Rhyse too based on luck

For some civ like carthage its true. You need 5 mediterrean cities (not that tough), three dyes:mad: and circumnavigate the world:cool: . So the main objective will be to justget three dyes.

After my third time playing Carthage, I realised exactly what i had to do.

First settle Qart-Hadasht.

Second you settle next to the Egypt dye.

Asap, you take Athens, which should be (if you are lucky, but that's what this topic is aabout:) ) protected by two warriors. So for the circumnavigation you got no competition problem.

You must get all the mercenaries you can. Because to get the three dyes, you need to destroy babylonia. :eek: Well, not entirely, if you're very lucky, the dyes area could be unsettled but this is nearly impossible as the Babylon objective is to get most culture. If there's a city there destroy it. Sur and Jerusalem must be taken. It does your 5 cities objectives. If you aint got any city destroyed.

You must take care of the babylon culture. Well, just research music. (or get a great artist. You must work those dyes fast, as I got 2 turns away from not having that objective done.

Then, you must do circumnavigation. Beeline optics thats all.

You need no additional units. Just mercenaries. You might need cothons to get all that gold. All the gold comes only from trade or the palace (8 gold is not alot). So you need to lick Caesar's butt and Egypt's one too.
 
I love Rhye's but playing as England at the moment I have the world (from england's POV) as follow:

Japan+areas of mainland China are under direct Imperial rule (mine)
Aztec''s are my vassals
Inca's my vassals

and I have a couple of cities in America just to keep an eye on things.
One of the cities being a pass-through city which I named Panama Canal :p So i don't have to round the tip anymore.

Anywho Aztecs and Inca's as vassals, america spawns, I resist aztecs and incas'declare war on america.
I notice that the vassal's don't do anything...america doesn't really do anything either.

I have serious suspicions that Rhye's mod doesn't take full advantage of the supposed new AI I mean when i've not been playing Rhye's the AI can launch intercontinental sea invasions, conduct war effectively etc.
But the North American and South American civs in Rhye's just seem completely incapable of doing anything.
Hell the aztecs had ALL of N.America to themselves once I vassalised them but they never expanded at all.

Thoughts?
 
I love Rhye's but playing as England at the moment I have the world (from england's POV) as follow:

Japan+areas of mainland China are under direct Imperial rule (mine)
Aztec''s are my vassals
Inca's my vassals

and I have a couple of cities in America just to keep an eye on things.
One of the cities being a pass-through city which I named Panama Canal :p So i don't have to round the tip anymore.

Anywho Aztecs and Inca's as vassals, america spawns, I resist aztecs and incas'declare war on america.
I notice that the vassal's don't do anything...america doesn't really do anything either.

I have serious suspicions that Rhye's mod doesn't take full advantage of the supposed new AI I mean when i've not been playing Rhye's the AI can launch intercontinental sea invasions, conduct war effectively etc.
But the North American and South American civs in Rhye's just seem completely incapable of doing anything.
Hell the aztecs had ALL of N.America to themselves once I vassalised them but they never expanded at all.

Thoughts?


RFC takes advantage of the new AI but still obeys my orders of not expanding in certain areas :spank:
 
I don't consider this to be a great modpack/scenario because it is so imcomplete and unfinished. Like otheres here I agree that its biggest weakness is that it is too formulaic and bland and to that end it deemphasizes strategic play. There are great features in it like historical victories and stability which keeps a player honest about their expansion i.e. you'd better get your historical goals done instead of further unnecessary expansion. But the limits of stability and the inherent anti-expansionist bias of the scenario designers make it all but impossible to hold together a large and realistic colonial empire as one of the various great colonial powers ie the French Spanish or English. Because of that it is a far better strategic play to do "just enough" to satisfy the conditions of victory without expanding unecessarily. Anything more than a dozen cities is pointless. This was no doubt done to reflect the militaristic anti-expansionistic line of play but to that end Civilization IV does that to a great extent anyway so why amplify it. But because of this it also undermines the militaristic avenue of play since one will never be able to control enough territory to "dominate the world" or eliminate all rivals. Essentially, outside of the historical victories the only Civ victories to be gotten are diplomatic, space and cultural(which should be turned off anyway because it is too easy). Talk about a boring set of options.


To sum up this scenario is not very strategic and not historical but only for in the most superfical of ways. In virtually every game I have played there were large tracts of territory unclaimed late into the 20th century, not reflecting historical reality. The AIs almost never get close to achieving their historical goals and many of them are anti-climatic. For example Germany must conquer France, Italy, Scandanavia, Russia as 2 of theirs but after doing this why continue the game is over no one is strong enough to resist you.

My solution is this first the historical victories must be more blended to reflect cultural, expansionistic as well as military aims. For example, France has to control Quebec, build some wonders and make Paris #1 in cultural. Secondly, the game should revolve around a colonial/anti-colonial or revisionist axis. Historically, the colonial powers worked together against the non colonials or indigenous powers and that should be true in this scenario as well. Thirdly, stability needs to be modified so as to make it possible to hold together a large cohesive empire. My suggestion is that rather than instability leading to civil war and collapse it should lead to insurrection in colonial outposts but leave the metropole unaffected. These were quite common in the history of colonial empires. Finally, Tech brokering needs to be turned off as this all but makes it impossible for a large colonial power to keep pace with smaller states which collaborate on advances. Seriously was it Germany or Russia which industrialized first or was it the Dutch British or French?

As far as the opinion offered that Rhyse is meant to be hard I found it anything but. The key is to lower your expectations and modify how you play Civ. Instead of trying to win you just go for the historical victories alone and nothing else. Build enough cities to do that and never go beyond safety. If you do that you can't not win but it makes the game very boring and very un-Civ because the fun of Civ is in the "what ifs" e.g. what if the French had dominated North America instead of the British and what if the French had won the colonial wars for India? In Rhyse these are irrelevent because there is no point to even try for them just do the bare minimum to get by. In other words BORING!!!!
 
i have found out that Ryth is the best senerio in the entire game my only complaint is the fact that i cant be a couple civs
i with they make an update for it
 
About my only complaint with Rhye's following on from above is that I've consistenly found that making friends in RFC is usually close to useless.

I mean it is useful but i've noticed that the option to get other civs to declare war on others is almost always Redded out.

The reason if I were to guess is because each civ is usually at war with 2-3 independants natives so by their estimation they are already at war with more than they can cope with and don't want to war others.

Also i've found the desire to wipe out natives/independants its pretty low.
All of scandanavia went independant after the vikings collapsed.
They sat there half the game untouched by anybody.

Even the incans who funnly enough made it to scandanavia captured one city and sat there and refused to take the rest of the peninsula.

But I generally dislike not being able to get others to got to war with others. Plus 2 posts above is correct, allowing colonials powers to conspire is perhaps a good idea but in the game its the colonial powers that tend to have massive tech leads for some time. If the colonial powers buddied up the game would be a cinch.
 
I rarely go for the UHV's... I just play alternate history. And I agree that UHV's are too deterministic sometimes.

But the limits of stability and the inherent anti-expansionist bias of the scenario designers make it all but impossible to hold together a large and realistic colonial empire as one of the various great colonial powers ie the French Spanish or English.

In my recent English game I controlled South Africa, Namibia, India, Australia, Vancouver, eastern Canada, Nigeria, Singapore, Hong Kong, and controlled southern Scandinavia at one point. And I was "Stable". Not bad, eh?
 
The Rhyse and Fall historical goals are too based on luck, frustratingly so.

Actually I find it easier to win with Historical victories than any other victory condition :rolleyes:
Aggressive leaders, stability, plague and unstoppable barbarians in certain areas make certain civs close to impossible to play until the end. At the point that I started playing Egypt with the goal to win by space race. And I've yet to succeed.
 
I don't consider this to be a great modpack/scenario because it is so imcomplete and unfinished.

But because of this it also undermines the militaristic avenue of play since one will never be able to control enough territory to "dominate the world" or eliminate all rivals.

In virtually every game I have played there were large tracts of territory unclaimed late into the 20th century, not reflecting historical reality.

Seriously was it Germany or Russia which industrialized first or was it the Dutch British or French?

To each his own. For my part, I'm grateful to find that a terrifically talented mod maker like Rhye shares my dislike of expansion for the sake of expansion, with all the pointless aggression and settler spamming that entails. This mod has more or less cured me of wanting to play the regular game.
 
In my recent English game I controlled South Africa, Namibia, India, Australia, Vancouver, eastern Canada, Nigeria, Singapore, Hong Kong, and controlled southern Scandinavia at one point. And I was "Stable". Not bad, eh?

No its not bad but try to play as the Spanish and recreate their empire. To do that you need to build/control Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Colombia, Mexico, Yucatan, Texas, California, the Phillipines and Naples/Rome. My opinion is that this is impossible. I've tried and not been successful.

If you look at history great empires tend to fall apart more from external pressures e.g. the Spanish Imperial Empire when Spain was conquered by Napoleon, the Portugese Empire during the Spanish Captivity etc etc. I'd like to see instability far more the product of culture and relative cultural strength of neighbors or political military events. For example Italy could not unify so long as it was surrounded by strong neighbors e.g. Austria and France but when their cultural influence wanned relative to other great powers in the region Russia and Prussia then Italy was unified.

To each his own. For my part, I'm grateful to find that a terrifically talented mod maker like Rhye shares my dislike of expansion for the sake of expansion, with all the pointless aggression and settler spamming that entails. This mod has more or less cured me of wanting to play the regular game.

But thats also the problem because as I elucidated personal biases tend to undermine the overall strategic conceptualizations of the game. Why expand at all if there is no point to it? I guess the question is whether you want civilization to be more of a strategy game or more of a sim. I've felt for a long time that Civ has been becoming more a sim than a strategy game and Rhyse is just continuing that trend. I mean I like the sim aspect of Civ but there is already a game like that its called SimCity. Indeed this is how Rhyse scenarios play out as I have seen thus far the peripherys like the Americas and Asia are almost totally irrelevent to the grand scheme of balance of power...Every game is merely a struggle to dominate Europe and for that reason Rhyse would be better served to make European scenarios not global expansion ones. In fact a scenario which is based on a global view is itself demanding an expansionistic mentality otherwise much of the map will be under utilized and barren which again is contrary to the basic principles of Civ.

I do agree that settler spamming and pointless expansion did need to be reduced in effectiveness but I also consider a certain degree of settler spamming to be part of the game since it is best to gobble up most of the land that could be strategically used by your rivals, and Rhyse doesn't decrease this it AMPLIFIES it. Wasn't much of the history of the Americas defined by settler spamming whether it was between England/France in the North and Portugal/Spain in the South. The easiest powers to play as are the continental powers of Russia and Germany precisely because due to the quirks of stability they can expand much more than can anyone else and because their expansion early in the game via settler spamming comes at the price of their greatest rival...the other. For example, when ever I play as Russia I make a bee line for Warsaw to found it, filling in the gaps only later, but once I hold it Germany is limited to a mere 4-5 cities of which some are likely to be lost. If Russia controls over time all of historic Russia up to the Urals as well as Poland then they will have anywhere between 9-12 strong cities with expansion possible to the east when it is prudent and they will maintain easily a 2-3X city number advantage over the Geramns and thus a production advantage as well. The French, English, Dutch etc are no real threat because they become colonial and dilute their strength. Eventually Russia should conquer Germany and central Europe and dominate the continent from there on. As Germany its just the opposite establish cities near present day Smolensk, St Petersburg, Kiev, Archangel etc and Russia will be so hemmed in and much weaker than Germany that they will never win.
This is the same kind of problem as encountered with colonial settler spamming.

I'd just like to see some tweeks made to stability because I think it is probably one of the best new ideas I've seen for Civ in a long time, but I do think that expansion in Europe ought to be more difficult than expansion in the colonies would be. Colonies tended to be easier to control than did those contentious Euros. Just look at how little land exchanged hands in many of those wars Silesia, Alsace/Lorraine on the Civ map these are tiny specks no bigger than one square and harder to incorporate than was Canada which still has a strong affinity to the British Isles even to this day. But in Rhyse Canada is a dead zone because no one will ever be able to control it without falling apart its simply too big.
 
No its not bad but try to play as the Spanish and recreate their empire. To do that you need to build/control Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Colombia, Mexico, Yucatan, Texas, California, the Phillipines and Naples/Rome. My opinion is that this is impossible. I've tried and not been successful.

Hey, good variant! I'll try it. Thanks!
 
1. You say "the Americas and Asia are almost totally irrelevent to the grand scheme of balance of power...Every game is merely a struggle to dominate Europe" and "I do think that expansion in Europe ought to be more difficult than expansion in the colonies would be." Sounds like you aren't aware of how it works. There are different kind of penalties for overexpansion in Europe and in the colonies.

2. The brake to settlers spam is a matter of scale. A game with 20+ civs, in a 124x68 map is slow and unplayable if every civ builds 20 cities easily. If you liked that, switch back to civ3 giga maps, where 31 civs would fill the whole world by 500 AD.

3. The consequence of this is that you can't conquer all rivals. You could do that with a 6-7 opponents world, not 20. The scale here is much bigger and the mechanics must be reworked somehow.

4. Recreating the Spanish Empire, as well as other civ's one, is definitely possible. The AI for sure is able to do that.

5. Not being able to attack the natives is a AI weakness, partially improved in BTS. I did everything possible to encourage them
 
But thats also the problem because as I elucidated personal biases tend to undermine the overall strategic conceptualizations of the game. Why expand at all if there is no point to it? I guess the question is whether you want civilization to be more of a strategy game or more of a sim.

Two things:

1- the most important conceptualization of the game is enjoyment, not strategy.
2- ROC is a mod for Civilization, not Civilization. Hence Rhye's intent is not to make Civ more of a strategy or a sim, since Civilization is something else. You play this mod when you don't want to play that. It's not a patch, an expansion, an improvement, nothing of all this, it's a mod, and as such it's something different. Or did you want ROC to be the same as Civ ?
 
1- the most important conceptualization of the game is enjoyment, not strategy.

Ahh but is an easy game fun? Or if a scenario is too easy is it worth playing again and again. I happen to like a lot about this mod/scenario except that some of weaknesses I described make it excessively easy. The easiest maybe the Arabs who need only control 3 holy cities, expand Islam to 40% of the cities and subdue North Africa, Egypt and Spain. Spain is the hardest to take on but the rest are all quite managable. I've found the best way to do it is get really strong, take India develop it, develop the Middle East so that they will accept a vassalage agreement, but taking enough cities to force that isn't any harder.

I personally want a game that requires good strategy to win even if some are easier to win with than others simply because it will always make the scenario infinately replayable.

ROC is a mod for Civilization, not Civilization. Hence Rhye's intent is not to make Civ more of a strategy or a sim, since Civilization is something else. You play this mod when you don't want to play that. It's not a patch, an expansion, an improvement, nothing of all this, it's a mod, and as such it's something different. Or did you want ROC to be the same as Civ

Well to be fair I think Rhyse is better than Civ IV because Civ4 is too biased towards an overtly militaristic approach over a developmental one. And by that I mean people tend to few Civ as a contrast between the strategies of militarism i.e. building almost exclusively military with limited development or expansion and settler spam. Id like to see development employed as a third strategy, one where the player uses military along with expansion to out play his opponents and by that I mean there are clear advantages for developing your cities to their maximum potential. Too often it seems quite easy to neglect building all the improvements for your cities if you can get other things like resources so that ultimately there is little to gain by doing so. I would like to see a more intrinsic advantage for doing so than I have thus far seen.

The brake to settlers spam is a matter of scale. A game with 20+ civs, in a 124x68 map is slow and unplayable if every civ builds 20 cities easily. If you liked that, switch back to civ3 giga maps, where 31 civs would fill the whole world by 500 AD.

But here is where I think you are wrong. First settler spam was never the problem people made it out to be in Civ3. The problem had far more to do with the weaknesses of the AI, the lack of culture boundaries(i.e. national boundaries) terrain problems i.e. grasslands were so inherently productive and abundant that there was no reason to not go bananas with settlers. Civ4 has solved some of these already and as for the last with the terrain your map has it dealt with that by using large amounts of unarable land(which was a great feature I might add, so no cities in the heart of the Amazon jungle). In fact by my count South America can support a maximum of only about 24 cities with far less than that being likely. North America around 26. Austrailia probably more than it should because it is not as barren as it should be, but after that there really isn't a lot of free land, and what there is in the Americas, Africa and Austrialia will probably be consumed by a few opportunistic powers. This playout which seems very common to this scenario was extremely well done since in every game I've played its always the Dutch, British, French, Spanish and Portugese that become the colonials and if you figure there are only about 50-60 cities to be built by 5 powers it figures that only a few would get the bulk of it and afterwards fight with every one else to preserve to take it away from them. Again this part was well done the problem that I have is not that stability is a bad idea but that it is too restrictive at present and undermines the full fruition of the colonial ambitions of these powers in the New World, Asia and Africa. Afterall, why be a colonial power and do it half way?

Again my suggestion is to ease up the stability some or modify it to make it more adaptable. You mentioned there are other penalties for over expansion in Europe what are they? The only ones that seem to matter are foreign opinion, the loss of your cities and the maintanence cost. The maintenance cost doesn't seem to be a problem, maybe it could be higher so that in order for colonies to pay for themselves they would have to develop a great deal and build banks and markets. But again it seems there is an upward limit on how big you can get and Spain could never, or should I say would never want to actually build an empire as large as it did in the New world as it would kill its research and ultimately collapse.

I'd just like to see instability due to empire size and city number as a more controllable feature e.g. you can build 40 cities but to stop from them breaking off or your empire collapsing you would need to build a giantic army to be maintained in the cities of the colonies so as to keep them down. This has the ancillary benefit of making a colonial power in a strategic weakness to a more centrally located empire since their army must remain spread out in order to hold the thing together. And historically this drain of manpower was exactly what happened.

Does that mean 30 civs with 30 cities each...NO!!! It means that the AI might pay attention to California more than they do because it would be worth it to do so and more importantly once all the free and is grabbed up the pressure intensifies to focus on minor powers to take them down i.e. the game becomes more competitive when the big sharks start gobbling up the smaller ones and or restorign destroyed civs.

4. Recreating the Spanish Empire, as well as other civ's one, is definitely possible. The AI for sure is able to do that.

I have never seen this! The Spanish usually build some cities in SAmerica but totally neglect Mexico, Texas and California. In fact the only time the Aztecs have been conquered is when I've done it but that may be more due to AI stupidity. If the Spanish ever do creat to fruition their empire in LAmerica then its only in the mid to late 20th century by which time I've quite playing because I've already won. Again maybe the problem is that I haven't played deep enough into the 19th century because I've never had to but that again would suggest its a bit easy.

1. You say "the Americas and Asia are almost totally irrelevent to the grand scheme of balance of power...Every game is merely a struggle to dominate Europe" and "I do think that expansion in Europe ought to be more difficult than expansion in the colonies would be." Sounds like you aren't aware of how it works. There are different kind of penalties for overexpansion in Europe and in the colonies.

Uh yeah I understand it, its just not that hard to get. The first time I played I tried to build a large empire and failed because it collapsed, but I ultimately still won because my culture boundaries restored to me the metropole but I realized what the heck was the point of founding all those cities all it did was waste time to build the settlers and slow down my research. In every subsequent game I've played the same modified strategy. I always focus on Europe looking to weaken early what is likely to be my strongest neighbor(basic tactics really). If I'm France its Germany, Spain its France, Germany its Russia but regardless because it is "cheaper" to expand in Europe than abroad it is a better strategic move to concentrate on Europe. Also maybe you aren't aware that the reason this is true is because such expansion is Zero Sum i.e. if France expands in Europe because it takes Mainz, Hamburg and Berlin from Germany even if this costs France some stability it is still worthwhile because the expansion weakens the strongest rival. Ultimately, for the various minor powers like Portugal, Holland Spain etc who can't are undermaned against the Germans or Frence and likely to lose in the European struggle it is necessary to take early North Africa since it is unoccupied since these are close enough to the metropole they are effectively considered the "homeland" and are easy to manage.
 
Ahh but is an easy game fun? Or if a scenario is too easy is it worth playing again and again. I happen to like a lot about this mod/scenario except that some of weaknesses I described make it excessively easy.

Well, then you're way off topic, since the OP is saying the contrary. Also, easy or hard is such a subjective word, not to mention levels of difficulty of the mod. You wasted so many bits to answer stating so many personal opinions (that btw regard more the game than the mod) that I really don't have the strength or time to answer to anything else but this.
 
First, for those complaining about stability being unrealistic, what history book are you reading? I really like this scenario. One of the most unrealistic things about regular Civ, by far, is that no civilizations ever go into decline except by direct conquest. Unchallenged, each one just keeps getting bigger and bigger expanding and advancing along very linear and predictable lines. When has this ever occurred in history? When has ANY large empire ever lasted more than a thousand years or so? It just doesn't happen. I love the new Civs popping up in the middle of things to stir things up, the plagues, everything.. adds considerably more realism to the game.

Stability does present a unique challenge, but if you pay attention to what's going on in the game you should be able to figure out how to keep your empire together. I played as the Babylonians and successfully held my empire together through the whole game, and they've got one of the most hotly contested pieces of earth on the map. It wasn't easy, but it was possible.

Plague, also, presents an interesting and unique challenge, but it's far from unbeatable. Keep your cities healthy. If you see plague break out in a neighboring culture, immediately cancel open borders agreements with them and stay away. When I was invading India with my army, plague broke out there and I had to pull back as all of my units were dying. I lost many units this way, but that's not a weakness of the scenario IMO.

As for cities and units flipping, when I played as the Persians I was well on my way to achieving a historical victory but I still needed some more land in my empire.. then the Arabians showed up and I knew I was screwed. They stopped my HV, but that's cool.. the game shouldn't be so easy. I wouldn't give Jerusalem to the Arabs so they attacked me, and since my army was mostly tied up in Ethiopia it was difficult mustering up a good defense. I had lots of units desert and go to the other side... but I just kept churning out more and eventually conquered the entire Arabian peninsula. It was a lot more difficult than it would have been in normal Civ... but that's the point. I just completely rewrote history by containing Islam before it ever had a chance to spread. That *should* be difficult to pull off.

Anyway, I think the people who dislike this scenario the most are the ones who play like my cousin, and don't really enjoy a challenge so much as they enjoy mindlessly going through every turn, methodically perfecting everything. My cousin will continue playing after he's achieved victory until he's maxed out every city on the map and is making 6000 gold a turn or something ridiculous like that. I find that boring. I quit playing any game myself immediately after it has become clear that there's no chance I'll lose.


To answer the OP, I just played another game as India and won my historical victory. I messed up the first game because I went for the obvious buddhism and hinduism first. I think if you do this it becomes literally impossible to complete a HV.
So... first go for Judaism. Explore with your warrior, there are huts to the south and northwest, and several more over in Europe. I got a free worker, free warrior, and a free tech out of these so it's worth looking.
In your capital city, I built a barracks first.
After I was at two population, I started building a worker.
Once I had Judaism, I immediately went for hinduism and buddhism. At this point I had 3 religions.
I resisted adopting a state religion because you get more culture and it gives you no bonus early on anyway.
I reasearched roads and agriculture so my worker would have something to do.
After I finished the worker, I believe I built one warrior for defense and then a monastery to speed up my research.
I had the worker get me marble first, and build a route, then focus on improving the tiles close to the city.
Once I had access to marble, I started building The Oracle. With Organized religion you can build it faster.
The Chinese beat me to Confucianism, but only by a few turns.
I researched writing so that when the oracle was finished I could get Theology and found Christianity.
The next thing I went for in research was Taoism, which I got easily.
After I finished up the Oracle, I think I built one more worker and then a settler and settled on the east coast where I had several resources and that city grew rapidly.
The Persians showed up and I knew I had to make friends with them or they would crush me easily, so I was careful not to offend them in any way.
Christianity and Taoism both gave me missionaries, so I arbitrarily picked one and sent it to the Persian capital. Once my religion spread there, they adopted it and I switched religions myself so they would be more friendly toward me.
I researched alphabet next to enable technology trading.
I had one warrior sitting on the Roman/Greek border to permanently keep contact with them and another sitting on the Babylonian/Egpytian border for the same. This way I could trade technologies quickly.
I traded something to the Romans for Iron Working and mined the Iron ore in India so I could build spearmen to defend against barbarian elephants.
At this point I had completed 2/3 goals and was only worried about possible invasion and making my population grow. So I tried to stay friends with everyone and grow as much as I could, churning out settlers, and having my workers build farms and plantations and pastures.
I used a great prophet to build the great building for the religion shared by myself and my neighors.
I used a great engineer to build Notre Dame.
I got vassalage as soon as I could to build up some longbowmen and worry a bit less about being overrun.
I built a Chinese embassy and traded with them for pigs and silk.
I used missionaries to spread the true faith and combat the rise of Islam in Arabia.
Then I built the AP to give myself even more security.
I researched liberalism to get a free tech (Nationalism)
After that it was pretty easy breezy... My cities were built up, I had 6 in all on the Indian subcontinent. My only rival at that point in terms of population were the Chinese, and they were having problems with barbarians. I built some cannons and musketeers when I could and expanded westward. Victory achieved.
 
I think that RFC is one of the best mods for CIV 4... probably the best and I play it alot. Still I wouldn't say it's perfect, but what is perfect for everyone? ;)

The one thing that gets me annoyed is UHV. UHV is a very good feature but IMHO it's implemented wrong. Now it is an absolute value... you HAVE to accomplish this AND that to achieve a UHV. As I really like to go for the UHV my games plays more like a giant jigsaw puzzle where I try to puzzle everything together to accomplish an UHV for that specific civilization. And once that is done you have "broke" that civilization and it's never the same playing them again cause you know what you have to do to be able to achieve the UHV.

I still think UHV is an awsome concept however I wish the whole UHV system could be changed. First of all I would like to see a totally revamped victory points system. Victory points should partly be awarded for the basic thingies like how big your empire is, how culturally it is etc. But mostly victory points is awarded from what that specific civilization has to do to gain extra bonus points. For example India would get plenty of bonus part for every religion they found while Ethiopians would get extra bonus points for every turn the europeans doesn't have any colonies in Africa and the Arabs gets bonus points in regards to how big Islam is etc etc.

I think using VP (victory points) in this manner would lead to a much more free way to play the game while still trying to achieve the historical goals for that civilziation.

Just my two cents anyway. :D
 
I think using VP (victory points) in this manner would lead to a much more free way to play the game while still trying to achieve the historical goals for that civilziation.

Just my two cents anyway. :D

That would be really interesting, but also very difficult to balance with all the different Civs.

After playing this scenario many many times with many different Civs I think I have to revise my position on the original post's point. The Historical Victory conditions can be too based on luck, but it depends on which Civ you are playing as. Some HVs are tweaked so much that they are not based on luck at all. There is a very exact order of things you have to do to achieve these victories. If you do those things in the correct order, you are practically guaranteed to succeed. If you make one mistake or do something out of order, then you are practically guaranteed to fail. Luck doesn't factor in. The Indian civilization is one like this.

On the other hand, certain other Civilizations are IMPOSSIBLE to win with unless you get lucky. For one example, the Greeks. Greece has to build the Oracle, but often the Oracle is already completed or well on its way to completion by the time your Civ even has its starting point. You may have already failed one of your three victory conditions as the Greeks before the game even begins. Obviously no amount of good strategy or planning will fix that.
As the Americans, one of your three victory conditions is to build the Statue of Liberty, The Pentagon, and the UN. The last time I played as them I researched Democracy first to try to build the Statue of Liberty and Germany completed the wonder the same turn that I finished researching Democracy. I don't think I could have possibly beaten them if I did something different, just got unlucky in what happened during the auto-play turns.
 
Top Bottom