For those thinking of getting Warlords

[Prussia]

Oh yeah, the selling point is DEFINETELY the fact that when you attack a city a siege tower appears.

I would pay ANYTHING for that...

[mkorin]

Originally posted by Dis
boats attacking cities.

Have you followed modern warfare? Boats attack cities all the time. Do you have any idea how many people and weapons are on a carrier, crusier, destroyer etc. If I have a battleship and my enemy has a copy archers, it should be a done deal.


If that sounds patronizing I apologize. I'm just that shocked.

[mkorin]

Originally posted by Prussia
Oh yeah, the selling point is DEFINETELY the fact that when you attack a city a siege tower appears.

I would pay ANYTHING for that...

It is a cool graphic.

[Dis]

Originally posted by mkorin


Have you followed modern warfare? Boats attack cities all the time. Do you have any idea how many people and weapons are on a carrier, crusier, destroyer etc. If I have a battleship and my enemy has a copy archers, it should be a done deal.


If that sounds patronizing I apologize. I'm just that shocked.

I spent 8 years in the U.S. Navy.

there are almost 0 weapons on a carrier. In fact, they are almost defenseless. We had 3 phalanx guns and 2 sea sparrow launcers. The gunners mates did have some .50 cals they could bring up to the weatherdecks if necessary. But these guys aren't soldiers, they have never fired at anyone before.

We used to have a marine detachment on the Enterprise to protect the ship from takeover. But they got rid of them to cut costs. The ship is completely defenseless if someone wanted to take control of a carrier. There are no weapons except for a few shotguns and .45 cals (we couldn't afford to upgrade to 9mm guns) in security division and the afore mentioned .50 cals that that GM's have. It seemed impossibly easy to take control of the ship, when I was in. Sure there are 5000 men (and women) aboard. But none of them have weapons or combat training.


Other than that, the only defenses a carrier has are it's aircraft.

[Dis]

I'm still not sure I'm getting my point accross. We did not have access to weapons. We would have been in some serious trouble if we had a gun onboard ship.

And I did do temporary duty in securty division. I qualified on the shotgun and .45 cal while I was doing TAD (temporary active duty) in Security. Also the marine detachment was in the adjacent compartment (but as I said, they got rid of them to cut down on operating costs). I wasn't too familiar with the gunners mate, as I was never in their division. But I do know they manned the .50 cals when we were in the Suez canal. But as I said, these are just kids who never fired a gun at anyone. They don't have combat training marines have.

I can't remember the exact numbers. but I think we only have about 10 pistols and 10 shotguns for security division. We normally did not use them (only when filling the ATM machine or vending machine). Even when in port the quarterdeck watches never carried a weapon (this may have changed post 9-11). On our normal securtiy patrols we only had a big flashlight and nightstick. Security division was about 60 people iirc. The rest of the crew does not have access to our weapons.

But I will mention I was in the navy in the 90's. Before the Cole bombing. There was no threat to our ships during that time.

[mkorin]

I stand corrected. I certainly got a different perspective talking to people who just got out of the navy, and on the news. However, you lived the life.

[Dis]

although I'd like to think we could take some archers out. . But if you are taking a battleship against archers, you are doing pretty well for yourself in the game.

I'd imagine post 9-11 they beefed up security. Base and ship security used to be pathetic. Any street gang could have probably gained control of a ship. Okay maybe I'm exagerrating a little. .

Now a .50 cal will tear some **** up. No doubt about it. But it's meant to be a mounted weapon. And of course crusiers and frigates can use their guns. I think this is modelled in the game with reducing city defenses. It would be nice if they could inflict some damage on the city defenders though.

And of course you have the gator freighters (amphib assault ships with marines). This is represented in game with amphib assaults with land units from transports. Still no ship based helicopters in the game unfortunately. .

[Dis]

Now to discuss SMAC naval operations.

That game was far from perfect. Offense still won the day. Even with the best armor on my ships, they often lost if they were attacked first. Yet I still put armor on my ships. Bad civ2 habit I guess. Occasionally they would win.

I think this was a weakness of the SMAC attack and defense system. Yeah I know, armor was very important for navy ships. The Bismark was almost inpenetrable, the armour was so thick. But the torpedos did the trick.

Ships could not take land based cities in SMAC iirc. Only naval cities/bases. But I felt that was overpowered. Infantry units of some kind should be necessary to take even sea bases.

I'm still not sure how best to model naval combat. As civ4 has it's problems. It's extremely difficult to take out AI ships. Usually it takes 2 of mine to take out 1 of theirs.

And airplanes still have very little effect on naval warfare in civ4. This is wrong. As battleships are useful right up till the end of the game. Civ2 was actually better in this regards, as cruise missiles used to tear up battleships in that game. I would like to see cruise missiles in this game. And carrier groups in this game should increase the defense of units in the same tile. I believe this can be implemented. This could represent the airplanes defending the entire battle group.

By the same token, air attacks on ships should be far more devestating. But as a counter, they'd need AEGIS cruisers again. This is a huge oversight by Firaxis in this game. Civ2 had it right (except being able to completely wipe out city defenders ), civ3, smac, and civ4 have it wrong.

I'd also like there to be some abstract way of modelling merchant shipping, thus making submarine warfare an attractive option. As most nations did not use subs to attack warships. They used them to cripple merchant shipping. The counter of course, was to use warships to find and hunt down subs.

in summary: Bring back cruise missiles, AEGIS cruisers, planes should sink ships, and units in the same tile as a carrier should have their strength rating increased. This is what should be in the next expansion.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by mkorin
Aircraft - They worked correctly in III, why make them less useful. I have not built a plane since my 2nd game and never missed them. The bombers should be able to hurt units in the open, destory improvements and hurt/destroy units in cities.
Maybe the patches improved them. Tell me that and I'll try them again.

AFAIK there has not been made any changes to bombers in patches, bombers has always been able to hurt units in the open/cities and they have always been able to destroy improvements. Bombers are great at weakening the enemy before taking over a city, or if the enemy is sending troops over to attack you

The only problem I have with bombers is that the AI never uses them, so it kinda feels like cheating to use bombers to help take over their cities

Originally posted by mkorin
INI code suggestions would be to have % of barbarians rather than just on/off/raging. I would also like ini codes for all customizable features so I can just have a one button game start with my random features. An ini code for random maps, including the partials like ring etc.

[MikeH]

I've only played half a game and already I think it's well worth it.

And Bombers are great.

[Martinus]

I have one big nitpick about Warlords - it introduced Vassal States, and now I have to endure hordes of illiterate teenagers spelling it "Vassel".

[Nikolai]

I have just found out, after starting my first "normal" game(scenarios you know, never bothered before, but these are fun) that the AI has become better. Since I know from experience that AIs tend to become better in XPs and I usually is not good at Noble, I started on the level beneath. Well, let's say it like this: In vanilla Civ4 I tend to compete with one or two hightech guys and the rest has archers and stuff in the modern age. Now all my neighbours, friend and foe, has almost the same tech level as me(military that is). And if that wasn't enough, I burned myself heavily on the vassal thing. I was in a war aganst my southern neighbour Saladin, which managed to kill some of my best units, when the SOB became vassal of my main opponent(and atm stronger because of the casulties in the war) the Incans! So now I have a two front war going that I can't possibly win, and that on Warlord!

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Nikolai
... Well, let's say it like this: In vanilla Civ4 I tend to compete with one or two hightech guys and the rest has archers and stuff in the modern age. Now all my neighbours, friend and foe, has almost the same tech level as me(military that is).

The AI simply upgrades their units as soon as they can now, rather than wait until invaded. Plus, perhaps, more emphasis on military techs.

And if that wasn't enough, I burned myself heavily on the vassal thing. I was in a war aganst my southern neighbour Saladin, which managed to kill some of my best units, when the SOB became vassal of my main opponent(and atm stronger because of the casulties in the war) the Incans! So now I have a two front war going that I can't possibly win, and that on Warlord!

Vassalage (not the civic, of course), along with its dynamics, brings out such interesting situations!

Had a friendly vassal for an extended period. He separated, and now won't rejoin because "I'm too powerful, now."

[Adagio]

I have one complaint about the vassals:

In my first (and current) game, I took over 6-7 of Spains largest cities after destroying their powerfull army. When Spain was almost destroyed America joined the war (against my will) and took over 2 cities, and now Spain is a vassal of America. The turn before they took the last city, Spain was not interested in becoming my vassal because they where "doing fine"

Now I'm planning a payback, but it's going to require lots of units, not only is America the second most powerfull civ, their other vassal (Rome) is also powerfull (and has got most units near my cities)

[Mergle]

Originally posted by Adagio
I have one complaint about the vassals:

In my first (and current) game, I took over 6-7 of Spains largest cities after destroying their powerfull army. When Spain was almost destroyed America joined the war (against my will) and took over 2 cities, and now Spain is a vassal of America. The turn before they took the last city, Spain was not interested in becoming my vassal because they where "doing fine"

Now I'm planning a payback, but it's going to require lots of units, not only is America the second most powerfull civ, their other vassal (Rome) is also powerfull (and has got most units near my cities)

That sounds like good playing from the American AI.