Warlords Patch Suggestions

[The Great Apple]

Is there a thread for this mod? If so can someone link it in a post? If not, can someone post how to do this? I want as many empires as possible! The more the merrier IMHO. Thanx!

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=179317

Not actually tried it myself, and it looks like you might have to do a bit of fiddling around.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

I think a great patch would be allowing the occurance of inquisition style wars. Currently, if someone is Cautious (besides a vasal), unless your religion is spread wide in their empire, the option to demand conversion of religion is red. In the patch you should be able to demand Conversion as long as 1 city has that religion no matter how angry with you the leader is. If they say no, all nations with your religion would have big - points towards that leader and you can easily declare war and bring all brother nations in with you(also - points towards YOU from nations sharing the other religion). After all, incredible amounts of wars throughout history have been fought with at least the mask of religion at its base.

Basically I just want the patch to allow you to demand conversion with penalties imposed.

 

[Neo Guderian]

few thoughts...

1. Flanking should instead decrease defense of attacked unit by the mounted unit. Flanking has nothing to do with running away. It is an incorrectly named promotion. This is historically what mounted units did, outflank and hit the vulnerable areas of enemy formations.

2. That said, why do all non ground units fight to the death? Most armies throughout history engage until one side gives up and runs away. I would rather have my units withdraw in the face of terrible odds than go blindly to their deaths.

3. Paratroops. Give me an Airborne promo for my elite modern units with the discovery of flight!. I know modern age warfare is gimped but please, the airborne is a huge part of modern warfare.

4. Combat engineers. A promotion with engineering that allows forts to be built ANYWHERE by military units. Combined with a zone of control, forts would be relevant if they could be built in enemy territory. The romans built forts where? On the boundaries of the empire you say? What do you suppose made those boundaries? Purple Musical notes? How about the construction of forts! Why cant we use forts to stake land claims and control wilderness and frontier territory. Im tired of ploping down cities in poor spots just to control a resource or bottleneck. Furthermore, many cities sprang up as a result of these forts. Not only roman forts, but many many towns and cities in my native usa were born from forts. Oh yeah, this isnt history class. Sorry, I forgot.

/rant off

 

[kcbrett5]

I like the idea of a victory arch that somebody mentioned. I would have it be available only after you have concluded a successful war. A successful war can be defined as one in which your enemy gave you something to end it rather than you having to give him something to end it.

To avoid upsetting the balance, I would have the victory arch only give a culture bonus though, or possibly an extra commerce (tourism) in the city which it is built.

 

[Colin_McK]

Maybe give them the ability to build roads?

Maybe reduce them to 7 and give them a free upgrade like drill 1?

 

[Vox Mentis]

Fog of war in civ is broken - since the game is turn based, any tile seen by you at any point in your turn should stay revealed until the next turn. Possibly give the tile a haze-style covering distinct from tiles covered by the fog (so that you know that you no longer have vision of that square, and barbarians can appear there, but you still see units that you know must still be there).

 

[Apedemak]

I would llike modern warfare altered, as it is not much fun now. Adding a modern infantry that has bonus against gunpowder units, adding a paratrooper unit, and adding an anti-tank infantry would push up modern warfarwe strategy to a new level. The modern navy needs additions I think aswell, the old AEGIS cruiser and with that must come cruise missles.

Playing at war in the modern age is boring, most times all you need is a bunch of tanks and bombers.

This would I guess require a set of new techs, which I think are needed to stretch out the tech gains, especially right around where physics is.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

The thing is that none of what you just suggested requires NEW units. What is needed are 'modern-only' promotions-ones which allow for paradropping, and tank-busting and anti-air capability. That said, I wholeheartedly agree with the principle of improving modern combat !

Aussie_Lurker.

 

[weasel77066]

The thing is that none of what you just suggested requires NEW units. What is needed are 'modern-only' promotions-ones which allow for paradropping, and tank-busting and anti-air capability. That said, I wholeheartedly agree with the principle of improving modern combat !

Aussie_Lurker.

Thats one thing I thought of a few games ago. I had a phalanx unit with three promotions. My second GG I used to get a warlord and attached him to this lucky little bugger and gave all the promos to him alone. This guy rocked and fought the incans back across the river, almost single handedly. Then I pulled him to a safe city and used his promo count for heroic epic and west point, etc... BUT later in the game his promos didnt seem to matter much even being an infantry by that time, there were no more archers or melee units in the world. I thought it would be nice to be able to up-grade his promos as well as his unit type.. maybe on a 50% basic.
Say when you upgrade a unit, it gives you the option of upgrading his promos as well. Then you get 50% of his current XP and can choose from modern promos, or you may leave him the same if you like. Then they could expande the modern promos a little so that units cpould be specialized. That would help modern wars, and give units some flavor. If I started writing, I could fill a whole thread on different unit possibilities

Also, on a different note, Im having trouble tracking enemy navy. In civ3 I could track a fleet with subs, or recon planes, and keep up with where they were. In civ4, when I try this they simply vanish by the time its my turn, theyve moved but I wasnt shown (their move) So now I have to guess which way they went and move there untill I find them. Ive checked "show enemy moves" in options but still no move view. I think this needs to be looked at when patching

 

[bennos76]

I would llike modern warfare altered, as it is not much fun now. Adding a modern infantry that has bonus against gunpowder units, adding a paratrooper unit, and adding an anti-tank infantry would push up modern warfarwe strategy to a new level. The modern navy needs additions I think aswell, the old AEGIS cruiser and with that must come cruise missles.

Playing at war in the modern age is boring, most times all you need is a bunch of tanks and bombers.

This would I guess require a set of new techs, which I think are needed to stretch out the tech gains, especially right around where physics is.

I sort of agree here. I used to agree much more. I've just been playing a game that started in the modern era on fast game speed, archipelago. I gotta say, even though I've always thought the modern era was a bit lame, this game has absolutely rocked! I've found that every type of unit is required and balanced by another type. Invading with with transports full of mechinfs and modern armor? Works great until a stack of gunships wipes out your armor, leaving your mechinfs to be picked off by the next wave of armor. Invading with gunships? Now I see the devastation that SAM inf can wrought, about time I started putting a few of those in my stack as well. Battleships rule the sea right? Better have a few destroyers escorting them or you can watch all your sea resources get destroyed in a few turns by subs, and see most of your battleships heavily damaged in the process. If you got destroyers and battleships who needs subs? Watch the enemy destroy part of your fleet and then retreat four damaged battleships into the edge of someone else's territory where they can't be touched, then you wish you had a few subs lying around. Occasionally good for getting a spy behind enemy lines too. I always thought carriers and fighters were a bit of a waste of time too, why bother when you can build bombers? Try building six carriers, full of jet fighters and watch the devastation they can deal out almost anywhere on the planet within a few turns. Fantastic for when massive navy turns up your doorstep and surprises the cr*p out of you. With enough fighters, you can reduce every unit to half strength. The jet fighters are fantastic for softening up an enemy fleet or halving the strength of every unit in a city before you make an amphibious attack. From a carrier they can also destroy a distant nation's entire resources in a few turns. Bombers are better and do collateral damage to stacks (totally useless against a dispersed navy on the open sees though) but you need to to be able to take and hold a city first, which often turns out to be much more difficult than you thought (the counter-attack is the kicker). And for the really tough jobs there's nukes (also good for those surprise armadas), but you're gonna need a few of them if there's SDI around. And be ready for about 5 or 6 of them to be fired back at you.

Basically, I have a new found respect for the late game. Starting in this area puts everyone on a more equal footing. I think most of the problems with it in a standard game come from the fact that different civs tend to be so unbalanced against each other by this stage, meaning that a particular type of unit often has a distinct advantage because other civs aren't able to produce the necessary counter units (or enough of them). I still agree that it could be better. I would particularly like to see cruise missiles, and perhaps tone down the bomb shelters a bit (even the civilopedia mentions that in reality they're probably totally useless). Maybe a lesser strength nuke that could be carried on a sub and has a better chance of getting through SDI too. Although I would like to see them, the Aegis cruisers in Civ 3 always seemed a little too good to me, a bit unbalancing. I think their implementation would need to be carefully thought about.

 

[ZB2]

melee and archer promotions are made pretty redundant in late game, and theres only 1 promotion for anti modern units and thats the gun powder one. but its still not as balanced as early promotions are though.

that upgrade idea is good, but not the loss of xp, rather you buy the promotion like in the barbarain scenario. and you can already build anti-armor units just promote them 3 times for that amush promotion and you can deal with tanks good enough.

but paratroopers is what we need, just yoou cant really make it an upgrade, it would be better to be a specific unit, perhaps one that only defends and gets the hill I promotion.

and when you upgrade units with 16/17 xp, and they loose that 6xp cos u couldnt find anything to kill. REALLY SUCKS ASS

 

[douglas_21]

I think that riflemen should come in much later because muskets dominated warfare for hundreds of years. How is it that a musket attacking a knight has the odds against him!? 9 vs 10? How about bullet going through metal armor? Rifles should be more expensive, as the musketman unit hardly gets any usage in Civ 4. I think you should be able to have your national borders (now represented by culture alone) be expanded by the presence of your military somewhere else. Or forts, which you should be able to build anywhere- but it might take longer outside of your borders.

 

[bennos76]

I think that riflemen should come in much later because muskets dominated warfare for hundreds of years. How is it that a musket attacking a knight has the odds against him!? 9 vs 10? How about bullet going through metal armor? Rifles should be more expensive, as the musketman unit hardly gets any usage in Civ 4. I think you should be able to have your national borders (now represented by culture alone) be expanded by the presence of your military somewhere else. Or forts, which you should be able to build anywhere- but it might take longer outside of your borders.

I think the knights vs muskets thing is okay. A modern bullet would go through a knights metal armor no worries but, and I could be wrong here, as I understand things a musket fires a small round ball of (fairly soft) lead, which might or might not go through metal plate armor. And a musket is basically a one shot deal, it takes a long time to reload. So if youre thinking of a bunch of musketmen facing off against a bunch of knights: the first round of musketfire will take out a few of the knights, probably knock a few others off their horses etc. But by the time they manage to reload, the remaining knights will be amongst them and the heads will be rolling.

 

[TheSarge]

The in-game graphics for the Great Wall of China should update itself each trun to match the borders of the Civ that has it (never leaving the continent where it was built, of course.)
As it is now, the barbarians respect the borders of the civ that has the Great Wall as if there was a Great Wall along the border, so why doesn't the game reflect this in the graphics?:

 

[kernok]

TheSarge you idea is not good.
A wall is a wall: once built it remains the same for years.

But as other people say I would like to see musketmen (and UU related to them) be usefull for more than a few couple of turns.
Once you have them you've just have to learn one more tech to be able to build grenadiers.
power of 12 grenadiers versus power of 9 musketmen if you just wait a few turns... why are musketmen and grenadiers so close to each other in the tech tree??

 

[ZB2]

its wayyy unfair how you build anti-units before the units they actually counter can be built. like gunships to modern armor. and the said grenadiers against riflemen. you should have to slug it out a few techs first before your 10 stack riflemen have something to contend with.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I agree 100% Kernok. Both riflemen and grenadiers need to be pushed back perhaps 2-3 techs down the tech tree. That alone will make musketmen worth building!

Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Enkidu_Warrior]

Naval promotions, to create on the seas the kind of rock/paper/scissors that exists on the land

EW

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hey thats a great idea, Enkidu, and one that several of us are already testing out. Essentially, we have recommended a number of new 'naval-only' promotions-which include: Coast Guard (defence bonus in coastal tiles), Coastal Raider (attack bonus in Coastal tiles), Naval Tactics (combat strength in Ocean tiles), Greek Fire (bonus attack strength vs wooden ships), Ramming (attack bonus vs wooden ships), Interdictor (bonus movement and Free Strikes), Privateer (bonus to pillaging tile improvements and chance to capture civilian vessels in combat). The ever-busy TheLopez (we're not worthy, oh great one ) has already applied these promotions to his Great Options mod-which is being tested out as we speak .

Aussie_Lurker.

 

[ZB2]

make the carrier only defend, ive never seen an aircraft carrier attack with flak guns against another ship, and players carrier whore to get some XPs. its pretty ******** so bleh. me no like.

that special naval promotions are good, but me thinks thers a bit too many.
*defence in coast - about 10-20%
*attack in coast - 25%
*Anti Ship Promotion - 25%

oh yes, submarines need +1 first strike chance