Discussion in 'Rhye's and Fall - Dawn of Civilization' started by Bautos42, Jul 11, 2017.
It does if we're going to add 10 more civs to Europe
Oh boy, can’t wait for Venice!
WHAT! Quotes or it didn't happen!!! I'm willing to entertain the idea of sarcasm, but I want to make this clear: there is no proposal on the table to double the number of civs in Europe.
To be honest, I liked the 10 civs comment not because I thought it was funny, but because I wanted to see how they'd pull it off.
I didn't even realize it could be sarcasm...
I mean, between Ukraine, Hungry, genoa, Venice, modern Greece, Hallstatt Celts, celtiberians, and Denmark, you could make 10 civs. But then we be back to making a new new map, or worst; a mod-mod-mod to accommodate for these populations.
I'd like if we could make the main map big enough that we don't have to enlarge Europe further than it already is and add all the important but smaller states, but then the late game would run even worse.
Seriously, I've tried setting my graphics to low, closing out all other programs, closing unnecessary processes, I still need to defrag my computer note to self, and I tried closing the game every now and then but the game runs horribly once I start to near the Tech Era that the 1700 AD scenario starts in. It's not horrible, but it does feel like I'm playing Civ 5. Is this a problem with Civ 4 in general? (haven't played more than 1 era of any Civ game but RFC DOC in years) If so or not so is there any way to fix it and/or plans to optimize?
Some times I wish it was possible to rewrite the game to be multi-threaded, but then I remember that means we'd need to make the executable mutli-threaded, and all my dreams die. Mark my words though, if anything ends up making the Civ 4 exe multi-threaded, I bet it'll be an AI that, while sloppy and inefficient, is designed to make a barely playable multi-threaded executable. Probably will never happen, most likely won't. But if anything ends up making exes written in whatever language Civ 4's is in multi-threaded, it won't be a human.
That reminds me of this thread.
That's an interesting thread. Oh what I wouldn't give for a 64 bit Civ4.
PLEASE. MAKE. THIS. HAPPEN. @/Firaxis hi, you may want to create a Civ 4 Remastered/Redefined for the Civ 4 modding community. (Half kidding.)
I was being very sarcastic, but if I had to choose 10 more civs for Europe at gunpoint they'd probably be:
I would prefer Minoans to Macedon since Greece already covers Alexander alright and a Denmark/Sweden split before Finland, but overall pretty good.
I really do think there should be a Kievan Rus/Ukraine civ eventually; it is way too easy to take and hold Kiev as a random European civ IMO
Other than the Celts/Ireland, Europe doesn't need any more civs - even with this bigger map.
But I have another proposal, moving Africa 1 tile south (please ignore the weirdness with Northern and Central Europe here - I was experimenting)
My rationale for this is fourfold.
1. It reduces crowding between Spain and the Moors, and also between Sicily and Tunisia
2. It creates an extra row in the Levant, which means that Jerusalem and Damascus each get to work their full first circle
3. It enables Corsica and Sardinia to be separate from both each other and Italy without having them bump up against Algeria
4. It helps to compensate for the fact that the enlargement of Europe took tiles away from the Mediterranean Sea
Here's my idea:
Move Africa fourty tiles south. Also move America fourty tiles west. Make bigger Europe. It's fine if Japan is in LA's BFC I think.
I kind of feel like there should be some crowding between Tunisia and Sicily. Some resources that are reachable from both makes Sicily a more compelling area of conflict, as Phoenicia/Moors wants Carthage to work its full BFC while the Greeks/Romans/Byzzies/Italians want to snag a resource or 2.
I really do not like the African coast as presented. Kind of oddly blocky around Cyrenaica and Tunisia IMO. Gulf of Sidra definitely doesn't need to go that far S and should slope more gently, and while the Tunisian coast isn't WRONG exactly, it's kind of an odd choice to make it so flat when it's actually so curvy. Taking away a tile or 2 of land to represent the gulfs of Gabes, Hadramut, and maybe Tunis would make it look a lot nicer and don't HAVE to take away from useable land since some desert/mountains could be converted to plains/hills in exchange.
While this is somewhat entertaining, I ask that you look past your dislike of me and judge my ideas on their own merits.
My proposal had nothing to do with enlarging Europe, or with Koenigsberg.
It was simply an idea about how to reduce crowding, especially in the Levant, which isn't even part of Europe.
I don't dislike you, I have just already repeatedly told you that I don't share your goals and concerns and that you continue to push them without regard of this feedback is just annoying. I don't know how I can communicate this more clearly. I will ignore future suggestions that go in this direction entirely.
Edit: actually what I do dislike is that you continuously victimise yourself when I don't agree with your ideas. It's the opposite of a constructive discussion environment.
If the enlargement is comprised of mountains or hilly tundra, it wouldn't really affect gameplay, and irl northern scandinavia is pretty big but empty, that would reflect that an look better on the map, I think.
Well I'd say Napoleon knew that Corsica was little... that's why he invaded all of europe
Seriously I didn't consider it but i'm in favor of making the baleares islands too. We really don't need a city here, nor an improvement imo.
I both agree and disagree with this. With the current mechanics, I agree that Europe doesn't need any more civs. However, if the upcoming RFC mechanics are included, I think additional (conditional) European civs can give a nice dynamic game.
I would make an exception for Sweden. Even on the current map they can already be presented without overcrowding that area. On the bigger map there is definitely enough space for them.
I have mixed feelings on your map. Some parts look pretty decent, whereas others don't. I'm affraid however that using the nice parts of your map with other map suggestions will create some weird distortions.
1. I fail to see how moving Africa reduces the overcrowding between Spain and the Moors. That conflict is on the Iberian peninsula, which seems not to be changed. The body of water provides enough room between the Iberian peninsula and Africa that that area will not be overcrowded.
Even on the current map the water tiles provide a big enough gap for that.
I agree with Ceasar Augustus that crowding of Tunis and Sardinia is a good things. Even more, it is (IMO) more geographically accurate (which you seem to be and advocate of) if bottom coast of Sicily is on the same line as the top coast of Tunis. The extra horizontal row of water should be removed, but this gives distortion in other parts of the map. (Although I can counter this argument myself with 4.)
2. I do like this. But I don't know how the preplaced city placement will included Damascus. If it doesn't, this rationale does not matter that much IMO.
3. I don't know yet if those islands should be represented with an land tile or just by the islands features. If they will be presented by land tiles, I think this is a decent solution.
4. Personally, I think that the accurate size/shape of waterbodies can be sacrificed for a better representation of the landmasses. Therefore, I don't think the lossed water tiles of the Mediterranean Sea do not need to be compensated.
I also agree with Ceasar Augustus on the African coastline. Aside from his arguments, I also think that the "Tanger peninsula" is exeggerated on your map. I would fill up the 2 water tiles east of it with land tiles. It looks currently too distorted to me.
Constructive criticism: 1) Europe is so big that it makes Turkey/Anatolia look smaller than reality by comparison. Shrinking Europe by one or two rows can still accommodate many of goals of this project. 2) I'm assuming that the Middle East we see there is not complete. Part of the community's dream for this project was to make the ancient Middle East more competitive to accommodate for the city states of the pre Persian period (at least allow for a Build tall Babylon Civ and a build wide Assyrian Civ). I fear that the focus on expanding Europe will make other goals harder to accommodate. 3) Fail Faster. Seriously if this is not your motto, then look it up.
We should just give European civs bonuses to yields that live inside their cities and then shrink Europe, it'll make the world more realistic and representative as well as actually incentivizing colonialism. It's too easy as is to just exist in the confines of the European states, when in reality the wealth of European countries has come almost entirely from outside Europe.
Separate names with a comma.