[Mod] NORMAL game pace: SLOWER TECH but more normal unit building! (Other fixes too)

[dearmad]

Oh. LOL that's the directory you're supposed to use, silly!

Which doesn't explain WTH my encounter with this bug was all about.

[Dzhel]

Great news! Thx JDexter. I fell under the same mistake & so I moved it into the main mods folder & the problem is gone. Also, thx to you dearmad for all your help. Keep up the good work.

[JDexter]

A little of topic then, but why is there a mods folder unter My Games\Civ anyways? And why does loading a scenario from the \My Games\Civ folder work?

Ah well, I don't even care, after all I just played right to Gunpowder again (which I got close to 1600, so nice timing I'd say). Just missing iron... *cry* and marble! *cry some more*

Keep us updated

[Venger]

The jungle problem is a vexer - I like the unhealthy terrain modifier idea, it's brilliant. But even more important would be an effect on troops spending time in the jungle - and that I am not sure can be done easily. I'd argue every turn over 1 each unit lost .1 strength - and the tricky part is to make this deduction override the natural healing outside of your borders. Can it be done?

The other problem is... some of the largest cities in the middle ages were in jungles - Tenochtitlan for example. Who wants to find the new world and encounter Tenochtitlan as a roadless size 2 hamlet desperately trying to invent gunpowder?

Also - some units should be immune, mainly native UU to jungle cultures.

Otherwise - like the mod, its pretty close to what I would have done... except most jungle changes I'd move to Iron...

Venger

[dearmad]

Heh. Well for Tenochtitla, it was by a nice lake... I'd say two tiles at least. And some hills... I had a Tenochtitlan like city before I could clear out 75% of its terrain (all Jungle) and it got up to 11 and was still growing slowly.

The Jungle health vs. units would be nice as long as units with jungle warfare upgrades don't face that... Not sure how that would work, judging by the xml files.

One other thing I'm working on for this mod is that resources are just WAY too common plus you can build so many units without anyresources and may with ONE or ANOTHER resource (like Uranium and Oil for modern ships). The xml defines oil to have 1.5 occurances for every player- that is stupid IMO. So i'm adjsuting those.

Alos the food types are so common it makes food trading a no brainer. Those need to go down a little bit too, I think.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

What I meant was this. In civ3, Atomic Theory sat between physics and fission on the tech tree. So, I am suggesting that uranium not be available with fission, but be available with atomic theory instead.

So, you have:
Physics-------->Atomic Theory--------->Fission.
(w/scientific meth.)

Does that make more sense? Basically, you have to know how atoms work before you can fully appreciate the importance of something like uranium which-in turn-allows you to start experimenting on its various properties, culminating in Nuclear Fission.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[JDexter]

Yes that makes sense.

For the resources: I think you shouldn't remove resources, because there are no bonus resources like in civ2/3 - so if you reduce them cities will grow slower, production will go down, etc.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Does anyone with experience with the XML/Python system know if it might be possible to link certain resources to the research of certain technologies? For instance, I would like it if Copper and Iron were very important-if not vital-for researching techs like bronze working, iron working and metal casting. Now, this could be done as a straight 'if you don't have resource X, you can't research tech Y' or a softer 'if you don't have resource X, then you research tech Y at Z% of the normal rate'. I would like to see this as a means to simulate the situation that South American nations had-where a lack of iron/copper/horses led to them being very far 'behind' the Europeans in certain areas-in spite of being very advanced overall.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[dearmad]

Ok: No resource reduction... except maybe uranium and um... oil. They're just waaaay too common, I think. NO possible reousrce wars for those most of the time. I'm thinking 1 Uranium for every 3 starting civs, and 1 Oil for every 1.5 starting civs. So an 7 player game that's 2 uranium maybe 3, and oil would be in 5 places. As it is there's like 1.5 oil for every civ so 7 = 11 oils on the map. I dunno. I'm messing with this for my next game to see...

Yes Aussie that is possible as I understand the xmls. Not sure how that would affect game flow overall, but entirely possible.

[userqwerty]

Aussies idea would be to have buildings as a prerequisite for researching technlogies. this way you coudl need uranium to build "Marie Curie laboratories" which lead to nuclear techs

[Tenarrus]

looking good...keep up the great work and ideas.

[Venger]

Just remember that oil is actually fairly plentiful on earth... don't go crazy!

In Civ3, I added numerous units that required a resource that were one-offs of the regular units that didn't - for example, a Civ could make Knights WITHOUT a horse resource, but Knights Templar WITH them - the concept being the horses weren't horses in general (horses are only found on ONE square on the map? Gimme a break) but rather are bred horses of superior stock. The KT had slightly better (no more than 20%) stats, and were cheaper (again, no more than 20%) to build. So, if you had the resource, you were ADVANTAGED, not OVERPOWERING.

Some more examples - Bronze Swordsman and an Iron Swordsman. I believe the Broze Sworsman was 2/2/1 and the Iron Swordsman 3/2/1. I had Dragoons and Cavalry. A gun carriage and a cannon. Infantry and Heavy Infantry. Basically, having the resource gave you an advantage - a better unit. But not wholesale domination.

Venger

[userqwerty]

I allways vieved the resources as an "advantage" in other civ games too

To build "the panthenon" it would be helpfull "50% build time" to be siting on a quarry. but you could collect odds and ends here and there

[dearmad]

On the Uranium/fission issue:
I think with the one change of uranium revelaed with Fission, (which was to help the AI not trade away or worse: buy fission when it had no use for it), the way Nukes develop seems fine to me. I don't see the need to insert another tech there- the tech is slower in this mod anyway.

On oil/uranium:
I won't go crazy at all. I think there should just be a good chance that one or two nations (of say 7) will NOT be oil producing nations and have to deal with it. remember, you can build Nucleur powered navy units...

I think Uranium ought to be present so that roughyl 50% of the nations will have it. This resource should cause all sorts of potential diplomatic havoc since its only real *unique* use is to build ICBMs and Nuclear power plants in cities.

Also, the problem I see with requiring uranium to build the techs like Fission is that it puts all the power in the hands of those who have the resource- I like the possibility that someone could be all ready to go with their nuke program and still lack uranium- so they pushed their tech but then find themselves alcking the resource- hmmm... which small nation that doesn't even know about this resource should we screw over?? Yyou don't need that much to research; you need it en masse to make bombs with it, though.

On other resources:
I kept them as is. Not gonna mess with them. They seem balanced after I messed with them.

Venger:
The bronzeclassical unit idea is a nice one, although i'd reverse it so that the Bronze ones were better... rarer though since copper is rare. That might be a nice, relativley simple addition... I think I'll try that out for my next game. That will make Copper that much more interesting on the map.

[Doskei]

The bronzeclassical unit idea is a nice one, although i'd reverse it so that the Bronze ones were better... rarer though since copper is rare. That might be a nice, relativley simple addition... I think I'll try that out for my next game. That will make Copper that much more interesting on the map.

Bronze units better than iron? Iron is revealed later and historically replaced bronze (first due to supply shortages and increasingly because of its superior strength). Sure copper is rarer, but iron beats copper every time. Bronze weapons dull or bend when they strike iron armor/shields - iron weapons can easily penetrate bronze armament.

If you want to require copper for better units, could I suggest something like Honor Guard, which require both - iron for their weapons and armor, bronze for decoration? Then it's their training that makes them stronger units but you still have an excuse to require copper. Of course to pull it off with panache you'll need a new unit graphic, but you're on a roll, nothing is outside your grasp!