v119 re-uploaded

Rhye

Rhye

's and Fall creator
Supporter
Joined
May 23, 2001
Messages
9,985
Location
Japan / Italy / Germany
Please if you downloaded v119 as it was tonight (you can see it as it had a different folder name ("Rhye's and Fall of Civilization_119") and two or more backup biqs and DLLs), delete and download it again.
Thank you.



changelog:

Spoiler :
- Reduced American and Aztec flip areas
- Updated all AI Wars maps
- Fixed bug of units being put on water
- Aztecs and Incas don’t have construction at start anymore
- Aztecs don’t have iron working at start anymore
- Jaguar can be built with Bronze Working
- Tweaked Aztec and Inca AI tech preferences
- Greek birth date moved to 1600BC
- Persian birth date moved back to 850BC
- French date corrected to 750AD
- American date moved to 1733AD- American starting units and tech changed accordingly
- AI Birth dates now have modifiers that will make it vary within a range of a few turns
- Slightly modified research percent modifiers for China, Arabia and Persia
- AI now sometimes will declare war if another civ spawns and get its cities
- Added Russian translation
- Barbarian cities will be easier to take later as they can’t build longbowmen anymore
- Acqueduct cost reduced
- Congress enabled with 2 more conditions: if player is alive and after 1200
- Mali UP bug fixed
- Updated German city list
- Updated city renamings
- Panzers don’t require oil anymore
 
- Greek birth date moved to 1600BC
- Persian birth date moved back to 850BC
- ROM 753BC

This means that, on average... Greece will appear. 21 turns later, Persia will appear. And 4 turns later, Rome will appear.

I don't mean to be a pest. But I really do think the gap between Persia and Greece should be at least equal to that of the gap between Persia and Rome.

I know history shows that the start dates are accurate, but as far as the actual game unfolding, it doesn't really allow for an accurate history in terms of:

- A large Persian empire is founded.
- Which is then conquered by the Greeks.
- Which is then conquered by the Romans.

Am I way off base here?

(PS: great patch, though... really pleased with the improvements so far.)
 
dh_epic said:
- Greek birth date moved to 1600BC
- Persian birth date moved back to 850BC
- ROM 753BC

This means that, on average... Greece will appear. 21 turns later, Persia will appear. And 4 turns later, Rome will appear.

I don't mean to be a pest. But I really do think the gap between Persia and Greece should be at least equal to that of the gap between Persia and Rome.

I know history shows that the start dates are accurate, but as far as the actual game unfolding, it doesn't really allow for an accurate history in terms of:

- A large Persian empire is founded.
- Which is then conquered by the Greeks.
- Which is then conquered by the Romans.

Am I way off base here?

(PS: great patch, though... really pleased with the improvements so far.)
Click to expand...

I think the current greek start date is going to make them cannon fodder for Rome. They have no time at all to develop into the power they once were. At one point Greece had colonies all across the eastern med. and if I remember correctly Rome was actually a Greek colony.
 
do you have evidence of Persia before 850BC? I don't want to invent dates.

Persia conquered its empire within a few turns (in game terms) around the VI Century BC. It is helped in this by the Satrapy UP.
In the games I've seen so far with 119, Persia reaches Anatolia often before Greece, while Rome arrives much later.
 
This is what I'm going on, Rhye...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elamite_Empire#The_Elamite_legacy

I don't think Persia gets the head start that Greece gets. The Greeks get the benefit of the Mycaeneans being considered a Greek people, but Persia does not get the benefit of the Elamites being considered a Persian people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greece#The_rise_of_Greece

The reason why Greece and Persia became such great enemies in real life is because they both emerged around 800 BC. And if we go back further, we can see that the Elamites collapsed at the same time as the Mycenians back in 1100 BC! And going back further, the Mycenians and Elamites both flourished in the middle of the 2nd Millenium BC.

But Greece gets the head start from the Myceneans, and Persia does not get the head start from the Elamites.

But maybe you're right, Rhye. Maybe changing Persia to 850 BC and moving Greece to 1600 BC will be enough to make them good enemies. Satrapy IS a powerful UP, and the barbarians might be enough to allow Persia to really grow quickly.

My top concern is just allowing Persia to build an empire, Greece to take over, and Rome to sweep up. We'll look at the testing results.
 
What happened to the barbs in North America? they captured St. Augustine and killed the Aztecs both before America (me) spawned. Also, Islam was founded in Mailand (Mediolanum, Melpum, how many names does that city have?) which isn't bad, just an interesting side note. Arabia is Jewish.
 
Milan = French
Mediolanum = Roman
Melpum = Barbarian
Mailand = German
I think those are all the city names for it... but it's the modern city of Milan. And yes, I've seen Islam founded by the Romams before. It's a fairly rare occurance, moreso than a Taoist Persia. I've also seen a confucianist Greece before too.
 
dh_epic said:
This is what I'm going on, Rhye...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elamite_Empire#The_Elamite_legacy

I don't think Persia gets the head start that Greece gets. The Greeks get the benefit of the Mycaeneans being considered a Greek people, but Persia does not get the benefit of the Elamites being considered a Persian people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greece#The_rise_of_Greece

The reason why Greece and Persia became such great enemies in real life is because they both emerged around 800 BC. And if we go back further, we can see that the Elamites collapsed at the same time as the Mycenians back in 1100 BC! And going back further, the Mycenians and Elamites both flourished in the middle of the 2nd Millenium BC.

But Greece gets the head start from the Myceneans, and Persia does not get the head start from the Elamites.

But maybe you're right, Rhye. Maybe changing Persia to 850 BC and moving Greece to 1600 BC will be enough to make them good enemies. Satrapy IS a powerful UP, and the barbarians might be enough to allow Persia to really grow quickly.

My top concern is just allowing Persia to build an empire, Greece to take over, and Rome to sweep up. We'll look at the testing results.
Click to expand...

Epic we dont want things predetermined. We just want that outcome to be possible.
 
Yeah, bingo. We're talking about it being a problem because it never happens and seemingly *can't* happen.

If SOMETIMES Persia built an empire, and was SOMETIMES conquered by Alexander, and SOMETIMES Rome came along and swept up... well, I guess I wouldn't be making such a big deal.

I worry that the problem has to do with the dates. But when I have some time, I have to take a closer look. The Persian UP in combination with the v119 date changes might be enough.
 
My father has been playing this mod a lot lately. He always plays the Greeks. He'll try this new version of the mod. At the moment, he feels that the Persian UP is grossly unfair. And in my opinion, it seems unbalanced. Satraps are provinces, not a function of conquest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
New Version – 4.21.1 (May 3, 2025)
2 3 4
Replies
66
Views
14K
Recursive
Recursive
L
My map tack list is very few and limited (CIV 6)
Replies
5
Views
568
Naeshar
Naeshar
H
VP 4.22 + 34UC v88 Korean Mod & Modpack
Replies
0
Views
1K
HANDANI
H
zenmaster
Win 11 Launch problem fix if needed
Replies
0
Views
566
zenmaster
zenmaster
LilBudyWizer
Best Practices
Replies
0
Views
320
LilBudyWizer
LilBudyWizer
Back
Top Bottom