1700AD Scenario Development Thread
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
FinalLegendZero
Prince
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2013
- Messages
- 548
Sorry for posting again, but I never got a response.
Oregon Lee
Royal Tenenbaum
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2012
- Messages
- 2,748
NerfCothons
Warlord
The new Europe looks great. Maybe moving Konigsberg one tile N will help make that space west of Moscow seem less gaping.
Oregon Lee
Royal Tenenbaum
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2012
- Messages
- 2,748
soul-breathing
Emperor
Maybe Wilna could be better to represent the Union of Poland and Lithuania, but Minsk is also good.
dmitrytrue
Prince
Do not add Minsk please. Why it should be in game, to represent The Not-Significant-At-All-Potato-Land? It is already too crowded.
I doubt that someone will play Russia in 1700 AD with such a crappy city placing...
edit:
I suggest Riga - more or less decent city(coastal !), and it will represent union of Poland and Lithuania much better.
I doubt that someone will play Russia in 1700 AD with such a crappy city placing...
edit:
I suggest Riga - more or less decent city(coastal !), and it will represent union of Poland and Lithuania much better.
ales_
Heir
Egypt is alive in the scenario. It has a lion in Sam and a lion in Kudüs.
on emperor/normal, Playing as human player, england will either collapse or lose alot of cities after about 6 turns. Tried this over 10 times, nothing works. Similar situation with turkey but not as bad
on emperor/normal, the dutch are still far often too ahead in tech even with just the 2 starting merchants
Germany has far too many cottages, no? production is pretty low...
Russian city of moscow has too many cottages as well, so many that moscow cant grow due to lack of food...
on emperor/normal, the dutch are still far often too ahead in tech even with just the 2 starting merchants
Germany has far too many cottages, no? production is pretty low...
Russian city of moscow has too many cottages as well, so many that moscow cant grow due to lack of food...
Few notions about the 1700 scenario:
- Iran is always way too advanced, in my last game they built Wembley, Hollywood and Graceland.
- Korea settles the mongolian core for some reason and gets off the map city names there, maybe add indy Ulan Bator (founded in 1639)
- Mexican city placement is absolutely terrible, either buff Mexico (especially around Mexico city) or get rid of Guadalajara (which can currently grow to size 9!)
- England always founds either Milwaukee or Winnipeg before the American spawn, hindering Americas possibilities to settle the Great Plains. I ran four test games and this happened every time, once Milwaukee was at size 17 and left no room for Chicago. I suggest that you get rid of the ahistorical Toronto, since England will most likely always found it before American spawn anyways.
- By the American spawn nothing has happened in the map, because we are completely lacking wars and alliances. I suggested some diplomacy measures for that earlier. The peacefullness leads to too advanced civs.
- Swedish (Viking) capital moves to Oslo after Sweden conquers it. I hope that the dynamic names point to Sweden whenever the Viking capital is in Stockholm.
- Mexico is a bit too much behind in tech, maybe give them Physics. Their UP is also useless, although it allows farming tundra next to rivers.
- The southern Cuban clam could be 1E, because currently it leads to super Havanna, while Port-au-Prince was size 2 at American spawn. Havanna can still reach it, but they would need to culture battle it from the French.
Did you test that?
Similar threads
