Royal Tenenbaum
Exiled
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2012
- Messages
- 2,738
Going way back to TD's observation of a Confucian Japan around 1700, I think a couple Confucian missionaries should appear in Japan around 1700 just as Indonesia gets Islamic missionaries.
Suggestions and requests
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
I could give some advice and suggestions from the medical side if you'd like. Probably it'll be better if you broke down the plague altogether into Malaria, Smallpox, Cholera, Influenza and Plague; with different side effects, different triggering factor etc.
Bryce3
King of Wessex
I had a (fairly) brilliant idea about the plague. How about, instead of units getting damage from the plague which can be healed, they get a 'promotion' called 'Plague Victim' or something like that, which reduces there health and, if in a clean city, can spread the plague to it. This could also give more reason to close your borders when the plague is spreading. Just an idea. Would it be practical?
It's definitely practical, and I like it as a more transparent way to spread the plague through units.
But honestly I still have to look up through which ways the plague can spread at all and which of them make sense and are efficient. I don't think that it has to be divided in different kinds of pandemics though. Abstraction wins here.
But honestly I still have to look up through which ways the plague can spread at all and which of them make sense and are efficient. I don't think that it has to be divided in different kinds of pandemics though. Abstraction wins here.
strijder20
Wallowing in irony
Resource reserves:
Uranium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_reserves
The uranium reserves in Namibia and South Africa combined before excavation exceed U.S. reserves before excavation and therefore reserve a resource. I suggest 4 N of the crab.
Kazakhstan's reserves are 1.5 times those of the U.S. (before excavation). Placing Uranium here also makes nuclear missiles a possibility for Iran. I suggest 1 SW of the sheep.
India's and Pakistan's reserves are smaller, but an Uranium one S of the incense might be appropriate considering the nuclear arms they own.
Coal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#cite_note-107
India's reserves are enough to warrant a coal resource.
Uranium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_reserves
The uranium reserves in Namibia and South Africa combined before excavation exceed U.S. reserves before excavation and therefore reserve a resource. I suggest 4 N of the crab.
Kazakhstan's reserves are 1.5 times those of the U.S. (before excavation). Placing Uranium here also makes nuclear missiles a possibility for Iran. I suggest 1 SW of the sheep.
India's and Pakistan's reserves are smaller, but an Uranium one S of the incense might be appropriate considering the nuclear arms they own.
Coal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#cite_note-107
India's reserves are enough to warrant a coal resource.
Akbarthegreat
Angel of Junil
1. Make walls and castles more realistic by not allowing invaders to attack without completely reducing the defenses of that city(i.e breaking down the wall). To make up for this, walls and castles should be made more expensive than they are (walls are not cheaper than libraries). Because a city cannot be attacked when walls surround it, no matter how large your army is.
2. Make siege units weak against units outside cities (reduce strength, reduce max damage to 10%, but increase collateral damage), but increase their bombard %. To make up for this, make melee and especially mounted units weaker in city defence. This is so that the main functions of siege units becomes 'siege'.
These ideas may be impractical, and may require a lot of balancing, but I think it will make game combat a lot more realistic.
2. Make siege units weak against units outside cities (reduce strength, reduce max damage to 10%, but increase collateral damage), but increase their bombard %. To make up for this, make melee and especially mounted units weaker in city defence. This is so that the main functions of siege units becomes 'siege'.
These ideas may be impractical, and may require a lot of balancing, but I think it will make game combat a lot more realistic.
Combat in a 4X game is inherently abstract.
Ever heard of ladders?
strijder20
Wallowing in irony
I suggested a reduce in the max damage done to about 30% max, which would be more than enough to nerf siege. Of course, it messes up combat mechanics.
Okay, maybe this might be worth some thought, because I intend to change the unit roster and some units' roles after releasing the current version anyway, so why not at least consider being a bit more radical than originally planned.
Historically speaking, siege weapons did not become relevant in field combat until what is represented ingame as Cannons. So we only have to think about the units before their introduction.
Here's what I'd like to see:
- siege weapons keep their collateral damage thresholds, but have reduced strength that is compensated by a bonus for city attack
- archery units take the role of collateral damage units for field battles, although they would need a lower damage threshold and affect less units to keep things plausible
- cavalry units become able to flank archery units of their era
The problem is that this creates a number of challenges where I'm not sure that they can be solved:
- archery units would feel even less right as "fire and forget" units, so they should have a higher chance to survive, but I'm not sure how to make that happen (maybe via first strikes, which could be retooled a bit for this purpose)
- if an archery unit is the best defender of its stack, the attack of another archery unit should result in an "archer duel" with a clear loser and no further collateral damage, similar to the artillery duels in SMAC
- archery units would gain a dual purpose in being the best defensive and collateral choice, which might make them too useful. A solution could be to split the specialization in either of these purposes into different unit types per era (medieval conveniently already has Crossbows and Longbows, ancient/classical could fill the collateral role with a Skirmisher unit)
- it's not completely clear to me who'd fill the role in the Renaissance era. I've toyed with the idea of making Pikemen the main unit of that era (changing the medieval anti-cavalry unit to Halberdiers), so that would allow Musketmen to fill the role, which is probably more in line with their historical role as well
The biggest problem however is that siege units currently serve as stack killers. Currently I don't know whether the human or the AI would benefit more from a removal or nerfing of stack killers (I guess it's the AI though). The point remains though that there should be a way to defeat a larger stack with superior units (or superior tactics), and that it shouldn't be guaranteed a win just because after all of your units have attacked, they still have enough uninjured ones to win.
What I could currently think of is to give cavalry (especially heavy cavalry) an "overrun" ability, where they can either damage or destroy another enemy unit when they win a combat with enough life left.
I guess I have to think about this a bit more.
Historically speaking, siege weapons did not become relevant in field combat until what is represented ingame as Cannons. So we only have to think about the units before their introduction.
Here's what I'd like to see:
- siege weapons keep their collateral damage thresholds, but have reduced strength that is compensated by a bonus for city attack
- archery units take the role of collateral damage units for field battles, although they would need a lower damage threshold and affect less units to keep things plausible
- cavalry units become able to flank archery units of their era
The problem is that this creates a number of challenges where I'm not sure that they can be solved:
- archery units would feel even less right as "fire and forget" units, so they should have a higher chance to survive, but I'm not sure how to make that happen (maybe via first strikes, which could be retooled a bit for this purpose)
- if an archery unit is the best defender of its stack, the attack of another archery unit should result in an "archer duel" with a clear loser and no further collateral damage, similar to the artillery duels in SMAC
- archery units would gain a dual purpose in being the best defensive and collateral choice, which might make them too useful. A solution could be to split the specialization in either of these purposes into different unit types per era (medieval conveniently already has Crossbows and Longbows, ancient/classical could fill the collateral role with a Skirmisher unit)
- it's not completely clear to me who'd fill the role in the Renaissance era. I've toyed with the idea of making Pikemen the main unit of that era (changing the medieval anti-cavalry unit to Halberdiers), so that would allow Musketmen to fill the role, which is probably more in line with their historical role as well
The biggest problem however is that siege units currently serve as stack killers. Currently I don't know whether the human or the AI would benefit more from a removal or nerfing of stack killers (I guess it's the AI though). The point remains though that there should be a way to defeat a larger stack with superior units (or superior tactics), and that it shouldn't be guaranteed a win just because after all of your units have attacked, they still have enough uninjured ones to win.
What I could currently think of is to give cavalry (especially heavy cavalry) an "overrun" ability, where they can either damage or destroy another enemy unit when they win a combat with enough life left.
I guess I have to think about this a bit more.
merijn_v1
Black Belt
Many mods have cata's and treb's with only 1 strength, but with a x00% bonus while attacking cities.
Isn't this the Blitz promotion?
strijder20
Wallowing in irony
Blitz requires you to engage in combat yet again and therefore risk your unit a second time. This 'overrun' suggestion would basically double damage if you won the battle decisively without risking the unit again (a unit with Blitz could hypothetically do damage four times: twice while attacking and twice while dealing overrun damage) if I get it right.
What about this?
Spoiler :
That's the idea, although I don't know if you have to be that drastic. Trebs with their +100% city attack are already the right order of magnitude I think.
Basically. I guess a better formulation of the idea is a flanking attack type of effect that requires you to decisively win your combat and that can target all kinds of enemy units.
Generally sounds good, short comments:
- I don't think the new paradigm has to be applied to the Rifleman era onwards (i.e. the current system where Riflemen are the standard defense and offense unit - with a counter - and Cannons are the standard field and siege collateral unit can remain imo)
- maybe Longbowmen as the skirmisher type unit and Crossbowmen as the city defender type? I'm thinking Crecy and Azincourt right now
- there should also be a division of cavalry into light and heavy ("shock" in your terminology)
- I think the ancient and classical eras can be lumped into the same unit tier
I think it's advisable to deviate from the basic pattern somewhat for every era if appropriate, so units don't feel like just an upgraded instance of [insert combat role]. Especially because units are usually introduced by different techs.
strijder20
Wallowing in irony
If Medieval Total War is anything to go by, crossbows were used a lot in Italian city militias, so that might be more fitting indeed.
I thought I would mention I change I was experimenting with and another change I was planning to attempt.
the change I succeeded with was meant for the pre-gunpowder era and went like this: mounted units flank all melee, archery and siege units but only if the primary defender is one of those types and mounted units also target other mounted units via the regular BtS Ballista Elephant mechanic. this way party of the collateral role goes to cavalry and armies with no cavalry are at a disadvantage.
the other change, which I haven't attempted yet, involves 1st strikes. I'd like the best 1st strike in the defending stack to trigger even if that unit is not the best defender. this way missile troops can have a supporting role without being given an urealistically long-range bombard and teaching the AI about that ability. I looked at the 1st strike code a bit but so far I haven't been able to learn how it works.
I don't know how relevant these ideas are to this discussion, but I share the desire to make Civ IV combat a bit more realistic and engaging without a radical re-write.
and Leoreth, if you have any insight into implementing the first strike idea, I'd be grateful.
the change I succeeded with was meant for the pre-gunpowder era and went like this: mounted units flank all melee, archery and siege units but only if the primary defender is one of those types and mounted units also target other mounted units via the regular BtS Ballista Elephant mechanic. this way party of the collateral role goes to cavalry and armies with no cavalry are at a disadvantage.
the other change, which I haven't attempted yet, involves 1st strikes. I'd like the best 1st strike in the defending stack to trigger even if that unit is not the best defender. this way missile troops can have a supporting role without being given an urealistically long-range bombard and teaching the AI about that ability. I looked at the 1st strike code a bit but so far I haven't been able to learn how it works.
I don't know how relevant these ideas are to this discussion, but I share the desire to make Civ IV combat a bit more realistic and engaging without a radical re-write.
and Leoreth, if you have any insight into implementing the first strike idea, I'd be grateful.
It was also a lot easier to train people to use the crossbow than the longbow, so crossbowman are the more obvious choice for unspecialized city defenders.
I know this has been mentioned several times before but I can't find a succinct answer (or option) : What variability is allowed for non-historical outcomes without penalty?
Specifically the expansion stability with core areas. What if Spain never expands to colonies but instead focuses on taking Portugal, taking over France and Germany? I'd like the option for civilizations to expand and appear, and for congresses to happen, allowance of mercs, etc. but I'd like to see an allowance (a wide range) of possibilities for each civilization to "win" outside of their historical predetermined range.
I love the concepts of RFC and more so, RFC DoC but I wish there were an option to allow for more liberal gameplay. Thank you for understanding and I look forward to something I probably should have already been able to find. Links welcome.
Specifically the expansion stability with core areas. What if Spain never expands to colonies but instead focuses on taking Portugal, taking over France and Germany? I'd like the option for civilizations to expand and appear, and for congresses to happen, allowance of mercs, etc. but I'd like to see an allowance (a wide range) of possibilities for each civilization to "win" outside of their historical predetermined range.
I love the concepts of RFC and more so, RFC DoC but I wish there were an option to allow for more liberal gameplay. Thank you for understanding and I look forward to something I probably should have already been able to find. Links welcome.
NorwegianSalmon
Warlord
- Joined
- May 22, 2013
- Messages
- 151
Maybe achieveable as Aztecs... As Thailand, no way.
Similar threads
