MOD: korn's Blitz Mod

[TechWins]

Elucidus,

I had no intentions of offending you, and I'm sorry if I did.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And what does what I did with the production levels have to do with anything?

You said this:

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:

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.

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.

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.

Also, I never said it won't improve the game.

I never stated that you did say that.

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.

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.

I guess I'll just send my info directly to Korn next time.

I believe you were in the first place.

1) cities without any workers starve

do you care to share your idea of how to make this possible?

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.

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]

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

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

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

[lockstep]

Originally posted by korn469
the basic problems with 3 food req pop are the following

*the despotism tile penalty slows down growth too much, but it is really vital to government balance

IMO it's fairly important, but a worker rate of 1 for despotism (already included in your mod) is a large penalty in itself.

*maintaining the same level of growth is hard to do

I don't think that's a bad thing. (I'd change the food box size to 30 for towns if it were possible.)

*starving enemy cities is too easy

Hmm. Could you give your reasoning, korn?

what i would like is to achieve the following two things

1) cities without any workers starve

I totally agree. Another exploit closed.

2) cities established in deserts and tundra starve if no specials or food improvements exists

I might add: but they don't starve if either specials or food improvements exist.

that is all i want to do, but i might have figured out a way to simulate the first aim without changing food

I'm really curious about it.

[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.

[kettyo]

Originally posted by korn469
if we change cruise missiles to air units a number of problems comes up

*we lose the foot soldier trick, so it would be impossible to seperate it so that nuclear subs carry them and tac nukes and Aegis cruisers just carry them
*air interception rates are 90% so they would all get shot down without air superiority, or 9% with stealth, compared to 0% right now

I didn't mean about changing cruise missiles to air units but adding a new air missile unit while keeping the land based missile. Anyways air units could only be transported by units set to aircraft carriers so the air missile would only be transported by carriers. So the air version would be really usable for bombing and destroying units in cities (city bombing bug isn't affecting this) with it's 8 oprange. Cruise missiles are often unusable for that because of the 4 oprange. The disadvantage would be that it could only be used with some air superiority which is not so bad in terms of reality because ground support raids require some air superiority. The air version would be also useful for crushing damaged enemy units far away (when having air superiority). Only problem might be that it would make naval invasions more difficult but could be solved with making the air version unable to destroy ships when it'll be possible with the new patch.
What do You think about this?

Originally posted by korn469
when the patch comes out all of the planes that land on aircraft carriers will be able to sink ships

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.

[Tridotan1]

BIQ REQUEST:

Could someone make some really cool graphics for the Partisan, Colonist and all the other added units?

Kentonio maybe.

[korn469]

lockstep

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

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]

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?

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

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]

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.

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).

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.

[kettyo]

Invading partisans?

korn,

one more suggestion.
make the partisans unable to airlift/load onto ships.
they are local resistance forces.
it's quite funny to see partisans as invasion forces (although the ai don't like to do that) or going to the other part of the world for a battle.

[korn469]

No, you're wrong
I've tested it and neither nukesub/aegis could load it so nothing disrupted.

i'm sorry
so what settings allow aircruise missiles to load into subs and cruisers but only allows nukes to load into subs?

[kettyo]

Originally posted by korn469
i'm sorry
so what settings allow aircruise missiles to load into subs and cruisers but only allows nukes to load into subs?

Sorry but i don't really understand.
According to changes:

-carriers carry air-to-surface missiles and ofcourse fighters,jetfighters,f15-s
-cruisers carry cruisemissiles
-nukesubs carry cruisemissiles+nuke warheads

isn't that correct ?

[Tridotan1]

Korn,

I think that you should stop trying to save the Man-o-war and simply get rid of it and replace it with the Royal Marine(replaces Marine)

Some pictures of Royal Marines and the Royal Navy website

Give the Royal Marine 10 attack as apposed to 8, or something like that.

Sorry about the Hyperlink, I didn't know how to insert a picture.

Could anyone who agrees with me about the English SU needing changing to the Royal Marine please post their support.

[kettyo]

Originally posted by Tridotan1
I think that you should stop trying to save the Man-o-war and simply get rid of it and replace it with the Royal Marine(replaces Marine)

Good idea but i don't know if british marines are more famous than americans?

I think the most famous "unit" of the english through all times might be their archers. They utterly crushed the army of french knights in the battle of azincourt in 1415 among numerous other famous/infamous victories.

Some info about the battle of azincourt

[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]

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