wooden ship like it was paper.
 
Originally posted by _Impreza_
"I think, if I have history right (Spock, "If memory serves."), great advances in gun technology were starting to take place. The "Parrot" gun packed a tremendous punch. The British started adding (IIRC) rifled guns to their "Ironclad Frigates", such as the HMS Warrior.

Wooden ships simply could not stand up to such an onslaught"

As i remember ships were fitted with battering rams after a battle between Italians and someone else or something when battering rams worked. As memory serves after this time this was thought to be the future, but incidently HMS Victory on training in the Med subsequently got caught by one of these new tatctics while on manuevures and was sunk.
Click to expand...

This makes no sense...what time period is this mess supposed to have happened?

Even Galleons (1500's) were using guns to attack other ships with. The last "ramming" ships were the large Venetian Galleass galleys, and the Turkish Galleys of the same era (late 1500's). Once Frigates and Ships of the Lines came into use, ramming was a thing of the past and subsequently rarely used. Now, boarding of ships though, was still common even in the 1800's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Z
Big Industrial cities opinion needed
Replies
6
Views
571
ZergMazter
Z
R
[C3C] Civ3 Wonder Tennis Court and Tournaments Graphics Creation Guide
Replies
2
Views
456
rukasujjk
R
Blake00
The Great Library Reborn - Civ3 Scenario/Mod Preservation Project Log
Replies
5
Views
1K
Blake00
Blake00
Z
Scaling cities pcx
Replies
0
Views
213
ZergMazter
Z
Predator145
Modern age debug test game report
Replies
12
Views
979
Predator145
Predator145
Back
Top Bottom