StellarRat

I didn't mess with much for the SLBMs . I basically copied the SRBM and changed the label to SLBM. This was important because I needed SLBMs to follow a longer tech tree. In my tech tree the SLBM and SSBM become available at the same time.

You might want to build hundreds of nukes but with the production cost at 500 or something like that its nearly impossible in time frame of an average. It took me literally years of game time to build enough missiles to fill one Nuclearo Missile sub. I reduced the number of missiles they carry to 4 because 8 wasn't practical.

Make to look at the revised set I posted a couple days ago. The ones in this thread are too old.

Tanks do well in open terrain in mobile battles. Against entrenched enemies in closed terrain they suck. One thing that would probably be realistic is to reduce the defense or the offense (or both) of tanks in closed terrain since they can't use their long range weapons as well. I don't know if that can be done in the unit editor right now or not.

I'll buy that. If they can be placed anywhere that's good enough. BTW, I think most spy sat's are LEO (its easier to see when your closer)

Well, the AI in CIV 4 is smart enough to link cities and resources together with roads. I think that's good enough. As far as moving satellites around, I really think you should be able to move them anywhere on the map each turn. That's the way they work in real life. I see no harm in this from a balance perspective. Of course, I suppose it depends on the time scale. But, generally, it can be done fairly quickly. We are talking about objects that are moving at 2000 to 18000 MPH.

Does it really turtle or is it that the AI recognizes that once low lying fruit (at the start of the game) is picked it has to mass up a lot of power to expand? I noticed AI doesn't seem to have much problem with picking on a weak opponent. I think Brit is working on a way for the AI to collect a combined arms force and mass up to the proper numbers to win. From what I've read the AI doesn't understand using destroyers to guard transports and that type of thing. However, this is not an insolvable problem.

Tanks vs. Infantry in city = Bad for Tanks. You really only have three choices in that scenario. Send A LOT of tanks = expensive, flatten the city with artillery and air power = hmm...why did I fight for this place, send in your own infantry = blood running down the streets.

Basically, at that point it would no longer do any attacking i.e. moving toward the enemy, but it would still defend while trying to fulfill it's "broken" status protocol. So, let's say I order an armored unit to attack a city. The attack goes badly and the armored unit reaches it's "broken number" of hits. At that point the armored unit would give up attacking the city i.e. no more calculations would be done to damage the target units. At this point, we would consider that the armored unit has broken contact with the enemy. So, now, let's say the "broken action" that unit type has is "withdraw", basically the unit just quits attacking. It just pulls back 180 degrees to be right outside the unit circle of the enemy and nothing else happens that turns as far as combat is concerned. Now, of course, on the enemy turn your opponent may see that you are ripe for counter-attack. When the enemy counter-attacks "broken" units automatically move away from the enemy in the direction that is most favorable for their defense. So, an armored unit would probably just move back down a road not allowing the enemy to maintain contact. An infantry unit would probably move into a woods behind them or mountains, etc... You could even pick a random direction as long as it is away from all known enemy units. (Forced retreats tend to very chaotic in real life.) If the enemy was faster combat would still happen and the unit could defend itself (combat calculations would happen normally) but would still move away to the best of it ability. In the case of airplanes they'd probably just quit attacking and move to the next leg of their orders. Same with ships as long as that didn't lead to further contact with the enemy. If no "next leg" was specified or the next leg put them in further contact with the enemy they would move in a random direction that kept them away from the enemy. Of course, all these retreat moves would be totally out of control of the player. The units just do them and the player can't do anything with the broken units until they are no longer in contact with the enemy for one turn. So, it's quite possible that your land units might retreat until their backs are to the ocean and then die if the enemy presses every turn after they are broken. If a unit was forced by retreat into the unit circle of an enemy the attack calculations would run. It's possible a unit fighting for it's life might breakout of an encirclement or flanking attack. But, odds are since the unit would probably be heavily damaged it would die. This would also make encirclement and flanking valid strategies. This adds strategic depth to the game, but doesn't add micro-management since the computer takes care of the retreating. Another thing you could do to add depth without micro-management is make attack reduce the movement speed of a unit (maybe you already do this). For example: I'd love to be able to drop paratroops (or my special forces units) onto a road to slow down the enemy while I'm trying to take a city on the other side of an island. That way I could hit him with air attacks for a longer period of time before he gets to invasion beach...anyway you get the idea. Of course, this really wouldn't apply to air or sea units as that type of combat is quick and fatal.

Well, I was thinking about that same thing on the way back from the gym tonight. One reason there is little need for boomers is that the nukes are so expensive you really can't build up much of an arsenal. I mean, just buying the missiles to put in my boomer takes about 10 times as long as building the sub. The cost of nuke missiles vs. other weapons is way out of whack, but I bet you did this to prevent a nuke frenzy at the end of the game. I wouldn't really want to play a game where the end was usually nuclear showdown between the two strongest players. First of all, since we don't have the diplomatic tools to truly simulate the effects of nuclear weapons. Second, there wouldn't really be a winner. Third, it's just plain depressing even in a game. I feel guilty every time I nuke a city. However, I put boomers into my rule set because they exist and on a large really big map they might allow you to reach a target that is out of range of your other missiles. Also, you could load them with a bunch of conventional missiles (although I don't allow that now.) Now, one scenario where I could see using a lot nukes is some type of alien invasion scenario. You've given us a very flexible system and as soon as we can easily mod the pictures and sound I could see doing some type of War of the Worlds/Independence Day type of game. Basically, the aliens would start with very high tech but no production while the humans would start with whatever and production. That would be cool! BTW, adding more complexity to the game is something I'm not really in favor of. I like not having to do to any micro-management each turn. If you want to add depth and complexity that happens automatically (computer calculated stuff like auto retreating units or even tracing supply lines) I'm OK with that. But, if you add a bunch of stuff that we have to manage to play a good game, you as well just have us go and buy Strategic Command or Civ 4. Both great games, but way longer especially in multi-player.

My suggestion is to add a "hits to break" field to the unit editor. When the unit reaches the number it then takes the action listed in "broken action" field. Like "return to base" for aircraft or "withdraw " for ships, maybe for ground units it would "stop attacking" or "withdraw to best defensive terrain".

Did you put the AI at Veteran difficulty? I've found it a real.hand full to fight about four veteran level AIs. I think its the best game I've played in a long time.

I made a couple of typos in the first one. This one is corrected. I added Special Forces units that can be moved by plane and sub plus all the other normal methods. They are expensive and weak, but good for scouting. They can seize resources. They are invisible to other units unless they attack or the enemy unit moves on top of them.

You can mod them to make them tougher. Also they can entrench if they sit in one place. They seem pretty tough to me. Maybe they need more bonus for restricted terrian and cities.

Also, concerning satellites: Will we be able to move them after they are launched i.e. "re-task" them?

I don't know if you should go down the road of having units just to move stuff around on land. That smells like pure logistics complications to me. Why don't you just give them the ability to move on land at a slow speed? If they aren't targetted on an enemy you can assume the player is just moving them. They just couldnt go into water squares. Speaking of that...it would be cool if units could have an engineer ability that allows them to building roads.

I knew it! He's a project manager! They're all the same. LOL.

It sounds to me that he will allow them to be placed anywhere on the map when you launch them. Won't that solve your problem?

What does "at target" vs. "unit" mean? What does the nuclear checkbox do? Is there a way to target incoming missiles ie. ABMs?

As far as satellites go; they really should be able to move/be placed anywhere on map anytime. Most military recon satellites can be moved to any location in the world by changing their orbits with little thrusters that are built into the satellite.

You are right. Only the units I listed are modded/added. The subs only change when you get to level 3 or higher. At level 4 they split into the two different types I mentioned. If you look at the tech tree you can see how it works. I considered the level 2 subs to be WW II models (didn't mess with them) and level 3 are the "modern" diesel-electrics. At level three the subs become more dangerous in combat and at level 4 they become much faster..

Well I can't fix the AI. LOL. Maybe Brit will fix that in the future.

OK the subs mod is ready. See my enhanced late era mod post.

I took the standard 1900 - 2030 rules and split the submarines into attack and missile (boomers) subs. I also added some light ASW aircraft meant to used on carriers. There is also heavy maritime patrol plane. Both can find and destroy submarines if they happen to fly close enough to them on their path. One thing you should be aware. I drastically increased the speed of the nuclear powered subs and the damage they can do to other ships and subs. If you come up against a sub of class 3 or higher with a single surface ship you will probably lose. It is now absolutely essential that you escort your transports and other capital ships with multiple destroyers or subs. The great equalizers are the ASW planes I added. They are deadly against subs and don't have to worry about being damaged by them. The boomer will hold up to eight ICBMs and has some limited surface and sub attack ability. The attack sub can carry cruise missiles. I noticed that transporting missiles is difficult, so you pretty have to load them in the port where they are created. Loading up the boomer with a full load is exercise in patience, but you only need one! I also increased the cost of late model subs substantially. One last addition was an AWACS plane. It's basically an expensive flying radar station with no combat ability, but it is useful in keeping tabs on your enemy.

That's a good idea. You could call it the distance multiplier. BTW, what does "at target" vs "unit" mean on the unit edit screen. Also the nuke checkbox. Is there a place to look up how the program calculates chance to hit and chance to detect? Are they any damage formulas or does it just use the amount you plug in for each weapon?