Making Iran and Mexico Playable from the Scenario
- Thread starter Phail
- Start date
Iran and Mexico use the slots of Persia and the Aztecs, and which means that essentially they are the same player as far as the game is concerned, only with lots of attributes changed.
Since the starting screen only offers you the option to select each slot you want to play as, and those are already occupied by Persia and the Aztecs, you cannot choose Iran and Mexico there.
TLDR: If it was possible I would've already done it.
Since the starting screen only offers you the option to select each slot you want to play as, and those are already occupied by Persia and the Aztecs, you cannot choose Iran and Mexico there.
TLDR: If it was possible I would've already done it.
NorwegianSalmon
Warlord
- Joined
- May 22, 2013
- Messages
- 151
Is it also impossible to make an Iran autoplay in the 600 ad scenario? Ancient Persia isn't present there.
I've thought about that, but this would require extensive rewrites because currently the DLL and most Python code doesn't distinguish between the different scenarios. Changing the spawn date and possibly many other things would be quite the effort for just one civ.
ales_
Heir
Can you introduce the option of choosing between two leaders: a Persian and an Iranian (an Aztec and a Mexican) on the starting screen? Choosing different leaders will make you spawn in different dates.
That wouldn't solve anything and is not even possible.
iOnlySignIn
Prince$s
Wouldn't a 1700 AD Scenario fix it for the Mexicans?
Incidentally Mexico still has the Aztec UP (they enslaved my Minutemen), and I've never seen its AI build Farms on Hills (naturally, as Farms on Hills are terrible.).
Hippo8085
Shaken, not stirred
No. As stated above, Iran and Mexico are not separate civilizations from Persia and Aztec. While not obvious to an in-game observer, Italy is as separate an entity from Rome as is Byzantium, with some things left over from when the two were the same, such as the Dynamic Names file.
ales_
Heir
But why should Iran and Persia, Aztec and Mexico be the same civ, Leoreth? Can you make them different civs?
yurisusuki
Hope, Faith and love
And about Rome and Italy?..
FinalLegendZero
Prince
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2013
- Messages
- 548
merijn_v1
Black Belt
Why should the be different civs? The can never exist in the same game, as the both control the same territory. There is no real need that they are seperate civs. (apart from the ability to choose them for the starting screen)
And as some things can be skipped loading (like all Mexican features if you are playing the Aztecs or the other way round), it's possible the game is a little faster.
(Not completely sure about this one, but is sounds very likely)
soul-breathing
Emperor
But it's very troublesome to select Congo or USA as a start, then turn to Iran or Mexico, especially Mexico, it's waste of lot time.
maybe an AD1500 or AD1700 scenerio may works.
maybe an AD1500 or AD1700 scenerio may works.
I could. But I won't.
ales_
Heir
Why won't you do it?
SeekTruthFromFacts
King
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2009
- Messages
- 670
Leoreth is our benevolent dictator. He can do what he wants and he doesn't need to give a reason.
(But perhaps it's because it would take a lot of time and be very boring).
Cosmos1985
King
The explananation is just right before your eyes, so...
A short history of the Iranian civ:
- people start asking for a scripted respawn of Persia in 1500
- I say it's okay, that makes sense. Set Persian respawn date to 1500, don't change anything else
- people say that it'd be better if Safavid Persia had their own UU and UB and flag
- so I add these as well, if you do it you should do it right after all
- people who play as Iran say they miss goals to complete and their own UP
- so I implement that too
Making so many changes is already (without wanting to sound magnanimous) a courtesy that goes beyond the original intention for a Persian, and by extension Mexican, respawn, which is to represent these civs in an era-appropriate appearance. This is why they appear as if they could be a player in their own right. And basically along every step I've been reluctant because I knew at some point someone would do exactly what you're doing, trying to use these additions against me to badger me into making them their own player.
So why don't I do it?
a) I've already done a lot for something that started out as a flavor/historicity thing.
b) I mod to have fun and including new players isn't.
c) The time I would waste on this is lost on more worthwhile additions.
Choose your explanation.
- people start asking for a scripted respawn of Persia in 1500
- I say it's okay, that makes sense. Set Persian respawn date to 1500, don't change anything else
- people say that it'd be better if Safavid Persia had their own UU and UB and flag
- so I add these as well, if you do it you should do it right after all
- people who play as Iran say they miss goals to complete and their own UP
- so I implement that too
Making so many changes is already (without wanting to sound magnanimous) a courtesy that goes beyond the original intention for a Persian, and by extension Mexican, respawn, which is to represent these civs in an era-appropriate appearance. This is why they appear as if they could be a player in their own right. And basically along every step I've been reluctant because I knew at some point someone would do exactly what you're doing, trying to use these additions against me to badger me into making them their own player.
So why don't I do it?
a) I've already done a lot for something that started out as a flavor/historicity thing.
b) I mod to have fun and including new players isn't.
c) The time I would waste on this is lost on more worthwhile additions.
Choose your explanation.
ales_
Heir
OK. Thank you for the explanation.
Similar threads
