Rhyse too based on luck

You both have misunderstood my post.

I said that I have an answer for anything regarding the mod, not regarding history

Sorry about that. Not really directed at you. You're entitled to defend your
mod's features and playability. You don't have to justify it's historical
accuracy except in the most general terms. It's only a game, dammit!
I somebody is so obsessed with historical "truth" to the extent that he feels
compelled to alter your mod to suit himself, then why not design his own?
Then he'd be guaranteed an attentive mass audience (of one!)
That being said, can I point out one feature that bugs me?
Whenever a new civilization emerges at it's appointed time, it seems to
just appear like a rabbit out of a hat. Sometimes it coincides with an existing
barbarian city. Fair enough. But people like the Mongols, Aztecs and the
Turks actually came from somewhere else, so why not make them arrive as a
nomadic invasion, which is what they were. The spectacle of the Ottomans
suddenly appearing in Sogut, complete with Napoleonic cannons, in 1200AD,
breaks me up every time. Obviously, when a new people arrive, somebody
already lives there. In the Turks' case it was the Kurds, who were in the
forefront of the fight against the European Crusedes. Ever heard of Saladin?
Who was it in the case of Moses and the "Promised Land" ? So what really
happened to the Caananites anyway?
Joking aside, I like your mod, warts and all. Thanks for your efforts

Now, how would you display or program these arriving nomadic cultures? (see... ;-))

I wanted to do that, and did one an attempt of moving German starting date back to germanic tribes, and assign some more axemen to them, and no settlers.
They didn't behave as expected (signing peace and not attacking cities), and the whole system was messed up because there wasn't a clear starting date anymore

Take your point. Love the concept of lots of Germanic axemen unable to
found a city, just standing around, making peace. Playing cards, singing songs and drinking beer too, I'll bet.
Seriously, though. Think about the Turks coming in from Central Asia, masses
of horse archers and a maybe a couple of settlers. They could invade
eastern Anatolia, sack one city, occupy it and found one or two more. And
definitely no cannons. (Where'd they get cannons before 1350?) If you
say China, that'll be simple bombards, right. Not those tasty-looking
Napoleonic models, which nobody else has got yet.
Just a suggestion anyway. Thanks.

Well, I can't say rhye's mod is based on luck because Riker and I finish some of the most difficult UHVs ever.

What else matters? I'm just a poor player, like thousands out there

Click to expand...

Exactly why should we listen to what you have to say

I somebody is so obsessed with historical "truth" to the extent that he feels
compelled to alter your mod to suit himself

Click to expand...

Yes well that isn't my point at all so given your lack of ability to comprehend thought why are we listening to you?

then why not design his own?
Then he'd be guaranteed an attentive mass audience (of one!)

Click to expand...

Typical hypocrisy of the from the yankee collaborators as you go on to say....

That being said, can I point out one feature that bugs me?

Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that all the opinions of anyone whos head isn't in the sand are the ones we should listen to?

How about this I made suggestions to Rhys about both the playability and accuracy of his mod of which very little has actually been answered instead there have been vague ad hominems by those like you because you cannot directly answer my critiques. I stand by my critique the mod is too easy and the maps/historical accuracy could be improved. That said the issue of historical accuracy is less of one than the playability but is the easiest to fix perhaps.

Now to answer your fallacies...

The spectacle of the Ottomans
suddenly appearing in Sogut, complete with Napoleonic cannons, in 1200AD,
breaks me up every time.

Click to expand...

Actually this is part of the reason why I tried to employ reason with Rhy because he seems to know enough to be quite accurate and I thought perhaps I could add some knowledge to that to improve on what was there. And nobody has yet claimed this mod is close enough to perfection to be defended as not being worthy of improvement. When the point comes that the returns on change are not greater than the cost of making them then I'll concede but we aren't there yet.

As for cannons in Sogut...actually the Ottomans were one of the first in the region to use cannons in warfare and it was among the reasons for their ascendency. The bone I have to pick with Rhy here is the lack of distinction between "Ottoman" and "Turk" given that they are not the same thing and that one is a modern creation just like the Kurdish example you incidently stepped in.

Ever heard of Saladin?

Click to expand...

This just proves that you don't know of what you speak...

Saladin in Civilization is listed as an Arab leader which while inaccurate is moderately acceptable given that the best choices of the Prophet or one of any number of Caliphs could spark religious issues for muslims. But in actuallity Saladin was a turk, but thats turk with a small t and it highlights the problems of describing the Ottomans as Turks.

Now, how would you display or program these arriving nomadic cultures? (see... ;-))

Click to expand...

I agree totally impractical and more importantly what would be the point of all these units existing without any impetus to do anything? They're barbarians so why not keep them as barbarians. Any way I like how Rhy handled civ spawning the only issue here was not the "Dates" when this happened because I could really care less and is very open to debate but rather the order in which they go. I think Spain and France being the first successor states to the Roman empire are logical. I would suggest the Vikings get bumped back a bit so they are at least more in the middle and perhaps the "Germans" get go a little later as well. In general however the order in which they spawned seemed to work pretty well.

Think about the Turks coming in from Central Asia, masses
of horse archers and a maybe a couple of settlers. They could invade
eastern Anatolia, sack one city, occupy it and found one or two more. And
definitely no cannons. (Where'd they get cannons before 1350?) If you
say China, that'll be simple bombards, right.

Click to expand...

Except this highlights the problems of calling the ottomans turks etc etc. The ottomans were as much a revivial of byzantine/roman power as they were a "foreign" invasion.

I wanted to do that, and did one an attempt of moving German starting date back to germanic tribes, and assign some more axemen to them, and no settlers.
They didn't behave as expected (signing peace and not attacking cities), and the whole system was messed up because there wasn't a clear starting date anymore

Click to expand...

Well one thing I would suggest is perhaps creating their start point to correspond with the beginning of the Holy Roman Empire under Otto I. This is more accurate, represents a proto-state that scholars say could have become a state, and still places Germany about at the same time for a start they are at now.

IMO the start order in Western Europe for 600AD should roughly be Spain,France....England, Vikings, Germany. Again I don't think the dates are as important as the order and I left the elipses to indicate where I think there is some room for artistic license and where I think some time gap should exist. Obviously since France starts around 660?? and England/Vikings should begin around 800 there isn't a huge gap.

I'll ignore your petty insults as they're not worthy of someone who I regard as an intelligent poster, I actually agree with many of your comments but side with Rhye on other points. Any suggestions I've made are just that. As far as "easy" goes, that's relative to the individual. I do stand on my comments about the Turks though, while agreeing with you that the Ottomans, Seljuks and others comprised what we now regard as Turks. The Kurds were there first, however, by thousands of years. And Saladin was a Kurd, grandson of Nur e Din (forgive my spelling), the "Old Man of the Mountains". Finally your obscure reference to "Yankee collaborators" makes
no sense to me as neither of us are Americans, are we? End of post, don't
need the hassle, anyway.

yeah european starting dates are debateable but they must all be kept close (if you postpose Germany so much, France will settle there first)

yeah european starting dates are debateable but they must all be kept close (if you postpose Germany so much, France will settle there first)

Click to expand...

I've never found that to be a problem at all. Cities built by France in German territory "flip" to the Germans anyway, and if I recall there is right now about a 6-8 turn gap and I would propose extending that only a few more turns.

I do stand on my comments about the Turks though, while agreeing with you that the Ottomans, Seljuks and others comprised what we now regard as Turks.

Click to expand...

No this is not my point at all... the problem is that these identities are imagined as much as anything, and nationalist discourses always seem legitimacy in history and the ancient. However, the actual definition of Ottomans as Turks is inaccurate since being Turkish was not essential to being Ottoman and the Seljuks while "turkish" were not uniformly Turkish and were not Turkish in the same sense of the term that peoples in Central Asia were and thats the point. Therefore the same problem exists for Kurds etc. Yes there are people in Kurdistan whom claim ancient rights but the problem in this lies in deciding what makes one a Kurd, or more Kurdish than Turkish, more Kurdish than indigenous because in this case all these overlap ontop of one another. The Kurds in modern times who claim ancient ancestory in Anatolia can do so not withstanding their Kurdish identity, the "Kurds" who did migrate into the region did not have to be their for the same amount of time, and those people whom today or in the near past who are frequently called "Kurds" can also be called turks as is the case with Saladin.

For example as a Briton you don't identify yourself as only a Saxon do you? In fact Anglo identity features the same things as above since you can be "English" and identify with a group of Germanic invaders who settled there in the centuries following the death of Christ but you also refer to yourself as a Briton implying an ancient ancestral connection to a celtic past. At the same time the Plantagenates ruled England but weren't necessarily "English" in that they were as connected to France as England.

OK. truce! (10 turns at least). Point about relativity of cultural identity well taken. So, as someone born in Canada with an English mother, who has chosen to live in Europe for over 30 years, what does that me? Anything I like, I guess.

Hakim the Mad said:

I've never found that to be a problem at all. Cities built by France in German territory "flip" to the Germans anyway, and if I recall there is right now about a 6-8 turn gap and I would propose extending that only a few more turns.

Click to expand...

would be a big stability hit