Imperator Knoedel
Currently obsessed with The Owl House
Tanks shouldn't have access to City Raider promotions.
Suggestions and Requests
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
merijn_v1
Black Belt
No, they don't.
ales_
Heir
One of the RFC modmods which was used as one of the bases for DoC (don't remember the name) disabled Axemen for all major civs.
This as well. Tanks were anything but designed to conquer cities. They also should not be able to bombard cities.
Really units should go:
musketmen(9)->better musketmen(13)-->riflemen(16)->great war infantry(19)->infantry(22).
Also after knight there should be one horse unit more before or after cavalry.
Great war artillery would not hurt game balance either.
NerfCothons
Warlord
Is that an intentional double negative or an accidental one?
I'm not sure there's a need to have both 1910s and 1940s infantry units--the majority of combatants carried the same weapons, let alone the same doctrines, into battle in 1939 as they did in 1914. Instead of a change in infantry units I think the period is much better represented by the combined arms use of tanks/fighters/anti-tank.
The difference between muskets, flintlocks and percussion cap rifles is much more pronounced.
NerfCothons
Warlord
In that case I've always felt like the Grenadier is trying to be two units, both tier of infantry between musketman and rifleman and a rifleman counter. Because it's available earlier it can become a staple unit between gunpowder and rifling but there is both the issue that their upgrade path makes them a short-sighted investment and for a brief period having war dominated by stacks of bomb throwers feels historically awkward.
Many games deal with this split by referring to what is currently the musketman as an arquebusier (matchlock) and the theoretical "better musketman" could thus just be the musketman (flintlock).
Playing a game from 3000BC to 1950AD and still going I have to admit time feels completely different. It is like all events from 3000BC to 1300AD are rushed, while after 1800AD events slow down.
I propose to the following rearrangement:
3000BC-1000BC: 50 turns
1000BC-500BC: 50 turns
500BC-500AD: 100turns
500AD-1500AD: 100turns
1500AD-1800AD: 100turns
1800AD-2000AD: 100turns (or 200 turns, with a total of 600 turns for all periods)
I propose to the following rearrangement:
3000BC-1000BC: 50 turns
1000BC-500BC: 50 turns
500BC-500AD: 100turns
500AD-1500AD: 100turns
1500AD-1800AD: 100turns
1800AD-2000AD: 100turns (or 200 turns, with a total of 600 turns for all periods)
Nothing like that to be honest. AI tech rate is sanest. (I'm ahead from my era, but as a human player with emphasis in cottage economy that's expected).
It's more about how much time ancient and classic empires have. Persian, greek, roman, indian and arabian conquest have too little time compared to the amount of turns in the period 1800-2020AD.
So when you say time feels different, you mean different from what you've expect from history?
I thought you meant different in reference to changes I've made. In that case, good to know that tech rate isn't completely off.
I thought you meant different in reference to changes I've made. In that case, good to know that tech rate isn't completely off.
Yes, I expect to feel more length in classical age, given the length of industrial/modern period.
The research rate is fine, no fix to be made.
More like low production is the problem. Most of time simply goes on waiting you have built something you can use.
In late game you can build a market in 1-5 turns, on classic era it takes +10 turns.
Imperator Knoedel
Currently obsessed with The Owl House
More turns before ~500AD, less after ~1800AD would be a good rule of thumb methinks.
Of course some UHV dates would have to be adjusted as well, like the German Lebensraum UHV to 1945 or 1950 for example, which tbh make for a more historical (well kinda, at 1940 Nazi Germany was just getting started with its conquests and arguably its height was a year or two later) deadline.
Similar threads
