Project SYNTHESIS

[The Turk]

You should always consider that resources are also of global value, and are not mainly ways to randomly improve the output of certain city sites. Also, the usual player doesn't want tight city packing (it's quite annoying unless you're obsessed about having every historical city), and you can't even avoid that when you flip them.

Europe has tons of packed cities, heck France, England, Spain, Portugal are ONLY packed cities, so why not include Damascus, which was the most important city in the Middle East up until 750, and then again under the Zengids/Saladin. A great thing you could do with Damascus, is if you have the Egyptians respawn as the Ayyubids, you can have Damascus flip to them, along with Egypt, wouldn't that be cool? And if you noticed, I'm doing very little packing, in fact adding Damascus, and moving Antioch and Ikonion as I stated, while adding one wheat and one fish, would be fine for the region. Plus having Damascus as a capital, would stop the Byzantines from overrunning the Levant EVERY single time. I think you should try it, like I have in the past, before coming up with such assumptions.

I also don't understand what's so "annoying" about the stone underneath Baghdad?

Are you kidding me? Of course its annoying, it should be next to it! Plus there is already one stone to the West of Baghdad, so why do you need another one underneath? What purpose does it serve, other than making it look ugly? Its not only me, don't you hate to build cities on resources?

Where? In the Levant? I can't see why it warrants such a treatment, it's not a particularly fertile area.

Thats where you are wrong Leoreth, right up until the Timurid invasions in 1400 or some scholars say 1600 under the Ottomans, the Middle East (the Fertile Crescent) was very fertile. It was later that desertification began, due to soil erosion. Otherwise the Levant hosted some of the most important cities, along with Damascus which at its prime was huge, not to mention it hosts the fourth holiest site in Islam.

Currently the Silk Road company is under used, and I know thats because its still being tested. What should happen ideally is that a couple cities in China start with the Silk Road, and it spreads westward, city by city, and whenever it reaches a city it gets a commerce boost. Certain cities should also get an increased chance of attracting the Silk Road like Samarkand, Damascus and Constantinople.

 

[Leoreth]

Europe has tons of packed cities, heck France, England, Spain, Portugal are ONLY packed cities, so why not include Damascus, which was the most important city in the Middle East up until 750, and then again under the Zengids/Saladin. A great thing you could do with Damascus, is if you have the Egyptians respawn as the Ayyubids, you can have Damascus flip to them, along with Egypt, wouldn't that be cool? And if you noticed, I'm doing very little packing, in fact adding Damascus, and moving Antioch and Ikonion as I stated, while adding one wheat and one fish, would be fine for the region. Plus having Damascus as a capital, would stop the Byzantines from overrunning the Levant EVERY single time. I think you should try it, like I have in the past, before coming up with such assumptions.

Sorry, but "wouldn't that be cool" doesn't work as an argument for me. You give an undue relevance to that area, simple as that (speculating about minor details like single Egyptian dynasties on top of it). Can't speak for Linkman of course, but I won't turn the whole near east on its head only to cramp in one city that'll end up as a nuisance for most players anyway.

Are you kidding me? Of course its annoying, it should be next to it! Plus there is already one stone to the West of Baghdad, so why do you need another one underneath? What purpose does it serve, other than making it look ugly? Its not only me, don't you hate to build cities on resources?

It's ugly? That's your reason? Settling on stones is a usual strategy in vanilla Civ (with the production bonus added to the city tile), and settling on other resources even more so in RFC. Moving it somewhere else in Baghdad's BFC would only take away one cottage spot (unless you don't want to quarry it, but then there's even less point to it).

 

[J. pride]

Sorry, but "wouldn't that be cool" doesn't work as an argument for me. You give an undue relevance to that area, simple as that (speculating about minor details like single Egyptian dynasties on top of it). Can't speak for Linkman of course, but I won't turn the whole near east on its head only to cramp in one city that'll end up as a nuisance for most players anyway.

Agreed, (on not cramping up the Levant with 3 cities)
Concerning Damascus all I can say to u is that u should play as the Arabs and try it urself. If u think that it is not that much of a burden to gameplay and u are satisfied then replace Antioch with Damascus. If u want to try it; simply replace Antioch and move Cyprus's copper there; move the sheep east of the city one tile down and add a clam on top of trapezues to make up for it (optionally u can also add floodplain on the desert south-east of Trapezues)

Alternatively, due to the size of the Levant you can also place Damascus on the coast; I was looking at the map and I found that Damascus is 80 km inland while Jerusalem is 68 km inland when looking at this in RFC terms that is negligible; especially considering how small the Levant is on the map.

If this map started in 1 ad or even 300 ad; I would be the first person to recommend Antioch that is because I realize how important it was during Antiquity. But that said, that is the same reason I recommend that Damascus be added to the game. It was the most important post Arab city in the Levant till modern times. It served as the capital of the Ummayad dynasty and the regional capital for all dynasties that followed (exception being the French Mandate but that was less than 50 years). Not to mention its importance in Middle Eastern and Islamic history.

That said I dont want to force this down ur throat so If u still don't agree with me than I wont bother u bout partially because I somewhat understand ur position on this. Though I would appreciate it if u try it for urself?

It's ugly? That's your reason? Settling on stones is a usual strategy in vanilla Civ (with the production bonus added to the city tile), and settling on other resources even more so in RFC. Moving it somewhere else in Baghdad's BFC would only take away one cottage spot (unless you don't want to quarry it, but then there's even less point to it).

I mean that makes sense but i'd still rather build the quarry for the production bonus; alternately if u dont want to mess up the floodplain u can put in on a plain. I just dont like the Aesthetic feel of it.

 

[Danwood]

I've found a glitch: the UN Resolutions regarding Civics do not match the new civics implemented, for example: UN resolution about Emancipation, there is no "emancipation", instead there is "Socialism".


Keep this up guys this modmods are the best i've ever found in this community!

 

[The Turk]

J.Pride, I'm going to say your wrong, that they are squished, because I've actually tested it out some couple years ago, but I'll do it again, by adding fish and wheat to the Levant (and perhaps one other resource). These two cities were incredibly important, and I will prove to you and Leoreth that you can have both, just like you can have many squished cities in Europe.

 

[Linkman226]

Go on, guys, I'm listening to your debate. I'll come to my own conclusion at a later point.

If I don;t post here, it's cuz school's starting soon, so modding plus schoolwork takes a lot of time. But usually I will take the time to read new posts, if not give long responses to debates such as this one.

I've found a glitch: the UN Resolutions regarding Civics do not match the new civics implemented, for example: UN resolution about Emancipation, there is no "emancipation", instead there is "Socialism".


Keep this up guys this modmods are the best i've ever found in this community!

Thanks

The civics feature is from DoC. The actual mechanics of the resolutions have been changed, although the text has not. Don't mind it for now.

 

[J. pride]

Go on, guys, I'm listening to your debate. I'll come to my own conclusion at a later point.

If I don;t post here, it's cuz school's starting soon, so modding plus schoolwork takes a lot of time. But usually I will take the time to read new posts, if not give long responses to debates such as this one.

I realize that u have a lot of work to do but it is important that u make up ur mind for these issues before you move on. It is hard to add the Seljuks or the Egyptians when u dont how ur going to deal with the Arab collapse? or middle eastern city placements; Im not trying to rush u too much but it would be wise to make ur mind right now before u move on.

Also can u please use my map for Damascus and see how it affects gameplay before u make ur mind.

Now as far as Persecuters are concerned and the Arab/Byzantines collapse mechanic; I think it would be wise to make up ur mind right now. Delaying decision making will only make ur work tougher later.
My suggestion:
Byzantine Collapse Mechanic: No cities in Byzantine core; Thrace, Greece and Trapezues (until Byzantine spawn can declare independence).
Arab Collapse Mechanic: Human style collapse until 1300 ad where Baghdad survives; if the Seljuks conquer Baghdad; Arabia collapses into independents but Baghdad remains an Arab city as a vassal of Seljuks.

As far as making the Arabs use persecuters is concerned; that is a bad idea for reasons suggested above especially after Leoreth gives the Arabs a new goal. Ur thoughts?

J.Pride, I'm going to say your wrong, that they are squished, because I've actually tested it out some couple years ago, but I'll do it again, by adding fish and wheat to the Levant (and perhaps one other resource). These two cities were incredibly important, and I will prove to you and Leoreth that you can have both, just like you can have many squished cities in Europe.

Ofcourse u can fit; u can fit any city on the map that doesnt mean that u should. Should I also add just because i can fit them in and add resources around them. Just because i can fit Adrianpole or Koinsberg in the map doesnt mean that I should. You still havent answered my question on why it was important.

1. It holds one of the patriarchates of Eastern Christianity

2. Having only one city in the Levant would be dumb, therefore having another one with an added fish resource nearby makes sense.

3. It can be absorbed by the Ottomans when they spawn.

1) The patriarch of Antioch moved to Constantinople in 1100s and then to Damascus in 1300 ad. So even though it was called the Patriarch of Antioch but it resided in Constantinople and Damascus for most of its history (after 600 ad)
2) That is not an argument rather an opinion. I can think having once city in Mesopotamia. (not that i do)
3) So can Constantinople; again not a valid arugment

 

[Linkman226]

Give me a moment, J. Pride, I'll get back to you shortly.

Alright, new feature. I never thought it realistic that cities get depopulated by the hundreds of thousands and millions on unit capture. So I whipped up a little something:

A city not in the Middle East:

A city only has a 50% chance of having its population reduced on capture. The rest of the time it does not change.

A city in the Middle East:

If the conqueror is the Mongols, there is a 50% chance of TWO pop points being lost (unless the population is two or less, in which case it loses all but one pop point. The rest of the time the city loses a single pop point.

If the conquering nation is not the Mongols, no population change occurs.

Testing it out right now.

Oh, and the definitions of the Middle East- everything boxed in yellow:

 

[Linkman226]

Problem: my game crashes every time I play at the specific year 1170 AD. Is there any scripted event at that date that causes me to crash?

Yes, the Italian spawn. Are you playing with the SVN, or direct download?

 

[Leoreth]

Well, I on my part could see Antioch being replaced by Damascus, but not both. Will try it out as soon as I visit the Arabs for redoing their UHV.

 

[IrishDragon]

What about adding some features from the Advanced Diplomacy mod, such as being able to trade some military and maybe workers? I think it would be good to be able to buy siege weapons, modern battleships and maybe aircraft. Some of the options intervening in war look good also.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=373463

 

[The Turk]

Why is India part of the Middle East? Its quite annoying to see the Arabs get there, or even the Ottomans

 

[civ_king]

Why is India part of the Middle East? Its quite annoying to see the Arabs get there, or even the Ottomans

Mongols invasions perhaps

 

[Linkman226]

My decision: Adding Damascus, removing Antioch. Then testing.

What about adding some features from the Advanced Diplomacy mod, such as being able to trade some military and maybe workers? I think it would be good to be able to buy siege weapons, modern battleships and maybe aircraft. Some of the options intervening in war look good also.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=373463

I'll take a look at it, later though.

Why is India part of the Middle East? Its quite annoying to see the Arabs get there, or even the Ottomans

This doesn't determine AI logic, only what happens to cities on conquest. Primarily because of this:

Mongols invasions perhaps

 

[The Turk]

I disagree with your decision Linkman, and I'll prove to you why Antioch and Damascus can go together, as I'm crafting my own map, out of your mod (sorry for the delay due to real life work).

Also your only adding all of Western India to the Middle East just to portray a small and failed invasion of the Indian subcontinent by the Mongols?? I'm afraid this will spill over to the Seljuks, barbs and what not. I would recommend not including it. There have been many invasions over thousands of years of history, but the Mongol invasion of India does not need to be included. It will interfere too much with any supposed Northern Indian state, that could go there.

 

[Leoreth]

I disagree with your decision Linkman, and I'll prove to you why Antioch and Damascus can go together, as I'm crafting my own map, out of your mod (sorry for the delay due to real life work).

Why are you so keen on convincing everyone? Just do your own map and release it, I think the users can decide on their own then.

Also your only adding all of Western India to the Middle East just to portray a small and failed invasion of the Indian subcontinent by the Mongols?? I'm afraid this will spill over to the Seljuks, barbs and what not. I would recommend not including it. There have been many invasions over thousands of years of history, but the Mongol invasion of India does not need to be included. It will interfere too much with any supposed Northern Indian state, that could go there.

I don't think you've understood what that map even does.

 

[ozqar]

Hey, I downloaded the V. 25, wanting to play as the Indonesians, but I don't see them in the screen where you choose your civ. Do I have to use the SVN to get them? Also, I didn't see the option to choose Italy there, do I have to start as another civ and then switch?

 

[Leoreth]

Yes, everything Linkman took from my recent additions to DoC is SVN only.

To play as Italy, you have to start with another civ and wait for its spawn. Inca is closest (wait three turn and you should be able to switch - if it does spawn).

 

[J. pride]

Well, I on my part could see Antioch being replaced by Damascus, but not both. Will try it out as soon as I visit the Arabs for redoing their UHV.

Well I on my part appreciate u doing giving it a try; Thnx.

By the way, what do u have in mind for the UHV and also remember that the Ottomans need a new UHV.

 

[Leoreth]

By the way, what do u have in mind for the UHV and also remember that the Ottomans need a new UHV.

Huh? Why?