MOD: Patch suggestion MOD

[lockstep]

Originally posted by alexman
So a tech that would cost 1000 beakers to research if nobody known knows it, drops to 750 to research by civ2 if civ1 and civ3 already know it (assuming 8 civs in the game).

Have I completely lost it?

I guess you're right, but have forgotten one thing: The amount of gold that civ2 has to forgo by researching a tech (say 750 gold due to tech devaluation) and the amount of gold that civ2 would give to civ1 or civ3 for this tech is not necessarily the same. I'd say, the latter is a lot less.

[player1]

If anybody cares, version 1.25 is uploaded at civ3.com website too.

[Zabba149]

Originally posted by player1
If anybody cares, version 1.25 is uploaded at civ3.com website too.

I care Player1!! Keep up the good work!!!

[Moth]

Longbow Upgrades

A missguided message by me to player1, continued here for open discussion.


quote:Moth

You have chosen to upgrad longbowmen to riflemen. What would it take to create a new unit, Morter Infintry? Set this unit up for a 4,4,1 (6,1,2) NO-lethal land w/ZOC for instance. This would give the bow units something to upgrade to, aswell as giving the the helocopters an artilery unit to transport . Aswell I do like the idea that =DrJambo= used with his bows by giving them the 0 bombardment, they would back up the footsolders that is historicaly accurate. Setting there original cost may be necessary.


player1

While idea for extra unit looks fine, it would need extra graphic, and further rebalanicng.

And somehow mortar units don't have so long range to have 1 tile distance bombard (at lest in my opinion). And Infantry units are supossed to have all grande-type and protable artillery-type weapons by default.

Mortar units would come into play in the Industrial Ages probably with Replaceable Parts or at the advent of Mass Production. The unit would be, essentially, a combination between the current MI and Artillery. Your statement that Infantry squads would have these abilities by default is flawed for the time, as bazookas, grenade launchers, and even portable rocketry of today are all forms of LOS weapens. Mortar units in WWII were set up in small squads, 3-6 men normally, that could lob concussion ordinance at a coordinated or communicated position without regard to LOS.

player1

As you have already seen original name of this MOD is "Patch suggestion MOD". So I make chages which could likely be implemented in one rebalancing patch.
This is very CONSERVATIVE MOD. (if it works, don't chage, if it's broken, fix it)

You have a great point here! (-: This mod may be the wrong place for this unit. However, the unit, in conjuction with the archers 0 bombardment, would be very accurate and the unit would lose its effectiveness in the modern era as the bombers and MT become more prevalent. It just sounds soo good!

player1

As for bombard range 0 for Archers, while it look like interseting idea, there is one small problem.
If you give that ability to bowmen units, you'll need to give it to musketmen (for same reason), then for Infantry, Tanks, etc...
At the end all post renesance unit would have this ability.
And balancing all these units with new abilities would need a lot of time.

I don't agree with the correlation between bow units and musketmen/infantry or tanks. Here's the reasons: bow units, except for very brief periods in history, were not the primary assult units nor front line fighters, they were support units, ie when seigeing a castle, archers would lob arrows over the walls to try to thin out the forces inside. Footsolders, like musketmen and infantry, were the front line units and could not be used in the same capacity. While tanks became armored fast attack front line vehicles that replaced the unarmered dragoons and cavalry, they would take land but not hold it. I could see where you might even give an argument for tanks to have this ability but game balance would surely be an issue. On the other hand I could possibly see giving a 0 bombardment of some sort to Mech Infantry...

It sounds plausible.

[player1]

But Infantry units could be easily used in same support misssions as archers. Right?

Now I try to make thing consistent, if one unit can do it, simialar one should not be restricted. If giving ability to lots of units, then it would need A LOT of playtesting, too much for me (and don't forget that AI would probabaly don't know how to use them propely).

And Archers the way it is are not bad at all, esapcialy since pop rush shields are reduced to 20 in 1.21f patch.

As for Mortar units, idea is FINE, but if would like when my Tanks lose from Infantry to say: "Too bad, some of them had mortars and Bazookas!"

Or from Rilfemen: "Too bad, some of them have smuggled some mortars and Bazookas from my empire!"

[=DrJambo=]

Good discussion here....

About archers, bowmen and longbowmen:

The main reason to implement this change was to rebalance these units with the other offensive troops of their era (swordsmen, horsemen and knights). The longbowman comes out around the same period as the knight and as it stood was severely underpowered and not worth building. Poorer defence and movement albeit the knight cost a little more. Muskets, riflemen, infantry are all as they stand suitably effective for their time period without any further modifications, although i have to admit giving them a similar capability did cross my mind.

Moth gives a very valid and justifiable reason which can validate this addition. Bowmen were support troops mainly becasuse they could fire over their own advancing infantry. Muskets, rifles and machine guns all need a clear line of sight. Try it out, you'll see the AI use the bowmen types very effectively now.

As far as a suitable upgrade goes, i like the idea suggested by Moth. One would need suitable animation and to test whether the AI used the unit effectively and not to the exclusion of another unit.

Other than the rifleman another option would to upgrade them to the marine?! One could also add a similar 0 range bombard value to them to increase their usefulness in relation to tanks and make them useful support units?! Options are endless....

[Moth]

To compare apples to apples... (-:

But Infantry units could be easily used in same support misssions as archers. Right?

Now I try to make thing consistent, if one unit can do it, simialar one should not be restricted. If giving ability to lots of units, then it would need A LOT of playtesting, too much for me (and don't forget that AI would probabaly don't know how to use them propely).

The qualifiers and examples that I used, you have overlooked... The Primary mission of archers was to support the front line units. The primary mission of most firearm carrying infantry units, whether they are using a harquebus, M-1 or M-16, is to get into direct conflict with the enemy units. e.g. Just because B-25's flew off of a carrier durring WWII, doesn't mean that they should now be reclassified as carrier plains, they are still land based bombes. (I understand that this game doesn't distinguish between bomber types and it is not necessary for game progession) My point being, bow units are support units, primarily, and the game doesn't use them as such when it easly could.

As for Mortar units, idea is FINE, but if would like when my Tanks lose from Infantry to say: "Too bad, some of them had mortars and Bazookas!"

Or from Rilfemen: "Too bad, some of them have smuggled some mortars and Bazookas from my empire!"

Anti-tank/bunker busting weopons were carried my most reg. infantry units in one form or another, granads or BARs being the most common however it was not very easy to to assult a tank with them. Special units, i.e. engeniers or rangers, were trained for assulting bunkers, fortifications and clearing other hazards. Their equipment would do a great job on tanks as well. Armor percing rockets like the bazooka(HE,AP), the satchal charge, and molotov cocktails were commen for these type of units and sometimes implemented in heavy infantry units aswell.
Mortars, which were not normaly carried by a reg. infantry squad, are anti-personel weopons. Their concussion and ability to arch over obsticals made them great for breaking morale aswell. The're less effective on tanks, however because they weren't accurate enough.
Mortars are used much like the English used their logbow units.


=DrJambo='s idea of using the marine would be a great compromise to see if it works. Since I have used the marine about as much as I have used the bow units it might make them all a bit more popular, that is if the AI can use these abilities aswell.

[player1]

minor update posted

Version 1.26 is out!
Download from first page of this thread.


Changes in ver 1.26

Mech. Inf. has no more offense AI flag selected (has only defense AI flag now).
Since AI used too much Mech. Inf. instead of Tanks when planning attacks (and built Tanks rarely). This should fix that AI behavior.

[=DrJambo=]

heheh i did that with mech infantry too!

if you're first to test this let me know if it works...

[player1]

It worked in 1.17f

I suppose it will work here too.

Anyone who plays this MOD and has NO probelms with new AI setting should post here for feedback.
(I can't run 10 test games to Modern era to see is this working or not)

[kettyo]

I enjoy your mod very much.
Only one note.
AI civs are too passive, don't really like going to war with each other.
Could you increase AI aggressiveness some?
It's 1.21 related or related to your mod? (maybe the higher wealth rate)
Thanks for the mod anyways.

[player1]

AI agressiveness isn't modified compared to original settings.

Now, you could try to edit agressive behavior of AIs in editor (rules chages: civilizations menu in editor), but that way they would all behave as Germans or Zulus (they have maximum agressivity), which could become boring.


Or maybe try playing with some more agressive civs: Like Zulus, Germans, Romans, etc...


Now, Civ3 v1.21f patch is used as base for changes done in MOD (v1.26), anything not chaged in this MOD, is same as in 1.21f patch.

You need that patch to play this MOD.

[kettyo]

I would reconsider giving the stealth fighter lethal bombard because you couldn't really defend yourself against stealth attacks at all.
So i think it isn't good for gameplay to have the lethal bombard for them.
For instance that way with some stealth bombers and fighters someone could sink a carrier full of aircraft which has no real chance of survival against stealth with lethal bombard.

[kettyo]

I also suggest increasing movement rating of all post-railroad naval units.
Because you can travel unlimited distances through railroads in a turn you should increase naval movement speed to make the military model a bit more real.

You could also make them "all terrain as roads" units and so after battling another unit (and have won), they'll have less movement points remain (simulates the duration of the naval battle well)

[player1]

The problem with Naval movment is that you CAN'T increase air movment (max of 8 points in editor), so that way you get quick ships and slow bombers.