Into the renaissance and iron?

Joined
May 17, 2011
Messages
2,705
So I recently played into the renaissance as spain and found out something really wierd?

Swordsman don't require iron wich is is a good change in my opinion :)
While longswordsman use iron. This should be in vanilla...


However there are some things in this scenario that I thought where completly wierd and broken about the iron resource.

Musketman and cannons now require iron how is this balanced ?

Whats the reason for this kinda unbalanced in my opion.

If you don't have iron you're dead

Luckly I've had my inquistadors If I didn't had them my main infantry would have been pikeman?

Should this be changed or is it just me?
 
It's just something you have to adapt to by building more cavalry. Cavalry doesn't require iron, correct?

Also, in vanilla before the patch, CATAPULTS required iron. You couldn't build siege units without it; it completely ruined my ability to take cities without suiciding good units.
 
It's just something you have to adapt to by building more cavalry. Cavalry doesn't require iron, correct?

Also, in vanilla before the patch, CATAPULTS required iron. You couldn't build siege units without it; it completely ruined my ability to take cities without suiciding good units.

True just found it wierd that a resourceless units now requires iron the musketman and cannons

Can really slow you down if you don't have iron
 
Playing that scenario right now, and I didn't know that muskets require iron... good to know, though, as I'm about to upgrade all my longswords into them.
I like that iron is not required for swordsmen in that scenario because it lets you fight with moderately powerful units early on, and then develop your military strategy towards the resources you do have. For example, I'm playing as Saladin and have 14 Iron and absolutely zero Horses, which kind of makes having a Knight UU pointless, but I'm finding sword-based combat preferable vs. the Turks (my main and soon-to-be-dead opponent).
I have another question about that scenario - namely, how are the (Almoravids, I think? The guys who are basically Arabia) supposed to win? They are perhaps as far as it is possible to be from their holy cities and the only thing I see them capable of doing is to take out the Christian cities to their north; primarily Spanish ones. Can you win this scenario without controlling your holy city for a lengthy period? I'm playing it for the first time (Emperor difficulty), have been in control of both Mecca and Jerusalem for about 100 turns, and nobody I know of is near me in points - though I am getting messages of unknown civs gaining lots of VP's by taking cities of other religions. Anybody here a veteran of the scenario?
 
Playing that scenario right now, and I didn't know that muskets require iron... good to know, though, as I'm about to upgrade all my longswords into them.
I like that iron is not required for swordsmen in that scenario because it lets you fight with moderately powerful units early on, and then develop your military strategy towards the resources you do have. For example, I'm playing as Saladin and have 14 Iron and absolutely zero Horses, which kind of makes having a Knight UU pointless, but I'm finding sword-based combat preferable vs. the Turks (my main and soon-to-be-dead opponent).
I have another question about that scenario - namely, how are the (Almoravids, I think? The guys who are basically Arabia) supposed to win? They are perhaps as far as it is possible to be from their holy cities and the only thing I see them capable of doing is to take out the Christian cities to their north; primarily Spanish ones. Can you win this scenario without controlling your holy city for a lengthy period? I'm playing it for the first time (Emperor difficulty), have been in control of both Mecca and Jerusalem for about 100 turns, and nobody I know of is near me in points - though I am getting messages of unknown civs gaining lots of VP's by taking cities of other religions. Anybody here a veteran of the scenario?

As the arabians you can stil can get meca by giving money so develop a lot of land quiqly don't built that much military money is key... SO spam out cities like hell and get a lot of luxuries so you can sell stuff.

Because you want to sell a lot you want to meat the turks and the other islam country quickly the best way to do that is with a horseman through the dessert or with a ship through the costline .

Stech wise : go to education and then straight into the renaissance so you can get a free spy use it to steel a tech so you can promote after its promoted put it in meca to counter coups and elections so you can keep it...

Exploration is a key tech it allows you to get some exploration victory points

Privateers and ship of the line are key here to conquer spain built them a lot and then get some crosbowman and infantry to land..



Basicly built up and spam cities and control meca after that wipe out spain and france at that time you won .
 
You don't have to control the holy city...only be allies with it. There are lots of ways to get points. Almohads are one of the easier ones to win with actually.

Conquer some Christian Cities to the North and send out some caravels to the new world. Piece of cake.
 
You don't have to control the holy city...only be allies with it. There are lots of ways to get points. Almohads are one of the easier ones to win with actually.

Conquer some Christian Cities to the North and send out some caravels to the new world. Piece of cake.

Yes get a huge fleet and army and conquer spain and europe and win :)

Olso the new world victory point are olso easy.
 
Well, I had no idea that you only needed to be allies... that does make the game much easier for them (and everyone else who doesn't start right next to their holy city). I think my goal this time around is to conquer every holy city on the map, but next time I'll play more peacefully.
On that note, is there any possibility of good trade relations with civs of other religions in the scenario? Because both of the non-Islamic civs that I have met thus far denounced me the turn after I met them and I doubt it'll get better than that. I don't think that only two trade partners would be enough for all of the extra resources, and it is even worse for the Russians and Byzantines... they only have each other!
Sooo. The next game'll be city-spam, trade everything, buy out Mecca, send a few ships westwards, and some light conquering on the Iberian Peninsula. Thanks for the advice!
 
Well, I had no idea that you only needed to be allies... that does make the game much easier for them (and everyone else who doesn't start right next to their holy city). I think my goal this time around is to conquer every holy city on the map, but next time I'll play more peacefully.
On that note, is there any possibility of good trade relations with civs of other religions in the scenario? Because both of the non-Islamic civs that I have met thus far denounced me the turn after I met them and I doubt it'll get better than that. I don't think that only two trade partners would be enough for all of the extra resources, and it is even worse for the Russians and Byzantines... they only have each other!
Sooo. The next game'll be city-spam, trade everything, buy out Mecca, send a few ships westwards, and some light conquering on the Iberian Peninsula. Thanks for the advice!

After the protestantisme spread in europe suddenly some civs become strangly enough friendliers little bit wierd proparly because of the elnglightment and they have the thought of free religion...

But maybe they are just decepitive in my game anybody olso has this experience as soon the protestant spreading starts the AI become less angry about religion?
 
The Protestants don't always begin to dominate western europe... I've actually had it that they were taken out just as they started (by an AI civ), and played no part in the scenario at all. They are unpredictable, which can add another layer of difficulty to the scenario.

apocolypse105 said:
Olso the new world victory point are olso easy.
Only on the easy levels... the amount of hammers you need to put into them at the higher levels makes this far harder. Also, you have to do it more than once, AND beat Lizzy to it, if possible. With some civs, that can be very difficult.

My impression of this scenario is that it's good fun, but not as simple as it seems at first glance (on the higher levels).
 
The Protestants don't always begin to dominate western europe... I've actually had it that they were taken out just as they started (by an AI civ), and played no part in the scenario at all. They are unpredictable, which can add another layer of difficulty to the scenario.


Only on the easy levels... the amount of hammers you need to put into them at the higher levels makes this far harder. Also, you have to do it more than once, AND beat Lizzy to it, if possible. With some civs, that can be very difficult.

My impression of this scenario is that it's good fun, but not as simple as it seems at first glance (on the higher levels).

I don't get it if a other civ lets say england moves a caravel to the new world other civs can only move 2 caravels to the new world,

THe 3 maximum is global?


And just pick one coastal city that builts caravels not a big deal on higher difficulties in my opinion just pick one city who will built it ...

As a side note : By the way whats the difference between historical and random europe because I once tried random europe and I started as england olso on a island next to the celts Whats the big difference?
 
Top Bottom