The hussar is the Austrian UU since 2.50.
In the xpack there will be another light cavalry (the Lancer), leaving the Hussar and the Grenzer as Austrian UUs
:mad: Oh No! I must read the small print more carefully! :blush:

I look forward to the X Pack then (sounds like a BMW!) :)

Horton-> So, what can be done to decrease the use of Republic and Democracy by the AI?

Chukchi->Can you tell how many cities are in one translation and how many in the other in the current city list?

Chukchi->Can you tell how many cities are in one translation and how many in the other in the current city list?

The old list contains 18 cities, the new list contains 24. I also created a new list list for England that contains 32 new cities.

I don't need new city lists that contain more cities, except if the standard are very few (like Germany and Zulus, only 16). Remember that in this mod any civ will hardly found more than 10 cities.
But I'm interested in knowing what chinese cities are spelled in one tranlsation and one in the other translation

But I'm interested in knowing what chinese cities are spelled in one tranlsation and one in the other translation
Beijing = same
Shanghai = same
Canton = Guangzhou
Nanking - Nanjing
Tsingtao = Qingdau
Xinjian = removed, replaced with Xianggang (Hong Kong)
Chengdu = same
Hangchow = Hangzhou
Tientsin = Tianjin
Tatung = removed, replaced with Shenyang
Macao = Macau
Anyang = removed, replaced with Wuhan (Anyang should be added to Korea)
Shantung = Shandong
Chinan = removed, replaced with Haerbin
Kaifeng = same
Ningpo = removed, replaced with Chongqing
Paoting = removed, replaced with Xi'an
Yangchow = removed, replaced with Chang-chun
new cities = Taiyuan, Fushun, Lanzhou, Zhengzhou, Zibo, Kunming

The cities removed are ones that I couldn't find any information for (except Anyang). The new cities are listed as some of the largest cities in China.

mmmh lots to discuss:

-> what do you think of giving democracy 3 gold/turn as upkeep? It could even be 4 and 3 for Republic. All I need is a savagame of modern times where I see how many gold

I think it is a good idea to raise the upkeep to 3 gold/turn for Democracy. In the Countries with Democracy you have to pay higher salaries to your corps. The US spent around 399 billion dollars of 10 trillion GDP on its defense in 2001. So roughly it is 3.9% In 2003 Iraqi GDP at PPP was 38.79 billion dollars. and expenditures on the army were 1.3 billion which is 3% of GDP. So the US expenditures are even higher (all the facts taken from http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Military).

I once tried: the result was that the progress a little slowed down in the end af Ancient Era, because everybody were researching Republic. In the end everybody had Republic. That's not the solution.

Yeah, I've noticed it too. The AI cannot analyze an advantage or a disadvange of government types. It is programmed to focus on governmental techs. Firaxis programmed AI to put a higher priority on government types... It is sad, we can't change it.

Where do I find "succesfully repulsed an enemy attack" as a flag in the editor?.
Is it possible to give a leader after the first fight with any enemy, but without the army abilities. All the rest of the armies should be normal. The first leader will trigger the ability to build the colosus (similair to the case when 3 armies trigger the ability to build the Pentagon or an army itself triggers the ability to build the Heroic Epic). Could it be the way around?


That sounds realistic. A good idea. But again, how do I forbid switching to Republic if one has more than 3 cities? The editor has its limits....
There is the ability to build the FP after a certain amount of cities... Don't forbid switching to Republic after 3 cities. It must be still possible, but if you switch to it with more than 3 cities you will be greately crippled. There should be enormous corruption and constant unhappines (I guess you can do it with the editor). In the civilopedia it must be explained that Republic was inefficient in bigger Empires of the past (and this is historically true).


First, I don't want to copy Double your Pleasure. But for curiosity, I went into its bix and tried to find where are the prerequisites. There aren't! Are you sure it can be done?
I am not sure... I am just giving ideas :)


Sounds a good idea, can you be more specific of what units? OK for War Chariot and Bowman, but then I need to know what other civs used to capture slaves in the time when there was their UU.
I think these must be Roman Legionair, Ottoman Sipahi (the south of Russia suffered greatly from Sipahi and nearly 200.000 people were captured into slavery between XVI - XVII century especially from Ukraine and Poland), Sumerian Enkidu, Egyptian War Chariot, Greek Hoplite, Persian Immortals, Babylonian Bowman. I am not sure about the Carthaginian Numidian Mercenary. But could be also.



Oh you're Russian :thumbsup: Do you know that the city where I live (Livorno) is considered the Stalingrad of Italy? Many people here love Russia and wear shirts with writings in cyrillic alphabet. There is somebody who even celebrates Stalin :eek:

I was in Livorno in 1997 while travelling Tuscana. I know that it was heavily bombarded during the WW2 and almost destroyed. And they guide told us that many people compared Livorno to Stalingrad... That is great! A very nice medieval city by the way. I liked it a lot!

Beijing = same
Shanghai = same
Canton = Guangzhou
Nanking - Nanjing
Tsingtao = Qingdau
Xinjian = removed, replaced with Xianggang (Hong Kong)
Chengdu = same
Hangchow = Hangzhou
Tientsin = Tianjin
Tatung = removed, replaced with Shenyang
Macao = Macau
Anyang = removed, replaced with Wuhan (Anyang should be added to Korea)
Shantung = Shandong
Chinan = removed, replaced with Haerbin
Kaifeng = same
Ningpo = removed, replaced with Chongqing
Paoting = removed, replaced with Xi'an
Yangchow = removed, replaced with Chang-chun
new cities = Taiyuan, Fushun, Lanzhou, Zhengzhou, Zibo, Kunming

The cities removed are ones that I couldn't find any information for (except Anyang). The new cities are listed as some of the largest cities in China.

Instead, can you tell me which is the whole list with the other translation?

I think it is a good idea to raise the upkeep to 3 gold/turn for Democracy.


Horton just said that it would have bad effects for the human player.
I just loaded some old savegames and found that there were some (few) civs with 10000+ gold. But they were using Fascism or Communism, not Democracy.

So?


Is it possible to give a leader after the first fight with any enemy, but without the army abilities.


Too many leaders in the ancient era, don't you think?



There is the ability to build the FP after a certain amount of cities... Don't forbid switching to Republic after 3 cities. It must be still possible, but if you switch to it with more than 3 cities you will be greately crippled.


So, in terms of settings what should be done?
I wish I could edit the OCN for each government...
As it can't be done, what should I do? Setting the corruption as "problematic"? Then it would become useless because Monarchy would be better in everything (except for the standard trade bonus).


I think these must be Roman Legionair, Ottoman Sipahi (the south of Russia suffered greatly from Sipahi and nearly 200.000 people were captured into slavery between XVI - XVII century especially from Ukraine and Poland), Sumerian Enkidu, Egyptian War Chariot, Greek Hoplite, Persian Immortals, Babylonian Bowman.


mm. Are you sure about the hoplites and the immortals?
Another thing...I fear to overpower too much some units, expecially the legions and the sipahi. Maybe I could raise legionary's cost.
It's an interesting idea (it would add realism), but I'd like to hear Horton's opinion, as he wrote the strategy guides and knows very well what is and isn't harmless to the balancement.



I was in Livorno in 1997 while travelling Tuscana. I know that it was heavily bombarded during the WW2 and almost destroyed. And they guide told us that many people compared Livorno to Stalingrad... That is great! A very nice medieval city by the way. I liked it a lot!


Livorno is not that old (XVI Century); Pisa and Florence are very close and are much older. I think you've seen them when you came in Tuscany.

Why is there a need to discourage the AI from using Republic or democracy at all? Those 2 governments do not give a huge advantage over monarchy and aggressive civs will use facism or communism over them anyway. I have not played even 1 game of Rhye's where democracy or republic has made an AI such a runaway power that they couldn't be overcome. I don't think this is really a major issue to be honest.

All you will do by raising the unit upkeep costs in democracy is destroy it as a viable government for human players. Right now, aside from a minor commerce boost and faster workers, there isn't much reason to switch out of monarchy. Why would anyone want to change over to democracy if your treasury is going to be immediately crippled?

Instead, can you tell me which is the whole list with the other translation?

The list I posted is the Pinyin translations. This is the same list in Wade-Giles:
Peking
Shanghai
Canton
Nanking
Tsingtao
Hsiang-Kang
Ch'eng-tu
Hangchow
Tientsin
Shen-yang
Macau
Wu-han
Shan-tung
Harbin
K'ai-feng
Chungking
Sian
Ch’ang-ch’un
T'ai-yüan
Fu-shun
Lan-chou
Cheng-chou
Tzu-po
K’un-ming

OK. I browsed a lot and found that there is a lot of confusion still today.
Some names used belong to older romanizations:
Peking (Wade-Giles: Pei-ching)
Tsingtao (Wade-Giles: Ch'ing-tao)
Chungking (Wade-Giles: Ch'ung-ch'ing)
Sinkiang (Wade-Giles: Hsin-chiang)

But I found that the Pinyin is an UN and ISO standard since 20 years.
So, I'll paste Zokchi Husqi's :crazyeye: first city list (pinyin)

Changes in v2.52 by now:

- Removed Lutetia (Paris), Caesaraugusta (Zaragoza), Hispalis (Seville), Trebizond (Trapezus), Hearclea (Herakleia), Brusa (Bursa), Iconium (Konya), Tokyo (Edo), Ta-Tu (Beijing). Many thanks to Chukchi Husky
- Chinese city list replaced with the one made by Chukchi Husky, containing Pinyin romanizations. The order was slighly changed
- Ethiopian capital moved to Aksum, the ancient capital
- The whole Abyssianian region has been redrawn
- Ethiopian traits now Agricoltural (instead of Militaristic) and Religious


Dicusssions about government, unique units slavery ability and other things are widely open

I found three extra cities that could be added to Germany to increase their city list to 19: Essen, Düsseldorf and Duisburg. These cities were part of a list of Germany's largest cities.
For the Zulus, you could add Manzini, Mbabane, Nhlangano and Siteki (largest cities of Swaziland), to increase their city list to 20 (the Swazi were culturally linked to the Zulu).

thank you, Zotchi Hu'sqi.

btw I think that Xinjian in the original city list was a mispel of Xi'an


Have you got some indian cities to add?

thank you, Zotchi Hu'sqi.

btw I think that Xinjian in the original city list was a mispel of Xi'an


Have you got some indian cities to add?
Probably why I couldn't find Xinjian.

Indian cities:
First Bombay's modern name is Mumbai, Calcutta is Kolkata, Madras is Chennai and Dacca is Dhaka.
New cities: Ahmadabad, Kanpur, Nagpur, Lucknow, Khulna, Rajshahi and Mymensingh.

On the English city list, remove the Mumbles (that's near Swansea, Wales), and replace it with Sheffield (4th largest city in England).
On the German city list, Königsberg, in east Prussia, is now Kaliningrad, in west Russia, but Königsberg is historically Prussian.

i've updated the lists. I did not remove Koenigsberg, as it was part of the Unified Germany. It's the birthplace of Kant if I'm not wrong (or was it Hegel?)

Königsberg was the residence of Frederick William, had a famous university, Collegium Albertinum, and the birthpace of Immanuel Kant.

Speaking of India, I think they need a production boost in thier capital city. They get about 2 cities max before Persia or even Arabia claim the lower part of India.

Something else I've noticed playing as the Vikings: they don't have any coal. Have you thought about representing the coal found in Svalbard (which isn't on the map)? The Vikings are very limited without saltpeter, horses or coal.

how come 141 people have voted but there are 1519 post in 76 pages?

I know you've got alot to think about already, Rhye, but here's another thing that you might want to change.

In the standard civ game, Agricultural is by far the most powerful trait. It does four main things, with each listed in it's importance:

1. The extra food allows for a much greater chance of setting up a settler factory.
2. Large tracts of useless desert become nice and powerful cities.
3. Aqueducts and some modern improvements become much cheaper.
4. The extra food allows for a slightly better ratio of hills to grasslands worked in the later stages of the game.

The thing of it is, though, in your mod, Rhye, you get rid of the two main strengths Agricultural has - settler factories are utterly infeasible, and deserts can no longer be irrigated. Now, while I must say I fully agree with those changes, you can't deny that they take the Agricultural trait from first to dead last.

I honestly can't think of a good way to make the Agricultural trait a little more balanced, but I think it needs to be done.

how come 141 people have voted but there are 1519 post in 76 pages?

Because one can post more than once :p

In the standard civ game, Agricultural is by far the most powerful trait. The thing of it is, though, in your mod, Rhye, you get rid of the two main strengths Agricultural has - settler factories are utterly infeasible, and deserts can no longer be irrigated. Now, while I must say I fully agree with those changes, you can't deny that they take the Agricultural trait from first to dead last.
honestly can't think of a good way to make the Agricultural trait a little more balanced, but I think it needs to be done.

Yes, it was far too powerful, and now it is less useful. I hope that civs with few food will find it useful. In next patch Ethiopia will be agricoltural.
But apart from that, the editor doesn't allow a ridefinition of the civ traits (except changing the improvements and wonders that may trigger a golden age).

btw, what about the question you asked about the Xpack? Some of the changes you proposed are in since 2.51, and the rest of the answers is here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=77848&page=73&pp=20)

Something else I've noticed playing as the Vikings: they don't have any coal. Have you thought about representing the coal found in Svalbard (which isn't on the map)? The Vikings are very limited without saltpeter, horses or coal.

Where is Svalbard? I can't find it on my atlas. And I can't see any coal in Scandinavia.

Speaking of India, I think they need a production boost in thier capital city. They get about 2 cities max before Persia or even Arabia claim the lower part of India.

delhi region seems ok. There are no LM terrains. I'll remove a shield near Persia starting location instead, and add a shield where Calcutta is

Svalbard are a group of islands that belong to Norway.

http://www.wideview.it/travel/svalbard/other/map1.jpg

I found where Svalbard is. The map doesn't reach that latitude. All I can do is add another coal in Scotland, so that vikings can try to conquer the land or have it by trade

I found where Svalbard is. The map doesn't reach that latitude. All I can do is add another coal in Scotland, so that vikings can try to conquer the land or have it by trade

Instead of having extra coal in Scotland, add a coal to Wales.

Instead of having extra coal in Scotland, add a coal to Wales.
That's not going to help the Vikings though is it? ;) I thought nearly all of the Welsh pits are now closed but the Scottish ones are still being mined?

Alternatively just put a coal somewhere in the tundra east of "Murmansk". That will prevent it from being easily accessible (within a city radius) and Russia and Scandinavia can fight over access (which is sort of like Svalbard which Russia claimed as well).

Just played about six hours of RoC 2.51 on Monarch as Austria yesterday (stayed up till 3:30). After a long hiatus, I had forgotten how graet this mod is.
Thanks again, Rhye. ;)

Just played about six hours of RoC 2.51 on Monarch as Austria yesterday (stayed up till 3:30). After a long hiatus, I had forgotten how graet this mod is.
Thanks again, Rhye. ;)


:o Thank you again, without you all I would have abandoned the development of the mod since I released 2.0 :beer:
I hope the Xpack will satisfy your expectations

That's not going to help the Vikings though is it?

The Scottish coal would be for the Vikings, the Welsh coal would be for the English. The Welsh mines began closing in the 1970s, but the steel industry remains.

2.52 is nearly complete.
Only the decisions about adding enslavement ability to some UU and tweaking governments are still do be made

The Scottish coal would be for the Vikings, the Welsh coal would be for the English. The Welsh mines began closing in the 1970s, but the steel industry remains.
Thanks. I suppose it makes sense for the English to have more than one coal for exports anyway.

Only seems possible to win by having the highest score as the Vikings on Emperor. It's a damn hard game but I'm enjoying it. :)

I'm still on that game with Austria (now working through the european countries in the 1700s) and the Hussar is a bit problematic... Having only 2 defense is a major major setback. I can hardly feel safe using them outside armies.
Also, requiring only horses is pretty redundant since Austria can very easily claim Iron and Saltpeter.
I say add the Iron requirement and give them 3 defense.
When you need Knights to come and cover your assault forces defensively, you know something's gone wrong. =S

The hussars were light cavalry, so why should they need iron? You must cover them with fusiliers

When 2.52 will be out ? ;) I want play England with 2.52 :p

The hussars were light cavalry, so why should they need iron? You must cover them with fusiliers
They lose alot of their edge when you have to slow down and wait for Fusiliers.

Adding enslavement is an interesting idea. It will really alter the game I think. Depending on which units are given the ability you could wind up with the more aggressive civs having armies of workers available to improve terrain. Maybe limit it to ancient and medieval era UU's from civs that historically took alot of slaves?

As far as government tweaks go, I think lowering the corruption rate for democracy would be great. As it is you don't need to switch out of monarchy ever unless you plan to go conquest/domination in which case you're going to have to switch to communism. Democracy and Republic just can't compete with those two because of the increased support costs and rampant corruption due to some of the special rules in Rhye's.

Does anyone who plays at monarch or emperor actually use democracy? I can post a savegame or 2 to show how little benefit there actually is in switching out of Monarchy.

I can see how Svalbard could fit on the map. It won't be in the right location, but would probably be the next best location. Tundra located on coordinates 80,4, 81,7 and 82,6, and a hill with coal at 82,4. The island is roughly the same shape as Svalbard. I also altered the Bristol channel (inlet that separates Wales from South West England) to look more like the real Bristol channel. First, place coast on 74,34, place a hill at 74,32 (this is South Wales, where coal is found), place plains at 72,36 and 74,36, and place a forest at 73,35 (to represent Exmoor and Dartmoor).

chutchi husky-> I understand that you are from Bath, but I think that the changes you've made to Britain make it too fat. The particular of Bristol channel would be more accurate, but the overall British isle would lose accuracy in my opinion.
And about Svalbard, I won't put it out of place. It's far too north, much over the edge of the map.

Horton->The choice is limited to War Chariot, bowman, Immortal, Legion, Hoplites,Sipahi, Enkidu. But I'm not sure which of these units would be historically accurate, and which one may NOT become overpowered (remember that the Javelin Thrower (2/2/1+enslave) costs +10 gold).

They lose alot of their edge when you have to slow down and wait for Fusiliers.

Yes but they have 7 attack I think that overall is a powerful unit, that represents well a fast, unarmored and powerful cavalry

When 2.52 will be out ? ;) I want play England with 2.52 :p

As soon as I decide to add enslave ability to some units, or not.

Rhye,

On the enslavement thing, endiku, hoplite, and immortal are almost never used offensively by the AI so it would pointless to give those units the ability. Maybe the impi and south american civ UU's would be good options along with ansars and keshiks.

Or if you want to open it up a bit, maybe make a generic unit like the swordsman or archer have the enslave ability so all civs would benefit. This might prove imbalancing though, especially for civs like Germany.

If a Legionary is able to enslave, it should produce a worker and an auxilary.

Yes but they have 7 attack I think that overall is a powerful unit, that represents well a fast, unarmored and powerful cavalry
I just don't feel that extra point of attack is worth the loss of defense, gameplay-wise... When you've got a fast, strong attacker with blitz, you wanna be able to utilize the unit's abilities to sweep through enemy territory without looking back. When the unit has low defense you don't have that option.

I just don't feel that extra point of attack is worth the loss of defense, gameplay-wise... When you've got a fast, strong attacker with blitz, you wanna be able to utilize the unit's abilities to sweep through enemy territory without looking back. When the unit has low defense you don't have that option.

I asked before choosing that stats and nobody answered. Have you better stats in mind that are still coherent with the role of a light cavalry?

I asked before choosing that stats and nobody answered. Have you better stats in mind that are still coherent with the role of a light cavalry?
I guess I just had to try it myself to see how viable it is.
Hmmm... Maybe give a small defensive bombard to replace the lost defense and to represent the versatility that light cavalry provides? The defensive bombard needs to be just enough to be very likely to harm an attacking knight. That should at least allow you some sort of security when sending your hussars into battle.
Oh, and please add to the pedia entry that the hussar has blitz... I was very out of focus yesterday when I looked at the pedia entry so I didn't remember the fact and I suffered for that mistake today. =X

I didn't remember that I left blitz to the Hussars. Probably my intention was a 7/2/3 with no blitz. Now if they have blitz instead I think they're enough powerful (on attack).
Instead, I don't think that the bombard is realistic, as they have swords.
Removing the blitz and giving a +1 defense (7/3/3) would mean not being light cavalry.
Remember that they were elite cavalry used for scouting and harassing.
The perfect would be 6/3/3+blitz, but that's the cossacks.
That would cause changing the cossacks to something more accurate. To what? 6/4/3 no blitz (like they were in vanilla) + ignore forests cost (useful for Russia)?.

About the slavery, I'll send it to the Xpack because there are some problems.
It was very common in the Ancient world (Rome, Greece, etc.) but we must distinguish:
-who was made slave as prisoner of war
-who was made slave for other reasons (debts,...)
And in the first type we must distinguish between the civs that:
-bought slaves
-went to capture slaves.

The last type corresponds to the "enlave" ability. Egyptians for sure made raids into the Nile coasts with the only purpose of capturing slaves, but I need specific informations for the other units, too.

And after that, there's the balancement. Some units would be overpowered.
As in the Xpack many UU will change (I must make space for the 2nd UUs, and there's the archers swap), I will take the enlave ability into consideration then.

7/2/3 with blitz makes the hussar the strongest unit in the game before tanks. I don't see why they need extra defense too. All the horse units are high atk, low def.

When will BETA end..lol? I would like to play play 2.52 and not worry 2.53 is coming..lol!

tacfun

I didn't remember that I left blitz to the Hussars. Probably my intention was a 7/2/3 with no blitz. Now if they have blitz instead I think they're enough powerful (on attack).
Instead, I don't think that the bombard is realistic, as they have swords.
Removing the blitz and giving a +1 defense (7/3/3) would mean not being light cavalry.
Remember that they were elite cavalry used for scouting and harassing.
The perfect would be 6/3/3+blitz, but that's the cossacks.
That would cause changing the cossacks to something more accurate. To what? 6/4/3 no blitz (like they were in vanilla) + ignore forests cost (useful for Russia)?.
The defensive bombard is meant to represent the Hussars sending out small skirmishing parties to cause some damage before the battle begins, not actual bombardment.
Now, the problem with having this light cavalry UU replace a heavy cavalry standard unit, is that Austria is left with no heavy cavalry. afaik, UUs are meant to improve on the standard unit, not to replace it with a unit that fulfils a very different role.

7/2/3 with blitz makes the hussar the strongest unit in the game before tanks. I don't see why they need extra defense too. All the horse units are high atk, low def.
They may be incredibly powerful on offense, but it's hard to conquer and hold with a unit that defends like a spear in the age of guns...

When will BETA end..lol? I would like to play play 2.52 and not worry 2.53 is coming..lol!

tacfun

The beta is over since 2.0, these are updates!
Seriously, I think that updates to the mod will end with the release of the expansion pack.
Then, I'll begin updating the Xpack :lol:

The beta is over since 2.0, these are updates!
Seriously, I think that updates to the mod will end with the release of the expansion pack.
Then, I'll begin updating the Xpack :lol:
I think it may make more sense to only release these updates when there's something critical (like barbarian Cavalry) or a large accumulation of tweaks... It's just that if you don't have enough time between updates for people to complete a couple games, well, what's the point?

Agree :lol:

Agree

tacfun

I can understand what you're saying Blasphemous but even at 3 defense, hussars won't stand up to 6/3/3 normal cavalry.

7/3/3 + blitz is an extremely strong unit for its era. For all that offense something else has to be sacrificed.

I understand, but you don't have to halt your game and restart it with the new patch (unless there's some critical bug).
I think that's a good thing that I update often, instead of the opposite ;) If you want me to stop updating and delay for months, just tell... (j/k)

I can understand what you're saying Blasphemous but even at 3 defense, hussars won't stand up to 6/3/3 normal cavalry.

7/3/3 + blitz is an extremely strong unit for its era. For all that offense something else has to be sacrificed.
The thing is, I'm using Hussars against enemies with pikes and heavy horsemen and elephant archers and knights, and still, their counter-attacks are pretty effective against my Hussars...
As I said, when a UU replaces one unit that serves one purpouse, with another unit that serves a different purpouse, you've got a problem.
If there were seperate lines for light and heavy cavalry, then the Hussar could fit in with the light line... It's just a bit of a problem in the heavy cav line.

I understand, but you don't have to halt your game and restart it with the new patch (unless there's some critical bug).
I think that's a good thing that I update often, instead of the opposite ;) If you want me to stop updating and delay for months, just tell... (j/k)
Of course you don't have to, but you would rarely get a chance to play two different full games on the same version, meaning you never really get to fully feel the changes before more are added on... As I said, it would be better if you'd make patches whenever there's something critical or big, or whenever there's already a large buildup of small changes.
The only drawback would be you don't get to use us all as testers for each and every change... :P

As I said, when a UU replaces one unit that serves one purpouse, with another unit that serves a different purpouse, you've got a problem.
If there were seperate lines for light and heavy cavalry, then the Hussar could fit in with the light line... It's just a bit of a problem in the heavy cav line.


In the Xpack there will be 2 upgrade lines. For the basic version I feel that the unit is enough strong. The alternative is making it 6/3/3+blitz (like the Cossacks) and making the cossacks 6/4/3 (no blitz) + ignore forests


Of course you don't have to, but you would rarely get a chance to play two different full games on the same version, meaning you never really get to fully feel the changes before more are added on... As I said, it would be better if you'd make patches whenever there's something critical or big, or whenever there's already a large buildup of small changes.
The only drawback would be you don't get to use us all as testers for each and every change... :P

I've got the 2.52 on my HD with these changes:

- Removed Lutetia (Paris), Caesaraugusta (Zaragoza), Hispalis (Seville), Trebizond (Trapezus), Hearclea (Herakleia), Brusa (Bursa), Iconium (Konya), Tokyo (Edo), Ta-Tu (Beijing). Many thanks to Chukchi Husky
- Chinese city list replaced with the one made by Chukchi Husky, containing Pinyin romanizations. The order was slighly changed
- Added some Indian, German and Zulu city names; removed Taormina from Byzantine list
- Slightly changed German and English city lists
- Ethiopian capital moved to Aksum, the ancient capital
- The whole Abyssianian region has been redrawn
- Ethiopian traits now Agricoltural (instead of Militaristic) and Religious
- Some mountain/plateau swaps
- Tuned Incan, Roman, Babylonian, Iroquois, Indian, Persian and Ottoman strength
- Added coal in Uralis, Ucraina, England and Spain
- Removed a forst hill near a grassland in the Uralis

Now tell me, should I upload it or you all prefer to stick with the 2.51?

Hussars should be the lead wave possibly of an asslt force, but not intended anyway to hold the ground they keep. Cavalry never have been meant in the "garrison"or hold ground role. You sweep thru("blitz") with cavalry and follow them up with heavy forces for located enemy strongpoints and "boots on the ground" ie. infantry, to hold onto the territory gained. This same formula still basically holds true today as well. The cav is the tip of the spear, providing recon and a (light) strike force, followed up by heavier and slower forces to hit heavier concentrations, and to hold the area the cav has taken. Cav units best use, irl as in the game, is scout/anti scout...get info, deny it to your enemy.
Good stats Rhye..btw I finally took and finished a game, it played quite well. Used most of my leave to do it, but it was well worth it imho. Thank you
Ron

Upload it and then sit on 2.52 for a while or until you have a big enough update or a must do update.

tacfun

About the Hussar, I've changed my mind: the problem wasn't the Hussar stats, it was the fact that to prepare for my wars I was building cavalry alone without any infantry to support it.
About the patch, this version seems to make only very minor changes, I think you should hold off till there's a bit more to add on to it... No point having an extra download just for a couple map twaeks and city-list changes...

Shut up :> I want the download!

tacfun

Shut up :> I want the download!

tacfun
xD
Perhaps Rhye, you can release these small patches as "beta builds" and warn that they don't change much and are untested... Then after every couple of those beta builds you release a full patch that makes more of a difference.
That way everyone can get what they want, and the full patches will come with all the changes tested!

I like the frequent upgrades. Few of them alter the game to the point that you HAVE to download them but there are almost always a few useful changes in each one.

Either way is cool with me though

I like the frequent upgrades. Few of them alter the game to the point that you HAVE to download them but there are almost always a few useful changes in each one.

Either way is cool with me though

Agree. Although the changes do happen a bit too frequently, I like the fact that Rhye listens to his fans and gives continuous feedback instead of a "take it or leave it" attitude :goodjob:

I usually increase the version of 0.01 for small changes or of 0.05 or to the next .X0 in case of a bigger update. The concept is pretty similar to what Blasphemous's saying, but avoiding to make confusion with beta-builds

I usually increase the version of 0.01 for small changes or of 0.05 or to the next .X0 in case of a bigger update. The concept is pretty similar to what Blasphemous's saying, but avoiding to make confusion with beta-builds
Well then at least title the minor updates as "minor update" and the larger ones as "patch"... So people can know wether it makes a large difference or not.
Anyway, this whole thing is one big nitpicking... You're doing a great job and game companies should learn from you about updating games and listening to their fans.

A proposal:
I could release a major patch (2.6) adding in the main mod the new civ, leaving the Xpack with the 2nd UUs, units tweaks, tech tree changes, and maybe some other additions only. I can do it because I already have all the stuff I need (instead the Xpack still lacks 3 units, to be made by some other users, not before mid-late September)

The problem is:
right now the mod is 32MB, and the Xpack will be 40-45MB if it contains only the units, or much more if it contains a couple of new leaderheads (I was thinking of Justinian, Ramses II and perhaps Li Shi Min).
Instead if I move the new civ to the main mod, its site would increase to 57MB. The xpack would be 20-25MB if it contains units only, increasing by 20MB for each new leaderhead.

The advantage is that:
-You would have something more than a small update
-The strategy guides would be coherent after the Xpack as the civs would be the same
-The new civ is IMO much more important than the civ I'd remove. And the civ to be removed in this mod is an extra appearance.


What do you prefer? Is there anybody that can't afford a 57 MB download?

What do you prefer? Is there anybody that can't afford a 57 MB download?
Only people with 56k modems, where the download would take almost 2 1/2 hours.

In fact my question is: has anybody of you a 56k modem?

1024k ;) That's all

I have 512k. A 57MB download would take just over 15 minutes.
1024k would take around 7 1/2 minutes.

I say make the next patch include the minor changes you had planned, plus the new civ replacing the old one, with the new civ's leaderhead only (other leaderhead repalcements should stay in teh Xpack as they are not necessary.)
It would be very good to have the civ list be the same between the Xpack and the regular version.
About the Xpack units... Is it absolutely necessary to wait for the new unit graphics? Maybe secretly release (to those who ask you for it specifically) a beta version of the Xpack that uses temporary graphics, so we can test out the Xpack without needing to wait for the graphics?
It just seems that three unit graphics are a very trivial thing to hold the Xpack back for...

What unit do you have in mind for England's 2nd UU? If it was in the modern age I would use either a Sea Harrier (good naval bombardment, increased defence, replaces jet fighter) or the Special Air Service (increased attack, stealth ability, replaces modern paratrooper).

PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD POST 2.6!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't make us wait just because we have high-speed and some don't! That is punishing us for being fast!!

LOL!

tacfun..Hurry its the weekend I want 2.6...Im on strike till I get 2.6 and will not play any longer until its release!

LOL! You don't even know what civ's going it and what civ's going out! Some of you might not like the change...do you want to know?


HINT1: some pages back I wrote in Italian something about the new civ. If you can translate it, you'll understand that I wrote to Dux more than a hint.
HINT2: There's a song written in 1981 called like the capital of the new civ.

What unit do you have in mind for England's 2nd UU?

It's the Longbowman.
it will replace the crossbowman (available for all the civs)

LOL! You don't even know what civ's going it and what civ's going out! Some of you might not like the change...do you want to know?


HINT1: some pages back I wrote in Italian something about the new civ. If you can translate it, you'll understand that I wrote to Dux more than a hint.
HINT2: There's a song written in 1981 called like the capital of the new civ.
Just tell us, otherwise you won't get our approval and won't be sure if to release the change yet. =|

JUST RELEASE IT! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

tacfun

HINT2: There's a song written in 1981 called like the capital of the new civ.
Is the new civ Thailand? (I found an album from 1981 with Bangkok in the title) or possibly Brazil? (there's a song called Rio, but Rio de Janeiro isn't the capital)

Oh, btw Rhye, I'd like to report the way my game has been going on Monarch as Austria (so far I got to the late 19th century methinks):
America was discovered on time, Europe has been contantly at war within itself or against the Mongols since the early ADs, and Arabia, China, Mongols, Germany, Russia, and Austria have been the leading world powers (according to the histograph) for most of the game... After I battered Germany and Russia pretty hard, Japan and America are rising powers.
Basically I'm the only one with much tech and a large income nowadays, but soon enough everyone will be switching to Democracy and Communism and then the nations' power will be more evident.
Is it normal for Japan to colonise SE Asia? I think their small group of colonies is the reason their score is high on the list...

Is the new civ Thailand? (I found an album from 1981 with Bangkok in the title) or possibly Brazil? (there's a song called Rio, but Rio de Janeiro isn't the capital)

No :)
It's a song by the early U2, from one of my favourite albums

Oh, btw Rhye, I'd like to report the way my game has been going on Monarch as Austria (so far I got to the late 19th century methinks):
America was discovered on time, Europe has been contantly at war within itself or against the Mongols since the early ADs, and Arabia, China, Mongols, Germany, Russia, and Austria have been the leading world powers (according to the histograph) for most of the game... After I battered Germany and Russia pretty hard, Japan and America are rising powers.
Basically I'm the only one with much tech and a large income nowadays, but soon enough everyone will be switching to Democracy and Communism and then the nations' power will be more evident.
Is it normal for Japan to colonise SE Asia? I think their small group of colonies is the reason their score is high on the list...

Sounds good, expecially America discovered on time (by you?) and the rising of America.
Usually Japan colonizes some islands or SE Asia. If it doesn't, you can bet it's stuck researching Writing, keeping the settlers in its own cities, for some strage reasons.

JUST RELEASE IT! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

tacfun

Even in case everybody agrees with my choice, I'll need a couple of days to update civilopedia, check that the new civ is balanced, make the packages, etc.

So much for my weekend! :{

tacfun

I'm talking of a delay of a day or two, not of some months ;)

A day or two is like death to me now! I want to play badly. I want to play with your 2.6!! Can you not work overtime?..lol!

tacfun

Due to Rhye death creeps slowly over me!

Sounds good, expecially America discovered on time (by you?) and the rising of America.
Usually Japan colonizes some islands or SE Asia. If it doesn't, you can bet it's stuck researching Writing, keeping the settlers in its own cities, for some strage reasons.
I didn't discover America, though I had thought I did till I traded for some maps and saw French colonies in Northern South America.
I've been trying to make good trade parteners out of the american civs since they are way behind, meaning I gift them a bunch of techs every now and then... I think I'll do this more vigorously so I can get America as an ally for my next big war... I won't stop till all of western Europe is mine. :D

No :)
It's a song by the early U2, from one of my favourite albums

Too much info! Looks like Al Quds might be become more significant in your next release then?

Release the leader heads in one go, nothing gets in the way of 2,2 Mbps :D

I say bring on the new civ, so long as it isn't in the Middle East. As nice as it would be to have a Palestinian or Jewish state, there just isn't any room for it, and even if there I still wouldn't consider them important enough to merit their own civilization.

It has to be Poland. But what ever CIV you delete please..please take some of there cities and give them to other CIVS...Example if you get rid of Sameria give the cities to Babylon...ect

tacfun

Let us BETA test 2.6 for ya!!!...HEH!

tacfun

Blasphemous, don't you know there's a song with the name of your city?

It is Israel for Sumeria.

I've made this choice some time ago and it is definitive. I'm sorry that somebody will not like it, but I have various reasons to include it - the question is: now or in the Xpack only (in case somebody prefer Sumeria).

The reasons are:
-historical ->they are very important and deserve a Civ IMO. No matter if the region is crowded. They were over there before Christ, and are important nowadays. You can live without knowing who Sumerians or Khmers or Tibetans were. You can't live without knowing anything of Judaism, Israel etc., no matter if you like or dislike them. If you don't like them, make fanatics or crusaders and destroy them.
-pratical ->I must think ahead, of the Xpack. I could not find 2 UUs for other civs. Instead I found good stuff for Israel.


That's all. Let me know if you all agree to anticipate the addition to the main mod or prefer Sumeria.

First of all, immediately change the name of the nation to "Hebrews", or "Israel" (in ancient times the name was used as well as today). (As a nation I don't think we're commonly called "the Jews" by anybody but well, ourselves and those who think it's a bad word. Then again, I think all civ names should be those used by the nations themselves for themselves. Which is another issue entirely.)
And of course I knew (or at least was pretty sure) the civ you were adding is Israel because you narrowed down the options pretty well a few pages ago... I also know there are plenty of songs called "Jerusalem" or at least including the name... I just couldn't find it in allmusic.com in U2's songlist or discography. =S
But I personally think it's not the best choice of civ to add... Althought there may be much cultural history the Hebrew people are involved in, as a nation we were never really a large empire of any ifluence, and never really an actual organized country for that long...
I think east Asia, Africa, and native America are very under-represented and are in more need of another civ.
Also, as sad as the reality is, the situation in my country and my area is very charged and I'd rather not be represented in your mod than be represented and have people play the mod just to enjoy killing the virtual nation representing me.
But hey, you make the mod, it's your choice. I'd just rather see Polynesia, the Khmer, Mali*, or the Cherokee in the mod rather than Israel.

*Not sure that was it, but what I mean is that large african empire that dominated a large area of sub-sahara Africa for a long long time. The nation I speak of is known by several names, and some of them regard nations that inherited the empire, so to speak. I don't really know much about this, I just recall reading about it here in CFC in threads abotu other civs that need to be in the game.

Yes change the name to Hebrews and Im from a christian background and I love that you added them. For Sumeria I would leave there starting city and give contol of it to Babylon and don't listen to all the people that ***** that Babylon will get a head start. This will make a more historical view. Also if the cities survive we can have an Iraq or Kawatti war ...lol! Also Babylon in ancient times was a bit of a power house.

tacfun

PS.. My spelling sucks!

Who cares if people want to invade Israel or not...it's a game and don't take it personal. I love attacking the Americans and Im Canadian..lol! I would remove America and add Poland too. This would make for a great colonizing of North America!!!

tacfun

Blasphemus, I can't believe you do not control all of western Europe yet. I also played as the Austrians on Monarch. I booted French, Netherlands, Byzantines, Greeks, Romans,(I got to try the Hussars for the first time on them!!!) Portuguese and Spainish off of the continent and it is only 600 AD!!! (Civs were conquered in that order)I have just entered the industrial age via bullying people for tech :) I think i'll conquer Ottomans, Sumerians etc. to get at that Arabian oil! YUUMMM YYYUUUMM!!!

I vote release the 2.6 patch!!

tacfun - it's not personal, it also pissed me off when some of my friends brag about how they got to kill Arabia in civ... I just know there are plenty of people who would play a mod just for the satisfaction of killing off a nation they dislike, and when that nation is the one I live in, it disturbs me even more than usual.

beernuts - the problem is I only ever got two wars that I planned for... Most of my wars were due to demands by my neighbours, or due to them treading on my turf... Whenever they start it though, they do pay for it... Every civ that ever tried to mess with me went down a couple ranks in score by the time we signed a peace treaty. All of the civs in question were near the top if not AT the top when they offended me. Except for a couple tag-alongs taht signed alliances with Germany... I made the Greek pay already (left them with just one slightly displaced city to the northeast) and the Netherlands will get what they deserve in time. Now I just need to finally finish my business with France. They've been a thorn in my side geographically since forever... I just never had the time to properly invade them. ^^

My biggest problem is I like to build and then invade. So I give computer time to build and then I collect my prizes..lol!

But i do not have to worry because I can build nothing because my dear friend Rhye has set out to destroyer and utter kill my weekend by not releasing 2.6 ..lol...hope u got the humor!

tacfun

I'm afraid my vote goes to leaving Israel in the X-Pack, then. I think I'd rather have Sumeria than Israel.

yeah, I also like building before I go in... The problem is that hte AI isn't as patient as I am, and when I tell them to get out or come and get some, they just come...
My first war was I think against Rome but during that war France declared war as I was using their land to get to the northern Roman city that I was attacking... I took the city, signed peace with Rome (who had attacked me or at least instigated the war) and then took otu some French units os I could get peace. Then I had a large war against Germany (that wanted my Iron which I knew would be used against me later) and then while I was trying to bring it to a close, the Russians started on me in the northwest... So I finished up with Germany and then took Moscow and Novgorod and stuff... And then declared on Germany again and made my territory uninterrupted... But they pulledi n Greece adn the Netherlands so now I'm finishing up with that.
Oh, and somewhere in the middle I attacked the Byzantines and the Arabs declared war when I refused to give in to their demands and they pulled in the Ottomans who generoulsy yielded to my Hussars.
It's all quite jumbled in my mind I'm afraid...
The funniest thing is that the Mongols are way behind everyone technologically but they're still pretty powerful and have been waging war on most of the European nations since the middle ages... Peace comes and goes but they are always passign through my lands to get to Rome or France or Spain or something...
Loads of fun.
I'm also helping Rome with resources so they can resist Portugal, Spain, and France. This is a war that always goes through my land so I get to watch it... The Romans are holding their ground very well, even thought they use Legionaries against Cavalry...
Bleh, I'm rambling...
=X

I've noticed that many people have the obsession of polynesians, tibetans, mali, khmer... With the only reason of filling the map as more as possible.
What impact did they have to the world history?
And what impact did the hebrews have? much more!
And, as I've said, there's a problem with the unique units for that civs.


blasphemous -> I have nothing against Israel. I only think that they deserve to be in, no matter if you like or diskile them.

I'm sorry Khift and Blasphemous doesn't agree. I'll wait some more replies, Iztvan and Horton for sure, before any decision. Depends on how many of you don't agree. As it is now (2 disagreeing) I won't do anything.

Israel has to be included. Without Israel is like taking out Babylon. I would say that u should include them and if someone doesn't like it let them not choose them. I don't think blasphemous is against it just that he's concerned with peoples moods and actions and what they will do to the Hebrew Civ. Yet again I say its a GAME!!!

tacfun

Another thaught just came to me...What if I said what about Canada? or the Germans offend me! The list could go on and on and you'll never make everyone happy except me with releasing the mod TONIGHT!...LOL!

tacfun

Whats your feelings on removing America and adding Poland? America just makes the mod seem whacked!!! Let the Aztecs and Iqurious have some more room to expand and then we English will come and colonize our slaves...I mean land!...heh

tacfun

It's not just that tacfun... The kind of influence my people have had on the world is a kind that is not represented well in Civ. We never covered much land, and for only a brief half of a century have we been a military force for the world to recon with. What jewish scholars call "The Golden Age" is a time when most of the hebrews were in diaspora and a large group ofthem thrived in spain and iraq/iran.
Now, the polynesians had influence that fits right into civ... They were great seafarers, they performed awesome feats of naval travel wtih very primitive technology and got to new places far away from home...
And the Mali iirc dominated sub-saharan africa and were an important part of history there. They may not have affected "western" euro-centric history but they were major players in their time.
Now I must sleep.
Good night.

Yes but Jewish and Christian Culture have had HUGE impact on the world. Culture is as important as Military too. Hebrews must be added to the game and not ignored. If someone wants to pick on them in the game so be it. Thats there sick mind. Better in the game then in real life I say.

tacfun

Don't I win anything for guessing Jerusalem/Al-Quds? ;) :(

I say put Israel in the XPack. As a people, the Hebrews are obviously culturally and religiously extremely significant. However, Civilization is basically a territorial/population game of conquest and the Jews are numerically far too small, through out history, to be of any importance when compared with the other civs.

Yes but Jewish and Christian Culture have had HUGE impact on the world. Culture is as important as Military too. Hebrews must be added to the game and not ignored. If someone wants to pick on them in the game so be it. Thats there sick mind. Better in the game then in real life I say.

tacfun
There is no religion in Civ3. There is no real issue of real culture.
Tiny nations that in reality was only ever threatening militarily in the equivelant of the last 5% of the game shouldn't be in it. Nations that controlled large regions should.

Don't I win anything for guessing Jerusalem/Al-Quds? ;) :(


Yeah, right. Compliments to the winner!
The song was "With A Shout (Jerusalem)" from the album "October"

Did you know the song or just researched the discography?

I'm sotty tacfun, but as things are now with 2 people disagreeing and you sometimes agreeing sometimes disagreeing, I'll leave Israel in the Xpack.
Hoping that somebody won't dislike the Xpack, then.
I will release 2.52 if today nothing changes.

If you are adding Israel to civ then you need to remove Jerusalem from Rome's city list. For Israel's leader would you be using R8XFT's David?

If you are adding Israel to civ then you need to remove Jerusalem from Rome's city list. For Israel's leader would you be using R8XFT's David?

I already did in 2.52.
Yes, I was using David.

Yeah, right. Compliments to the winner!
The song was "With A Shout (Jerusalem)" from the album "October"

Did you know the song or just researched the discography?

My CD rack hangs right next to my PC and I have War, October and Joshua Tree from U2 so it was just a chance thing...
:cool:

My CD rack hangs right next to my PC and I have War, October and Joshua Tree from U2 so it was just a chance thing...
:cool:

But we're going back there, Je-ru-sa-lemmmmm :thumbsup:

But we're going back there, Je-ru-sa-lemmmmm :thumbsup:
LOL! Luckily I can't hear your singing from here ;)

For completing the Israel matter, I thought of adding religions in the Xpack.
I already tried with flavours but as some of you remember, they didn't work.
I have found another way of adding them. It is a bit complicated, but it would give Israel an unique trait (the Judaism) and would put Europeans in disadvantage at the beginning

LOL! Luckily I can't hear your singing from here ;)

:) What are you trying to insinuate?
I'm a singer!

For completing the Israel matter, I thought of adding religions in the Xpack.
I already tried with flavours but as some of you remember, they didn't work.
I have found another way of adding them. It is a bit complicated, but it would give Israel an unique trait (the Judaism) and would put Europeans in disadvantage at the beginning
I don't want to rain too much on your ideas but I would be cautious about giving one religion any sort of advantage or precedence over any other. It would be good to remember that our European history is very biased towards the "rightness" and superiority of Christianity and its foundation Judaism.

Maybe you could explain exactly what advantages you have in mind?

Excellent idea Asclepius! How would the different religions be represented?

Excellent idea Asclepius! How would the different religions be represented?
I guess you're asking Rhye? :) I have the same question!

Rhye, I would suggest removing some of the barbarian camps in Central Asia. I just got back from trying a game as the Mongols, and it's just ridiculous there. Each camp could produce Warriors just as fast as my cities could build Horsemen, and at any given time I was defending myself against three or four camps. Also, shouldn't the barbarian units have 4 HP instead of 5, seeing as they're conscripts? And I don't even want to think about what would happen if there were massive uprisings in this game... I mean, I counted 12 barbarian camps in Central Asia, 6 in Ukraine, 7 in the indochina region, and one right in the middle of Mongolia, China, and Korea. That's 26 barbarian camps there. If there were massive uprisings here, it'd simply be masochistic to play any civ that had a border with the barbarian realms of Central Asia.

Remember, not every tribe of nomads would raise armies and attack the poor people of Mongolia, Russia and Persia!

I just finished my first game as the Iroqouis and dominated North America... everything north of panama was mine. :D

The barbarians in the western and northern US were pretty intense. I actually really liked the huge number of them that came pouring through the bottleneck in the SW... I felt like I'd really accomplished something when I fought my way through them to establish a port on the pacific side of the continent.

I never really felt like they were under control until I had tanks and it was terrifying when barbarians began popping up with swordsmen before the backward americas had even developed iron working themselves! :)

With all that said, I did find myself wondering what the situation must be like in siberia. The North American terrain is such that there were numerous chokepoints that you could control to keep the barbairans in check. There's just wide-open spaces in Asia. I can imagine what difficulties that could present.

One thing I did notice is that barbarian camps would spawn in marshland, making them impossible to take out without expanding cultural borders. Is this something that can be changed?

This mod was fantastic. I was totally consumed with it for a good long while.

:goodjob:

Rhye,

Im very disappointed that you are not adding Israel!!! 2 people have more rights then others I guess? Well, there rights have now squashed my rights. This makes me very upset!

tacfun

I like the addition of the Israelis. A new civ will add flavor to the mod and make it that much more interesting. I will be interested to see how Israel plays and what their UU is. I do think the terrain in the region is due for a minor re-balancing though. Maybe add just a few shields to the hill near their start or another square or two of plains.

I was wondering if their cities should be labeled as Jewish or Hebrew though. I'm not sure how it was done historically.

I'll be looking forward to trying them out.

On another note, I was wondering if anyone might be interested in joint playtesting some of the crippled civs for fun. We could pick a civ like the Zulu or Babylon and everyone start a game with them. People could try to win by different conditions, 1 person 10k culture, someone else space race etc and see how the games develop. After a week or so we could upload our savegames and compare how we did and what we learned.

I was wondering if their cities should be labeled as Jewish or Hebrew though. I'm not sure how it was done historically.
I think Hebrew is better as it refers to the people of the nation. Jewish refers to people of the religion.

How is Babylon broken? They ended as one of the top civs in my game. They destroyed Sumeria, Ethiopia and Egypt and took most of Central Africa. They were leading in tech for awhile too until I caught up.

On another note, I was wondering if anyone might be interested in joint playtesting some of the crippled civs for fun. We could pick a civ like the Zulu or Babylon and everyone start a game with them. People could try to win by different conditions, 1 person 10k culture, someone else space race etc and see how the games develop. After a week or so we could upload our savegames and compare how we did and what we learned.Throw the Mongols in there too - with all them barbarians, they're nearly impossible!

Mongols are barbarians... lol!

tacfun

Throw the Mongols in there too - with all them barbarians, they're nearly impossible!
In my game, though they have practically no resoruces at all, they have persisted in attacking Europe and staying near the top of the histograph in rank from the early middle ages and have not yet stopped though I am near the start of the 20th century... Go figure.

Mongols are barbarians... lol!

tacfunI beg to differ.

I can't say I feel like explaining, but if you want an explanation, read this page (http://www.coldsiberia.org/webdoc3.htm).

One thing I did notice is that barbarian camps would spawn in marshland, making them impossible to take out without expanding cultural borders. Is this something that can be changed?


No. Unfortunatley it's hardcoded

Rhye,

Im very disappointed that you are not adding Israel!!! 2 people have more rights then others I guess? Well, there rights have now squashed my rights. This makes me very upset!

tacfun

It isn't a matter of rights.
The point is that I want the basic mod to be as strict as possible regarding additions. I wanted to make the game as it should be in my opinion, trying not to discontent anybody.
Six months ago I could have even released the basic mod without the 2 new civs at all.

For the Xpack, that's another story. I still hear what people says, but as it is optional, I can say "take it as it is".
So, if 2 people of 4 already disagrees, it's better postponing. The situation may change if I see that 10 other people asks for Israel, or if Blasphemous and Khift change their minds.

I do think the terrain in the region is due for a minor re-balancing though.


That was one of the reasons for adding Israel. I don't like the situation of middle-east as it is now.



I was wondering if their cities should be labeled as Jewish or Hebrew though. I'm not sure how it was done historically.


I really don't know. In Italian they are "ebrei", for both the race and the religion. The translation of jewish, "guideo", is almost never used.

On another note, I was wondering if anyone might be interested in joint playtesting some of the crippled civs for fun. We could pick a civ like the Zulu or Babylon and everyone start a game with them. People could try to win by different conditions, 1 person 10k culture, someone else space race etc and see how the games develop. After a week or so we could upload our savegames and compare how we did and what we learned.

In that case don't test Babylon, Iroquois or India before I release next patch (no matter if it is 2.52 or 2.6). I've tweaked them a little, adding more shields.
And don't test Ethiopia, as I've redrawn the whole region, and Mongols, as I've moved a couple of barb.camps

How would the different religions be represented?

The idea I got today is still only an idea, I haven't made any tests and it may not work.
It was about adding Small Wonders, one for each religion, with the flag "replace all impr. with this flag checked". In this way you must choose: any civ may not have more than one religion. I'll have to test if it works backwards (if I want to swap from Christianity to Greek Polytheism). For sure I'll have to unset that flag for the plants (coal, nuclear, solar,..)
After that, I would add the small wonder as a prerequisite for some other religion-based wonders.
Sistine Chapel will be Christian only, Statue of Zeus will be Greek Pol. only, the Communist government available only with Atheism, etc.
The complexity now raises, because I'd have to add new wonders, at least 2 for each new religion, for keeping the whole thing balanced and not considering one religion above the other.

Very good idea on religions Rhye. I have played around a little with the possibilities as well, religion as well as government forms, to give each govt a strength, or each religion a strength, and small wonders seem to me the best answer.

The idea I got today is still only an idea, I haven't made any tests and it may not work.
It was about adding Small Wonders, one for each religion, with the flag "replace all impr. with this flag checked". In this way you must choose: any civ may not have more than one religion. I'll have to test if it works backwards (if I want to swap from Christianity to Greek Polytheism). For sure I'll have to unset that flag for the plants (coal, nuclear, solar,..)
After that, I would add the small wonder as a prerequisite for some other religion-based wonders.
Sistine Chapel will be Christian only, Statue of Zeus will be Greek Pol. only, the Communist government available only with Atheism, etc.
The complexity now raises, because I'd have to add new wonders, at least 2 for each new religion, for keeping the whole thing balanced and not considering one religion above the other.
Now that is a clever idea, I like the idea of limiting improvements to certain governments/religions. Would it also be possible to change the name of the improvements for each religion so Christianity has church, Islam has mosque...Synagogues....Budhist temples...Ziggurats... whatever religions you include?

Rhye, it does sound like a nice idea but you can bet people will be offended by any stereotyping of their faith or that of others. Also it sounds like you'll be able to build as many different power plants as you want if you remove that flag, and that sounds like a pretty big problem...
Perhaps a better way to go is to split each gov't into different religions (using that gov't, eg "Monarchy (Christian)", "Monarchy (Islam)", "Democracy (Atheist)") with slightly different stats compared to the other religions using that gov't and each with its own small wonder that belongs to that religion...
That would also make it less likely that people swing from religion to religion, and would at least provide a drawback for switching (since it's not easy to convert a whole country).

WIth gov's, I wouldn't know what stats to change. It's a nonsense for me: what difference should be between an Atheist and a Chistian Democracy?
The only way seems to be the small wonders, but the plants problem must be fixed. Removing some plaints? Raising their cost? Halving their power? IMO if it isn't unbalancing, it is a minor loss compared to having religions.

I don't know why people should be offended. By what?

And what about Israel? Is the situation still the same? I don't understand why Blashpemous doesn't want his own people in the game...

I think the problem with Israel is that there is no room to expand, but perhaps they should have a special cheap settler (to represent the diaspora).

The problem is the same of Sumeria. From the point of view of 6the gameplay, With the difference that Israel starts near the coast and may go away, while Sumeria has only flood plains, a lower aggression level, and many "build never" flags that tend to cripple it much more.

Israel alredy has the UUs: the Maccabee and the Merkvava 4.

WIth gov's, I wouldn't know what stats to change. It's a nonsense for me: what difference should be between an Atheist and a Chistian Democracy?
The only way seems to be the small wonders, but the plants problem must be fixed. Removing some plaints? Raising their cost? Halving their power? IMO if it isn't unbalancing, it is a minor loss compared to having religions.

I don't know why people should be offended. By what?
Perhaps there shouldn't be a difference in stats, just a small wonder for each religion (sometimes shared by a few gov'ts and sometimes having different sm wonders for different gov'ts of the same religion). It just seems like a more appropriate implementation than wonders only.
People can be offended simply by their faith being stereotyped as having certain attributes and stuff... I never really understood it but people are awfully touchy about this type of thing.

I think the problem with Israel is that there is no room to expand, but perhaps they should have a special cheap settler (to represent the diaspora).
Errrr... Whne my people were in the diaspora they weren't settling anything, they were living among the indigenous population and rarely in their own settlements. When they did live in their own settlements they were tiny towns in Europe.
Cheap settlers make absolutely no sense in representing diaspora.

And what about Israel? Is the situation still the same? I don't understand why Blashpemous doesn't want his own people in the game...
I'm not exactly the biggest nationalist, and so I can look at things rationally: all the nations represented in the game were either a major military power for a long while, a major exploring/imperial/trading power for a long time, or just took up a large area for a large time.
Israel has only been a major military power for the last few decades (just a couple percent of the time represented in the game) unless perhaps you count the kingdom of Israel (in the age of David and Solomon) as a major power. We never ever took up enough space to account for more than two cities in-game, and we were never big explorers, colonists, or traders.
Our only merit for inclusion in the mod is cultural influence.
Show me another civ that is in for that kind of merit.

Israel alredy has the UUs: the Maccabee and the Merkvava 4.
It's Merkava, not Merkvava.
It means "Chariot".

People can be offended simply by their faith being stereotyped as having certain attributes and stuff... I never really understood it but people are awfully touchy about this type of thing.


In fact I would try to make the wonders system more various.
I'd add some American temples for American pagain cults, the Sphinx for Egyptian Pyramids, the Taj Mahal, the Terracotta army...
I'd try to make things less greek-centric and euro-centric.
I could even remove Bach's cathedral and assign its benefits to an Extra-european wonder.


I'm not exactly the biggest nationalist, and so I can look at things rationally: all the nations represented in the game were either a major military power for a long while, a major exploring/imperial/trading power for a long time, or just took up a large area for a large time.
Israel has only been a major military power for the last few decades (just a couple percent of the time represented in the game) unless perhaps you count the kingdom of Israel (in the age of David and Solomon) as a major power. We never ever took up enough space to account for more than two cities in-game, and we were never big explorers, colonists, or traders.
Our only merit for inclusion in the mod is cultural influence.
Show me another civ that is in for that kind of merit.


Yes, the things you're saying are right. But what about Sumeria (question mark. my keyboard is broken).
They were the first to settle in middle east. They lasted about 2 thousand years.
And then. If you see from the poin6t of view of 6the 6timeline, their period is the first 40 turns. So there's not6 much difference between all the other9 civs that ate each other that time (akkadians, babylonians, assyrians, hittites, cassites,...).
Israel is one of these civs, wi6th 6the diff9erence that
-they had an huge cultural impact on the9 whole lengt6h of 6the tim9eline
-they're back as an important nation in modern times.

That's why I consider Israel more important than Sumeria.




It's Merkava, not Merkvava.


I know it's Merkava. Tomorrow I'll buy a new keyboard.

YAY new keyboard for Rhye!! I was starting to get confused :crazyeye:

Anyway, about the enslave ability issue. I think I have a solution: Instead of overpowering units why not create a new resource called "Slaves" and scatter them throughout Africa. Thier dissapearance/reapearance ratio would be high, to represent tribes running out of usable slaves. This resource would allow the building of a worker for 1/2 the normal cost AND no population cost. The only problem is: how do make slavery end by the late middle ages?

I have another idea: If a person has control of a "Slaves" resource they can build a sm. wonder that creates a slave worker every 5 turns or so. It could be made obsolete by industrialization or another early industrial tech.

Well, what are your opinions? (Blasphemous, you are not allowed to say "It MAY offend some people" :rolleyes: THIS WAS ACTUALLY DONE!)


Edit: Oh by the way Horton, I will join your quest to play a crappy civ! Which one should I be?

Oh I do have a suggestion regarding the appearance of horses in the Americas... they really come too late to be of any use at all. When do they appear exactly? 1790 or so? Shouldn't they appear sometime in the 16th century? 1500's... Sure it gives the American civs a little more oomph since they're so far behind in tech to suddenly be able to produce something approaching a competetive offensive unit, but by the late 18th century it seems like the American civs either catch up in tech and by that time horses are useless, or they are so hopelessly far behind that horses make no difference anyway.

I dunno... I really like the idea of the delayed introduction of horses and I'm sure Rhye's given it alot of thought... there's probably posts about it in this thread already that I just haven't read, but it just seemed like something that could use a little fine-tuning.

I guess its a question of historical acuracy versus playability.

I think that the horses showing up is not based on time but tech advancement. A 16th century tech would make them available.

ahh, that makes sense... I got so many techs, so fast as the Iroquois once I got contact with the rest of the world that I bypassed any possible period where horses would be of use.

Oh I do have a suggestion regarding the appearance of horses in the Americas... they really come too late to be of any use at all. When do they appear exactly? 1790 or so? Shouldn't they appear sometime in the 16th century? 1500's... Sure it gives the American civs a little more oomph since they're so far behind in tech to suddenly be able to produce something approaching a competetive offensive unit, but by the late 18th century it seems like the American civs either catch up in tech and by that time horses are useless, or they are so hopelessly far behind that horses make no difference anyway.

I dunno... I really like the idea of the delayed introduction of horses and I'm sure Rhye's given it alot of thought... there's probably posts about it in this thread already that I just haven't read, but it just seemed like something that could use a little fine-tuning.

I guess its a question of historical acuracy versus playability.


In America Horses spreaded much after the other resources introduced by the Europeans, because riding horses was forbidden. They should appear when Milittary Tradition is sicovered. To say the truth, I'm not sure of when exactly does usually (in most games) America discover MIlitary Tradition. Tell me the year. If that is too late, I'll make them appear earlier

Oh by the way Horton, I will join your quest to play a crappy civ! Which one should I be?


It's your choice between Egypt, Aztecs, Mayas, Korea. Don't take other civs because after 2.52 there will be some tuning.

I think i'll go with the Aztecs. What do you think of the slavery idea?

oh, right, the slavery.
I can make a resource appear, but not disappear. That's a big problem. The wonder seems a better idea, possibly to include in the Xpack. (even if I don't consider slavery a "wonder of the world" ;) )
however I can confirm that in the expansion some units will have the ability. Just think: adding a 2nd UU, and swapping the archers role makes a big mess with the 1st UU. Reorganizing the units will take enslavement into account.

YAY new keyboard for Rhye!! I was starting to get confused :crazyeye:


That's strange. When I pressed "e" it wrote "9e" or "e9", when I wrote "c" it wrote "c
" (c+enter), and the same with other keys. I had to make many correction to make my massage readable.
I opened the keyboard and saw that everything was allright. When closing it I broke 2 keys, but the rest seems to work. Except for "del" which seems dead. I have to use the backspace.
Tomorrow I'll buy a new keyb.

Rhye, I have a suggestion for the Zulus. The Impi is supposed to be a fast moving unit but with the poor terrain and many plateaus and marshes around Africa the impi rarely gets to use it's 2nd movement point. Would you consider changing the Impi stats to 1/2/1 treats all as roads? That would fix the issue and make the Impi useful for taking out barbarian camps and harassing the AI like in vanilla civ.

Zulu, Mongols, or Egypt are my top choices for the crippled civ challenge. Maybe we could all start a game when the next update is ready and compare our games to see how effective different styles are.

iirc Rhye, Sumeria is the direct ancestor of Babylon so in fact it deserves to be represented by Babylon and not by itself.
Sumeria is an unworthy civ perhaps (though 2000 years are not a short while, even if it is just the first 40 turns - Israel only has under 60 years) but there are other nations more appropriate than Israel... I've made suggestons before, feel free to use them. =P

I started a game as the Aztecs, I am 123 turns into the game. I have 5 cities in the Mexico region and 1 city on a Carribean island. My score is 244. I am just behind America in tech, all I need is construction to advance. Suffice to say, it is slow going as a crappy civ. I think I shall try the Mongols at the next update.

I agree with Horton, Impi's should be 1/2/1 treats all terrain as roads.

iirc Rhye, Sumeria is the direct ancestor of Babylon so in fact it deserves to be represented by Babylon and not by itself.
Sumeria is an unworthy civ perhaps (though 2000 years are not a short while, even if it is just the first 40 turns - Israel only has under 60 years) but there are other nations more appropriate than Israel... I've made suggestons before, feel free to use them. =P

1-can you t6ell me9 what6 doe9s "iirc" m9ean
2-o6th9er nat6ions have some problems wit6h 6the9 UUs. There9 aren'6t around as much as I need. But i can consider alt6erna6tive versions, aft6er t6he Xpack if I ge the units I need.
3-IN t6he st6andard mod do you pre9fer Israel or Sumeria in (question mark)

I'll make impis ignore mountains and desert cost

1-can you t6ell me9 what6 doe9s "iirc" m9ean
I think it means "If I Recall Correctly".

Rhye can you please post 2.52 so I can play today?

tacfun

Israel or Sumeria ? Both :p !!! Wipe out America please

3-IN t6he st6andard mod do you pre9fer Israel or Sumeria in (question mark)

That keyboard is hilarius. Anyhow, I would prefer Israel because they would have a much stronger starting location instead of 100% floodplains like Sumeria.

The Impi change sounds good

@Tacfun- Give Rhye a break man, you'll have plenty of time during the week to play. I'd be thankful if he updated his mod monthly! ;)

Sorry, Im just impatient..lol... I got to keep the whip on him or he may slack off!

tacfun

I was just reading some of the Warhammer mod thread, and I saw an idea that would be quite interesting: allowing modern ships to carry Cruise Missiles To be specific, here's the quote that showed that to me:Just make spells Tactical Missiles, and give spellcasters the Transports Only Tactical Missiles flag. Unless you have something else that's a tac-missile? I can't think of anything offhand, but I havn't had the chance to play 2.0 extensively. As far as I know, tactical missile is NOT a loaded keyword; it's just another flag like foot unit. It doesn't automatically make units into nukes. I know I made Cruise Missiles tactical missiles in my enhanced conquests mod to give modern ships the ability to carry them and it worked perfectly.I dunno if you want to copy this from Zurai, but I personally think it's a quite beautiful way to add realistic content to the modern age.

Thumbs up to the inclusion of Israel. They weren't my first choice for a civ to be included, but it's far, far, better than Sumeria. The noun for the civ should be "Israel" and the adjective should be "Hebrew" or "Israelite".

1-can you t6ell me9 what6 doe9s "iirc" m9ean
2-o6th9er nat6ions have some problems wit6h 6the9 UUs. There9 aren'6t around as much as I need. But i can consider alt6erna6tive versions, aft6er t6he Xpack if I ge the units I need.
3-IN t6he st6andard mod do you pre9fer Israel or Sumeria in (question mark)
1) "If I Recall Correctly"
3) Neither really... Perhaps bring the Inca back in instead of them? =P
It's just silly to have Sumeria in along with Babylon, so if it's a choice between those two, then Israel I guess.

EDIT: The civ name for Israel should be "Israel", the adjective should definately be "Hebrew". You would never call a city in ancient times "Israeli" and "Israelite" doesn't fit in after the start of the industrial age.

OK. The question now is: Israel or Sumeria. I want to know Khift's opinion now.

THe moost interesting of the alternatives are the Khmer. BUt I must think to mantain the same civs for the Xpack. And the Khmer can't be in the Xpack as long as I can't find 2 good and historical accurate UUs. Maybe an alternative version after the release of the expansion pack. If somebody makes some UUs

3) Neither really... Perhaps bring the Inca back in instead of them? =P


INca (quesiton mark) :confused:

[edit2] :blush: oops! i forgot i didnt have electricity :mischief: , i must've traded for industralization instread

[edit] btw great map :goodjob:. I have been playing this map since yesterday and i'm already almost half way done with my game (200th turn). The turns are so incredibly fast! It used to take me weeks to play and finish a world map game but i think i can finish this one by tomorrow. the rules and penalties are really harsh though, for example, it takes 80 slave worker turns to chop down a forest? lol oh well, score one for mother earth! I'm gonna wait a few more turns to get replaceable parts before i start plowing down the trees.

Rhye I surrunder...! Can I please have 2.52?.. PLEASE!

tacfun

I've gotta admit, I like the Sumerians. I've just got this love affair with things long forgotten by most folks. The Sumerians, although maybe not the best, were the first, and one of the most forgotten. If I were to ask a random person what they thought of Sumeria, they'd probably ask me if that was one of those newfangled technology companies. They were ancient, they were powerful for a time, they hold numerous interesting secrets, and I like them.

But it is kinda true that its redundant to have both Sumeria and Babylon at once. And it is also true that, while Sumeria was the first, Israel was/is arguably more important in the overall scheme of things.

The real question to me, however, is not whether Israel is more important than Sumeria, it's whether they're so much more important that it's worth changing the game. I honestly feel as though the game needs to be tuned, not completely rehashed. (Although one must admit that the Warhammer mod is quite impressive!) Is it worth making a big change that almost doubles the download size and further differentiates this mod from standard Conquests to trade a nice civ for a slightly nicer civ? I just don't really feel that its worth it. Maybe its my fondness of Sumeria, maybe its that it'd be alot of change for a little increase in realism, and maybe its just me resisting change in general. I don't know which it is, but I just don't like the change.

If you do put it in there, though, I'll still like this mod, of course. It's a minor feature, anyways, and won't make much of a difference in the overall flow of the game.

Khift-
I see. There's a fact - Sumeria will be knocked out in the Xpack for sure. I don't find an UU, and I think that the Enkidu warrior is a little "invented".
The Sumerian role in this mod is clearly useless.
To make the Xpack coherent with the basic mod is the main reason for I proposed to anticipate the change.

As I see that now you're the last Sumerian stronghold :) ....what about if I release 2.6 with Israel, together with a biq with Sumeria (question mark, sorry again for my keyboard)

About the thing "a huge download for a little improvement", you're right: that's the first thing I was worried, and in fact the first thing I asked was what connection do you have. I was answered not to worry of the internet connection

Rhye I surrunder...! Can I please have 2.52?.. PLEASE!

tacfun


Let's decide what to do. When I'm sure, I'll release 2.52 or 2.6.

Waiting before releasing 2.52 was the right thing. I included the changes to the impi

Sorry if this has been asked but i have only read the first couple of pages of this gigantic thread but for some reason i can't trade contacts. Its really hard to get contact with japan and other asian civs as england especially when it takes 50 turns to reach the cape of good hope only to have 3 barbarian galleries ambush your ship as you round it.


Early contacts cause:
-most of the civs known very early, which is very irrealistic
-a web of contacts, which cause an early world war, and a slowdown of loading times
-ancient techs to be bypassed because of the intensive globalizated trade

For this reason t6h9ey're9 enabled since Elec6tricity "iirc"


[edit] btw great map :goodjob:. I have been playing this map since yesterday and i'm already almost half way done with my game (200th turn). The turns are so incredibly fast! It used to take me weeks to play and finish a world map game but i think i can finish this one by tomorrow. the rules and penalties are really harsh though, for example, it takes 80 slave worker turns to chop down a forest? lol oh well, score one for mother earth! I'm gonna wait a few more turns to get replaceable parts before i start plowing down the trees.


thanks.
the nature is very hard to alter in this mod. This is for both realism and lower loading times

So, Rhye is it going to be 2.6 or 2.52?

@general_kill- Did you use the strategy guide? I am interested in how other players handle the English.

As I see that now you're the last Sumerian strongholdHeh, kind of ironic for you to call me that, considering that the first thing I did in this mod was start a One City Sid Always War game as the Sumerians, building nothing but Enkidu Warriors for the sole purpose of seeing how long I could last. It took til 710 BC to kill me, when the Ottomans sent a nice amount of Longbowman who toppled my gates. (Well, I built Walls and Barracks, too, of course.) I would've lasted even longer had I been able to form an army with the MGL I received, or if I didn't have to stop producing Enkidu's when my treasury took a dive from the unit costs.

But anyways. If you're going to do this, do it with no regrets. Don't worry about having to please a small minority like myself - it tends to breed further dissension if you do. It's a really minor thing, regardless.

I say go on ahead and do it. I shouldn'tve made a big deal out of it anyways. A little variation will be nice for a change, right?

I've got a bigger question, though: will Israel be a part of the Middle East, Mediterranean, or European culture groups? I can see good reasons why they'd be in any of those - geographically, they're both Middle-Eastern and Mediterranean, and recently they've shown a much more European culture than their surrounding nations, much to those surrounding nation's dismay. It's a tough question, I know, but I'm leaning more towards European, simply because they don't get along well with the Middle East and they really weren't a part of the Mediterranean powers, although they show a distinct European preference.

INca (quesiton mark) :confused:
Yeah, you took them out but they're prolly more deserving than the Sumerians (because Babylon is in and represents Sumeria as well). So bring them back in. =D

Bleargh, no idea why I thought the Inca were out (it may have something to do with the fact taht in my previous game [as Spain] none of their neighbours had contact with them so I thought they were out).
Anyway, scartch all I said about them since they actually are still in.
:wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash:

Their cultural group can be seen from different point of views, but I say middle-east with no doubt. No matter if they joined UEFA or what their alliaces are.

I need 2 things from Blasphemous:

-hebrew scientific leaders
-a description of the maccabee, as it has 2 different animation: it could replace both the archer and the swordsman, depending on what animation I use

Babylon is in and represents Sumeria as well.

IN fact "iirc" (now that I know what it means I use it everywhere) Babylonian city list include Assyrian cities, and included in PTW and Vanilla Sumerian Cities (Ur,...)

Bleargh, no idea why I thought the Inca were out (it may have something to do with the fact taht in my previous game [as Spain] none of their neighbours had contact with them so I thought they were out).
Anyway, scartch all I said about them since they actually are still in.
:wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash:


:lol: I would never take the Incas out! :lol:
In the old v1.0 of RoC for Vanilla and PTW, the Incas were the added Civ!

Rhye, your posts are coherent again! :goodjob: Did you get the new keyboard? What will the stats of thier UU's be?

Their cultural group can be seen from different point of views, but I say middle-east with no doubt. No matter if they joined UEFA or what their alliaces are.

I need 2 things from Blasphemous:

-hebrew scientific leaders
-a description of the maccabee, as it has 2 different animation: it could replace both the archer and the swordsman, depending on what animation I use
Hmmm... Leaders... The first one that comes to mind is Mimonedes (Rabbi Moshe Ben Maimon if you wanna use his Hebrew name).
Can't really think of any others on the spot since I'm not really well-versed in Jewish Philosophy. But I know som