Earth 1600 AD
- Thread starter Lokolus
- Start date
Roetghoer
Warlord
I've got a few problems with this scenario;
First of, Valdivia which is appointed to the Dutch at the start should be Spanish. The Dutch have briefly occupied the city around 1640 when the Spanish Empire appeared to have left the city. But when rumours about gold in the region proved unfounded they abandoned their hold of the city. Also, in the game the city of Valdivia is stifling the Dutch economy severely. Same holds for Mauritania which is quite useless in the game, remove both from Dutch posession. Compensate the Dutch by increasing the strength in South africa, and by giving them a reasonable invasion force to capture part of the north of Brazil from the Portugese. (Which is true to history)
Secondly, everytime I play a European nation (I often play the Dutch, French or English) the Ottomans win a time victory almost by default. They are much to powerful from the get go. This is partly so because I think they have been given one or two too many Techs (such as Education) and because all of their cities are guarded by their most powerful unit the janissary (musketman eq.) I would have quite a number of cities (mostly in Africa/Egypt) be guarded just by longbowmen orso, and have janissary presence in and near Europe only.
Finally, I would further decrease the political stance of christian nations towards the Ottomans. Especially with the Polish and HRE (-7 max).
Just some thoughts
First of, Valdivia which is appointed to the Dutch at the start should be Spanish. The Dutch have briefly occupied the city around 1640 when the Spanish Empire appeared to have left the city. But when rumours about gold in the region proved unfounded they abandoned their hold of the city. Also, in the game the city of Valdivia is stifling the Dutch economy severely. Same holds for Mauritania which is quite useless in the game, remove both from Dutch posession. Compensate the Dutch by increasing the strength in South africa, and by giving them a reasonable invasion force to capture part of the north of Brazil from the Portugese. (Which is true to history)
Secondly, everytime I play a European nation (I often play the Dutch, French or English) the Ottomans win a time victory almost by default. They are much to powerful from the get go. This is partly so because I think they have been given one or two too many Techs (such as Education) and because all of their cities are guarded by their most powerful unit the janissary (musketman eq.) I would have quite a number of cities (mostly in Africa/Egypt) be guarded just by longbowmen orso, and have janissary presence in and near Europe only.
Finally, I would further decrease the political stance of christian nations towards the Ottomans. Especially with the Polish and HRE (-7 max).
Just some thoughts
I applaud your revision, but have to agree with Roetghoer on this. (In the CIV Gold edition of 1600 AD I put some Dutchmen in Northeast Brazil - which was held by the Dutch for over a decade.) Also, especially the Ottoman presence in North Africa should indeed be weaker, as their overlordship over this area, particularly in the pirate region of Algeria-Tunisia, was nominal at best. (The sultanate of Morocco remained independent from the Ottoman-controlled caliphate.) And apart from their military they certainly weren't advanced, as compared to Western Europe.
lamppost4
Holder of the Light
In my opinion, with the amount of time passing each turn in the game, 2 years does not warrant a possession of a city at the start of the scenario unless it had some significant impact. Just my 2 cents.
Id like to bump this. Lokolus' 1600 AD scenario, this one is a more peaceful stance. Wars aren't so often and bad relations between different civs is more mild. If you like to explore and colonize, than this is your scenario
Lokolus' 1643 AD scenario, war is everywhere. Horde your units or be prepared to be crushed, though its not over war either, just enough to keep the game interesting if war mongering is your thing over exploration and colonization
Both great scenarios, just different styles of good. The 1600 AD scenario is the beginning of French, British and Dutch colonization so it was a natural date to start a scenario. 1643 AD was the advent of louis XIV, self explanatory
Lokolus' 1643 AD scenario, war is everywhere. Horde your units or be prepared to be crushed, though its not over war either, just enough to keep the game interesting if war mongering is your thing over exploration and colonization
Both great scenarios, just different styles of good. The 1600 AD scenario is the beginning of French, British and Dutch colonization so it was a natural date to start a scenario. 1643 AD was the advent of louis XIV, self explanatory
Similar threads
