Generic modifcations
This is the thread to discuss any thing related to the generic modification, such as the changes to the units, civilizations, leaderheads and terrains.

GEM Version 5.1
Units
There are no new units added to the game. However, some ability of existing units have been changed. These include:

(Blue: changes in v5.1; Red: changes in v5.0)

Faster armored unit speed:
Unit - cost/strength/move
Tank - 200/28/3
Mech. Infantry - 220/32/4
Mobile Artillery - 220/26/3
Mobile SAM - 240/22/3
Modern Armor - 260/40/4
Gunship - 180/24/4

Faster naval unit speed:
Unit - cost/strength/move
Work boat - 30/0/3
Galley - 50/2/3
Trireme - 50/2/3
Caravel - 60/3/4
Galleon - 80/4/5
Frigate - 90/8/5
Privateer - 80/6/5
Ship of the line - 120/8/4
Ironclad - 100/12/3
Transport - 125/16/6
Destroyer - 200/30/9
Submarine - 150/24/7
Battleship - 300/45/7
Carrier - 280/24/7; cargo space = 4
Stealth Destroyer - 250/30/9
Attack Submarine - 200/30/8
Missile Cruiser - 260/40/8

Generic unit re-balancing:
Unit - cost/strength/move; special ability
Longbowman - 50/5/1; 1 frist strike; +25% city defense; +25% hills defense
Crossbowman - 60/6/1; 1 first strike; +25% vs Melee
Musketman - 80/9/1; +25% vs Melee
Rifleman - 110/14/1; +25% vs Melee; +25% vs Mounted

More powerful unique units:
unit (replace) - cost/strength/move; special ability
Cho-Ko-Nu (Crossbowman) - 60/6/1; +25% vs Melee; 2 first strikes; causes collateral damage
Samurai (Maceman) - 70/9/1;+50% vs Melee; 2 first strikes; starts with Drill I
Beserker (Maceman) - 70/9/1;+50% vs Melee; +10% city attack; starts with Amphibious
Oromo Warrior (Musketman) - 80/9/1; +25% vs Melee
Musketeer (Musketman) - 80/10/2; +25% vs Melee
Janissary (Musketman) - 80/10/1; +25% vs Archery, Mounted, Melee
Redcoat (Rifleman) - 110/15/1; +25% vs Melee, Mounted, Gunpowder
Navy SEAL (Marine) - 160/26/1; +50% att vs Machine Gun, Artillery; 1-2 first strikes; starts with Amphibious and March
Ballista Elephant (War Elephant) - 60/9/1; +50% vs Mounted; doesn't receive defensive bonus; targets Mounted units first in combat outside cities
Numidian Cavalry (Horse Archer) - 50/6/2; +50% att vs Catapult, Trebuchet; +50% vs.. Melee; immune to first strikes; doesn't receive defensive bonuses; can withdraw from combat (20% chance); flank attack against Catapult and Trebuchet; starts with Flanking I
Cataphract (Horse Archer) - 50/8/2; +25% att vs Catapult, Trebuchet; doesn't receive defensive bonuses; flank attack against Catapult and Trebuchet
Keshik (Knight) - 90/12/2; doesn't receive defensive bonuses; 1 first strike, ignores terrain movement cost; can withdraw from combat (20% chance); flank attack against Catapult and Trebuchet
Camel Archer (Knight) - 70/10/2; immune to first strikes; doesn't receive defensive bonuses; can withdraw from combat (15% chance); flank attack against Catapult and Trebuchet
Conquistador (Cuirassier) 100/14/2; +25% vs Melee; immune to first strikes; can withdraw from combat (15% chance); flank attack against Cannon
Cossack (Cavalry) - 100/15/2; +50% att vs Cannon; 50% vs Mounted; doesn't receive defensive bonues; can withdraw from combat (30% chance); flank attack against Cannon
Panzer (Tank) - 200/30/3; +50% vs Armored; doesn't receive defensive bonuses; starts with Blitz
Hwacha (Catapult) - 50/6/1; +50% vs Melee; doesn't receive defensive bonuses; max. 75% damage to enemy, causes collateral damage; immune to collateral damage from Siege Weapons; can bombard city defenses (-8% per turn)
Carrack (Caravel) - 60/3/5; 2 cargo spaces; can explore rival territory
East Indiaman (Galleon) 80/6/5; 4 cargo spaces; can explore rival territory; bombardment ignores Walls and Castles


Terrains/City
There are minor changes:

road movement speed:
Default: 2 -> 3
after Engineering: 3 -> 4

Terrains:
Jungle - Food/Hammer/Coin: -1/0/0 -> 0/0/1
Coast - Food/Hammer/Coin: 1/0/2 -> 1/1/1
Ocean - Food/Hammer/Coin: 1/0/1 -> 1/1/1

Farm:
Corn - Food Yield changes: 2 -> 3
Rice - Food Yield changes: 1 -> 3
Wheat - Food Yield changes: 2 -> 3

Specialist in city:
Merchant - Food Yield changes: 0 -> 1
Great Merchant - Food Yield changes: 1 -> 3


Buildings
Harbor:
+1 commerce on water tiles, +25% commerce from trade routes
Cothon:
+1 commerce on water tiles, +25% commerce from trade routes, +1 trade route


Game speed/World setting
train unit speed (precent of normal):
Marathon: 200 -> 150
Epic: 150 -> 125
Normal: 100
Quick: 67

World Size: Giant (Added)
DefaultPlayers:36
UnitNameModifier:0
TargetNumCities:8
NumFreeBuildingBonuses:10
BuildingClassPrereqModifier:125
MaxConscriptModifier:100
WarWearinessModifier:-75
GridWidth:50
GridHeight:30
TerrainGrainChange:1
FeatureGrainChange:1
ResearchPercent:300
TradeProfitPercent:20
DistanceMaintenancePercent:120
NumCitiesMaintenancePercent:15
ColonyMaintenancePercent:24
CorporationMaintenancePercent:30
NumCitiesAnarchyPercent:5
AdvancedStartPointsMod:150


Civilizations
Currently, there are no new civilizations added to the game, although there are some pseudo-new civ such as Brazil and Nan Yue, which only uses existing leaderhead, unique units and building.


Leaderheads
Currently, there are no new leaderheads added to the game.


GEM Version 5.0

Units
There are no new units added to the game. However, some ability of existing units have been changed. These include:

Faster armored unit speed:
Unit - cost/strength/move
Tank - 200/28/3
Mech. Infantry - 220/32/4
Mobile Artillery - 220/26/3
Mobile SAM - 240/22/3
Modern Armor - 260/40/4
Gunship - 180/24/6

Faster naval unit speed:
Unit - cost/strength/move
Work boat - 30/0/3
Galley - 50/2/3
Trireme - 50/2/3
Caravel - 60/3/4
Galleon - 80/4/5
Frigate - 90/8/5
Privateer - 80/6/5
Ship of the line - 120/8/4
Ironclad - 100/12/3
Transport - 125/16/6
Destroyer - 200/30/9
Submarine - 150/24/7
Battleship - 300/45/7
Carrier - 280/24/7; cargo space = 4
Stealth Destroyer - 250/30/9
Attack Submarine - 180/30/8
Missile Cruiser - 260/40/8

Generic unit re-balancing:
Unit - cost/strength/move; special ability
Longbowman - 50/5/1; 1 frist strike; +25% city defense; +25% hills defense
Crossbowman - 60/6/1; 1 first strike; +25% vs Melee
Musketman - 80/9/1; +25% vs Melee
Rifleman - 110/14/1; +25% vs Melee; +25% vs Mounted

More powerful unique units:
unit (replace) - cost/strength/move; special ability
Cho-Ko-Nu (Crossbowman) - 60/6/1; +25% vs Melee; 2 first strikes; causes collateral damage
Samurai (Maceman) - 70/9/1;+50% vs Melee; 2 first strikes; starts with Drill I
Beserker (Maceman) - 70/9/1;+50% vs Melee; +10% city attack; starts with Amphibious
Oromo Warrior (Musketman) - 80/9/1; +25% vs Melee
Musketeer (Musketman) - 80/10/2; +25% vs Melee
Janissary (Musketman) - 80/10/1; +25% vs Archery, Mounted, Melee
Redcoat (Rifleman) - 110/15/1; +25% vs Melee, Mounted, Gunpowder
Navy SEAL (Marine) - 160/26/1; +50% att vs Machine Gun, Artillery; 1-2 first strikes; starts with Amphibious and March
Ballista Elephant (War Elephant) - 60/9/1; +50% vs Mounted; doesn't receive defensive bonus; targets Mounted units first in combat outside cities
Numidian Cavalry (Horse Archer) - 50/6/2; +50% att vs Catapult, Trebuchet; +50% vs.. Melee; immune to first strikes; doesn't receive defensive bonuses; can withdraw from combat (20% chance); flank attack against Catapult and Trebuchet; starts with Flanking I
Cataphract (Horse Archer) - 50/8/2; +25% att vs Catapult, Trebuchet; doesn't receive defensive bonuses; flank attack against Catapult and Trebuchet
Keshik (Knight) - 90/12/2; doesn't receive defensive bonuses; 1 first strike, ignores terrain movement cost; can withdraw from combat (20% chance); flank attack against Catapult and Trebuchet
Camel Archer (Knight) - 70/10/2; immune to first strikes; doesn't receive defensive bonuses; can withdraw from combat (15% chance); flank attack against Catapult and Trebuchet
Conquistador (Cuirassier) 100/14/2; +25% vs Melee; immune to first strikes; can withdraw from combat (15% chance); flank attack against Cannon
Cossack (Cavalry) - 100/15/2; +50% att vs Cannon; 50% vs Mounted; doesn't receive defensive bonues; can withdraw from combat (30% chance); flank attack against Cannon
Panzer (Tank) - 200/30/3; +50% vs Armored; doesn't receive defensive bonuses; starts with Blitz
Hwacha (Catapult) - 50/6/1; +50% vs Melee; doesn't receive defensive bonuses; max. 75% damage to enemy, causes collateral damage; immune to collateral damage from Siege Weapons; can bombard city defenses (-8% per turn)
Carrack (Caravel) - 60/3/5; 2 cargo spaces; can explore rival territory
East Indiaman (Galleon) 80/6/5; 4 cargo spaces; can explore rival territory; bombardment ignores Walls and Castles


Terrains/City
There are minor changes:

road movement speed:
Default: 2 -> 3
after Engineering: 3 -> 4

Terrains:
Jungle - Food/Hammer/Coin: -1/0/0 -> 0/0/1
Coast - Food/Hammer/Coin: 1/0/2 -> 1/1/1
Ocean - Food/Hammer/Coin: 1/0/1 -> 1/1/1

Farm:
Corn - Food Yield changes: 2 -> 3
Rice - Food Yield changes: 1 -> 3
Wheat - Food Yield changes: 2 -> 3

Specialist in city:
Merchant - Food Yield changes: 0 -> 1
Great Merchant - Food Yield changes: 1 -> 3


Game speed/World setting
train unit speed (precent of normal):
Marathon: 200 -> 150
Epic: 150 -> 125
Normal: 100
Quick: 67

World Size: Giant (Added)
DefaultPlayers:36
UnitNameModifier:0
TargetNumCities:8
NumFreeBuildingBonuses:10
BuildingClassPrereqModifier:125
MaxConscriptModifier:100
WarWearinessModifier:-75
GridWidth:50
GridHeight:30
TerrainGrainChange:1
FeatureGrainChange:1
ResearchPercent:300
TradeProfitPercent:20
DistanceMaintenancePercent:120
NumCitiesMaintenancePercent:15
ColonyMaintenancePercent:24
CorporationMaintenancePercent:30
NumCitiesAnarchyPercent:5
AdvancedStartPointsMod:150


Civilizations
Currently, there are no new civilizations added to the game, although there are some pseudo-new civ such as Brazil and Nan Yue, which only uses existing leaderhead, unique units and building.


Leaderheads
Currently, there are no new leaderheads added to the game.

Message reserved for future information 1

Message reserved for future information 2

Message reserved for future information 3

Message reserved for future information 4

I totally approve your changes, exept:


More powerful unique units:
unit (replace) - cost/strength/move; special ability
Samurai(Maceman) - 70/10/1; +25% vs Melee; 2 first strikes; starts with Drill I
Beserker(Maceman) - 70/10/1; +25% vs Melee; +10% city attack; starts with Amphibious
Musketeer(Musketman) - 80/10/2

This just seems to make the standard Musketman simply more expensive than a Maceman (and even weaker than the cheaper Samurai).:confused:

Yeah, that seems to be a bit of a problem. I have to review it again.

I have been consistently reviewing these changes. Making changes to these values is actually very difficult. As you might aware, I have only increase the armored unit speed from 3 to 4 and leave the mounted unit speed unchange. Reason is that I don't want to be too aggressive in making changes.

I think the original Musketman is too weak. How about increase it's strength to 10?

Double post.

With a Musketman strength of 10 it's still more expensive than the Maceman (who has a bonus vs. melée units). If it costs +10, it should have at least +1 strength above the Maceman - otherwise, why build them? (I'm not sure why Macemen should have strength 10: that's +4 to standard Longbowmen/Crossbowmen, and it equals the Knight strength - who should have a bonus for being mounted warriors. The original 8 strength is well thought out and balanced; basically, if you change 1 standard unit strength, thw whole system should adapt accordingly. The only inbalance in the original strength system is the Byzantine Catphract's 12 - which, again, equals standard Cuirassiers - a Gunpowder unit - and, IMO, unbalances the strength system; they should have strength 10, as Knights, which they actually historically precede - Cataphracts were developed before Knights, not after. Any standard scenario with Byzantines in it implicitly gives them an advantage.)

Sorry for the long reply.:mischief:

I agree with you about Cataphracts; thats why I've changed it to replace Horse Archer, not Knights. Keshik on the other hand is replacing Knights instead of Horse archer.

About the strength of Samurai and Beserker, my intention is to make them more advantageous over other civ. In the original game, the balancing assumed that the game is played on random maps and hence every civ should be equal. In GEM, since the starting locations are pre-determined, some civs are disadvantaged already. These civs include Scandinavia, Mongols and Arabia which deserve to have better special units. Other than these civs, I also want to make Europeans/ Japanese's special units more stronger for them to have a bit more advantage.

So, unless it is obviously too unfair (like the musketman vs Samurai comparison you pointed out), be expected some special units are far more better than others.

OK, some changes to the unit abilities.

Early musketman were not that great. In the 1600's armies had a lot of pikeman in there rangs for example. They were also very expencive, so that only kings could have them in there armies and not nobleman, and this lead the way to absolute monachies and the end of feudal armies, and in France to musketiers.

Already nice job BTW, I'm looking forward to you 1940 scenario.

@SadoMacho: OK, cool. But in-game there should be some incentive to switch from Melée units to Musketmen; if they're just more expensive, that doesn't work.

@Genghis_Kai: Your replies seemvalid to me; also, the Samurai is a bad example as, contrary to popular depiction, they eventually were used as Musketmen once Gunpowder reached Japan.;)

So what do you guys think of the latest changes on the generic unit re-balancing? In general, I gave +25% vs Melee for Crossbowman (was +50%), Musketman (was 0%) and Rifleman (was 0%), since they all share the same range attack advantage over Melee units. This also allows Samurai (9) to be weaker than Musketman (9 x 1.25 = 11.25).

@Genghis_Kai: Your replies seemvalid to me; also, the Samurai is a bad example as, contrary to popular depiction, they eventually were used as Musketmen once Gunpowder reached Japan.;)

Actually, one of the classic in Japan military history, the battle of Okehazama, demostrated the advantage of Musketman over Samurai.

I am somewhat surprised to see these changes, as I did not notice them previously while playing your map (tried the 1500 AD scenario).

Are these changes implamented yet? Or is this a suggestion for future version (5.0) changes?

Best Regards,
Ace

Yes, the changes are for the future coming version 5.0.

One final change before releasing - Increased road movement speed. Default from 2 -> 3, after Engineering 3 -> 4. Railroad stay the same.

Hi Genghis!

Glad to see there's people making scenarios with your map. I'm glad to see that you're going to fasten up units, specially marine ones. I still think modern ships should get an even more considerable boost on movement, since with the current change they would still take ages to cross the oceans.

I'm having final exams at uni, but will download the new scenarios you've made when I finish. Looking forward for that!

Cheers!

EDIT: Also noticed that from now on coast will produce a shield and jungles will not only stop having a food penalty, but they will produce extra commerce. How come? Wouldn't that give a big advantage to some areas?

Merchant specialists will be very powerful this way, too. Since they produce one food each, you can basically have twice as many merchants than other specialists... it will be interesting to see how this works out, especially the human player will benefit from this I suppose, due to micromanagement. Say hello to loads of cash :-)

Best Regards,
Ace

Hi Genghis!

Glad to see there's people making scenarios with your map. I'm glad to see that you're going to fasten up units, specially marine ones. I still think modern ships should get an even more considerable boost on movement, since with the current change they would still take ages to cross the oceans.

I'm having final exams at uni, but will download the new scenarios you've made when I finish. Looking forward for that!

Cheers!

EDIT: Also noticed that from now on coast will produce a shield and jungles will not only stop having a food penalty, but they will produce extra commerce. How come? Wouldn't that give a big advantage to some areas?

There are so many island cities which I have implemented in the scenarios. Those cities have no hammer in the default setting which makes them useless. The one hammer/sea tile makes them usable.

For the jungle, it is just a matter of realism - I don't agree why jungle should get a food penalty while forest gets none and have a hammer bonus.

Yeah, fair enough, that's pretty true. It'll be great to have a Dutch city with the Moai and the UB. The thing with the coasts tiles commerce reduced by one is that financial civs will no longer benefit from the extra commerce from coasts now, which leaves them only to benefit from resources, hamlets, etc. But that could actually be good, since the financial trait has always offered one of the biggest advantages. Who knows!

I am starting to work on new civs and leaderheads. So far so good. I am able to implement Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito and Chiang's leaderheads (taken from the Road to War mod coming with BTS) in the 1940AD scenario which is fantastic! However, I am facing a difficult decision to made. Should I:

a) Add new leaderheads to GEM, which would easily made GEM to be of size over 100MB (1 leaderhead ~ 8MB). It would mean GEM will no longer be a small enough mod that everyone can just download and checkout what it is. Moreover, it will exceed the 10MB upload limit in civfanatic and so I will need to store it somewhere else.

b) Just don't add new leaderheads and stick with the present pseudo-civ. I can also add new flags (such as nazi Germany, Britain and France) because these flags are very small in size. This can keep GEM still under 10MB in size.

I would like to hear your opinion on this.

When adding flags please keep in mind that the swastika is an illegal symbol in Germany and some other european countries. So please don't use that flag, or you'll make it illegal to play your mod for those living in that countries.

When adding flags please keep in mind that the swastika is an illegal symbol in Germany and some other european countries. So please don't use that flag, or you'll make it illegal to play your mod for those living in that countries.

Oh really? So, is the modified flag used in Road to War legal in Europe? The flag has only a black cross instead of the its arms bended at right angle.

That one is legal ... and yes, the juristic questions are the reasons for its use instead of the more well known but illegal one.

Is it possible to make the leaderheads a separate, optional download that could be extracted into the GEM mod folder? That would keep the main file small while still making the leaderheads available to those who want them.

If not, I'd go with option B, though I don't have too strong an opinion on this.

I would very much like to see a larger impact of the diplomatic wonders, apostolic palace and united nations in the GEM scenarios.

This could probably be achieved by lowering the intervals on which elections and resolutions occur. Right now, due to the large number of turns, they seem to happen very rarely. I would welcome about five to seven times the frequencey of resolutions compared to the current settings. Most of my experience is from the impact on the 1500 AD scenario, though.

What's your opinion on this?

Best Regards,
Ace

I would very much like to see a larger impact of the diplomatic wonders, apostolic palace and united nations in the GEM scenarios.

This could probably be achieved by lowering the intervals on which elections and resolutions occur. Right now, due to the large number of turns, they seem to happen very rarely. I would welcome about five to seven times the frequencey of resolutions compared to the current settings. Most of my experience is from the impact on the 1500 AD scenario, though.

What's your opinion on this?

Best Regards,
Ace

Good idea.
I'll see what can be done in this regard. I'd like to see resolutions voted and enforced more often.

The only annoying point is that unfortunately firaxis didn't open the AP to python so we can't do anything with it to have the AP Leader declare war more often rather than just ask to stop the war.

What would be great, but tricky to do, is to incorporate the HolyWars Mod done by Surdanis, into GEM.
It add tons of options for the Apostolic Palace.
I'm currently looking into it, aint easy but maybe with some hard work or Surdanis help...

I would suggest modifying the financial trait to have it add +1 trade to any plot with at least 1 trade, or maybe +2 trade to any sea plot.

As of now, the trait is rather useless for coast-loving civs, especially since great merchants are so powerful with your changes.

Another option would be to make the trait add a flat 15% to commerce production in all cities.

Best Regards,
Ace

...wrong thread, sorry.

I would suggest modifying the financial trait to have it add +1 trade to any plot with at least 1 trade, or maybe +2 trade to any sea plot.

As of now, the trait is rather useless for coast-loving civs, especially since great merchants are so powerful with your changes.

Another option would be to make the trait add a flat 15% to commerce production in all cities.

Best Regards,
Ace

Yes, that's something I should think about.

But in general, are we all happy with the +1 hammer in coast/sea tiles? I am quite happy with it. In 1940AD, I saw a lot of pacific islands can now grow like normal cities.

I would very much like to see a larger impact of the diplomatic wonders, apostolic palace and united nations in the GEM scenarios.

This could probably be achieved by lowering the intervals on which elections and resolutions occur. Right now, due to the large number of turns, they seem to happen very rarely. I would welcome about five to seven times the frequencey of resolutions compared to the current settings. Most of my experience is from the impact on the 1500 AD scenario, though.

What's your opinion on this?

Best Regards,
Ace

I personally don't like apostolic palace and united nations. They are a bit unrealistic.

Battleships currently still upgrade to Missile Cruisers.

However, with your custom changes, it's mostly a downgrade, as you lose 5 strength. Personally, I'd rather keep my Battleships, especially since I can always get Misslie Cruisers from upgrading my Destroyers.

Best Regards,
Ace

Battleships currently still upgrade to Missile Cruisers.

However, with your custom changes, it's mostly a downgrade, as you lose 5 strength. Personally, I'd rather keep my Battleships, especially since I can always get Misslie Cruisers from upgrading my Destroyers.

Best Regards,
Ace

Oh ok. that needs to be reviewed.

I would like to continue the discussion on +1 trade on sea tile in this thread.

So would you think making sea tiles back to +2 trade be ok? It seems to be the easiest fix for the financial trail. But I am unsure whether sea tiles would be too good to have. Being 2/1/2, it will be the best type of unimproved terrain!

2/1/2 is to good. I like the 1/1/1 as it is. What would be sensible would be to give Financial a raw 25% commerce bonus. But make sure its commerce not just income. Income is worthless when you are researching heavily, while commerce is always usefull.

2/1/2 is to good. I like the 1/1/1 as it is. What would be sensible would be to give Financial a raw 25% commerce bonus. But make sure its commerce not just income. Income is worthless when you are researching heavily, while commerce is always usefull.

Oh yes, I meant 1/1/2 (I assumed you already got lighthouse for that additional food).

From a balance-based view, I guess it would not hurt. Most of the civilizations that would benefit from this are rather weak anyway (from the 1500 AD map, at least).

GEM does not have extensive coastlines - to my mind it's a map that favors land based strategies over sea based strategies. It rarely makes sense to settle coastlines only.

However, I have no idea how it could work out in other scenarios. Personally, I'd prefer to boost the financial trait itself by lowering the threshold for the bonus rather than improving ocean for all coastal civilizations, therefore supporting more diverse strategies.

Best Regards,
Ace

From a balance-based view, I guess it would not hurt. Most of the civilizations that would benefit from this are rather weak anyway (from the 1500 AD map, at least).

GEM does not have extensive coastlines - to my mind it's a map that favors land based strategies over sea based strategies. It rarely makes sense to settle coastlines only.

However, I have no idea how it could work out in other scenarios. Personally, I'd prefer to boost the financial trait itself by lowering the threshold for the bonus rather than improving ocean for all coastal civilizations, therefore supporting more diverse strategies.

Best Regards,
Ace

But I think lowering the financial trait's bonus threshold to 1 coin is a bit too much. The financial trait would almost get a +1 coin for every tile since GEM has so many rivers.

Yes, you are definitely correct there... I did not think of the abundance of rivers.

There's always the option of having the trait increase your commerce. I'm not sure if total commerce can be increased via XML, but it should be possible to increase gold generated by something like 20% - although the bonus would not be as impressive, it fits the term "financial" well and is surely useful. The synergy with seafaring civlizations is removed though.

Best Regards,
Ace

As said, a 20% income is almost useless, uneless you are willing to micro manage a lot, and even then its much weaker then a plain +10% research.

Oh, and on a sidenote: all your maps are heavily lacking in fish/crab/clam, as was pointed out by someone talking about comparison between Creeals and Sushi. Maybe you could increase here a bit?

Maybe you could increase here a bit?

I disagree. As you can see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture#Crop_statistics) the increased importance of crops is rather realistic, as they provide the vast majority of food on Earth.

Sid's Sushi is rather nice on GEM, too - especially if you want to push your borders or aim for cultural victory. Although it will never produce quite as much culture as Create Con, it's still good compared to what buildings can give you.

Best Regards,
Ace

On the sea tile commerce issue. I just come up with an alternate solution: +1 commerce for building Harbor. So by default, sea tiles are 1/1/1, but with lighthouse and harbor, it becomes 2/1/2.
The original +50% trade route yield for harbor might then need to be reduced to +25% for balance.

I disagree. As you can see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture#Crop_statistics) the increased importance of crops is rather realistic, as they provide the vast majority of food on Earth.

Sid's Sushi is rather nice on GEM, too - especially if you want to push your borders or aim for cultural victory. Although it will never produce quite as much culture as Create Con, it's still good compared to what buildings can give you.

Best Regards,
Ace

I second this. If you check my statistics, Rice, Wheat and Corn are already weighted down by a factor of 5 to 6 as compared to fish, not to mention Clam and Crab.

I second this. If you check my statistics, Rice, Wheat and Corn are already weighted down by a factor of 5 to 6 as compared to fish, not to mention Clam and Crab.

Id also like to add that seafood can be traded for and/or defended.Ive noticed that ive had to actually defend by territory from sub or destroyer raiders on my fishing areas.Very good map i must say.The increases may seem small but they make the countries themselves more realistic and able to last in a fight as opposed to being steamrolled by X numbers of ONE type of unit.
As russia i was able to wipe finland out but thats only after concentrating all tank, infantry, and air forces i could spare to the assault.I think it took me about 6 turns ?maybe 10 at the most.And that was just to take out a minor 4 city civ who wasnt built up!
Anyways its a good mod so far and i havent encountered any bugs yet.:goodjob:

On the sea tile commerce issue. I just come up with an alternate solution: +1 commerce for building Harbor. So by default, sea tiles are 1/1/1, but with lighthouse and harbor, it becomes 2/1/2.
The original +50% trade route yield for harbor might then need to be reduced to +25% for balance.

That's a really good idea. I think the reduced trade bonus would be necessary, especially when you take Carthage's UB into consideration.

Due to the increased speed of modern land units, Paratroopers now become practically obsolete rather fast. Maybe their range could be increased slightly?

Something similar can be seen for aircraft, since a gunship or modern armor can often move further in a single turn (especially when capturing enemy cities) than your aircraft coverange will reach.

Maybe paradrop and aircraft ranges could be increased by 50-75% ?

Paratrooper, Fighter, Bomber: +50%
Stelth Bomber, Jet Bomber, Guided Missile, Tactical Nuke: +75%

Best Regards,
Ace

Another, more cosmetic issue: Some civilizations seem to be defined twice. For example, when I move my mouse over a hippodrome it says "Unique building for the Byzantine Empire" twice.

Is this intended? Or a by product of defining new civilizations?

Best Regards,
Ace

Hello Genghis,

just wanted to say I am currently testing the change you proposed to harbors (+25% trade routes down from 50%, +1 commerce on sea tiles) and it works fine in my recent Japanese game. I think the balancing is okay this way, sea-based civilizations get a small boost but it's not too much.

Best Regards,
Ace

Hello Genghis,

just wanted to say I am currently testing the change you proposed to harbors (+25% trade routes down from 50%, +1 commerce on sea tiles) and it works fine in my recent Japanese game. I think the balancing is okay this way, sea-based civilizations get a small boost but it's not too much.

Best Regards,
Ace

Thats great :)

However....

Financials need a boost

Halt is correct. Getting that boost with harbors is probably to late for an early tech lead as financial should allow you to get.

Another, more cosmetic issue: Some civilizations seem to be defined twice. For example, when I move my mouse over a hippodrome it says "Unique building for the Byzantine Empire" twice.

Is this intended? Or a by product of defining new civilizations?

Best Regards,
Ace

This is probably due to pseudo civ I've created. Every unique building/units are replicated from the base civ. I think that would cause the issue you raise. I could try if I can change it to read something like "Unique building for the Byzantine Empire" and "Unique building for the Hungarian Empire" if possible.

I guess that happens because of the "TXT_KEY_BLA_BLA" used for localization... I noticed that the civ adjectives seem to be subject to this to some extent, too. For example, when a venetian caravel sinks mine, it would read (in-game):

"Your Caravel was destroyed by a Dutch Caravel"

If you change it, it will not be localized... but to my mind, that's not a problem, I do use the English version anyway :-)

Best Regards,
Ace

Kai, could you include "culture over the water" in your mod? Your map is so big and contains so many islands, that this is dearly needed. It might make sense to reduce culture over ocean by 50%, but there needs to be a way to culturaly capture islands 3 plots away with a legendary city.

Regarding culture, on a sidenote: Culture is an issue altogether in GEM I have to admit. To my mind, the impact cultural expansion is too strong in some scenarios, this is due to the fact that cities start with a lot of culture genereation (sometimes as high as 100 cpt), but city culture level is rather low and plot culture is zero at the start - where it should be quite solid in reality.

Therefore, culturally strong cities can expand their borders very rapidly in early game, a fact that I find to be quite annoying. I know of no way to change plot culture in scenarios though. One option would be to set many cities to a higher culture level, therefore emphasizing distance over cpt generation due to the way plot culture is calculated. Maybe a script could be used to add plot culture, but that would be very laborius a task indeed I fear.

Best Regards,
Ace

+1 hammer on water isn't a generic modification, it change game very much. Don't you think that Levee could do that, and Dike give +2 hammers on water, +1 hammer near river

Yeah, culture is troublesome in scenarios. As USA in 1940 you can easily squish Canada and Mexico in a few years if you make intense use of Sushi and Radio.

One suggestion that just came into mind would be a python script, running at game start, that adds 100,000 culture (or any other value, this would need to be balanced dependant on Scenario start) to any plot for the civ that has the most culture in this plot (if anyone has).

This would ensure that present borders cannot be pushed easily at game start, and prevent occurences such as the frequent cultural flips of spanish and venetian cities to rome in the 1500 AD scenario - every time I play this, Rome flips at least Caligari, Palermo, Durezzo and often even Venice.

However, I am not as fluent in python as to supply such a script.

Best Regards,
Ace / Martin

One suggestion that just came into mind would be a python script, running at game start, that adds 100,000 culture (or any other value, this would need to be balanced dependant on Scenario start) to any plot for the civ that has the most culture in this plot (if anyone has).

This would ensure that present borders cannot be pushed easily at game start, and prevent occurences such as the frequent cultural flips of spanish and venetian cities to rome in the 1500 AD scenario - every time I play this, Rome flips at least Caligari, Palermo, Durezzo and often even Venice.

However, I am not as fluent in python as to supply such a script.

Best Regards,
Ace / Martin

I don't write python either, and secondly, what if someone actually took the city militarily?

If I wrote a python script that does this, would you use it? I'll try to teach myself enough to get this done.

I'm not quite sure where the problem is with cities being taken militarily. What do you suggest?

Best Regards,
Martin / Ace

Hello Kai,

after all, it was surprisingly easy to create such a script as I proposed. Works perfectly for me... now it finally makes sense to set exact territory borders in WorldBuilder, since they will not simply be pushed back next turn.

I chose 10000 culture to be added, but you might change the value if you want to use the script.

The whole thing has to be added to the event manager, but maybe I can just come up with a custom event manager, so you would have to add only a single file to the mod... should not be too hard to create one, but not tonight. All in case you're interested in incorporating it, of course.


# ace - culture solidifier - start
iIndex = 1
while iIndex < gc.getMap().numPlots():
iIndex = iIndex + 1
owner = gc.getMap().plotByIndex(iIndex).calculateCulturalO wner()
if owner > -1:
gc.getMap().plotByIndex(iIndex).changeCulture(owne r,10000,False)
# ace - culture solidifier - end

Best Regards,
Ace / Martin

I just realized that maybe this is too biased... it does not allow for strong culture in foreign territories. What I could do is to modify the script to just amplify (i.e. multiply with a scalar value) the current values... therefore they will be harder to change, but still proportional to the original values.

EDIT:

# ace - culture solidifier - start
iIndex = 1
while iIndex < gc.getMap().numPlots():
iIndex = iIndex + 1
for iPlayer in range(gc.getMAX_PLAYERS()):
iCulture = gc.getMap().plotByIndex(iIndex).getCulture(iPlayer )
iCulture = iCulture * 999
gc.getMap().plotByIndex(iIndex).changeCulture(iPla yer,iCulture,False)

This will multiply the starting plot culture by 1000.

Maybe I could try to adjust the value based on date (to reflect that starting culture is more solidified in 1940 AD than in 1500 AD). However, since the scenarios use different calendars, and all start on turn 0, this will be rather challenging I suppose.

Best Regards,
Martin / Ace

Dear all,

I want to make some change to the trade route system and would like to gather your opinion here.

Currently, the trade system is as follow:

Default: 1 trade route
Currency: +1 trade route
Corporation: +1 trade route
Free Market: +1 trade route
Mercantilism: no foreign trade route
Castle: +1 trade route (until Economics)
Harbor: +25% trade commerce, +1 commerce on water tiles (GEM v5.2 setting)
Cothon: harbor and also +1 trade route
Airport: +1 trade route
Custom House: +100% commerce from intercontinental foreign trade routes
Great Lighthouse: coastal cities +2 trade routes (until Corporation)
Temple of Artemis: +100% trade commerce in host city

The thing I don't like now is that, those pop 1 cities, with no improvement, no buildings can get a large sum of commerce from trade routes. For example, in the 1940AD scenario, Nuuk, South Georgia and South Sandwich can get 4 intercontinental trade routes and a commerce of over 20 just simply being there.

So I want to change the trade route calc to be more related to city improvements as follow:

Default: 1 trade route
Currency and Corporation has no effect
Free Market: +1 trade route
Mercantilism: no foreign trade route
Market: +1 trade route
Grocer: +1 trade route
Supermarket: +1 trade route
Castle has no effect
Harbor: +25% trade commerce, +1 commerce on water tiles (GEM v5.2 setting)
Cothon: harbor and also +1 trade route
Airport: +25% trade commerce
Custom House: +100% commerce from intercontinental foreign trade routes
Great Lighthouse: coastal cities +2 trade routes (until Corporation)
Temple of Artemis: +100% trade commerce in host city

I also think it makes more sense that a city with a market (which requires currency to build) gets more trading rather than a city just have currency but no market.

I like this idea, but just out of curioistiy...

Airport: +25 trade route commerce

...if this replaces the trade route that the Airport normally grants, will it increase or decrease the total trade revenue?

I like this idea, but just out of curioistiy...



...if this replaces the trade route that the Airport normally grants, will it increase or decrease the total trade revenue?

I removed the trade route Airport originally gets because:

Originally, Currency, Corporation and Airport gets +3 trade route.
Now, Market, Grocer and Supermarket gets +3 trade route already.

So the number of trade route one can get should be the same as before. Note also that, in the default Civ4 setting, Harbor gets +50% trade commerce. The new setting, Harbor +25%, Airport +25% would make it the same as the civ 4 standard as well.

In summary, my idea is not to change the commerce generated from trading. The idea is to make trading not as something you can get for free.

Another change I wanted to make. A minor one:

Power Plant / Shale Plant's prereq tech change to Electricity from Assembly Line. I am reviewing the tech tree and found this original setting to be very odd.

Is it possible to edit XML in a way that Buildings get properties when techs are known?

The idea would be something like:

As long as you have the Corporation tech, you get +1 trade routes from Banks.

Personally, I would rather have Banks give +1 trade routes than Supermarkets. Especially with the Computers tech (wired money transfer).

Supermarkets are already very powerful with their Health bonus, as are Grocers.

Best Regards,
Ace

I guess my comment on the trade route issue is, I do not like the proposed change.

Why have a small island colony with the proposed change? They are just drains now (a way to nerf civ's with small islands) and provide no benefit.

If the purpose is to add a nerf to weaken certain countries or modify a behavior you do not like that is one thing, but as a economic reality trade routes are a derivative of ; distance, resources, access, frequency.

So with the proposed change, the only reasonable choice under some of the existsing scenarios, would be to “free” the small islands into colonies which would push up the number of civilizations in the game, correct?

Is it possible to edit XML in a way that Buildings get properties when techs are known?

The idea would be something like:

As long as you have the Corporation tech, you get +1 trade routes from Banks.

Personally, I would rather have Banks give +1 trade routes than Supermarkets. Especially with the Computers tech (wired money transfer).

Supermarkets are already very powerful with their Health bonus, as are Grocers.

Best Regards,
Ace
I don't know if that is possible. I can check. Two reasons I've chose Supermarket instead of Bank 1) It make a bit more sense for supermarket to increase the trading demand (hence +1 trade route) than a bank does; 2) Supermarket is later technology; Banking seems too close to Currency.
But it is also quite true that Supermarket is already very useful.

I guess my comment on the trade route issue is, I do not like the proposed change.

Why have a small island colony with the proposed change? They are just drains now (a way to nerf civ's with small islands) and provide no benefit.

If the purpose is to add a nerf to weaken certain countries or modify a behavior you do not like that is one thing, but as a economic reality trade routes are a derivative of ; distance, resources, access, frequency.

So with the proposed change, the only reasonable choice under some of the existsing scenarios, would be to “free” the small islands into colonies which would push up the number of civilizations in the game, correct?
Not really. Don't forget in GEM, see tiles get +1 hammer. Those small islands are not that useless in itself. They can be built up like other land cities do. Once they have market or Grocer, they will still benefit from intercontinental trading.

I removed the trade route Airport originally gets because:

Originally, Currency, Corporation and Airport gets +3 trade route.
Now, Market, Grocer and Supermarket gets +3 trade route already.

So the number of trade route one can get should be the same as before. Note also that, in the default Civ4 setting, Harbor gets +50% trade commerce. The new setting, Harbor +25%, Airport +25% would make it the same as the civ 4 standard as well.

In summary, my idea is not to change the commerce generated from trading. The idea is to make trading not as something you can get for free.

Oh, ok, I forgot about the reduced harbor bonus in this mod. I thought these changes would end with one less trade route than in the default settings.

I like the trade route ideas. If possible, perhaps give Financial civs a build bonus for Harbours, like Spiritual civs get a Temple bonus. Also, would it be possible to make Missionaries available from the "Cathedral" buildings, for easier post Scientific Method religion spread.

Another change I wanted to make. A minor one:

Power Plant / Shale Plant's prereq tech change to Electricity from Assembly Line. I am reviewing the tech tree and found this original setting to be very odd.

I have to make some generic change again.

At the moment in v5.2:
Steam Power -> Levee
Assembly Line -> Factory
Electricity -> Coal Plant

I will change it to:
Engineering -> Levee
Steam Power -> Factory
Assembly Line -> Coal Plant

Reason is that, in the 1860 scenario, I don't want to give Assembly Line to the European nations yet. It is something to be invented in the 20th century, as well it triggers Infantry which should not be in the scenario. But it would be silly to have no factories in Europe by 1860 :lol: Hence, the change.

Then it leads me to also review the current production related buildings and realized Levee should come much earlier in the tech tree. And now that Assembly Line got nothing left, I will give Coal Plant back to it just as BTS default.

The tech cost of Steam Power will increase from 3200 -> 4000
The tech cost of Assembly Line will decrease from 5000 -> 4500

I will also bring forward the reveal of coal from Steam Power -> Gunpowder; enabling Cannon from Steel -> Replaceable Parts

I have done some changes to the specialist's bonuses. This will be the setting for GEM 7.

The biggest change is the role of a Priest. Priest will give food and culture, instead of production and gold - I think arguably, with a Priest, farmers can be more productive, and Theology can be considered as a form of culture. Anyway, the real reason is because I want to diversify the specialty of the specialist.

Assuming food = 3pts, production = 2pts and any type of commerce = 1pt; each specialist will now generate an equivalent of 6pts and each great specialist will generate an equivalent of 18pts (except citizen and great general).

Okay, this enhances some of the specialists a bit. However, when going for a specialist economy (and that makes perfect sense still) you would still want to use merchant specialists exclusively in the long run.

Let's assume your city growth is currently not limited by health and happiness, but by food. This will happen often enough in GEM, since the cities are spaced closer together and therefore most of the time cannot work 20 tiles. You will want to use Representation anyway, since it's the best Government for a specialist economy. Therefore, your merchants will generate 1:food: 3:gold: 3:science: 3:gp: each.

Because they generate 1:food:, you can have two of them where you could have any two other specialists. You balanced the output somewhat with the proposed changes, but you still get the extra 3:gp: (because each specialist gains them individually) and 3:science: due to Representation. Plus, you get population points, which helps you in AP and UN votes and adds to your score.

Effectively, there is no fair way to balance the 1:food: that merchants give you by just adding more production and commerce to the other specialists. However, in some way I think this is okay - there have to be some ways to play that are smart as opposed to those who do not help you as much, otherwise player decisions would be not as much fun.

As the most fun part of the GEM scenarios are usually the first 100 turns (after that it gets very much ahistorical anyway) long term calculations like mine probably do not matter that much...

Best Regards,
Martin

yeah, I think time is a very important factor that isn't reflected in your calculation. For example, if I decide to have more production rather than food now, I can product military units, which could be used to take more cities (a route very likely be used in GEM scenarios). Even if I play peacefully, I can also use the production to build lighthouse earlier, which provide more food. So I think the balance is quite difficult to calculate.

You can also use the :hammers: to produce :science:,:gold: or :culture:...

I have just spent some time tidying up my XML modifications. All my changes are now documented on a spreadsheet called "Mod Changes vX.X" (where vX.X is the latest version number of GEM) as well as commented within the files with "GEM". Normal players can now refer to the spreadsheet to see the changes at a glance while modders can now easily find all the changes I've made by searching for GEM in each of the XML file.

Other than XML, I have managed to compile the C++ source code for the first time! I am now searching for components to add to GEM. I find the following quite suitable to be included in the next version of GEM:

1) Dale's Combat mod - http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=257210
2) JCultureControl: Beyond City Borders - http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=283686
3) Scrolling scoreboard - http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=295703

and by default GEM already include the following:
BetterAI 6.0 - http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=245
Unofficial patch - http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=299

while the Crash to Desktop fix, BlueMarble, BUG are recommended to be installed separately.

Let me know if you have found more mod component that I should consider include in GEM.

Yey! Scrolling scoreboard! Great News!

Can't wait for the new 1940 by the way! Any plans to eventually update the other scenarios with more civs? The 1 city starts may be quite easy to do?

One thing is for sure, Dale's Combat Mod is quite an addition that will significantly affect gameplay and would be the most extensive rule change in GEM up to now. Would it be possible to offer a download without Dale's as well? I guess otherwise it would be rather hard to remove the mod manually afterwards.

Best Regards,
Martin

Let me know if you have found more mod component that I should consider include in GEM.

Have you considered adding RevDCM instead? http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=262937&highlight=revdcm I always thought that Revolution would be great for the GEM scenarios, and it includes Dale's mod as well.

In addition, I think Influence Driven War would be nice to see. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=188007&highlight=influence+driven+war

Finally, Advanced combat odds is a nice interface mod. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=310415&highlight=revdcm

EDIT: Actually, I think IDF is included in RevDCM. But still...

Yey! Scrolling scoreboard! Great News!

Can't wait for the new 1940 by the way! Any plans to eventually update the other scenarios with more civs? The 1 city starts may be quite easy to do?

Yes, I did heard your voice ;)

So far, I have only updated the map (added a lot islands, changed the shape of British Isles etc). It took a lot of time from me to just update the map for all the scenarios.

My next item is now adding the mods before I would add new civs to the scenarios (and yes, I am planning to change add new civs to all the scenarios). With forts being able to spread culture, I can replace a lot of remote cities by forts. So I want to reallocate cities in one go.

One thing is for sure, Dale's Combat Mod is quite an addition that will significantly affect gameplay and would be the most extensive rule change in GEM up to now. Would it be possible to offer a download without Dale's as well? I guess otherwise it would be rather hard to remove the mod manually afterwards.

Best Regards,
Martin

I am not too willing to offer separate downloads. Whenever I want to update anything, I have to double up my workload. Especially seeing Dale's combat Mod includes ten's of files that I have to merge with GEM's files.

So either in or not in. Any particular reason why you think you would like to remove it?

So either in or not in. Any particular reason why you think you would like to remove it?

All I would say is that one of the key things points, that you raise yourself when introducing GEM, is the relatively unaltered gameplay of the GEM mod. GEM has become so successful and popular due to the map and scenarios, not any altered gameplay.

In your understandable drive to improve this fantastic mod, I guess there is a danger that you may drop the concepts that have guided the success in the first place. I'm not saying that inclusion of these mods is wrong, in fact for me they look quite exciting, just that in my humble opinion you should be aware of this potential issue.

I guess what you might want to ask yourself is: Would most people chose to play civ, or GEM, with Dale's mod if they knew about it and it was already inbuilt?

There will no doubt be some people, such as me, who enjoy the inclusion of other mods but are unable to put them together themselves, and others, (such as Ace) for whom their playing of GEM is driven to an extent by the fact that the gameplay is unaltered (assuming that any mods they like they can add in themselves).

All I would say is that one of the key things points, that you raise yourself when introducing GEM, is the relatively unaltered gameplay of the GEM mod. GEM has become so successful and popular due to the map and scenarios, not any altered gameplay.

In your understandable drive to improve this fantastic mod, I guess there is a danger that you may drop the concepts that have guided the success in the first place. I'm not saying that inclusion of these mods is wrong, in fact for me they look quite exciting, just that in my humble opinion you should be aware of this potential issue.

I guess what you might want to ask yourself is: Would most people chose to play civ, or GEM, with Dale's mod if they knew about it and it was already inbuilt?

There will no doubt be some people, such as me, who enjoy the inclusion of other mods but are unable to put them together themselves, and others, (such as Ace) for whom their playing of GEM is driven to an extent by the fact that the gameplay is unaltered (assuming that any mods they like they can add in themselves).

I absolutely agree. In fact, I am consciously aware that it is the map and the scenarios that I should focus on.

So, I will continue to be very cautious in what I pick to be included in GEM. Dale's combat mod, after some test play on it's own myself, is what I considered to be a very good quality mod that enhances CIV but changing the game concept completely. You know, it is one of those mods that makes you feel this is how CIV should be in the first place.

I have just spent some time tidying up my XML modifications. All my changes are now documented on a spreadsheet called "Mod Changes vX.X" (where vX.X is the latest version number of GEM) as well as commented within the files with "GEM". Normal players can now refer to the spreadsheet to see the changes at a glance while modders can now easily find all the changes I've made by searching for GEM in each of the XML file.

Other than XML, I have managed to compile the C++ source code for the first time! I am now searching for components to add to GEM. I find the following quite suitable to be included in the next version of GEM:

1) Dale's Combat mod - http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=257210
2) JCultureControl: Beyond City Borders - http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=283686
3) Scrolling scoreboard - http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=295703

and by default GEM already include the following:
BetterAI 6.0 - http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=245
Unofficial patch - http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=299

while the Crash to Desktop fix, BlueMarble, BUG are recommended to be installed separately.

Let me know if you have found more mod component that I should consider include in GEM.

Bad news and good news.

The bad news is the addition of these mods into GEM is much harder than I expected. I was hoping that these mods are independent of one another so that I can simply merge them together. The reality is not the case. I decided to give up on it, since it really is beyond my capability if I have to dig into the C++ code and make appropriate modifications.

The good news is that, as was suggested by Jabarto (http://forums.civfanatics.com/member.php?u=116131), the RevolutionDCM seems to be a good combination mod that I can use straight out from the box. It includes almost everything I wanted, namely, BetterAI, civlimit=50, BUG, Dale's combat mod and some other things, except JCultureControl (very unfortunate). The mod also got a very user friendly interface that allows the user to customise the selection so that whether or not to include a component is up to the decision of the user.

So I think the way to go is to merge RevolutionDCM with only those files modified by me (mainly XML files), something that is managable by myself.

Merging RevolutionDCM with GEM is completed!

Cool! :goodjob:

Hi,

Just one thing, does Financial have any build bonuses to counteract their weakening with the 1 commerce ocean tile? Thanks.

I'd suggest adding sentry as a default skill for explorers and scouts. That'll reduce their vulnerability by a lot and increase their scouting ability.

Also, is there any chance that you can force a minimum of one religion in each continent. 1 for africa, 1 for asia, 1 for europe, 1 for North America and 1 for South America. The last 2 are open ended.

quite agree with you about sentry promotion for exploring units, since the base unit movements is now two but I have not increase any of their visibility.

I like. I like it a lot. So much so that I'm posting for the first time in a very long while. So, do you have a tentative release date? I'm quite glad I came back to Civ IV for this!

Depending on how things work out, I may be making a scenario or two using your map, if you don't mind of course.

I like. I like it a lot. So much so that I'm posting for the first time in a very long while. So, do you have a tentative release date?
Do you mean to update of having sentry promotion? It is too minor for an update of its own. I don't have any plan to release another update soon.

Depending on how things work out, I may be making a scenario or two using your map, if you don't mind of course.
Please go ahead. I want to play some new scenarios too!