1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

World War II in the Pacific

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Modpacks' started by Gaius Octavius, May 18, 2007.

  1. Gaius Octavius

    Gaius Octavius Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Messages:
    4,016
    cemo1956: A carrier-only plane is something in the works (but don't look for it anytime soon, since other programs are presently taking much of my development time). ;)

    It's trivial to do in XML, but the key in making special carrier fighters and bombers is to make sure the AI will build enough of them to keep the carriers filled up. I have not tested that yet but maybe I will give it a run later today.

    About the Chinese, I have not strictly forbidden them from making a carrier, since I allow for open historical play, but I've never seen them concentrate on any naval units at all. I don't believe that would be an issue unless a human player was absolutely set on it. You can always do what Ambreville suggested if you want to forbid it entirely.

    Peter1501: Thank you! :)

    On that note, I see that the downloads have passed 1,000 today. :D
     
  2. Agent327

    Agent327 Observer

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    16,102
    Location:
    In orbit
    I think it's a great idea - especially for a Pacific scenario. (So I hope you can find the time for this!);)

    IMO, the Chinese don't need to build any Carriers - even if they do really, really well; I'd say it's anon-issue.

    Congrats!:goodjob:
     
  3. Farrapo

    Farrapo Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2007
    Messages:
    154
    Location:
    North Carolina
    I've now spent quite a few hours playing each of the four countries on Immortal level. It's a lovely design and well-balanced in my opinion, but the CIV4 AI is so poor that it really detracts from the quality of the scenario. I commented before about the Americans easily being able to hold Manila. The same holds true for the Brits and Singapore. Both of these should fall to retain historicity, but any reasonable defense holds them. As a test I set myself some handicap rules playing the Brits (on Immortal) ... only use air and naval power in local theater until more is built there (so SE Asia has just the 3 P40s and 1 Bo, plus the 2 Cr from south, 1 Dest, 1 Sub). Also, for the first two years build no military units in Canada, just improve research and economy. Otherwise, building and flying in planes makes it way too easy.

    Even with these constraints it's still easy to hold Singapore. This is the fault of the CIV4 AI, not the scenario. The AI has limited concept of combined arms, is seemingly incapable of making an amphib. attacks (crucial in a Pacific scenario), and picks dumb bombing targets. If you watch it trying to go after KL, for example, it does not bring in naval bombardment and half the air bombing missions are to destroy buildings or production (which you should almost never waste time doing, btw, especially not a city you are sure to capture). When it finally reduces the defense (which is unnecessary - just hit the units), it attacks in a poor order, wasting valuable artillery on direct attack instead of ranged bombardment and often losing several pieces. The AI seemingly has no concept of the importance of attrition, protecting and promoting units, so it also "hangs" lonely units in vulnerable spots where you can weaken and eliminate them.

    So, it finally takes KL (which you can even prevent with a little finesse) the Japs get that big force NW of KL on the next turn ... 5 tanks, 3 Nip. Inf., 4 Combat eng., 2 Art. If only they would attack Singapore! But no, they mostly saunter off toward China, unless you already took Bangkok in which case athey hole up in KL and never march on Singapore. Sometimes they move a few infantry one step toward Sing., you ping with the artillery and a ship bombard and they duck back. So, an idea on this ... how about if you put that force SE of KL right next to Singapore? Maybe then they would do what they are supposed to do and attack. I'm not sure they would as they might wait to get all the defenses down, which by then is hard since the Jap bomber force has been reduced. Sometimes a naval force comes in, but it sits there by Sing. and does not bombard. Likewise, there are many cases of artillery being in bombardment range of good targets and not doing anything and as mentioned the AI tends to see artillery as attacking pieces as opposed to using their for bombardment.

    There are many flaws in the CIV4 military AI, and no doubt there must be a forum on that topic somewhere. Some things would be hard to program, but a few things seem doable. If they would just stop hanging pieces and try to keep ships in bases most of the time and concentrate on attrition and protecting and promoting units that would help. When attacking a target city never waste a bomb run hitting buildings, production, or surrounding improvements (not worth the risk when there is flak or CAP). Use naval forces (and/or artillery) to reduce defenses and air to weaken the units. If there are few units, just concentrate on them and forget the defenses. Pick a sensible attacking sequences and start when the best attacker (armor or ground) is preferably over 90%, though sometimes less. Etc., etc. - obviously to anyone who has played a while, but totally alien concepts to the AI.

    It's also worth noting that when you step up in "difficulty" level that only seems to affect relative production and research rates. I've never noticed any meaningful improvement in strategy or tactics, though there may be a few minor things.

    One last suggestion that does not have to do with AI. Is is possible to put label names on capital ships that would show above or below the unit on screen? It's just a cosmetic thing, but you've done all that research to make the units accurate to history so labeling some of the carriers, battleships, and cruisers would be a cute touch (or let the player name them). Imagine, for example, when the American task force pops up in the slot near Guadalcanal if the carrier were labeled "Enterprise" or "Grey Ghost," and so on.
     
  4. Gaius Octavius

    Gaius Octavius Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Messages:
    4,016
    Unfortunately Farrapo hit the nail on the head. The one thing that I found very lacking in the new scenario is the AI stupidity. Honestly, in some ways I think it's even crazier than in the old Warlords version. :crazyeye:

    The main problem I have noticed is that the AI just flat-out doesn't use the units it has to the best extent. It waits too long to attack when it could strike quickly and achieve the same results. It is too bad there is not a mod out there that increases the AI aggression, and even the old "Better AI" project now appears to be dead. :( I started a discussion a few months ago about "Making the AI More Aggressive" but nobody helped out too much, instead just pointing out what needs to be modified, but not how to go about it to get better results. :dunno:

    Suffice it to say that I have been working on a new project that hopefully will not have these same issues, but in the end Civ 4 is still Civ 4. Pity, really, since other WWII games (such as Hearts of Iron) have the right combined arms programming, but lack the ease of control and one-touch ordering that Civ 4 has. I think the overseas maintenance cost may have had a big influence on the AI's unwillingness to attack islands, because that seems to be less frequent now as well.

    About the ship naming, you can of course rename them yourself (click on the name in the lower left), but there is the possibility of doing a system in Python that automatically gives them a historical name when they are built. This way, you'd get the Franklin or Intrepid for US carriers, or the Missouri and Iowa for battleships. This is something I can easily do but I have just not implemented it yet. :)
     
  5. Agent327

    Agent327 Observer

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    16,102
    Location:
    In orbit
    Errr... OK, AI=stupid. I'm just a poor scenario guy, but if I want the AI to attack a city, I always pre-place them right next to it. Just to make sure they do their job. Just do a little update, 's all I'm saying. (Maybe it's not historically accurate, but even that is a matter of opinion: in order to take a city, you have to get right next to it. Hey, it's a game right?) Just my 2 cents.;)
     
  6. Gaius Octavius

    Gaius Octavius Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Messages:
    4,016
    I did........... :p
     
  7. Agent327

    Agent327 Observer

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    16,102
    Location:
    In orbit
    OK, cool. (I admit I haven't played it in a while, as I'm quite busy at this time.)
    ______________________
    "Hey, don't stick your tongue out at me!"
     
  8. Tempest006

    Tempest006 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    Messages:
    22
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    This may seem like an idiotic place to post this, but I have been searching all over and can't find a specific answer.

    But since there are scenarios here, I was wondering if someone knew. How do you set the year interval for a scenario? I'm playing Rise of Rome right now, and the year interval is locked at 2 years/turn.

    I've looked all over the assets/xml folders and I don't see anywhere where this is specified. Help please...

    How do you guys who run the scenarios set your up? I'd have to imagine that you change them for example in WW2 to months or weeks in order for the game to play out correctly...

    Thanks in advance.
     
  9. Gaius Octavius

    Gaius Octavius Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Messages:
    4,016
    There is a tag in the actual scenario WBS that sets the calendar. You could use CALENDAR_WEEKS for instance. The other XML file, which sets the number of turns, is CIV4GameSpeedInfo. :)
     
  10. Tempest006

    Tempest006 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    Messages:
    22
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    The gamespeed info won't set number of turns in a scenario, however, will it?

    Under the WBS (in the public maps folder...weird place to find it, but I guess that's how the folder hierchy is set?) it has a listing for Max Turns = XXX, that should control the scenario length?

    I've modified the Rise of Rome scenario in warlords to play yearly, now I'm worried about number of playable turns, it's set to end at 0 from -300 (300BC) but max turns = 250, if I set it to yearly that's 300 turns....

    Also, is there a guideline folder somewhere for naming? By this I mean, I looked around till I found Calendar=CALENDAR_YEARS before I figured out to use that command instead of what I tried first...Calendar=CALENDAR_YEARLY

    Thanks for your response. I don't think I will ever make scenarios, but it's helpful to know how to tweak something you don't like. In this instance, I saw many say the rise of rome scenario didn't allow enough time to win (especially with other civs besides Rome who may be much weaker).
     
  11. Gaius Octavius

    Gaius Octavius Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Messages:
    4,016
    Setting the maximum number of turns, you'll need the MAX TURNS setting; but if you want to change how many turns equal one month, for instance, you'll need to change the XML file. This lets you control how fast various eras pass.
     
  12. Agent327

    Agent327 Observer

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    16,102
    Location:
    In orbit
    @Tempest006: Maybe you could start a thread on Rise of Rome? There must be more people out there with comments, suggestions and questions about it. (Just a thought.);)
     
  13. Tempest006

    Tempest006 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    Messages:
    22
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    Posts are far and few between in the warlords area. There's a thread on it there, but no ones commented in months.

    It's working how I want it now, but I need to change the WBS max turns to 300 instead of 250, it's changed the end time to 50BC instead of 1AD because I didn't change that.
     
  14. Rono_

    Rono_ Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    43
    Location:
    Montreal
    Hey if anyone is interested in playing this online check out my thread, http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=269947

    I loved this scenario in C3C and greatly appreciate your adaptation of it into Civ4, but the AI befouls my enjoyment!

    I need ups and downs, an opponent who takes unrealistic risks and focus's on anything other than the big picture!
     
  15. iZombie

    iZombie Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    4
    Location:
    iGraveyard
    I am encountering a problem when I try to start this scenario. I have installed this in the correct file path, I updated BtS to the latest version, and I have re-installed everything a few times for good measure. I am trying to run this on Vista, and I saw that others were having problems too, but not quite like this. I don't receive any error messages. The mod loads perfectly, but when I select the map and try to choose my leader, the game exits. I thought this could be something with the leaderheads, so I tried using and not using the Chiang and Hirohito mods as per instructions. They made no difference.

    One other thing, I don't have Warlords. It isn't required to be installed for the BtS version to work, right?

    Thank you very much. I look forward to playing this.
     
  16. Gaius Octavius

    Gaius Octavius Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Messages:
    4,016
    As far as I can tell, Vista is a virtual no-go for any mod that uses a custom SDK. Warlords should not be an issue (I made the scenarios almost entirely from scratch and separately) so it is something native to Vista. Unfortunately, I don't have a ready solution.
     
  17. vra379971

    vra379971 Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    2,010
    You likely should plunge city maintenance for islands to almost nothing for the AI. WOuld help alot. So would Python-forced attacks.
     
  18. Gaius Octavius

    Gaius Octavius Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Messages:
    4,016
    When somebody tells me how, I'd gladly do it. :) I can't find in XML where this is defined.
     
  19. Ambreville

    Ambreville Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    Messages:
    2,255
    Location:
    Windy City USA
    You can always create a building that reduces maintenance by 100%. You connect the building to a disabled tech. And then manually place these buildings in each island (with a 100% chance of being captured, and a 0% chance of being bombed down).

    Shouldn't this do the trick?
     
  20. Gaius Octavius

    Gaius Octavius Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Messages:
    4,016
    Yeah, but it's a bit annoying to have to place that for 30-40 cities. :D

    As I recall I actually did this with the Shale Plant. I set it to have something like -75% maintenance, and put it in nearly every Japanese-held island. But I'd still prefer to find the global setting for overseas maintenance and fix it there.
     

Share This Page