View Full Version : Civilization Realism SZO Mod?
I posted this at the end of the abysmally bloated Civilzation IV thread, but I figure I'll make a new thread for it.
With the wealth of talent and knowledge sitting around here at SZO, why don't we think about pooling ideas together to make a realism mod for the game?
At the moment, the main things that can be modified are Units, Events, and the Interface, possibly a few other things (like Techs), I haven't looked real indepth on that yet.
Between gobeavs and I (yeah I'm just gonna volunteer him) and I'm sure a few people might also pop up if we get rolling, I think we can handle the implementation side, so this would mainly just require the SZO community to input ideas, toy with how to balance them all, and of course - playtest!
Edit - I'm going to sticky this for the moment, for two reasons. One I want people to notice, and two... I haven't done any modding and I want to sticky something. If it gets rolling we'll want it stickied anyway, and if not, I'll unstick it. :laugh:
Between gobeavs and I (yeah I'm just gonna volunteer him)
Only if I get the highest pay-grade.
Only if I get the highest pay-grade.
Third highest.
I get first.
Doctor Sinister gets second.
*looks over his shoulder*
Err wait, Doctor Sinister gets first, I get second, you can have third.
Third highest.
I get first.
Doctor Sinister gets second.
*looks over his shoulder*
Err wait, Doctor Sinister gets first, I get second, you can have third.
The men at the door say Dr. S gets first, second, and third. You and I get fourth and fifth :(.
Dang. Oh well.....this will better simulate the real life of a programmer anyway, won't it? :p
EDIT: Sticky'ing always feels nice....even if its just you and I Overseer, we'll make it world-class anyway - so it will need the sticky.
I've been trying to think of a good way to fix the unit issue at least initially, and the only thing I can think is just having a HUGE jump in the unit strength for units of certain tech levels. Really, a Civil War cavalry unit would have next to no chance against an equivalent sized (say division vs. division) unit of Abrams tanks. So why should their game strength be as close as they are? Why not have certain tech levels laid out so that there are say 4 tiers of units, and the difference in the tiers are just more stark than they are in the game now?
Edit - I should add there are some obvious effects of this but I don't think they're entirely negative.
The obvious effect is that by tech racing up a tier you gain a massive advantage against someone a tier (and especially more) below. However, this does two things:
First, I think it's an accurate way to show how civilizations that fall significantly behind do in fact vanish. Think of the colonization of the new world.
Second, it encourages play on harder difficulties where the AI has a better chance of keeping up with the player.
So....even if people can't help, you can still provide input! Just for some preliminary ideas, what should be fixed? Panzers should always beat spearmen, so that should be the first order of business...what else?
Land Units
Unit Name - Vanilla Strength - Enabling Tech - Tech Level
Archer - 3 - Archery - 1
Skirmisher (Archer) - 4 - Archery - 1
ChoKuNu (Crossbow) - 6 - Machinery/Archery - 3
Crossbowman - 6 - Machinery/Archery - 3
Longbowman - 6 - Feudalism/Archery - 3
Chariot - 4 - Wheel - 1
War Chariot (Chariot)- 5 - Wheel - 1
Immortal (Chariot) - 4 -Wheel - 1
Horse Archer - 6 - Horseback Riding/Archery - 1
Keshik (Horse Archer) - 6 Horseback Riding/Archery - 1
War Elephant - 8 - Construction - 2
Knight - 10 - Guilds/Horseback Riding - 3
Camel Archer (Knight) - 10 - Guilds/Horseback Riding - 3
Conquistador (Knight) - 10 - Guilds/Horseback Riding - 3
Cavalry - 15 - Military Tradition/Gunpowder/Horseback Riding - 4
Cossack (Cavalry) - 18 - Military Tradition/Gunpowder/Horseback Riding - 4
Gunship - 20 - Rocketry/Flight - 6
Tank - 28 - Industrialism/Rifling - 5
Panzer (Tank) - 28 - Industrialism/Rifling - 5
Modern Armor - 40 - Composites/Flight/Computers - 6
Quechua (Warrior) - 2 - None - 1
Warrior - 2 - None - 1
Axeman - 5 - Bronze Working - 1
Spearman - 4 - Hunting - 1
Phalanx (Spearman)- 5 - Hunting - 1
Swordsman - 6 - Iron Working - 2
Jaguar (Swordsman) - 5 - Iron Working - 2
Praetorian (Swordsman) - 8 - Iron Working - 2
Pikeman - 6 - Engineering - 3
Maceman - 8 - Civil Service/Machinery - 3
Samurai (Maceman) - 8 - Civil Service/Machinery - 3
Grenadier - 12 - Chemistry - 4
Musketman - 9 - Gunpowder - 4
Musketeer (Musketman) - 9 - Gunpowder - 4
Rifleman - 14 - Rifling - 4
Redcoat (Rifleman) - 16 - Rifling - 4
Machine Gun - 18 - Railroad - 5
Infantry - 20 - Assembly Line/Rifling - 5
SAM Infantry - 18 - Rocketry - 6
Marine - 24 - Industrialism/Rifling - 5
Navy SEAL (Marine) - 24 - Industrialism/Rifling - 5
Mechanized Infantry - 32 - Robotics/Rifling - 6
Catapult - 5 - Construction - 2
Cannon - 12 - Steel - 5
Artillery - 18 - Artillery - 6 * The Artillery tech is in level 5, but for differentiation level 6
Those are the land units grouped generally by when they're accessible within their type, I think I have all the orders right. I see a couple of problems, such as the fact that artillery lacks enough units to fit many tiers, we might need to create some new types depending on how we want to group units together.
Looks like we should put a larger gap between horsemen and tanks...to make up for that should we add an intermediate unit, like an early tank? Around combat of 26, and bump up the tank/panzer to the 30's or 40's?
EDIT: Looks like the gap between modern times, and the pre 1900's era is not as wide as historically it should be, because of the rapid technology advancement in the 20th century....should we widen that gap across the board?
And this may be looking ahead a little far, but we can also represent the technology advancement in movement and other attributes besides combat.
Looks like we should put a larger gap between horsemen and tanks...to make up for that should we add an intermediate unit, like an early tank? Around combat of 26, and bump up the tank/panzer to the 30's or 40's?
Well adding an early tank wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea, it would depend on how we worked out the levels of everything. I mean what the game considers Cavalry vs. Tank did basically exist on the battlefield at the same time.
EDIT: Looks like the gap between modern times, and the pre 1900's era is not as wide as historically it should be, because of the rapid technology advancement in the 20th century....should we widen that gap across the board?
I think we should play around with how to group units together and then from there decide on how much we need to fill in. The main problem with filling is that it'll require modifying the tech tree significantly. If we're basically just adding in new Artillery pieces, I think we can easily fit them in with existing techs, but adding in too many additional levels of other units without expanding the tech tree I think will just make too many different units appearing in too short of a time in the game (which while we may want to do eventually, will require a lot of planning an tweaking to offset getting units constantly).
And this may be looking ahead a little far, but we can also represent the technology advancement in movement and other attributes besides combat.
I wouldn't adjust that too much necessarily. Maybe only giving some of the later things like Modern Armor and Mech Infantry slightly larger movement range (like maybe one extra). The scale of the map would still pretty well represent how the conflict should flow in my opinion. The map just isn't big enough to have armor units zipping halfway across the screen.
I'll be checking in here whem my moboard gets replaced. Can only view quickly at work now.
Patrocles
01 Nov 05, 12:09
yeah, go for it! I've never played any of the Civ games but I constantly hear the same complaint about poor/unrealistic combat resolution for all of the games in the series.
That really never bothered me; if that hurts you, you didn't play the game right. However, intelligent playing with values is interesting in itself.
That really never bothered me; if that hurts you, you didn't play the game right. However, intelligent playing with values is interesting in itself.
That's true, if you play it like a Civ world then really you should just accept it and game within the mechanics, however, that doesn't mean that people can't complain that the game mechanics shouldn't be what they are. "You didn't play it right" isn't an excuse for poor design - that said, it's not necessarily that the game has poor design (I mean it's one of the most successful game franchises ever) just that some people love the fundamental basis for the game, but want something a little more realistic.
Doctor Sinister
01 Nov 05, 14:51
The men at the door say Dr. S gets first, second, and third. You and I get fourth and fifth :(.
Dang. Oh well.....this will better simulate the real life of a programmer anyway, won't it? :p
What am I being paid for? Oh never mind, carry on... (goes back to counting big wad of money).
Dr. S.
I mispoke. I mean winning and losing shouldn't turn on a single battle. I build up my resources and production to where a war is won before I engage. Now, it you get "Pearl Harbored" by older tech, I see your point.
I mispoke. I mean winning and losing shouldn't turn on a single battle. I build up my resources and production to where a war is won before I engage. Now, it you get "Pearl Harbored" by older tech, I see your point.
Ahhh yeah, I agree completely. If you don't go in with sufficient units knowing that the game plays as it does, you fully deserve it. :laugh: I've learned my lesson in the Civ IV engine. The game I'm playing now, when I went to conquer the second civ in the game, I made sure I had more "Modern Armor" than the enemy had citizens. :D
Anywho, I found the game does hold up at least when it's Longbowman vs. Modern Armor... so maybe the difference in strength between the two there is a good baseline haha.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.