More Uniqueness wanted, ideas are welcomed

[Hornets]

Thanks Wolfshade, you are really helpful.

I like your ideas regarding the Aztecs. I hadn't thought about removing all the modern techs from them, although I knew I had to remove some units (live mounted units and gunpowder units).

Do you think the game would be winnable for an Aztec player without al the benefits of the modern tech eras?

 

[dominatr]

Thanks Wolfshade, you are really helpful.

I like your ideas regarding the Aztecs. I hadn't thought about removing all the modern techs from them, although I knew I had to remove some units (live mounted units and gunpowder units).

Do you think the game would be winnable for an Aztec player without al the benefits of the modern tech eras?

as long as you give them some good bonuses to counter that. Maybe 3 civ traits and more UU's.

 

[timerover51]

The Inca resisted the Spanish for much longer than the Aztecs, so should be included as well.

 

[dominatr]

The Inca resisted the Spanish for much longer than the Aztecs, so should be included as well.

good point, and that also fills in one of south america, since aztecs are really in central america

 

[Blue Monkey]

Take a look at TAM for an interesting balance of unique yet balanced initial possibilities for each civ. Another little used idea is to give every civ a shot at a golden age in each era - via multiple UUs, triggering wonders, etc.

 

[Hornets]

Take a look at TAM

Thanks, I will.

good point, and that also fills in one of south america, since aztecs are really in central america

Also, I don't think it's a good idea to leave South America empty. The aztecs could easly become too powerful with all that availabe space.

About the wonders: I was thinking about making the wonders civ-specific, so each civ has it's own unique wonder (or maybe two). But no wonder will be able to more than one civ. That's more realistic than the game's system.

 

[Wolfshade]

good point, and that also fills in one of south america

opposite to

To survive, they should have a) big enough number of cities -> they need a territory (so provide them less opponents on the start -> no Inca); b) a huge amount of units.

Again, people forget about the balance, aiming to fill an "empty space". The "empty" does not mean "useless". It will be very useful and even will be required for someone (Aztecs). And you want to force 2 apriori weak ones to turn into war to make them more weaker? I don't see any other reason except to fill an empty space. As I said earlier, "more" <> "better".

Take a look at TAM

It's a good advice for me too. I tried it, but it was a bit long ago, a refreshing needed.

About the wonders: I was thinking about making the wonders civ-specific, so each civ has it's own unique wonder (or maybe two).

A good idea too. But as I said earlier, it's better to give the same wonder to a number of civs. For example, you can give an opportunity to build a Stonehenge to all European "barbarian" civs. It will rise a challenge between them, though it's not precisely correct as far as we all know this wonder (we) was built in England. That's why I let myself to cross borders of historical correctness - a game should bring fun. There's not much fun just to read encyclopedia, but it becomes more interesting to play a game and discover some interesting things from it (for example, why does Pyramids provide a granary in every city? ).

 

[dominatr]

opposite to

Again, people forget about the balance, aiming to fill an "empty space". The "empty" does not mean "useless". It will be very useful and even will be required for someone (Aztecs). And you want to force 2 apriori weak ones to turn into war to make them more weaker? I don't see any other reason except to fill an empty space. As I said earlier, "more" <> "better".

It's not just filling up spaces, its adding a civ to a barren continent. Europe is packed and yet america has 2 or 3 civs. It doesn't make sense to have that. The Incans should be there, to challenge the aztecs a bit.


It's a good advice for me too. I tried it, but it was a bit long ago, a refreshing needed.




A good idea too. But as I said earlier, it's better to give the same wonder to a number of civs. For example, you can give an opportunity to build a Stonehenge to all European "barbarian" civs. It will rise a challenge between them, though it's not precisely correct as far as we all know this wonder (we) was built in England. That's why I let myself to cross borders of historical correctness - a game should bring fun. There's not much fun just to read encyclopedia, but it becomes more interesting to play a game and discover some interesting things from it (for example, why does Pyramids provide a granary in every city? ).

So like, culture grouped wonders? That actually seems like a great idea. I don't see why Persia shouldn't be able to build pyramids or Korea build Sun Tzu's Art of War

 

[Wolfshade]

Talking about Persia, I would prefer it to challenge more with India than with Egypt in Ancient times. I can be mistaken, so, please, correct me if you see a misleading in my words.
Actually, in my mod I have an Arabia civ which "includes" Persia (anc), Arabian Khaliphs states (med) & Turkey (ind & mod).

culture grouped wonders

3 simple words explained a theory. I'm damn bad in English.

 

[Joe Cool]

You might want to consider adding Persia, seeing as it was at times the largest empire in the world (or at least up there). There are also large numbers of possible units lying around, and Persia still exists today as Iran.

As for the U.S., if you want a historically accurate map/mod, how can you not include them? It would be like leaving Rome out of a Mediterranean mod or China out of an Asia mod. If you're concerned with them having too much space for essentially unchecked expansion, you can always add the Iroquois or Mexicans, or cover North America west of the Appalachians with barbarians.

Finally, be careful of crossing the thin line between uniqueness and wholesale separation. A mod with flavor units, one or two unique units, wonders, and techs, and clever uses of flavors to subtly influence game play is great. A mod where every civ has its own tech tree, completely unique unit lines and multiple unique wonders with little to no crossover rapidly becomes unplayable, not least because the player would have to research everything about each new civ they wanted to play as. (Also, you would eliminate not only tech trading, but also the ability to check up on a civ to get a general idea of where they are in the tech tree and how worried you need to be.)

Fighting an army of fast, cheap jaguar warriors or bruising French knights is fun; watching France get overrun in the first 50 turns by that same army of jaguar warrior and then waiting until I have cavalry or tanks and wiping out the Aztecs in 10 turns because they don't have anything better than those same jaguar warriors is not.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for flavor units and giving UU's at the right time to wreak havoc historically, but not giving a civ anything past Iron age units or giving them obscenely cheap units (1-5 shields) just breaks the game because as long as I don't start next to the Aztecs, they aren't going to beat me once I get to the Middle Ages.

 

[timerover51]

If you really wish to be unique, instead of having the Iroquois be the native civilization in North America, you might want to consider the 5 Civilized Tribes of the North American Southeast, the Cherokee, the Chickasaw, the Creek, the Choctaw, and the Seminole.

 

[Wolfshade]

as long as I don't start next to the Aztecs, they aren't going to beat me once I get to the Middle Ages.

1) doesn't it historically correct?
2) did you try it? No. I tried. It hurts, it hurts very much.

If you really wish to be unique, instead of having the Iroquois be the native civilization in North America, you might want to consider the 5 Civilized Tribes of the North American Southeast, the Cherokee, the Chickasaw, the Creek, the Choctaw, and the Seminole.

A brilliant idea! I did thought about, but did not have enough time & units (I would like to see warrior-spearman-swordsman-horseman-musketman line from different tribes) to make this real.

 

[Joe Cool]

1) doesn't it historically correct?
2) did you try it? No. I tried. It hurts, it hurts very much.

Yes, its historically correct, but I don't play Civ to recreate history as it happened. I play it to rewrite history as it could have happened. What if the Aztecs had killed Cortes instead of welcoming him as the incarnation of Queztacoatl? Then isn't it conceivable that they would have hung around long enough to at least gain limited access to horses and gunpowder? I understand making the Aztecs an ancient juggernaut and then giving them weaker Medieval units to increase the chances that the Aztecs fall in the early part of the 16th century, but to simply give them nothing after the Ancient era and especially not give them anything for the entire second half of the tech tree just renders them unplayable (particularly by the AI, which is my main concern. I think it would be an interesting challenge if the Aztecs were the only playable civ, so you could guarantee that the human player would control them).

As for your second point, I tried something similar once, and it wound up ruining the game. All I had to do was park 2nd tier defenders on mountains and wait for the AI to send onslaught after onslaught. I wound up with so many armies that I started using Great Leaders to rush universities and cathedrals since I had already hit the army support limit and finished every Small Wonder I could build. And while the AI wasted half their army on me, they used the other half to demolish their neighbors, leaving me to roll through an entire continent almost unopposed with my Cavalry armies.

 

[eazyhasaids]

Maybe the Aztecs could work by keeping them weak from around their fall to mexican independence. I could work for a lot of the civs where a sort of dark age could be created in sections of the tech tree.

 

[Steph]

That's what I'm doing in my mod, with change of civilization. Aztec evolving to Mexicans, Iroquois to USA...

 

[Hornets]

All good points, my friends.

 

[eazyhasaids]

@steph
Do the civs stay balanced or do they have times when they are made weaker than the average civ as well as times where they hold an advantage over other civs at certain times?

 

[Steph]

Civs vary. I try to keep them relatively balanced (so no overwwhelming advantage), but still there can be a significant difference.

See there for the stats of the units for the first 9 eras.

 

[dominatr]

That's what I'm doing in my mod, with change of civilization. Aztec evolving to Mexicans, Iroquois to USA...

steph, your idea is good, but it doesnt make sense in the way you gave examples.

you could make a case for other civs, somewhere earlier someone mentioned one about turkey.

the thing about the stuff you said is Aztecs evolving to mexicans is not true, since the spanish killed them and replaced them, sane with irioquois and americans. Simply describing a civilization living in a territory and then a different civilization living there is not really the evolution of one culture. If i worded it terribly (forgive me) i have a small example here.

this is like saying The celts evolved into the moors because they both controlled spain at different times

 

[timerover51]

steph, your idea is good, but it doesnt make sense in the way you gave examples.
the thing about the stuff you said is Aztecs evolving to mexicans is not true, since the spanish killed them and replaced them, sane with irioquois and americans. Simply describing a civilization living in a territory and then a different civilization living there is not really the evolution of one culture. If i worded it terribly (forgive me) i have a small example here.

this is like saying The celts evolved into the moors because they both controlled spain at different times

The Spanish DID NOT exterminate the Aztec people, nor any other of the indigenous native tribes of Mexico. No where near enough Spanish came to the New World to do that. The Spanish emigrants became the aristocracy, the natives the working peasants. Having the Aztecs evolve into the Mexicans appears to me to be perfectly acceptable. When Cortez attacked Tenochtitlan the second time, he has something on the order of 20,000 or so native allies from tribes the Aztecs had been warring with for sacrifices. All those other tribes did not vanish into thin air. Cortez destroyed the Aztec civilization, not the Aztec people.

The old rubric that I learned in high school and college is still a good short description of how the Spanish, the French, and the English treated the natives. That is:

The Spanish enslaved the natives, the French traded with them, the English killed them.

Having the Iroquois replaced by the Americans should not be a problem, as that is pretty much what happened.