What can be done to make it more realistic with the rules perhaps

[sebanaj]

Editing the rules, multiplying every stat of units/improvements, etc ancient by 5 / middle by 10 / industrial by 20 / Modern by 30! that would make combat and things generally more realistic... (movement included cos remember that the turns are years! even for the ancient times, i bet exploring 100 miles wouldn't take 200 years...)
We need adding unique starting points for each civilization at least included in the editor...

I'm thinking about extending the squares production of food, shields and commerce...

Disallowing any kind of victory (cultural, militar, diplomatic, etc ) except by points...

I'm seeing how to apply these myself... I wish it could be done the way im thinking and that the game doesnt crash... as i'm just talking out of my mind without trying anything yet...

 

[sebanaj]

i touched only the units, and the worker improvements to take less time...

the units stats were changed depending on the age

ancient * 5
middle *10
industrial * 20
modern * 30

Movement all originals * 5, no matter what age...
Road movement 15

 

[rangers85]

Only problem is this makes end of age units worthless, because a Civ 1 tech ahead can destroy them by just the age change. so basically those last units in an age become useless to build.

 

[Kryten]

Hello sebanaj,

Take a look at Ungooo's thread called "Punishment to obsolete units, needs feedback". There has been a long running debate there on this very subject. Ungooo even has a downloadable mod that is ready to play. It might give you some ideas.

 

[sebanaj]

yeah, but u don't need units too develop your country... u need good grasslands, some forest, and some resources... only perhaps one or two per city to defend against Barbarians, and some boats to look for the land...

 

[sebanaj]

big difference between my multipliers and the ones of the other thread... but i still think a Riflemen shouldn't have any problem at all to beat a man running with a sword...

 

[Ed O'War]

In an even straight-up fight, trained riflemen will almost always beat out swordsmen, spearmen, archers or any less advanced unit. However, you need to remember that combat in Civ is an abstraction, not a tactical simulation. What if the swordsmen have overwhelming numbers, or a really good defensive position? What if the riflemen have a really incompetent commander? What about just plain old random luck?

The game is set up so that most of the time the riflemen will beat out inferior units, but it also takes into account the possiblity (no matter how rare) that swordsmen could beat riflemen. Personally I don't think unit abilities should be multiplied depending on era, as this disrupts the game's careful balance. But, that's just my opinion.

 

[GenPatton]

Its the most frustrating thing to have an advanced unit beaten by a unit that is so inferior, however as some have mentioned anything is possible in warfare. Just as an example with the rifleman and swordsman. What if, and this was know to happen in modern rifles let alone early rifles that the gun jams. I think the guy running with a sword has then gained a tremendous advantage. First off because the rifleman has become so used to fighting with the gun, he is probably not trained as well in close combat as a swordsman. Secondly, the rifleman would only have the option of using the back of his gun to swing at the swordsman. I give the swordsman a good chance of winning that battle.

I had pondered a multiplying effect for units in my game, and came up with one that I figured was as fair as possible to not totally elimate the games innovation of combat. It was multiplying by 1, 1.5, 2, and 2.5 in the respective eras. No of course by throwing the deciaml into the mix it causes some to come up with a deciaml answer, that I decided could just be truncated (dropped off the end). This also helps keep the end of era units closer to the first ones of the next era and still effective.

After I devised all the new number I decided not to go through with it, but think if it is going to be done the method is pretty reasonable.

 

[Kryten]

Originally posted by sebanaj
... but I still think a Riflemen shouldn't have any problem at all to beat a man running with a sword...

...hmmm...thats what the 1,500 British Riflemen killed in the Zulu victory at Isandlwana in 1879 thought...

As others have said, sometimes in war the smaller battalion/inferior army can beat the bigger battalion/superior army. The main point is, it shouldn't happen often.

Ive been using Ungooo's mod which uses 1/2/3/4 multiplication. Now I may be more tolerant than most, but I'm quite happy to have a bunch of my tanks attacked by a bunch longbowmen and I end up losing a tank. It's my fault for leaving the tanks, with their superior speed, in a position where they were exposed to counterattack (how can longbows knockout a tank? Well, tanks can lose a track, engines can breakdown, and tank crews are vulnerable to surprise attack when refuelling/eating/sleeping if they are overconfident or poorly led).

So by all means mulitply the combat factors to get the effect you want. But remember, in war, anything can happen.

 

[Random Passerby]

I don't know if this has ever been discussed, but has anyone ever thought of just giving a standard multiplier of 4 or 5 as a base for other balance tweaks? It gives values more... hrm, I don't know quite the right technical term... resolution?

Anyways, picture this: Suppose you want to make a mod where defense is a bit more emphasized. You could just give boosts to all the terrain defense bonuses, but suppose you want to tweak the units themselves, and so you start out and decide that Warriors should have stronger defense than they do offense. The smallest value you can increase their defense by is 1... but woah! That gives them fully twice as much defense power!

Now suppose instead that the first thing you did was go through the unit listings and multiply all the attack and defend values by 4. Warriors are 4/4/1, Spearmen are 4/8/1, Swordsmen are 12/8/1, and so on (Just remember to upgrade building bombardment defense modifiers if you up artillery power like this, and I think you should be fine). Due to the way combat results are calculated, this doesn't result in any change whatsoever--if a Warrior attacks a Spearman, their Attack/Defend is still in a 1:2 ratio, so the Spearmen will still win rounds two-thirds of the time. Now you're free to make much finer adjustments--you could do things like make Spearmen 4/9/1 and Swordsmen 12/7/1, so that Spearmen now have a clear defensive advantage while still having Swordsmen remain a formidable ancient-era defensive unit. Before, if you wanted to make Spearmen have a higher defense than Swordsman, you'd need to either boost Spearmen up to Pikemen defense, or knock Swordsmen down to Warrior defense. With a broader scale, you could add in these little tweaks without drastically changing anything.

 

[Ed O'War]

Random:

That's a good idea for tweaking unit values and giving a little more variety to the units, without seriously messing with game balance. I may just have to give that a try--thanks.