MOD: korn's Blitz Mod

[kettyo]

Originally posted by lockstep
At least it should straighten out that one of my interests is dancing - not exercising.

lockstep,

are you a member of a group of dance performers?
we run a dance/cultural association here in Hungary. (not for making Austria flip )

korn,

got a look at modern naval units and have some thoughts:

-destroyers should have zoc to counter passing shipping (they are fast)
-aegis AI could be set at naval power+missile
-nuclear sub has an attack of 10 equal of ironclad
it's quite strange, why not the same 16 as (diesel)submarine
i'm not naval warfare expert only played "harpoon" game sometimes it seems authentic. modern guided torpedoes could do serious harm to any vessels. it should also have a zoc to attack passing shipping. could have naval power+missile AI.
- carriers should carry tactical missiles, intruders and the such can launch cruise missiles can even carry nukes. according to this and because I think it's recommended to carry 3 helicopters for antisub-recon, a carrier should carry 12 units or so (i'm not sure but 5 planes,3 helos, 4 missiles seems real). It should also require some cost increase, now it costs just 33% more than a nuclear sub it's irreal I think. AI could be set to naval carrier+missile. anyways the picture shows a nimitz class so make it really dangerous.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by solo
korn,

I finished my game, and when looking over the replay, I noticed that each AI had about 5 cities laid down by the time I had my second, and by the time my third was ready, they had their continents filled up. I would call that a starting advantage! Increased settler costs really hurt the human player in deity, but perhaps the advantages to this in lower levels overweigh this concern.

IMO, 3 pop point settlers are a massive change to gameplay. To slow early expansion, I'd rather change the food bushels required to growth for the different city levels from 20/40/60 (IIRC) to 40/50/60 (or to 40 for all city levels ) ... but it's not possible with the current editor ...

Originally posted by kettyo
lockstep,

are you a member of a group of dance performers?

No, ballroom dancing is just a hobby of mine, with quickstep being one of my favourite dances. (At this moment, I'm listening to Louis Prima's 'Sing, sing, sing' and practicing locksteps. )

[kettyo]

Originally posted by lockstep
No, ballroom dancing is just a hobby of mine, with quickstep being one of my favourite dances. (At this moment, I'm listening to Louis Prima's 'Sing, sing, sing' and practicing locksteps. )

Fine.
Mine are paso doble and the such although I'm not dancing much mostly organizing shows and running the organization.

[lockstep]

Korn, some impressions from my second blitz test game on monarch (which ended with a diplomatic defeat, although I was no. 1 at the histograph):

• At the beginning (3500 BC), I got a settler from a goody hut although I wasn't expansionist (I was playing as the Chinese). With settlers costing 3 pop points, this made for a huge headstart. I'm really hoping that the next version of the editor allows to change the food box size, so that it is possible to delay early expansion in a more balanced way.
• One AI (the Indians) stopped expansion for a long time after founding its second city. (It didn't get wiped out in the later game for some strange reason, but also was never a power to be reckoned with.) I suspect that the modified AI building traits caused this.
• Some stats regarding AI government choice: 5 Rep, 2 Mon (Middle Ages); 1 Dem, 1 Comm, 5 Fasc (Industrial Age). The Indians, which were a rather small civ (see above), choose Communism.
• Whenever a catapult fired a successfull free shot at my attacking veteran/elite riders (9 resp. 12 hitpoints), I lost only 1 hitpoint, which makes defending bombard units rather pointless IMO. IIRC, you doubled RoF - shouldn't this affect also free shots?
• The Romans used their 'treats-every-terrain-as-roads' legions to attack me across a mointains/jungle border. Whenever I tried to kill their legions with my riders, they retreatet the wounded units and sent fresh ones to the front. I was able to stave them off from my border cities, but only barely. Technology-wise (given the current tech-whoring), the Romans should have been able to built knights (and they built cavalry a few decades later), but they choose to build legions nevertheless. I'd say, drop this feature from your mod - legions are more unbalancing than the jaguar warriors of Civ3 v1.07/v1.16.

[korn469]

Tridotan1

i'm glad that you are enjoying the mod
thanks for taking the time to post feedback


unfortunantly the editor doesn't allow modmakers to change the damage of nukes, so your ideas aren't possible to implement

as for different types of governments i am only trying to add governments that are balanced and provide different ways of playing the game, also in gameplay terms many of the governments are quite broad, democracy in civ3 represents everything from the Italian multiparty system to the US two party system, everything from federalism in Germany, to the centralized state in france, from the UK parliment to the US Congress

that being said, the present government of Pakistan is most likely a despotism or a Fascist state in civ3 gameplay terms, and incorporating a specific militarist government wouldn't really distinguish itself from fascism

most of this arises from limitations of the editor, so if in future versions of the editor more ways of distinguishing different forms of government becomes possible, then i will add in more types of governments

solo

i am going to set emperor to have the exact same level of difficulty as Deity in Civ3, because Diety challenges good players, not great ones...

what i mean by this is that a good civ3 player which a normal starting position playing without reloads might feel the pinch everyonce in a while but they are going to usually win, while the very best civ3 players out there will only lose in the most extraordinary of circumstances

i'm sure that you and toetruck have both lost many games in your quest for a launch in a OCC, however you are purposely handicapping yourselves by playing to less than your ability...i'm sure if you two (or other players of your caliber) tried to play the perfect non OCC game that with a decent starting position you would most likely lose 1 out of 100 games, maybe even less...in SMAC after a while i knew that i was not going to lose, i even proposed something called the Messiah Challenge, where you would play as a green faction, then capture a worm then capture an opponents base, then begin a zero facility OCC game, win by transcend...i don't think anybody ever won that, by that point i wasn't as interested in SMAC as what i had been and didn't make anyserious attempt at it, and zso zso (he was quite possibly the best SMAC player) had already left the forums and he never attempted this, but i do know that zso zso won a zero facility OCC, and i do know that he beat me in the fastest transcend game (i think i had a 72 or 73 turn transcend, and that he had like a 68-70 turn transcend) but challenges like that require the player to heavily handicap themselves, what i want is a situation where the player tries there very best without any handicaps and that they lose the majority of the time, and while they player will still have serious handicaps, their play style won't...so if you are finding diety difficult that is a good thing

I'm afraid I may have been bitten by the mod bug, after seeing how much the game can be enhanced, even with the limits imposed by the editor. One question, in this regard, was about your new city improvements. None had icons, so I was wondering whether they were just omitted or if it was just to difficult to add them in. Are they are 80x80 pixels?

getting all of the stupid files to work correctly has been a pain, i thought i have done everything i needed to make things work correctly but for some reason they still aren't working, personally this doesn't bug me as a player, however as a mod maker trying to put out a quality mod this frustrates me to no end, i am going to ask a few of the other mod makers for some help on fixing this

also when it comes to new artwork, i have zero artistic ability, stickmen are almost beyond me and while i have probably the greatest group of playtesters/idea people of all of the mods (which is the most important thing anyways), i don't seem to have much of a following with artist

There is a problem, though with doing this, and it surfaces later in the game when techs are more expensive and also when the AI start fighting each other.

even in the later stages of the game the AI will still sell you every tech as long as you accumulate enough gold, AI die, and other become too weak to buy techs, but although i would have to do more testing to prove this, even in a game with you and four or five AIs, even if only one AI discovers a tech, you could still probably buy it for less than you could research it if you hadn't snagged a research wonder, there might be an age/date modifier to what the AI will sell a tech for, but in my game it took me about 5 turns of running high economy to be able to pay for a tech, which couldn't be that much worse than running a high tech rate, plus if you are in a gold rush government like democracy, this gives you flexability, because why you may discover a new tech every five turns, if an emergency arises you can't do anything with the tech you have stored, while the gold you have stored could save your civ, but i am probably wrong

For the moment, I will get back to regular OCC for I see that Toe Truck has beaten me again to the first OCC win with 1.17f! I suppose I'll just have to try for an earlier launch using his start.

no problem, though i hope you will do some more play testing soon, i also think i am going to send toe truck a pm and see if he will playtest the blitz mod a little

kettyo

*hmmm, maybe all modern naval ships with the AI power setting should have a zoc?
*the editor says that setting a unit with more than one AI setting will make the game unstable

nuclear sub has an attack of 10 equal of ironclad
it's quite strange, why not the same 16 as (diesel)submarine
i'm not naval warfare expert only played "harpoon" game sometimes it seems authentic. modern guided torpedoes could do serious harm to any vessels. it should also have a zoc to attack passing shipping. could have naval power+missile AI.

ok i will explain myself in some depth

my take on the units in civ3 is the following:
units in civ3 are military units and not vehicles, the a.d.m values not only represent the qualities of their vehicles but it represents the qualities of their tactics, training, support, etc.

in my opinion the submarine that comes first is not a diesel submarines, but it is an attack submarines, so it includes everything from the german U-boats of WW1 to the USS Seawolf class nuclear attack submarine, to recent diesel powered submarines built by Soviets/Russians, not only does it include those vehicles but it includes the tactics as well, which means that its basic job is to seek out targets and to sink them in times of war, and to track them in times of peace

the nuclear submarine to me is a ballistic missile submarines, and it would also include the proposals to turn older ballistic missile submarines into subs that carry a large amount of cruise missiles, the SSGN class sub

you can find out more about it here

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_6/ssgn.html

however, there primary mission is to hide and be ready to launch missiles, not to attack, that is why i gave them a good defense

though i would be willing to increase the submarine's movement to 10 and the nuclear submarines defense to 14 if you think that would better balance the naval model

and as far as ironclads go, to me they not only represent the ships of the civil war, but they go all the way up to at least the ships used in the Spanish American civil war, so to me the USS Maine would be an ironclad...so i might need to do some more tweaking to get the balance better, i just wanted you to know that its not 688 class attack submarine going up against the Monitor

also i think normal submarines have a zoc, but the nuclear subs don't because again it is to help them hide

carriers should carry tactical missiles, intruders and the such can launch cruise missiles can even carry nukes. according to this and because I think it's recommended to carry 3 helicopters for antisub-recon, a carrier should carry 12 units or so (i'm not sure but 5 planes,3 helos, 4 missiles seems real). It should also require some cost increase, now it costs just 33% more than a nuclear sub it's irreal I think. AI could be set to naval carrier+missile.

ok yes a carrier does represent the core of a carrier battle group, however a typical carrier battle group only carries a little over a hundred planes, about 100 on the carrier, and then helicopters on the escorts, and according to that site it only carries 120-180 cruise missiles (and i don't think that the actual carrier has any ship launched tomahawks on it)

first thing if you have a carrier and an Aegis cruiser stacked together you can have 5 planes and 3 missiles (along with the ability to see subs), and that is what i see as a typical US style carrier battle group as being, and it is close to your stats

secondly you can use the foot soldier trick to allow one type of ship carry two different units while another can only carry one type like how i did with Aegis Cruisers and Nuclear Subs, but you can't set a ship to carry 3 cruise missiles, 2 helicopters, and 1 one jet for example...it is simply beyond the capabilities of the editor

last thing is i think that if you compared 2 ballistic missile submarines to a carrier and a few escort ships then the cost should be about right

No, ballroom dancing is just a hobby of mine, with quickstep being one of my favourite dances.

until lockstep explained what a lockstep was to me, i thought it was a kind of military march, so i imagined him going out on the weekends in camo and being part of a US style militia
i don't think i could have been more wrong

anyways i'm working on beta7.4 and as always it will be out tonight or early in the morning

[korn469]

At the beginning (3500 BC), I got a settler from a goody hut although I wasn't expansionist (I was playing as the Chinese). With settlers costing 3 pop points, this made for a huge headstart. I'm really hoping that the next version of the editor allows to change the food box size, so that it is possible to delay early expansion in a more balanced way

right now the food box is size 20, the extra food costs of a 3pop settler therefore is between 10-20 for a town depending on if it has a granary or not

if we increase the size of the food box to 30 and changed the cost of a settler back down to 2 pop, then finding a free settler is still just as unbalancing, if not moreso...because while a city can accumulate around 80 shields in a normal starting location, bigger foodboxes would mean slower shield accumulation rates since workers don't appear as quickly, so getting a free settler would mean a greater percentage wise amount of shields

if we doubled the size of the foodbox to 40, then it would take between 20-40 extra food to build a 2 pop settler, and finding a free settler would be even more unbalancing because that would mean each shield it generated would be worth even more

so while a size 30 foodbox with 2 pop settlers could possibly be the best overall way to go since it would slow down all parts of the game slightly, free settlers would be just as unbalancing, and it would be better if we could cut them off if they are deemed to be too much of an advantage (though personally i don't find the occasional one to be completely unbalancing)

One AI (the Indians) stopped expansion for a long time after founding its second city. (It didn't get wiped out in the later game for some strange reason, but also was never a power to be reckoned with.) I suspect that the modified AI building traits caused this.

did it have bad terrain? was there any other apparent reason why it did so bad?

Some stats regarding AI government choice: 5 Rep, 2 Mon (Middle Ages); 1 Dem, 1 Comm, 5 Fasc (Industrial Age). The Indians, which were a rather small civ (see above), choose Communism.

well at least we are seeing some monarchies, this could possibly be a first
again it is also good to see a communist civ, but i wonder why the Indians decided to go commie since they are so small?

Whenever a catapult fired a successfull free shot at my attacking veteran/elite riders (9 resp. 12 hitpoints), I lost only 1 hitpoint, which makes defending bombard units rather pointless IMO. IIRC, you doubled RoF - shouldn't this affect also free shots?

a bug with the game

The Romans used their 'treats-every-terrain-as-roads' legions to attack me across a mointains/jungle border. Whenever I tried to kill their legions with my riders, they retreatet the wounded units and sent fresh ones to the front. I was able to stave them off from my border cities, but only barely. Technology-wise (given the current tech-whoring), the Romans should have been able to built knights (and they built cavalry a few decades later), but they choose to build legions nevertheless. I'd say, drop this feature from your mod - legions are more unbalancing than the jaguar warriors of Civ3 v1.07/v1.16

i'll fix this, but a question...did the legions retreat like fast units, or was it simply units that survived the attacks that retreated?

a couple other questions

*which civ won the game?
*what year did they win?
*did you notice anything in the modern, or industrial eras?

besides communication/map trading MPPs seem like the are very unbalancing and destructive to the AI and MPPs seem like the #1 reason the AIs are at war so much in the industrial era

[kettyo]

Originally posted by korn469
*hmmm, maybe all modern naval ships with the AI power setting should have a zoc?
*the editor says that setting a unit with more than one AI setting will make the game unstable

*destroyers definitely should have but battleships I would say not, they are not the pursuit kind of ships.
*sorry just a wrong idea

Originally posted by korn469
the nuclear submarine to me is a ballistic missile submarines, and it would also include the proposals to turn older ballistic missile submarines into subs that carry a large amount of cruise missiles, the SSGN class sub

for a ballistic sub (ssgn) the stats are ok just for me and I think also generally nuclear sub means a (attack)sub driven by nuclear reactor which is a good thing because it makes the sub much quieter which is essential for survive.

Originally posted by korn469
though i would be willing to increase the submarine's movement to 10 and the nuclear submarines defense to 14 if you think that would better balance the naval model

I like the idea
And also decrease ballistic sub movement to 9. They are slow beasts.

Originally posted by korn469
also i think normal submarines have a zoc, but the nuclear subs don't because again it is to help them hide

of course

Originally posted by korn469
ok yes a carrier does represent the core of a carrier battle group, however a typical carrier battle group only carries a little over a hundred planes, about 100 on the carrier, and then helicopters on the escorts, and according to that site it only carries 120-180 cruise missiles (and i don't think that the actual carrier has any ship launched tomahawks on it)

first thing if you have a carrier and an Aegis cruiser stacked together you can have 5 planes and 3 missiles (along with the ability to see subs), and that is what i see as a typical US style carrier battle group as being, and it is close to your stats

agree but I have some more idea about that
see end of post

Originally posted by korn469
secondly you can use the foot soldier trick to allow one type of ship carry two different units while another can only carry one type like how i did with Aegis Cruisers and Nuclear Subs, but you can't set a ship to carry 3 cruise missiles, 2 helicopters, and 1 one jet for example...it is simply beyond the capabilities of the editor

I've got your savegame with americans on deity and I use it for testing purposes.
I found that with carriers set to carry footunits only you cannot rebase to the carrier. I think you've done that to make stealth craft unable to use carriers (unfortunately now no one can). I've done it another way and this works. Set stealt craft to tactical missiles. This makes them unable to rebase to carrier while other planes can and isn't changing the stealth's behaviour at all.

So the summary of changes we got together:

-give destroyer zoc
-carrier carry not only footunits
-set nuclear sub defense 14, movement 9
-submarines move 10
-set stealth fighter+bomber to tactical missiles

And I also have some new ideas:

-I should lower the movement of partisans to 3.
The equal of the modern armor and mech inf is too much I think.
And the way the AI uses it it's much more a paramilitary unit (which often uses landrovers nowadays) then a partisan (civilian force for active defense and sabotage) so 3 is ok but 4 is much I think.
And I would set leg/light infantry units to see subs. It likely comes to attention for the troops when a group of armed bandits assaulting civilians and pillaging. I'm not sure which units but probably some of these: scout,explorer,grenadier,rifleman,infantry,partisa n ,marine,paratrooper.
Mech inf and armor units must not see them.

-We could add in a recon plane, would be very useful.
There's graphic also for an e3c-sentry plane at some other mod.
Comes with electronics or something else. Cost around 10. immobile air unit with 10 oprange with 2 defense and radar + see sub ability. Requires oil+rubber or else. recon+rebase mission only.

-I still need the air-to-surface missiles, especially on carriers.
I made this unit and tested and it works great.
An immobile airunit with oprange 8 and 1 defense. It's being set to cruise missile but NOT tactical missile in order to use with carriers. Cost and power is half of the cruise missile. It could be invented with rocketry as the cruise missile and also require aluminium to build. AI set to air bombard. rebase andbombing missions. loadable and airliftable.
This one (unlike the cruise missile) could be shot down by enemy interceptors-airdefenses. This adds more tactical versatility I think.

-According to above changes the carriers capacity should be extended.
I think carry 10 is optimal in the new circumstances.
A standard aerial contingent would be 3 recon - 3 interceptor (you have to defend against missiles too!) - 4 bomber (12 bombing runs in a turn which is nice). And you can carry missiles too so you need the room.

-I would change the building costs to following:
carrier: 33 (stealth bomber is 30 and it's now much powerful than before)
battleship: 27
aegis cruiser: 22
nuclear (ballistic) sub: 14
submarine: 11
destroyer: 11

Quite some changes but give it a thought.

[korn469]

destroyers definitely should have but battleships I would say not, they are not the pursuit kind of ships

ok so naval ships with ZOC in the blitz mod are

Privateer
Destroyer
Submarine (attack)
Aegis Cruiser

how does that sound?

for a ballistic sub (ssgn) the stats are ok just for me and I think also generally nuclear sub means a (attack)sub driven by nuclear reactor which is a good thing because it makes the sub much quieter which is essential for survive.

actually from what i've read a modern diesel powered sub is quiter since it runs off of battery power, and you can't detect it from space since it doesn't have a nuclear reactor, but it can't run as far or as fast as a nuclear sub...either way they are dangerous

And also decrease ballistic sub movement to 9. They are slow beasts

ok so that means we'd have the following

attack sub
16.6.10 zoc
ballastic missile sub
10.14.9

I found that with carriers set to carry footunits only you cannot rebase to the carrier. I think you've done that to make stealth craft unable to use carriers (unfortunately now no one can). I've done it another way and this works. Set stealt craft to tactical missiles. This makes them unable to rebase to carrier while other planes can and isn't changing the stealth's behaviour at all.

may i see the save game? because only fighters were supposed to rebase to the carriers and not bombers

but if not the tactical missile thing sounds like it will work

should lower the movement of partisans to 3.

then they can't retreat from tanks, cavalry, or riders...i gave them such a high movement because there isn't a retreat flag for so units, so this means that guerrilla units need high movement to retreat

also considering that turns are a year long, and they don't have much of a supply infrastructure to worry about, maybe on the operational scale they can move as fast
maybe not though

And I would set leg/light infantry units to see subs. It likely comes to attention for the troops when a group of armed bandits assaulting civilians and pillaging

helicopters can see subs, so air mobile infantry can counter partisans
also i'm thinking of making a commando/special forces unit made to counter these units

We could add in a recon plane, would be very useful.
There's graphic also for an e3c-sentry plane at some other mod.
Comes with electronics or something else. Cost around 10. immobile air unit with 10 oprange with 2 defense and radar + see sub ability. Requires oil+rubber or else. recon+rebase mission only.

i have already thought about this, but there isn't an air recon AI type, and with those stats it wouldn't have an AI type and the AI wouldn't use it
one other thing the editor limits op range to 8

I still need the air-to-surface missiles, especially on carriers.
I made this unit and tested and it works great.
An immobile airunit with oprange 8 and 1 defense. It's being set to cruise missile but NOT tactical missile in order to use with carriers. Cost and power is half of the cruise missile. It could be invented with rocketry as the cruise missile and also require aluminium to build. AI set to air bombard. rebase andbombing missions. loadable and airliftable.
This one (unlike the cruise missile) could be shot down by enemy interceptors-airdefenses. This adds more tactical versatility I think.

uh, i might be missing something, but why not just switch cruise missiles over to air units? i don't see the niche that this unit would fill if we leave cruise missiles unchanged

According to above changes the carriers capacity should be extended.
I think carry 10 is optimal in the new circumstances.
A standard aerial contingent would be 3 recon - 3 interceptor (you have to defend against missiles too!) - 4 bomber (12 bombing runs in a turn which is nice). And you can carry missiles too so you need the room.

ok even if recon units would work, why would you need 3? most players would just load in 3 extra bombers, also the units are fighter bombers, so they can do both...and as it the carrier currently carriers 5 units, those units should either be fighters, jet fighters, or F-15's so with fighters you can do 7 bombing runs and still have 3 fighters on air superiority, and with jet fighters/F-15's you can do 12 bombing runs and still have 3 units on air superiority...so i don't see the need for carriers that carry a ton more units

I would change the building costs to following:
carrier: 33 (stealth bomber is 30 and it's now much powerful than before)
battleship: 27
aegis cruiser: 22

the thing about a carrier is that it doesn't have any natural attack ability, so it is going to take you between 500-750 shields to load it with aircraft, and a battleship at those cost would be ineffective against destroyers, ie 2 battleships would cost about the same as 5 destoyers or 5 submarines, and i'm fairly certain that the 5 destroyers would come on top most of the time and that 5 submarines would always come out on top...and again the Aegis cruiser needs to carry 180 shields worth of cruise missiles before it is effective

the reason why a stealth bomber costs so much is that in a single turn a stealth bomber can rebase to virtually anywhere in the world, and launch two attacks that are virtually impossible to stop, so it has more verstillity and is less vulnerable than an aircraft carrier, that is also why they require so many resources

still though, good ideas thanks for the comments

i'm going to go test aircraft carriers right now

[lockstep]

Originally posted by korn469
while a size 30 foodbox with 2 pop settlers could possibly be the best overall way to go since it would slow down all parts of the game slightly, free settlers would be just as unbalancing, and it would be better if we could cut them off if they are deemed to be too much of an advantage (though personally i don't find the occasional one to be completely unbalancing)

You're completely right, and I stand corrected.

did it have bad terrain? was there any other apparent reason why it did so bad?

Neither bad terrain nor any other apparent reason. I might add that the Greeks, which were nearly bottled in by jungle, managed to found 8 cities (6 in the area around their starting position, 2 in leftover spots).

i'll fix this, but a question...did the legions retreat like fast units, or was it simply units that survived the attacks that retreated?

Simply units that survived. Sorry for the mistakable wording.

a couple other questions

*which civ won the game?
*what year did they win?

The game ended in 1968. Of the original 8 civs, 3 were eliminated during the game: the French (conquered by the Russians), the Greeks (portioned between the Romans and me, playing as the Chinese), and the Japanese (portioned between the Romans and the Indians after sneak-attacking me while I had numerous MPP'S). When I managed to build the U.N. with a slight tech lead (thanks to the Theory of Evolution), the Romans and the Russians were eligible beside me, and the two small civs still present (the Indians and the Zulus), although plenty presented by me, voted for Catherine.

*did you notice anything in the modern, or industrial eras?

Nothing special in this game. But I'd like to mention that in my second monarch game with the regular version 1.17f, I witnessed an AI civ using espionage for the first time. Playing as the Chinese and having conquered a tiny Japanese civ, the English were my new neighbors to the north. Suddenly my foreign advisor told me that 'The production of Kyoto has been sabotated'.

[korn469]

Neither bad terrain nor any other apparent reason. I might add that the Greeks, which were nearly bottled in by jungle, managed to found 8 cities (6 in the area around their starting position, 2 in leftover spots).

in my last games the greeks spread like weeds, since the greeks and the indians are both commericial, i am wondering if the indians low aggression has something to do with this...though in my last game they didn't have this problem

Simply units that survived. Sorry for the mistakable wording.

no problem, i have been doing research on the roman legion today and have been thinking about special units in general

roman legions were one of the most dominating military forces of the ancient world, and yet in civ3 with their increased defense they certainly aren't feared throughout the world

here is a quote from the historian Josephus who saw them in action first hand

Their perfect discipline welds the whole into a single body; so compact are their ranks, so alert their movements in wheeling, so quick their ears for orders, their eyes for signals, their hands for tasks

plus we know they provided the bulk of the labor for road construction in the empire...so if i has the proper tools i would make legions have the following special abilities

*they would start at veteran instead of regular, and if built in a city with a barracks they would be elite
*they could build roads
*they would have double movement on roads

however that isn't possible, so i am looking at other ways to make them feared yet in CSU balance

I'd like to mention that in my second monarch game with the regular version 1.17f, I witnessed an AI civ using espionage for the first time. Playing as the Chinese and having conquered a tiny Japanese civ, the English were my new neighbors to the north. Suddenly my foreign advisor told me that 'The production of Kyoto has been sabotated'.

the greeks tried to plant a spy in my empire on several occasions when we were at war...so the AI does use espionage with the new patch

[lockstep]

Originally posted by korn469
the greeks tried to plant a spy in my empire on several occasions when we were at war...so the AI does use espionage with the new patch

AI's trying to plant a spy (and failing) was already a feature of v1.07f IIRC. What was absolutely new to me was an AI dealing with 'active' covert action.

[solo]

korn,

Well, I managed an OCC win in the regular game with 1.17f, so I am back. Winning these OCC games at deity are still pretty much the exception rather than the rule, although Toe Truck and I have made some of progress refining our strategies for doing it.

As for the missing icons question, it was just out of curiosity, as playability matters much more to me than looks, too. Don't look to me for any artwork either!

When I spoke about needing research capability from the mid Industrial Ages and onwards, it was from the prospective of an OCC deity player. One city does not provide enough income to make the purchase tech strategy work, later in the game. A lot of the income generated goes out for rental of strategic resources and luxuries, too. Also, at this time the AI are able to pay pre 1.17f gold/turn amounts for new techs, too. In the game I just completed, I gained around 100 gpt from the AI in payment for each free tech that I got from Theory of Evolution. It was just like the good old days, prior to 1.17f, as I was able to max out science afterwards and still be making a profit of over 100 gpt! In addition, the carrying costs of a library and university are only 3gpt, and building science wonders still seems to be a very profitable investment of shields, as there are times when you want to hurry up the acquisition of some techs.

Now with more cities to multiply income, plus the stock exchanges in your mod and the added income from Wall Street, I would surely agree that maximizing income would be the most efficient way to proceed, and would give it the priority. I think there would be enough profit to engage in hobbies, such as building scientific wonders, too, rather than just trading shields for coins and counting up all my gold.

[kettyo]

Originally posted by korn469
ok so naval ships with ZOC in the blitz mod are

Privateer
Destroyer
Submarine (attack)
Aegis Cruiser

how does that sound?

sounds good

Originally posted by korn469
actually from what i've read a modern diesel powered sub is quiter since it runs off of battery power, and you can't detect it from space since it doesn't have a nuclear reactor, but it can't run as far or as fast as a nuclear sub...either way they are dangerous

It seems you're more up-to-date in warfare technology.

Originally posted by korn469
ok so that means we'd have the following

attack sub
16.6.10 zoc
ballastic missile sub
10.14.9

Absolutely.

Originally posted by korn469
may i see the save game? because only fighters were supposed to rebase to the carriers and not bombers

but if not the tactical missile thing sounds like it will work

OK I attach it. It's your game I just renamed it. You have a carrier outside New York and also an F15 there.

Originally posted by korn469
then they can't retreat from tanks, cavalry, or riders...i gave them such a high movement because there isn't a retreat flag for so units, so this means that guerrilla units need high movement to retreat

Ok.

Originally posted by korn469
i have already thought about this, but there isn't an air recon AI type, and with those stats it wouldn't have an AI type and the AI wouldn't use it
one other thing the editor limits op range to 8

I understand. The point of this unit would have been to search for submarines/partisans. The problem with recon mission is that it takes up all your movement points, that's why helicopter is not very useful because it could find the partisan but can't airdrop in the same turn so the partisan will leave. Another problem is that carriers can't hold helicopters. I think carriers must have long range antisub aircrafts. Just think of the p3c-orion, it searches for subs far away from the carrier (as in "harpoon"). It's important because you need not to clear every parts of the surrounding waters with destroyers as you advance with the carrier force and you will probably be unable to do that when you're a relatively small civ (for instance living on an island). And when you search with planes you don't have any risk, when with destroyers there's a big chance that the sub will sense the destroyer first which is most likely the doom of the ship (it's real). Aircraft carriers are also deadly subhunters. Another thing I feel partisans are too powerful now not mainly because of speed but invisibility. And still no ground forces can see them I recommend set fighters, jet fighters, and f-15s to see subs. This helps with carriers against subs and also with finding partisans.

Originally posted by korn469
uh, i might be missing something, but why not just switch cruise missiles over to air units? i don't see the niche that this unit would fill if we leave cruise missiles unchanged

The tactical difference between the two missile units in my mind would have been the doubled range of the air version but the disadvantage of being shot down. So land version is useful against close units with air support (on offense) and air version is useful for attacking enemies unreachable with land missiles (4-8 tiles away) most notably escaping damaged enemy units which are generally out of range of land missiles, and enemy cities (without air support) which otherways could only be lowered by bombing because of the city bombing bug, units inside will remain relatively untouched while the city collapses around them. I tested that and the air missile hits the units so bombing bug worked around somewhat. Although you might be right that half cost/power is pointless. They could be same as land missile.
Do You think that advantage of doubled range is on par with disadvantage of being shot down?
When you find this a good idea we could rename the missiles to "surface-to-surface missile(SSM)" and "air-to-surface missile(ASM)" but that's not necessary.

Originally posted by korn469
ok even if recon units would work, why would you need 3? most players would just load in 3 extra bombers, also the units are fighter bombers, so they can do both...and as it the carrier currently carriers 5 units, those units should either be fighters, jet fighters, or F-15's so with fighters you can do 7 bombing runs and still have 3 fighters on air superiority, and with jet fighters/F-15's you can do 12 bombing runs and still have 3 units on air superiority...so i don't see the need for carriers that carry a ton more units

You can oversee your entire mod which i can't i usually just see one section.
When we add in the airmissiles there might be need for some more place on the carrier but regarding cost and everything you know the balances.

[korn469]

solo and kettyo

i'm editing the mod and doing some play testing so beta7.4 will be out in about an two hours unless i run into something unforeseen

one thing is i think i proved the air bombard bug exists...100 attacks with 1000 strength bombers vs. 80 hp of 1 defense units in a size 1 no facility city, and i had 67 failures...so it looks likes air bombards always uses a random number to decide if the bombard is going to strike buildings, population, or units...no matter if one or more of those aren't in the city

the hoover dam bug means that a hoover dam is in all cities no matter if you have a factory and even if you build another type of powerplant

hehe and it looks like bombard won't destroy an aqueduct for some strange reason

anyways back to work, thanks for the comments, i read them and pretty much agree with what you said, more depth later

[kettyo]

korn,

regarding partisans they tend to roam through our territory unimpeded in peacetime as well because of invisibility. it's not good i would tell their leaders not to do so but stealing plans everytime for that reason isn't working.
I suggest also for this reason leg infanrty units see partisans so i can see them at least when they pass by our cities at peacetime then i could sit on their leaders.
Armor and mech.inf. must not see them for interesting gameplay.