Clashing of Empires - A standard map version of Rhye's Civilization Expanded

Barak said:

Playing a game as Rome, and I noticed a unit mistake. Rome gets a Hoplite as a UU, but they also get a spearman which it was supposed to replace.

I noticed when opening the editor that many if not most of the upgrade paths of the units are unfortunately broken. Some civs get both their UU and the unit they replace, and some do not have functioning upgrade paths. (Rome's warriors cannot upgrade at all, nor can their Archers).

The map looks great, the units just need a little work.

Click to expand...

Thanks for noticing this, this is just the feedback I need!
I spent most effort on levelling civ strength, shield production, and changed map to get chances for civs to meet and settle in way I prefer.

But units are an important part of the game and have to be correct!
As for upgrading:
My concept is that nothing normal unit should be able to upgrade to UU, but UU should be able to upgrade back into a "chain".
In "BETA v2" I already have made some unit correction but this upgrade thing must be checked still.

Can you give me specific info on what to correct?
(Check BETA v2 before that!)

s3d: thanks for the "nitpicks"!

Maccabee: well, I can leave them out. I just need a UU for the Ethiopes when the face enemies, like ibutho and axeman units wth ATT 4. Would the "saracen bowman" be OK for Ethiopia?

CHina: Good, I somehow felt that there is no need for a mounted UU for them, so get rid of riders!
I will do changes as you suggest: Turtle to China and "war rockets" to India.

The name "Rome": hm, "The Greco-Romans"?
Also, I might change Joruba to Mali. How is the adjective for Mali, Malian? Plural: Malis?
(should it be changed to Mali at all?)

New BIQ, called BETA v2 is up, check it out!

It has MUCH more aggressive civs, a great majority of them now has aggression on level +2

I have done much correction as to strength of civs.
I "cut back" Mongolia, Inca, Iroquois. Changed a bit of others, too.
Put iron right next to Rome, for instance.

Mongols are special in that they now have a chance to upgrade their first UU the mangudai to the second UU keshik. I hope this gives Mongolia a chance to be great and dangerous in the early middle age.

I gave some civs emphasy on "shield management" (e.g. Rome, Zulu), because they tended to concentrate on food too much.

I did some unit correction - but of course the upgrade paths must be checked and put in right shape.

My question:
You can see that the map doesn't give too many shields, most of the hills are "poor", for instance. Should I change that or is it good this way? I did tests and see that civ are now more or less equal in "shields" but I just wonder:
Maybe more shields would mean earlier wars?

I guess that once I have checked and fixed units,
have fix starting places (Rome),
I will consider it up from BETA to REAL.

I wait a few days if other feedbacks come with other "topics".

So a final "v100" version may come on this Friday (or so).
And from that point I will keep a changelog on development...

I will take a look at the units to see how they upgrade.

I'll let you know what i find. Are you ok with civs having both the UU and the unit it replaced? ie: Legion and Swordsman or was this an oversight (haven't loaded up beta v2 yet so not sure if this was fixed).

When I started my rome game, I put my first city near the boot near location of Vibo Valentia, then put third city near Constantinple. Fourth was going to be at or near Athens.

I guess it was oversight on my part...

but well, hm, it is an interesting question, to let the civ have the normal unit of the same category as the UU,
i.e. in case of Rome: the legionary and swordsman
- after all, swords are cheaper and solely attacker, they could have their "place" -
but the question is whether the AI can handle then the question when what to build...?

my 2 cents is to put the UUs in the upgrade path. Afterall in the realworld with the advent of bronze weaponmaking, the ol' trusty stone ax was replaced. So when the roman legions began to be formed, no longer would they be using warriors with axes. Its not like the old soldiers would be put out to pasture. They would be tought the new techniques and given the new weapons.

but would not it be a too big an advantage to upgrade 10 warrioirs to 10 legions? Maybe it could be compensated with having BIG price for upgrade...
At this moment I say UUs are too worthy to have them so easily

V. Soma said:

but would not it be a too big an advantage to upgrade 10 warrioirs to 10 legions? Maybe it could be compensated with having BIG price for upgrade...
At this moment I say UUs are too worthy to have them so easily

Click to expand...

Well, wouldn't the legions cost more to begin with? If a swordsman costs 30 and the legion costs 40, then the upgrade costs 10 more per unit. Of course I have long believed that the Roman Legion should also give an offensive bonus, since they were excellent on the field as offensive units due to their training and formations which in civ could also be represented with a bonus hp.

OR....why not just make the Roman warrior upgrade straight to pikeman? Since the hoplite is the spearman replacement....both the warrior and hoplite could upgrade to pike. Legion would upgrade to Colonial infantry, which does seem strange, but makes more sense then to pikeman.

I like the thought of adding bonus HP to legionary.
And yes, Roman warrior may upgrade to Pikeman.
But this is a question of concept and theory: can a normal warrior learn the specifics of a UU?

A NEW IDEA:
I have the thought to give all UU something specific beside the fact that they have uniqe stats. A roman leginary can build roads and fortress, for instance. Like this, all UU should have sg. normal units don't have. And so I say that normal units should NOT upgrade to UU - I just don't want to see many UUs running all over the fields. Or if yes, invest the shields into them!

As of upgrade cost: gold is not the same as shields. Gold is a plenty in this game (RoCX), shild is the "real" value... So I say many gold pieces make up for a shield...

I like the idea of something special for the UUs.

i would agree that UU's should be in the full upgrade path. if the UU's are expensive enough, the upgrade cost will be there.

note that ROCX uses 1 gp per sp for upgrades. this is 1/4 the level in the C3 epic game, but necessary to get the AI to upgrade more often - if it's too expensive, the AI will still have warriors running around the modern age. :roll:

also, i dont mind rome where it is - but i'm more interested in playability than strict realism, and i realise i'm in the minority in this regard

EW

Morning, everyone!

Yesterday I put Rome a tile SW, so it is now historically at the right place.

AI did quite well, it may be that this new location is even beter for Rome, the AI put a quick city into Pannonia - also, AI put a city into south Italia, it did not matter the locaation is kind of close to Rome! Greece got the 3rd city and the 5th or 6th, so all in all, it works fine. (Only that in the first test of this new starting location the AI sent the first settler on a hill east and it waited faor "ages" before deciding to turn back and settle to the west in Gallia.)

I began to set upgrade paths for the normal units. It is a tedious work with all these flavour graphics but I am done with the foot units.
I am not exactly sure about how I will and would be able to insert all UUs in the path, I believe I need separate normal unit variations for this and I am not sure this BIQ has them all - or else I have to change flavour graphics?

I still have the opinion that UUS are special:
no unit should upgrade to them, but they can upgrade into sg upper...

...and: beside the UU, civs may have the normal unit, i.e. for Rome the swordsman beside the legions. I saw the AI build legion in Roma and swords in other cities and I think it is OK that way...

UUs:
- I plan that all of them would need some resource
- all UU would have sg special ability

V. Soma said:

s3d: thanks for the "nitpicks"!
Would the "saracen bowman" be OK for Ethiopia?

Click to expand...

Uhmm, saracen is in fact arab. For Ethiopia it would be better to rename it "Axum bowman"
About Axum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axumite_Kingdom
http://barney.gonzaga.edu/~sbennet3/mead/lessonplans/EarlyAfrica.htm

About Mali: in wikipedia it is " Mali's "
Well, wikipedia is your freind, whenever I don't know something first thing I turn to wikipedia

Hi!

Unit upgrade chain is now working properly!
(it will be in BETA v3)

I keep to my decision:
UUs must be built from scratch and they join into the upgrade chain.
For some civs, the first UU can upgrade to the second UU when close in nature.
Civs also get the normal unit beside the one the UU "replaces".
Generally, I say there is no need to have many UUs running on the map, it is enough to have a couple of them (and the number may even be high, actually) and that they can give Golden Age...

I tested the above and saw nice things:
- Rome had spears, hoplites, swords and legions I saw legions building roads!
- Carthage also had numidians and spears, too

I am getting close to call it past BETA phase but there is one thing:
THERE ARE NO WARS IN EUROPE IN THE ANCIENT AGE!
And it is bad, hey, what are those nice UUs are for?

QUESTION: How to solve this?

I think of faster settling in the ancient age,
so I would change back ancient settler to pop cost 2.
Shield cost would remain kind of high, say 80 or so,
and I hope it would fasten things and around
the age of Iron working wars would begin
(Rome-Carthage, yes...)

What do you think of this settler-thing?


(and I hope to give you BETA v3, the last planned beta tomorrow...)

V. Soma said:

Hi!


I am getting close to call it past BETA phase but there is one thing:
THERE ARE NO WARS IN EUROPE IN THE ANCIENT AGE!
And it is bad, hey, what are those nice UUs are for?

Click to expand...

Were you running test with "accelerated production" on or off ?

accelerated production is OFF, as, well, I don't play accelerated
and things (i.e. wars) should work in normal setting, shouldn't it?

Could the large number of barbs cause the european civs from not contacting each other, therefore not having wars?

Barak said:

Could the large number of barbs cause the european civs from not contacting each other, therefore not having wars?

Click to expand...

It is an interesting question...
Let me note that the many barbs in Europe are necessary
in order to make it so that all three nations there get their proper starting land.

But would the many barbs mean too late contacts? I don't think so...
It is enough to say that Rome and Carthage get to know each other quite early because of the biremes they get for free at the start.
The Celts meet kind of late/later with Rome and Scandinavia, that is true,
but the Vikings and Rome have cities close to each other the 3rd city,
and they soon erase barbs in the land between each other.

Yet I will check if I can have less barbs in Europe...

I decided to have the ancient settler a population cost of 2,
while shield cost remains 90, as it is now.
Got to get home and run a test!

I will change saracen bowmen to axum bowman and from Bronze Working on with stats 2/3/1 - so that they can counter ibuthos and axemen.

Last BETA (v3) will come tomorrow morning, with working upgrades and UUs with special abilities
(e.g. I give extra HP to legions and numidians,
numidians will have amphibious attack (Carthage is a naval power),
berserks and tomahawks will be able to cut forest,
Celts will get longbowman, also with extra HP,
African and American UUs are NOT wheeled,
many defensive foot UUs can build forts or barricade...)

So youall will have a weekend to test BETA v3...

I hope to get feedback and then sometime
next week I would like to call it normal game version!