Dawn of Civilization - an RFC modmod by Leoreth
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
- Status
Try to play version 1.7 for a more "powerful" alternative then
Barratt_87
Chieftain
If the free army roman UP doesnt work can you re-enable the roman roads one? In a recent game that lack of movement speed really set my war plans back and honestly, it was a good UP to start with. The new one is good in theory but I think the old one is better.
Also, is there any way we can change the occupation civic so it is available earlier than nationalism? This is more for the ancient civs (expect persia of course) than anything.
Also, is there any way we can change the occupation civic so it is available earlier than nationalism? This is more for the ancient civs (expect persia of course) than anything.
Guys I would strongly discourage you from trying to add Harappa, its just not worth it, unless you have a "Aryan Hun" civilization, which I know will never happen
I mean its not as if the Indians ever expand into Persia!
Guys I would strongly discourage you from trying to add Harappa, its just not worth it, unless you have a "Aryan Hun" civilization, which I know will never happen
I mean its not as if the Indians ever expand into Persia!
Yes but Taxila on the other hand was an important city which served as a regional capital for many empires including the Persian, Indians and Central Asians. The city itself was an important silk road city and was the center of Zoroastarian aNd Buddhist cultures antiquity.
Orka
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2010
- Messages
- 106
The Turk said:
I will admit that there is little to gain other than historical immersion from Harappa, but seriously it's not hard to implement at all. Just add an entry to Barbs.py. And there's no need for spawning Aryans (though the game already does that to some extent); if you want to make sure the Indus Valley civ dies then dynamically name-change or auto-raze Harappa around 1700-1000BC. I've implemented this myself.
J. pride said:
I assume that the Taxila you're referring to is to is 1N the sugar? When I refer to Harappa, I'm envisioning a city on the marble (for gameplay, b/c it blocks both passes, isolating India). Or are you assuming that Harappa is on the sugar, and Taxila 2N? I suppose it's not too significant assuming Harappa is destroyed, since Taxila doesn't seem to pop up until 500BC.
Taxila is definitely an option, but I fear it may interfere too much with Delhi, which I would want to still be viable (so it could potentially be the modern capital).
hoplitejoe
Top fun-poster
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2010
- Messages
- 5,470
have you moved the SVN? i don't seem to be able to get to it on assembla
have you moved the SVN? i don't seem to be able to get to it on assembla
Ya, i'm having the same problem, I can't update it!
rogue131
Byzantine Historian
I have the same version, similiar issue. But not exactly similiar, the Italians spawn and I can take control of them. But the Byzantines do not, and I can't interact with Justinian at all. I don't know if you have this, but in the civ select screen, Italy and Byzantine are not choices for me. Don't know if they're supposed to be?
Hmm..
How about this.. to preserve the history side
Game starts with Babylonia, Egypt, China and Maya (Or Inca)
Why Maya or Inca? Represent the indigenous pre-columbian civilization like Norte Chico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norte_Chico_civilization), rather than having the unhistorical India, and to preserve the elegance of 4 Civilization.
Indies are..
Shush, representing Elamite
Yerushalayim, representing Hebrews
Sur, representing ancient Phoenician
Barbarian are..
Harappa, autorazed at certain date, representing IVC..
Then India spawn at 321BC in Pataliputra as Mauryan (Asoka is Mauryan, also)... probably already with Calendar..
We also need to change Indian UHV as well.. it is already unhistorical, though Buddhism and Hinduism is founded by Indian, Zoroas is Persian, Islam is Arabian, Daoism is Chinese, etc.
China starts in Luoyang?
Also, in my latest game, AI India built both Dilli and Taksilala.. Taksilala is quite west beside the peak while Dilli right on the starting point
How about this.. to preserve the history side
Game starts with Babylonia, Egypt, China and Maya (Or Inca)
Why Maya or Inca? Represent the indigenous pre-columbian civilization like Norte Chico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norte_Chico_civilization), rather than having the unhistorical India, and to preserve the elegance of 4 Civilization.
Indies are..
Shush, representing Elamite
Yerushalayim, representing Hebrews
Sur, representing ancient Phoenician
Barbarian are..
Harappa, autorazed at certain date, representing IVC..
Then India spawn at 321BC in Pataliputra as Mauryan (Asoka is Mauryan, also)... probably already with Calendar..
We also need to change Indian UHV as well.. it is already unhistorical, though Buddhism and Hinduism is founded by Indian, Zoroas is Persian, Islam is Arabian, Daoism is Chinese, etc.
China starts in Luoyang?
Also, in my latest game, AI India built both Dilli and Taksilala.. Taksilala is quite west beside the peak while Dilli right on the starting point
If you'd rather not have India initially spawn as the Indus Valley Civilization then just have it spawn as the Vedic Aryan Civilization somewhere around 1300 BC and have it flip the Indus Valley Civilization cities or make it auto war and have the Vedic Aryans raze the cities. Historical realism achieved.
Orka
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2010
- Messages
- 106
Rhye did an good job of balancing the civs around their original spawn dates. Any changes to this would require a lot a balancing work. Observe Leoreth, who has spent much effort making sure new spawns aren't over/underpowered.
Starting the Maya in 3000BC without major changes would be a big mistake. Their unique power/tech rate would have to be seriously nerfed, or they'd need a scripted decline circa 800AD. Already it's easy for the human to play the Maya (compared to the Aztecs/Inca), and spawning earlier only makes it even easier to expand to America's best lands and utterly crush the Europeans. This is also a problem for a 3000BC Inca, or any early-spawning Mesoamerican civ - no barriers or competition to stop the player, esp. Human.
Further, given that the space that most early mesoamerican cultures occupied was small, it'd probably be better to use non-expanding minors/natives to represent them rather than a full-fledged civ (which can get out of control).
Changing the Indian spawn probably won't be as hard. However, in my view, it's more work than it's worth. Adding one Indus Valley city is one thing. Reworking the UHV, religion spawns, etc. just to leave the Indian subcontinent empty for 119 turns (321BC) for the sake of historicity, though, seems extravagant. Perhaps a circa 1500BC spawn (Vedic period) would make sense, requiring much less work. But if we were to make the Indian spawn more historical, why not change the Chinese spawn to a later, more historical date? Is there any real need, gameplay-wise, to delay India's spawn date, limiting the player?
Starting the Maya in 3000BC without major changes would be a big mistake. Their unique power/tech rate would have to be seriously nerfed, or they'd need a scripted decline circa 800AD. Already it's easy for the human to play the Maya (compared to the Aztecs/Inca), and spawning earlier only makes it even easier to expand to America's best lands and utterly crush the Europeans. This is also a problem for a 3000BC Inca, or any early-spawning Mesoamerican civ - no barriers or competition to stop the player, esp. Human.
Further, given that the space that most early mesoamerican cultures occupied was small, it'd probably be better to use non-expanding minors/natives to represent them rather than a full-fledged civ (which can get out of control).
Changing the Indian spawn probably won't be as hard. However, in my view, it's more work than it's worth. Adding one Indus Valley city is one thing. Reworking the UHV, religion spawns, etc. just to leave the Indian subcontinent empty for 119 turns (321BC) for the sake of historicity, though, seems extravagant. Perhaps a circa 1500BC spawn (Vedic period) would make sense, requiring much less work. But if we were to make the Indian spawn more historical, why not change the Chinese spawn to a later, more historical date? Is there any real need, gameplay-wise, to delay India's spawn date, limiting the player?
So I started a 3000 BC game as France and I was a little upset about how bad I had been screwed on this start, but I would make it work. Then I go to found a city 1E of Paris and this happens:
But worldbuilder says:
Spoiler :
But worldbuilder says:
Spoiler :
Yeah of course do nerf them...
it will be strange to see them starts with writing or else at 3000BC..
Well it's for the sake of accuracy of the history..
IMO, RFC is not RFC if it's not historical.. Rhye's trying to achieve a earth simulator right?
India at 3000BC, and starts in Delhi? It's not historical at all...
Chinese civilization already flourished in around Yangtze river at 3000BC
http://din-timelines.com/bce5000-3000_timeline.shtml
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/三皇五帝
No offends taken
it will be strange to see them starts with writing or else at 3000BC..
Well it's for the sake of accuracy of the history..
IMO, RFC is not RFC if it's not historical.. Rhye's trying to achieve a earth simulator right?
India at 3000BC, and starts in Delhi? It's not historical at all...
Chinese civilization already flourished in around Yangtze river at 3000BC
http://din-timelines.com/bce5000-3000_timeline.shtml
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/三皇五帝
No offends taken
Cosmos1985
King
Arabia flips Egypt in 3000BC as well, after I dowloaded your latest Assets-file; is this WAD?
JujuLautre
Deity
Having a simulation of earth's history is nice, sure, but let's not forget that we are playing civilization here.
People play RFC, I'd say, mostly because of this earth simulation aspect. The feeling that what's happening in the game is close to what has really happened to humanity is one of the strong points, if not (arguably) the strongest point of the mod.
But we are still playing a mod of the game of civilization. And this is where people will disagree: some people want to have a perfect depiction of what happened and are pissed when Rome builds the great wall, while on the other end of the spectrum other don't mind these details as long as the gameplay is interesting. And in this case, I'd say things are up to the modder, since he's the one doing all the hard work, and his willingness to please the people who will play the mod. That's a difficult balance work.
As for me, I like the feeling of replaying things "like in history" but I also like to play CIV and be surprised. As such, I don't have problems if things are not a 100% depiction of history. If I really wanted to play that way, I'm sure there are other games closer to achieve that.
Orka
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2010
- Messages
- 106
No, I think you misunderstood. Naturally their starting techs need to be rolled back, but also their natural tech rate, because they can't be allowed to become too advanced- esp. the Mayans who have that 40% tech discount up to the Renaissance. How much nerfing is need, I don't know, but I know it would take time, time that I believe is better spent on other changes.
I think this is an eloquent rebuttal. Personally I'd like RFC to be as historical as possible, but I know that that is all very hard work for the modder, and would take time. This is why I'm against difficult changes solely for the sake of historicity.
Spawning a mesoamerican civilization in 3000BC is no doubt historical. However, it would take tons of work balancing the civ. I can already imagine how I'd play this civ: expand like crazy (no worries- minimal competition), tech like crazy, then smash the Aztecs, Incas, and Europeans. Even in AI hands the civ could be dangerous. So much for historicity. So lots of work would need to be done to ensure such a civ isn't overpowered. After all that hard work, what has been gained? An isolated, necessarily weak civ. The player won't even see this lonely civilization (until long after the original spawn date of the civ). Gameplay-wise, little has been gained.
Likewise, an Indian spawn circa 1500BC (later would be ahistorical, I'd say), though pretty easy to implement/balance, gains very little. Assuming, reasonably, that an Indus Valley city blocks the Indian subcontinent until at least circa 1500BC, India would be isolated. China, Egypt, and Babylon would have no contact with it; India would have no contact with the outside world. In effect, there is no difference from the player's perspective between an India spawning in 3000BC or 1500BC. It'd just be wasted effort on the modder's part. Actually, there is a small difference, which is that the earlier spawn allows slightly more variety (more tech/build possibilities) for both the AI and player, which I'd say is plus for gameplay while not affecting overall historicity much (the subcontinent is still weak to deter a runaway India).
I like historical realism. However, because there are so many ways to make RFC more historical, we have to draw a line somewhere. There has to be a positive gameplay impact - a Silk Road, for example, would be very useful. Unfortunately, Leoreth can't address every little minor thing. One is welcome to make any changes him/herself, though.
- Status
