the naval units aren't very good or realistic imho..

[explodin dog]

that is a pretty cool idea sabo, perhaps it should be something like a right of passage agreement kinda deal.. also, another thing which bugs me is the AI and its loyalty to alliances... if you pledge to defend someone, you do it, you don't turn on them next turn and attack all of their troops/cities..
i need to make the AI have more loyalty with military alliances, also, the right of passage type agreement would REQUIRE a military alliance against another civ, both the same civ, and both your civ and his or her civ will be shown to both players.

 

[explodin dog]

ok, i've figured out, based on marla's world map, that the size of one tile is about 80 square miles(83 and a decimal to be exact)
that's a lot of area.. i'll put it into consideration for fighters and such and their op range.. cya
thanks for the suggestions

 

[Zouave]

Originally posted by explodin dog
. . .another thing which bugs me is the AI and its loyalty to alliances... if you pledge to defend someone, you do it, you don't turn on them next turn and attack all of their troops/cities..
i need to make the AI have more loyalty with military alliances, also, the right of passage type agreement would REQUIRE a military alliance against another civ, both the same civ, and both your civ and his or her civ will be shown to both players.

The preoblem is that this Diplomatic AI is so dumb and never factors in such concepts as loyalty, or many centuries of good relations. It is just a mindless bean-counter.

BTW, we should be able to PAY another civ to go to war with an enemy we are not currently at war with, and in alliances we should be able to see the entire map of our ally including military units.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Why not make it an option: alliance as currently implemented, or "intimate alliance" which is that plus automatic map-sharing including military unit movements and locations.

In the current game it seems that you can fulfill your job as ally by just staying at war with the enemy for 20 turns. You needn't actually DO anything, as far as I can tell, to keep world opinion favorable. Am I wrong?

 

[Zouave]

Nope, you're not. But you are subject to attack and that keeps your enemy busy, a little.

Actually, this is one area where Civ 3 has improved. In Civ 2 when you allied with another civ THEY OFTEN DID NOTHING. In Civ 3 an ally usually does something to help you.

 

[dreadknought]

I totally agree on the need for better ships I mean they played such a big role in history. Well for starters I upped the movement rate on my ships by 1 for early ones and 2 for modern. Hitpoints I added per ship as they get more advanced like 4 to start and up to 10 or so for a battleship and carrier because ships are huge and deserve alot more durability. I added transport ability to about all my ships to some degree. I mean even privateers could land pirates in force and galleons could land a small army in their time. I think my galleon can land 10 units or so.My carriers can load 24 planes which might be a tad much. I ADDED bombard range and attack and rate of fire and lethal damage. Id have to check the exact stats but my navel battles are intense to say the least. I think I maxed the bombard range on aegis to simulate missile damage in modern warfare and went down from their. I increased all my artillary units in range rate damage etc.. So cannons have a bombard range of 3 and so do all the ships that are armed with cannons. THIS said i upped the shield cost on all ships and upped it alot for battleships carriers to keep it realistic. As I see modern units should be alot stronger and alot more costly. Hope this helps dread.....

 

[MadScot]

I agree that ship movement rates are anaemic, in all ages. In fact it's arguably worse for the older ships - sailing fleets had true strategic mobility in an age when armies moved at walking pace.

But you'd want to differentiate between sailing from A to B and exploring. It's a lot easier to navigate to a destination if you can just point the ship in the right direction. If you are wandering around looking for things, it would be slower. (I have no idea if the game even has the ability to include a "move slower in unexplored territory" feature.

Regarding ships not being powerful enough? Well, there I'm not so sure that is true. A battleship has, what, 9 big guns and 20 smaller ones (taking USS New Jersey, say). Sounds a lot. But an armoured brigade (which is what I presume a tank unit is, no way is it one tank!) has the guns of all the tanks, plus the supporting artillery, etc., etc. It might even have organic helicopters. So for a battleship to have approximately the combat strength of a tank in the game is reasonable - perhaps even generous)

It's never really spelled out in the game, but clearly units, although referred to in the singular, in fact represent large bodies of men. And you need to factor in support units and infrastructure too. So say each unit is meant to be 1000-5000 men, roughly. That's the aforementioned armoured brigade, probably about 100 tanks. Or it's one battleship (crew in the thousands). Or it's a squadron (or perhaps a wing?) of aircraft - 12-24 aircraft, perhaps only 50-100 pilots, but a LOT more mechanics etc etc.

That's, incidentally, a good reason for 4 (or so) aircraft units on a carrier to be reasonable. If each unit is "really" 12-24 aircraft, then it works out quite well.

But, of course, the fundamental problem is that there is NO SCALE IN THIS GAME. I've seen maps of Poland, say, or Iceland. Or maps of the world. I bet there were waaaaay more tiles in the map of Poland than the same area got in the map of the world. So to try to extrapolate the game scale from a map is futile. You could use another map and get another scale. So any "realistic" mod has to have a fixed map, too. (That 8 or 12 tile strategic bomber in the world map looks pretty darned tactical on the map of Poland)

Hmmm I'm sure there was a point when I started

 

[dreadknought]

Well I tend to regard unit sizes smaller than what you stated for this reason. In terms of battle when say units collide then you would most likely have some survivors in a tank group for instance. Not every tank dies in a single battle but the game in effect treats each piece as a single unit. Also when you have ships on the ocean if they represent fleets per unit then they are still greatly undersized. I mean you cant say one tank on the game represents a division but at the same time one carrier is just one carrier. Either one carrier is several ships or one tank is one tank.The scale just doesnt work for ships and planes and artillery for that matter. So I tend to think of each unit as a small unit maybe several archers or 3 or 4 tanks in a battle group and so on and the ships must have the strengh to stand alone. I mean for instance say you have a deadly attack with a cannon hitting a galleon. I see that cannon sinking but one ship not my 10 cannons sunk a fleet all in the same turn.. I tend to reduce scale for combat and then keep the map scale somewhat separate. You made some good points though its more a matter of opinion.