Wilhelm Meister
Warlord
And btw I was talkng about Moshe Dayan idea...
1700AD Scenario Development Thread
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
iOnlySignIn
Prince$s
(1) Delete Hamburg, replace it with a Town improvement.
(2) Delete Copenhagen, replace it with a Town improvement.
(3) Add Kiel, 1N of Hamburg tile, with the same population, buildings, culture, garrison, and everything else as Hamburg before.
(4) Now Prussia has a better (less crowded) essential port city, and Sweden has 1 fewer useless city which it cannot possibly defend against the Prussians. Everyone wins.
Edit: Never mind then.
(2) Delete Copenhagen, replace it with a Town improvement.
(3) Add Kiel, 1N of Hamburg tile, with the same population, buildings, culture, garrison, and everything else as Hamburg before.
(4) Now Prussia has a better (less crowded) essential port city, and Sweden has 1 fewer useless city which it cannot possibly defend against the Prussians. Everyone wins.
Edit: Never mind then.
Moshe Dayan
Da General
Europe is supposed to have a bunch of cities all crammed together, but as a general rule one large city is indeed better than two smaller ones in nearly every way. I assume that Leoreth isn't going to want to modify the city placement, although Kiel/Holstenstadt would be a nice change from Copenhagen/Hamburg, which happens in nearly every 600AD start.
In any event, whatever ends up there, it should start independent but at war with Prussia and Sweden, and added to their contested area if it's not already.
In any event, whatever ends up there, it should start independent but at war with Prussia and Sweden, and added to their contested area if it's not already.
Wilhelm Meister
Warlord
I understand your point now Mr. Churchill, I agree that it would be better gamewise to have a great city there instead of a crowded region, but I'm still very interested in the historical sense of the game, so I think that a great and important city like Hamburg could not be removed from the game.
Cosmos1985
King
Agreed. Copenhagen + Hamburg is 10 times more important than Kiel, and that should count quite a bit more than whether it would be possible to settle an ahistorical supercity instead. I don't have the stats for 1700, but today more than 3 million people live in Hamburg and Cph, while Kiel holds 250.000. No way Kiel should replace the other two.
Moshe Dayan
Da General
Alternatively, instead of CH + HB, just place a city on the Kiel spot and name it Hamburg. Problem solved. 
Haha no, I'll do something to prevent that.
As far as everything around the Baltic Sea is concerned, please wait until the terrain changes we've discussed there are implemented. It doesn't make sense to balance things before that.
Diplomacy in 1700:
Between 1700 and 1763 there were severals wars in Europe and colonies, most importantly:
Due to these wars, I would recommend the following diplomatic situation in 1700 (beginning on the most obvious ones; everything can't be in of course):
Poland isn't a part of any alliance, but most likely they would be dragged in and destroyed (as they hstorically should be).
Same goes for Austria, except for the destruction part.
Between 1700 and 1763 there were severals wars in Europe and colonies, most importantly:
- Great Northern War 1700-1721
- Mainly between Sweden and Russia, England on Sweden's side
- War of the Spanish Succesion 1701-1714
- Austria, Prussia, England, Dutch and Portugal vs. France and Spain
- War of the Austrian Succesion 1740-1748
- France, Prussia, Spain and Sweden against England, Dutch, Russia and Austria
- Seven Years War 1754-1763
- Prussia, England and Portugal against France, Austria, Russia and loosely Sweden
Due to these wars, I would recommend the following diplomatic situation in 1700 (beginning on the most obvious ones; everything can't be in of course):
- Sweden and Russia start at war
- England and France start at war
- England has a defence pact with Prussia (defence pacts should be enabled)
- England and Mughals start at war
- France and Spain could have a defence pact (very closely tied crowns)
- Ottomans and Russia could start at war (historical and balance)
- England and Portugal could have a defence pact
- The Netherlands and England could have a defence pact
- France and Mughals could start at war
Poland isn't a part of any alliance, but most likely they would be dragged in and destroyed (as they hstorically should be).
Same goes for Austria, except for the destruction part.
Cosmos1985
King
But the thing is that wars in the game never lasts for 20 years, they last for 200 years - if we do this, it would by all means be a war-scenario, and limit the replayability. It may be the most historical start situation in a snapshot, but it would most likely nok result in a accurate historical development and "end result". I understand your reasoning and it all makes sense, but I don't think I'd be in favour of going down this road - unless we are to script the peace treaties too, and I don't think anyone of us would like that.
Wilhelm Meister
Warlord
No, unfortunately they aren't and that was indeed one of the sugestion I was thinking about. Is there a way to change the time passed per turn in the game? (not talking about epic or marathon speed...) I think the years passes too quickly in this scenario and it's not good for gameplay AND specially for the historical accurance.
Moshe Dayan
Da General
Not without utterly destroying the balance between the civs in terms of (the remaining) UHVs and what not.
Marathon speed (plus the long wait between turns in the later eras) already makes the game slow as a mouse as it is.
Ah, I've played only on Marathon for ages so I kind of forgot how weirdly long every turn is on Normal and how long wars are because of it. I suppose Normal would be kind of broken with starting wars yeah. Well, I suppose there's little to be done about it other than changing gamespeed.
Well warring is what Europe did until the 21th century. Also the teching can be easily balanced as most of the civs should start with Mercantalism anyways and tech level is sligthly higher than when playing on from 600AD until 1700AD. I am afraid that the scenario will be terribly boring without at least some conflicts and easily exploitable for the human player.
Wilhelm Meister
Warlord
Is there a way to play on epic speed while having the production speed of a normal speed game?
therox
Hydralisk
Leoreth will you do the Brazillian map scenario changes that I mentioned before ?
You could adjust that manually, I think, but this would mess up your whole game in terms of balancing...
Have a look at Assets/XML/GameInfo/GameSpeedInfo.xml. But I'd warn you against it; presumably having Epic or Marathon speed with Normal unit/building times will lead to everyone having ludicrous stacks of doom and every city getting every building easily. Also, Marathon is somewhat close to what you're looking for already: triple tech speed, but only double build speed.
Similar threads
