 |
| |
|
|
Tridotan1
|
|
quote:
anyways i have a date but i will be back later on tonight or tommorrow, please post which new units you think are must haves, because i am going to add the new units tommorrow |
Great!:
British Commandos/ Green Berets (post possible names everyone) should replace marines and have 2 more attack or something like that. It would be great if you would make them look like marines but give them a green beret.
Torpedoes - I don't know why you didn't reply to my idea but I think that they would be a great addition. They could basically be water cruise missiles. Built at ports, defenceless.
Modern Infantry - I think you are adding these already but I'm just posting to give you my support in making them.
Some kind of bombard unit between the catapult and the cannon. This idea needs developing but you can see what I'm getting at. Perhaps the Trebuchet?
Modern Engineer - as Modern Infantry
War Yacht - a frigate sort of time thing. Small, quick to build, fast, poor in combat. Ever played Cossacks? Make it look like the yacht in it.
Early submarine - We've just a had a tv series about the evolution of the submarine here in Britain and the silent perdators of WW2 that are portrayed in the game were vastly superior to those used in WW1. Make an "early submarine"(post names) and make it available at same time as Ironclad. Coast and sea only, invisible, same defence as ironcald, bit less attack, longer to build than Ironclad. Upgrade to submarine.
Gunboat - Upgrade of war yacht these are/were used as escorts of transports and battleships and there were a large number in any single fleet. They were small boats. Available in battleship period.
Farmer - Wild idea but might work. Modern Engineers only capable of irrigating land and faster at doing so. These will be quite useful because most of a workers time is spent irrigating. And true engineers spend most of their time building roads, imes and railroads. Available 18th century.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
 |
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
thanks for the feedback, anyways here is the list of additional units i have right now
units that are in
engineer --> comes with steampower 0.0.1 20 shields 1 pop all terrain as roads
sloop? --> comes with astronomy the first middle age attack ship
modern infantry/light infantry --> haven't picked the tech yet, but this unit will fill the spot currently filled by mech infantry, and mech infantry will become a high resource requirment fast moving hard hitting unit that compliments modern armor, modern infantry right now will have the following stats 14.18.2 blitz cost i have yet to determine, and i may slightly alter several stats
special forces --> these will be the only units capable of seeing partisans, i haven't determined their stats yet, but they will be highly mobile, and they will also be capable of amphibious assaults and airdrops like paratroopers, most likely invisable, but not hidden nationality, after the new patch comes out i am going to do some changes to partisans, probably taking away their attack ability so they can't capture cities but making them bombard units that can destroy ground units and making them invisable with hidden nationality
jet bomber/supersonic bomber --> an upgrade to the normal bomber that brings it into the modern era, it will be less expensive and require less resources than a stealth bomber...their also happens to be some artwork over at civfanatics
commerce raider --> modern age privateer along the lines of german battleships and battle cruisers in WW2
units that i haven't decided on yet
torpedos: good idea (sorry for not commenting on it earlier Tridotan1 i just didn't have time) but there are a few hitches to implementing them properly, if they are a movable water based cruise missile then they will zoom around the oceans, what i would prefer would be to make them immobile water based cruise missiles, but if they are sea units i don't know if they would load into ships, also i would only want them to attack water squares, and be like normal cruise missiles
early sub/late sub: i'm not sure about this, but i will decide later today, if i do, i will make the first subs weaker, and make the attack sub which comes with fission be about the same strength as the present attack sub, and require uranium
fleet: a water based army, i'm not sure if this is possible, but i'm going to try it
there are some units mentioned that i'm not including, the reasons for this is basically i'm trying to do more with less, and trying to make sure that every unit in the game actually fills a specific role in the game, and that only one unit per time period fills that role...i want every unit to have a use, and if someone thinks that a unit is still useless then that means we need to make some changes
also i'm in agreement with techwins about railroads and i have my fingers crossed that in the new editor you can set the rate for railroads, i would set it at 8-10 and that would improve naval units and airports in the modern era
i will post more later on today
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TechWins
|
 |
Arizona
Apr 2001
time: 22:16
|
|
Here is an idea for changing the food consumption of a citizen the food output of terrain. As of right now the expansion done by the AI is still ridiculous, and the 3 pop settler only holds back the AI expansion for a limited amount of time. Still keep the settler/colonies stats the same, but just change the food output/consumption.
Citizen food consumption - 2
Name / Food output / Irrigation Output / Optimum Output
Desert - 0 - 1 - 1
Plains - 2 - 1 - 3
Grassland - 3 - 1 - 4
Tundra - 1 - 0 - 1
Flood Plain - 4 - 0 - 4
Hills - 2 - 0 - 1
Mountains - 0 - 0 - 0
Forest - 2 - 0 - 2
Jungle - 1 - 0 - 1
Coast - 2 - 0 - 2
Sea - 1 - 0 - 1
Ocean - 0 - 0 - 0
The total optimum is 21 out of the on par optimum of 36 (21/36). Whereas before that number was 16/24. There is quite a large difference in that number, but the main (gralssland, hills, plains, forest) terrain still produce a sufficient amount of food, as well as, flood plains. A total optimum now for those four terrains is 10/12 (5/ 6), whereas, before it was 7/8. Coastal cities have, also, become more potent with a 2/3 ratio instead of 1/2 ratio which I find to be a plus). Concerning the weaker terrains of desert, mountains, tundra, and jungle the new ratio is 3/12 (1/4) and previously it was 3/8. The advantages to this may be: 1) expansion becomes a lot more difficult and realistic. Realistic in the sense that more resources are required for expansion. 2) the improved expansion improves the rest of the game (IMO). 3) less excessive AI expansion will be able to occur. The disadvantages to this may be: 1) the AI will self-destruct by the increased cost of expansion. 2) expansion will be too slow. 3) the whole game becomes unbalanced.
Obviously it will need some playtesting first, but I think it's worth a shot for v1.06beta8.1 or later...you should probaby get v1.06beta8 finished first.
That would truly be great if that did work!
Also, what exactly is the point of adding a lot more naval units? I may sound like a hipocrit here (read above statement), but I don't get it? As of right now naval power is near useless, so how will adding more useless units solve things. Don't get me wrong, though, I would love to see a plethora naval units. But without any relevance to them I don't see the point. IMO, naval units will never have the importance they deserve until the railroad situation gets solved.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
|
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Obviously it will need some playtesting first, but I think it's worth a shot for v1.06beta8.1 or later...you should probaby get v1.06beta8 finished first. |
hehe thanks for understanding 
it looks good, but i haven't done an in depth comparison but here is a question for you
if you had to suggest a system with a 3 food requirement for each pop point how would u do it (basically if there aren't any workers the city starves)
think about that one techwins and see what you come up with
quote:
Also, what exactly is the point of adding a lot more naval units? I may sound like a hipocrit here (read above statement), but I don't get it? As of right now naval power is near useless, so how will adding more useless units solve things. Don't get me wrong, though, I would love to see a plethora naval units. But without any relevance to them I don't see the point. IMO, naval units will never have the importance they deserve until the railroad situation gets solved. |
well i the only modern naval unit i'm adding is the commerce raider, so the others are unassociated with the railroad problem
basically the galley and the caravel were transport/power units in one that i split into two different units the galley as a transport and the war galley as a naval power unit and the caravel as a transport with the sloop being a naval power unit
slightly increased speed and being on par or better than land unit in terms of bombardment will also help the situation, but i'm not sure if it will make navies as important as they need to be, especially not with infinate movement railroads, but i do wanna cover all of the bases in terms of naval units and try to balance it as best as possible even if it is a sideshow, it might not be as important as land but i wanna make it balanced 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elucidus
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by korn469
if you had to suggest a system with a 3 food requirement for each pop point how would u do it (basically if there aren't any workers the city starves)
think about that one techwins and see what you come up with
|
Korn,
If you consider raising the food eaten per citizen and the amount of food per tile, remember a couple of things:
1) The base City Tile can't be changed with the editor (looks like you want ot keep it the same, so that isn't a big deal
2) The food storage amount cannot be changed. Slight changes shouldn't make much of a difference, but I toyed with a similar idea and decided against it as it seemed to imbalance the game somewhat. If you get the numbers right, however, and with a 3-food-eaten system then it could work out okay, but I wanted to let you know what I found in my trials.
Also the bonus grassland bonus shield can't be changed in the editor, just another terrain thing I found out.
Regards,
Elucidus
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
|
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
1) The base City Tile can't be changed with the editor (looks like you want ot keep it the same, so that isn't a big deal
|
yea i was counting on the base square staying the same, so that if you had a size 1 city and turned it into a specialist the city would starve
quote:
2) The food storage amount cannot be changed. Slight changes shouldn't make much of a difference, but I toyed with a similar idea and decided against it as it seemed to imbalance the game somewhat |
i've been cautious about changing food values for unbalancing the entire game, but if we can come up a system that works and accomplishes this i would love it, because despot rushing would die
quote:
Also the bonus grassland bonus shield can't be changed in the editor, just another terrain thing I found out |
i wasn't going to change shields they feel right, but thanks for pointing this out
also since i'm getting rid of the palace defensive bonus, i have replaced it with something else, and made one other tweak...however it is a fairly profound tweak, but i'll wait till i release beta8 before i'll tell you about it
so wait in anticipation till then 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TechWins
|
|
Arizona
Apr 2001
time: 22:16
|
|
quote:
1) The base City Tile can't be changed with the editor (looks like you want ot keep it the same, so that isn't a big deal |
So are you saying that even if grassland produces 3 food when a city is built on grassland it will still only produce 2 food? That doesn't make much sense. Sorry I don't understand what you mean by this.
quote:
2) The food storage amount cannot be changed. |
Hopefully that will all change soon (i.e. next patch).
quote:
Slight changes shouldn't make much of a difference, but I toyed with a similar idea and decided against it as it seemed to imbalance the game somewhat. If you get the numbers right, however, and with a 3-food-eaten system then it could work out okay, but I wanted to let you know what I found in my trials. |
Yes, I read the changes you tried to make, but you also have to figure that you tried to tweak the production levels of the terrains to go along with the tweaks of the food ouput (x5 on both IIRC), whereas, only a slight change to the food output will be made. My main fear is that growth will be slowed down way too much, and it will unbalance the game. However, I don't see that happening, and I think it will improve the game.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Elucidus
|
|
Firstly I take offense to you saying that I didn't test what information I gave.
----
Secondly, yes, that is exactly what I am saying. And yes I played for a while. I disected everything about it, that is why I offered the information that I had discovered, in case Korn did not know it. Maybe you should have waited for my answer before you tried to guess what it is I meant, although Korn was right on. The city tile is always the same. It does not matter what terrain it is on, or what the default for any terrain gives.
Also the despotism penalty to production only takes one off of the top of the final amount given (if that total is above 2). That is something to consider. BTW, Techwins if you don't believe me, as you seem not to, you are welcome to try it out. Edit a terrain to give you 20 of everything. Then settle on that terrain. Viola!
Actually, what you read about some of the changes I tried to make were some preliminary numbers. I worked with smaller ones too, especially after I discovered the despotism penalty being ineffective and the food storage uneditable, amoung other things.
And what does what I did with the production levels have to do with anything? As a matter of fact the production levels were on par with what I was trying for, except the bonus shield thing, and the despotism penalty. I am still toying with the idea, and would like to get a system of x4 or x5 in place, but I will have to wait until I find a way to change everything.
Also, I never said it won't improve the game. All I was doing was offering some information that I had already discovered. Sharing knowledge with a fellow mod-maker so as to allow him to be better prepared and know some of the things that may crop up when he attempts this. If the things I mentioned do not cause a problem then great, but this way he may know in advance if something might be a problem. I wasn't argueing or telling anyone they were wrong. I guess I'll just send my info directly to Korn next time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elucidus
|
|
Sorry Korn, but that is how I take quote:
maybe that only occurs under despotism, and he didn't play long enough to find out otherwise. |
Other than that, if they allow us more creative freedom with the editor and terrain on the next patch, you may be able to change the despotism penalty, so that it is based on government. After all there is no way to send excess food to cities that don't have enough, so I consider this to simulate it. With older gov'ts you wouldn't get as much, but as you enter newer ones, you would get more and then be able to have a decent size city in the desert. I mean we have quite a few here in the states, and although they don't grow their own food, how many cities actually do?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TechWins
|
|
Arizona
Apr 2001
time: 22:16
|
|
Elucidus,
I had no intentions of offending you, and I'm sorry if I did.
quote:
Secondly, yes, that is exactly what I am saying. |
Well, I wasn't questioning the credibilty of your results; I was questioning the outcome of your results because I found them to be rather strange, however, not neccasarily wrong. It just seemed weird to me that bonus shiled grassland would still stay at 2 food, even though, the normal grassland would go up to 3 food.
quote:
Firstly I take offense to you saying that I didn't test what information I gave. |
Sorry, but you're misinterpreted me here. I was simply trying to come up with an explanation as to why the food situation works that way, and it occurred to me that you might not have played long enough to find out otherwise. You might have (at least that's what I thought could have happened) just looked at the results from the beginning of the game, and didn't bother to look at them later in the game.
quote:
Also the despotism penalty to production only takes one off of the top of the final amount given (if that total is above 2). That is something to consider. |
Yes, I am aware of this.
quote:
That is something to consider. BTW, Techwins if you don't believe me, as you seem not to, you are welcome to try it out. Edit a terrain to give you 20 of everything. Then settle on that terrain. Viola! |
If I didn't believe you previously I would have tried it out myself, but considering that I believe your results (I was only baffled by them) I didn't try it out. So there still won't be a need to do this.
quote:
Actually, what you read about some of the changes I tried to make were some preliminary numbers. I worked with smaller ones too, especially after I discovered the despotism penalty being ineffective and the food storage uneditable, amoung other things. |
I was unaware of this.
quote:
And what does what I did with the production levels have to do with anything? |
You said this:
quote:
Slight changes shouldn't make much of a difference, but I toyed with a similar idea and decided against it as it seemed to imbalance the game somewhat. |
and I replied with this:
quote:
you also have to figure that you tried to tweak the production levels of the terrains to go along with the tweaks of the food ouput (x5 on both IIRC), whereas, only a slight change to the food output will be made. |
To sum all of that up, you said that if we make slight changes it shouldn't have much of an effect. Since I felt that the changes you made (x5 to food and production) were more radical I stated that you had made bigger changes than the change I had proposed to food output. With your idea (bigger change, IMO) you felt that it unbalanced, but with my idea (a slight change) it shouldn't have much of an effect. Then after that I did state my fears of how it could unbalance, which aren't listed in the above quote.
quote:
As a matter of fact the production levels were on par with what I was trying for, except the bonus shield thing, and the despotism penalty. |
Agreed.
quote:
I am still toying with the idea, and would like to get a system of x4 or x5 in place, but I will have to wait until I find a way to change everything. |
Well. do feel free share your ideas here (here being in this thread) to help out this mod.
quote:
Also, I never said it won't improve the game. |
I never stated that you did say that.
quote:
All I was doing was offering some information that I had already discovered. Sharing knowledge with a fellow mod-maker so as to allow him to be better prepared and know some of the things that may crop up when he attempts this. |
I'm glad you did, because you know I do play this mod too. Meaning that I, also, want to get the most fun out of it as possible.
quote:
If the things I mentioned do not cause a problem then great, but this way he may know in advance if something might be a problem. I wasn't argueing or telling anyone they were wrong. |
Actually you're comments were more helpful than anything else. I'd rather find it out from sombody elses experience rather than mine.
quote:
I guess I'll just send my info directly to Korn next time. |
I believe you were in the first place.
quote:
1) cities without any workers starve |
do you care to share your idea of how to make this possible?
quote:
2) cities established in deserts and tundra starve if no specials or food improvements exists |
As of right now, I don't believe there is a way to solve this without changing food. An idea you suggested before was to have editor options on what tiles cities can/can not be built it on. If that option were present you could make it impossible for cities to be built on tundra, desert, and mountains. But I'm sure you already know that.
quote:
if they allow us more creative freedom with the editor and terrain on the next patch, |
I really hope Firaxis concentrates a lot more on the editor with the next patch. Especially, the railroad rate option...I asked Dan about this and he told me to contact the production team to get an answer...oh yeah like that's gonna happen.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
|
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
do you care to share your idea of how to make this possible? |
well they don't actually starve, but it does simulate it to an extent, all i'm saying is that it is a secret but i will give you a hint, this is linked to the changes in the palace
quote:
As of right now, I don't believe there is a way to solve this without changing food. An idea you suggested before was to have editor options on what tiles cities can/can not be built it on. If that option were present you could make it impossible for cities to be built on tundra, desert, and mountains |
yes there are a number of ways to change this we've came up with but as of now none of them are possible, what would probably be the simplest way would be to edit the base square and make it so that it gives 1 food instead of 2, this would enable cities without workers to starve, also cities in desert and tundra would starve as well if no irrigation or special squares existed, this would also slow down growth rates slightly
quote:
Especially, the railroad rate option...I asked Dan about this and he told me to contact the production team to get an answer...oh yeah like that's gonna happen |
i asked speed bump to pass the railroad suggestion on to mike b. so maybe they'll listen
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elucidus
|
|
Lockstep,
I apologize if I mistook your post. Also I would have liked to say this earlier, but right after my last post I changed my email address in my profile and it took in upwards of 5 hours to get the reactivation email so I was locked out.
Korn,
You could consider changing the irrigation level of terrain. Combine that with a 3 food requirement and it would simulate city death without workers very well. I had considered this in my own mod. I just have been working on the combat side of it lately.
Peace and good luck.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tridotan1
|
|
BIQ REQUEST:
Could someone make some really cool graphics for the Partisan, Colonist and all the other added units?
Kentonio maybe.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
|
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
lockstep
quote:
IMO it's fairly important, but a worker rate of 1 for despotism (already included in your mod) is a large penalty in itself |
you're right it could be enough, but we'll just have to see
quote:
Hmm. Could you give your reasoning, korn?
|
just cities you are trying to starve down would starve about 50% faster, but that might not be a problem
[qoute]I didn't mean about changing cruise missiles to air units but adding a new air missile unit while keeping the land based missile.[/quote]
quote:
I'm really curious about it. |
you'll know soon
kettyo
afaik all cruise missiles will inflict the same type of damage, no matter if they are air, land, or sea based, so if we added another cruise missile unit and made it an air unit, it would have three advantages it could use precision strike, rebase and could be transported by carriers
it would have a few disadvantages, air units could intercept it and it would disrupt the current Aegis Cruiser/Nuclear sub carrying arrangement
range and damage are editable for both types and can be made identical and since changing them is easy only the reasons listed above are actually important
so the question is, would having two cruise missiles at the same time be good for gameplay? would editing the current cruise missile be better for gameplay?
quote:
It's good only in the case when firaxis also includes some battlefield airdefense in the form of either a new airdefense rating of units or specific units for airdefense. Otherwise it will make naval units (without carrier) even more weak which wouldn't be good. |
since only fighters can sink ships, we can tweak things to make it work right
quote:
Could someone make some really cool graphics for the Partisan, Colonist and all the other added units?
Kentonio maybe |
Tridotan1 
anyways i have been busier than i expected so i haven't had much time to work on beta8 but i do hope to have it out soon
|
|
| |
|
|
|
kettyo
|
 |
Budapest, Hungary
Mar 2002
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by korn469
afaik all cruise missiles will inflict the same type of damage, no matter if they are air, land, or sea based, so if we added another cruise missile unit and made it an air unit, it would have three advantages it could use precision strike, rebase and could be transported by carriers
it would have a few disadvantages, air units could intercept it and it would disrupt the current Aegis Cruiser/Nuclear sub carrying arrangement |
No, you're wrong
I've tested it and neither nukesub/aegis could load it so nothing disrupted.
For carrying arrangement the air missile is an airplane not a missile so only carriers can carry it and no other naval ships. It's good.
It's also important not to set the air missile as "tactical missile" because it makes it unable to load/rebase on carriers no matter that the carrier can carry missiles or not. I think air type has higher priority than missile type for carrying arrangement.
quote:
Originally posted by korn469
range and damage are editable for both types and can be made identical and since changing them is easy only the reasons listed above are actually important |
As i said before it would be nice to keep land missile range at 4 and set air missile range at 8 for tactical reasons (benefit against the disadvantage of shootable). We could also play with damage/cost. As always you knows the game balances. The air missile would be really useful for bombing garrison units to destruction in a land war and crushing far away damaged enemy units and helping allies/comrades. It's also nice that close ground support raids/precision military attacks require air superiority. The air missile would be a homing missile like the maverick (or more likely a pack of them). It would be nice for this missile to be unable to sink ships (maybe next patch).
quote:
Originally posted by korn469
so the question is, would having two cruise missiles at the same time be good for gameplay? would editing the current cruise missile be better for gameplay? |
I definitely vote for 2 missiles for more interesting gameplay.
Althought i agree we have to discuss the details.
The torpedo (sea missile) idea is also very nice. I shall test it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elucidus
|
|
I agree with the longbowman idea. Not necesarily because American marines are more widely known or anything like that, but because that unit seems to sit right.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
|
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
kettyo
oh ok i see what you are saying now,  i thought you meant something else, sorry about the miscommunication
however what role will the air to surface missile play that a tweaked normal cruise missiles can't fill? would they come at different times or what? how would you differentiate between them?
you mentioned increasing the range for air cruise missiles, now if they have the same damage as normal cruise missiles but double the range, then i don't see anyone building normal cruise missiles even if air cruise missiles are subject to air intercepts, if we have two units in the exact same role, one of them is going to be better in most situations and the other one will build the other
also when you say air to surface missiles what are you referring to? would it be closer to the French Exocet or to the US ALCM? the former imo is already a part of the bombard rating of a jet fighter, and the latter will be part of the bombard rating of a supersonic bomber
in either case, those missiles aren't launched off of the deck of carrier, but are you referring to another weapon system that i am overlooking? 
here is a site that might interest you
http://www.cdiss.org/cmhist2.htm#go6
Tridotan1
i promise if the MoW still sucks i will stop trying to make it better and i will drop it from the blitz mod, but lets just see if the changes work ok?
kettyo & Elucidus
yeap a longbowman english CSU would be historically accurate, but shouldn't the english golden age come slightly later
everyone
i have had an increadably busy week and my weekend is going to be busy as well, but i am going to try my best to have beta8 out either sunday night or monday night
also a couple of other CSU questions
1) does the timeframe for the CSUs correspond to the highpoint of each civ?
2) is there a weak CSU?
3) is one CSU more dominating than the other CSUs?
EDIT: a small window of oppertunity has opened and i'm working on naval units as we speak
DOUBLE EDIT: i have just had an idea that could prove revolutionary to naval units in the blitz mod i'm testing it out now
Last edited by korn469 on 30-03-2002 at 22:24
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-03-2002 11:56
This system. also. fullfills another aspect, it makes pop rushing (i.e. eventually turning workers into entertainers) more of a bad move. Basically it makes it smarter (more essential) to have workers in the field.
... 
|