Anno Domini update

[Rob (R8XFT)]

I agree that the first mod should be a mixture, most likely the civs on the original civ list - with the possible amendments (re. those four slots "up for grabs").

Looking through my repertoire, there's quite a number of leaderheads already made; the ones for the original mod for starters, then the 5th Century set, the new "gallic corner" leaderheads plus others along the way. Potentially, there could be more than one leader for some of the major civs, utilising one leaderhead in some scenarios and a different leaderhead in others. I'd like to stick with just using my own leaderheads and some from Firaxis. Looking through their LHs, there's a selection of around 15-20 ancient LHs that are very useable. This would mean that I would only have to do pcxs to match the ancient era for some of those (something I've actually done already). I'd like to re-do a handful of the LHs I've brought out, principly for the backgrounds, which I'm now much better at, though a lot of the Anno Domini LHs I'm more than happy with.

I guess what this would mean is that I'd be able to release a working version with a range of civs in, then bring out "expansions" which would add LHs, units and buildings/wonders to the main folder and a couple of new BIQs. I think what I'd like to do is just tweak the tech tree so that it is generic and allows maybe a couple of civ (or culture) specific techs per era. I want to make it as usable as possible, so that (for example) the Babylonians (in an expansion) would be just as comfortable with the fourth era as anyone else and if I did an expansion with later civs (such as the Normans), they'd be okay in the first era.

 

[Antiochus VII]

I think that sounds very feasible - it'd allow you to work out any general 'bugs' in advance (comment below*), and then allow you later to concentrate on particular eras, regions, etc as desired without requiring a major overhaul (hopefully ) for each biq, ESPECIALLY to the tech tree.

*I don't know how much you want to differentiate the civs this time but you might want to be sure to set up a framework for 'civ-styles' in the initial version that would allow for any major differences you wanted to include later on. Just a few possible examples:
Raiding/Piracy : Illyria, Huns, etc - bonus/incentive/techs for raiding as in Fall of Rome BIQ?
Trade-based : Nabataeans, Carthage - trading stations in cities that act as in AGE OF DISCOVERY perhaps?
Imperialist : Rome, Persia - government types that allow for greater assimilation, special buildings, etc?

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

I've been giving that some thought; also whether or not the tech tree would allow other regions to join in, such as the Khmer and the Qin (as were in the original proposal for the mod).

One thing that could be easily changeable for each BIQ is the city styles, which would be an advantage. This would mean, for example, in a Mediterranean-based version, we could have different city styles for Egypt, Carthage, Rome and the various Greek civs (and still have a culture group left over ).

I guess each BIQ would need to have the Anno Domini tag (so that it was recognisable to players) with a word or two after it to describe the specific BIQ. "Anno Domini Classic" springs to mind for the first, more generic, version.

The other thing that needs to be considered at the outset is the diplomacy file. In Anno Domini, I did re-write this (with help from Plotinus and Ares de Borg), but I'd really need to set it up so that it didn't need to be altered. There are some civs that I feel should have their own unique slot, such as Rome and Egypt (surprise, surprise!!), but maybe the rest could be split down into "aggressive Greek civ," "diplomatic Greek civ," etc. All the Greek civs could use one or the other, as whilst I recognise that they were all individual groups, they'd perhaps say similar things? Or am I being too naive?

 

[Antiochus VII]

I think the 'generic' diplomacy text would work with the obvious exceptions (as you mentioned - Rome, Egypt, maybe Sparta too the more I think about it - I think it mostly depends on how flavored you want the dialogue). It WOULD be easy to update as one went along and added civs BUT I glanced at the old Anno txt file and it had for instance gender specific references; you'd have to write it carefully if you were juggling multiple civs and leaders within civs for different BIQs, especially when of different gender.

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

BUT I glanced at the old Anno txt file and it had for instance gender specific references; you'd have to write it carefully if you were juggling multiple civs and leaders within civs for different BIQs, especially when of different gender.

Thanks for pointing that out!

I'm now looking at the traits. Actually I'd like to add a couple of traits which is (kind of) possible using the flavours - but the letdown is that the flavours don't appear on the selection screen - so if a civ had a converted flavour as one of it's traits, you wouldn't be able to tell when you were choosing them (only from documentation elsewhere). I could (of course) place it in the civilopedia.

One new trait could be Imperialistic (borrowed from Civ IV). This would allow cheaper settlers (achieved by having a different settler for these civs to build) and allowing them to build a cheap small wonder from the outset that allowed a free culture-bearing improvement in all cities.

Another new trait could be Charismatic (again borrowed from Civ IV!). This would allow them to build a cheap small wonder from the outset that allowed +1 happiness in all cities; later in the game they would allowed to build cheaper taverns.

Having a couple of extra traits would not only add an extra spark of flavour to the mod, it would increase the number of unique trait combinations there are; once again, it's just a shame that they wouldn't show up in the selection screens.

 

[T.A JONES]

I agree that the first mod should be a mixture, most likely the civs on the original civ list - with the possible amendments (re. those four slots "up for grabs").

Sounds like the popular opinion across the board, Just like your last hit, a nice blend does fine. Mybe concentrate on only one era for a scenario or something...

I'd like to re-do a handful of the LHs I've brought out, principly for the backgrounds, which I'm now much better at, though a lot of the Anno Domini LHs I'm more than happy with.

Its not being said enough, and I've heard it said a couple of times already That you new LH's have elevated my defintition of what is the pinnicle in Civ3 graphics. (well no SH#t! )

Its the PERFECT comprimise. Using the earlier Civ3 LH's with lower quality, but more realistic integrity and mixing them with the higher quality CIv4 'look' but thankfully with less of the candy floss kiddie approach that took away from feel of the game, Your back better then ever!

What IM saying is with every new LH you create, the closer I see us coming to a perfected state of Civ3, Thats IMO of course. So I encourage you to take your time and go crazy with the Leaderheads,. Like you said theres only going to be one era look, so it should give you less time constraints, in that regard.

Bringing a larger amount of this remarkable 'top notch' brand of LH's to the forefront of the community, using this mod as the vehicle, will be one of the best n' most original ways to enriching both the cummity and your latest work.

Sorry for so long of post I tried to control my grammer though!

 

[Mentat]

Regarding the Tribes, I would definitely have to vote against Israel and in favor of Scythia. Its not that Jewisch people didn't live quite organized in the Mid-East at that time, its more that their Kingdoms were rarely independent.
And while the Jewish provinces were troublesome for the Roman empire from time to time, they never posed a threat like the Scythians.

Maybe its really better to focus on smaller parts of the world, and not to let out too many importnatn tribes of that time.

The Franks and Teutons(Teutons and Cimbri utterly crushed a Roman Army in 105 BC) are amongst those I would highly recommend for the European part of the scenario.

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

Thanks for your comments - they're much appreciated !!

I had a thought about using the flavours as new traits - I could make a new player setup screen graphic that had something printed on it like "Not all civ traits are shown on this screen - check the civilopedia for full details." Maybe Plotinus could come up with a better way of stating this!!

Meanwhile back at the ranch, I thought that other trait styles could include the use of the "engineer" citizen and the "policeman" citizen as unique to those with that trait, giving us:

Organised - having the "policeman" citizen available and cheaper war weariness buildings.

Productive - having the "engineer" citizen available and cheaper "factory-style" buildings.

 

[Stormrage]

I like that separation idea! That way if anyone wants to play an "Israel" game, but on a random map, they can load the .biq that has Israel, Rome, Egypt, etc.

And I like the policeman and engineer thingy!

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

I've cracked how we do this trait thing now!!

I'll leave the flavours alone...but still have non-hardcoded traits as mentioned above. I'll look to have eight of them and maybe tweak the eight hardcoded ones a little as mentioned earlier in the thread. Each civ can then be allocated one hardcoded trait and one new trait - which will mean that they'll all have one trait mentioned on the start-up screen; I'll need to amend my message on this screen to something like "view the civilopedia for the second trait" or something like that.

I can allocate up to four free techs at the start of the game; I'll allocate each civ one for unique stuff related to the hardcoded trait, one to the new trait and one to specify a different group of civs, e.g. Greek civs. If I need to be more specific when allocating a tech - and therefore a building that could be built - then I'll allocate the tech to the Greek civ that's also Commercial and Imperialistic. There are ways and means to do all this!!

Previously in Anno Domini, even though each civ had two traits, it had a main trait for the purpose of building certain wonders - it wouldn't work out with allocating wonders to both traits the civ had without leaving gaps on the tech tree - arrows pointing nowhere for some civs - but this new method allows me to do this, as they'd either be techs for "group a" traits or "group b" traits.

There would be 64 combinations of the different traits - one from each group - so that gives me plenty of room to allow all the civs I wanted in the game in one BIQ or another. If I ran out of unique combinations, all I'd need to do is introduce more non-hardcoded traits to increase the number of combinations.

Are you lot still with me so far?

So we'd have (potentially)

Group A traits (hardcoded)
Agricultural : Extra food in city square/irrigated desert; cheaper granaries.
Commercial : Extra commerce in city square; lower corruption.
Industrious : Workers work faster; extra shield in city square.
Philosophical : Free random advance at the start of each era; cheaper libraries.
Protective : No barbarians from goody huts; able to build wooden palisades from the start (half the strength of walls, which will come for all civs in era two).
Seafaring : Extra commerce in city square; ships move faster + reduced chance of sinking.
Stable : No anarchy when switching governments; cheaper courthouses.
Warlike : Unit promotions more likely; cheaper barracks.

Group B traits (non-hardcoded)
Charismatic : Early special tech leads to SW that allows +1 happiness in all cities; era four special tech allows a unique (to Charismatic civs) happiness improvement to be built.
Dominant : Two UUs instead of one - but both in the same era; special tech allows SW that builds free units every five turns. I was thinking of having different "free" techs for the dominant civs, so that this particular SW could be placed in the era the civ was at it's height in, making it a strong civ - but only for about half an era timewise.
Expansionist : No disease from flood plains; can build scouts.
Financial : Early special tech allows Colossus-style SW; double effect of Wealth improvement.
Imperialistic : Cheaper settlers (but only about 25% off); early special tech leading to SW that allows +1 culture in all cities (by building free +1 culture improvement in all cities).
Organised : "policeman" citizen allowed from the outset; early special tech allowing SW that reduces war weariness.
Productive : "engineer" citizen allowed from the outset; early special tech allows SW for extra production in capital.
Spiritual : Early special tech allows Oracle-style SW; can build Monasteries in era four (SW that allows +3 happiness and +50% science output).

Please let me know what you think - okay, I really didn't need to ask did I ?

 

[Stormrage]

Its.. mind boggling.. I`ll have to take a crack at this post of yours one more time. When I can concentrate

 

[Plotinus]

This all sounds really interesting. I very much liked what you did with traits in the last incarnation of the mod and this sounds even more imaginative.

I think the traits are a little uneven. Charismatic and Dominant seem powerful. Expansionist and Financial seem weak. But this may not be such a big problem, depending on how you assign them.

Also, I think the trait that features the "no barbarians from goody huts" thing should be renamed. This feature basically means that the civ gets a massive boost in the early stages of the game but is valueless later on - which is one reason why it seems so odd to give it to America in the Epic game. (It may be accurate to make America Expansionist, but not when this trait is implemented in that way.) Also, the Protective trait as you've suggested it seems rather contradictory. The times when those early walls would come in handy are the sorts of times when you've got barbarians running around, but the civ with this trait isn't going to have many barbarians. I would suggest keeping the Protective idea (which I like) but combining the pallisades with something else, and giving the "no barbarians from goody huts" thing a different name (perhaps combined with something else, although this can be a powerful advantage in its own right, depending on the map). Not sure what the name should be - perhaps Archaic, to indicate that the civ does well right at the start but not so much later?

Setup screen text: couldn't do better myself!

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

Thanks for your comments, Plotinus; I really shot straight from the hip when I put these down in an attempt to get eight non-hardcoded traits! Another thought I had was to have a thoroughbred horse resource that only a certain trait could see, which came in at the same time as normal horses. If the city can connect to the thoroughbred, each horse unit has an upgraded version available with that resource, which might bring it an extra hit point or make it free of movement penalties in mountains or some other advantage that was an improvement on the regular horse unit, but nothing too unbalancing.

Another variation of the "free unit SW" would be some trait that had allies - so a civ that doesn't make it in Anno Domini could get a mention here? It would need to be an ally of that civ historically.

The two-UU civ could be a kind of acknowledgement to a long-lasting empire - perhaps the civ could have their UUs in two different eras. Alternatively, a UU that upgrades (once the relevant tech is discovered) to another UU; giving, for example, a defensive edge for a longer period of time.

The other thing I was going to ask about (again) was culture groups. Do we make Anno Domini have (for arguements sake) about eight or nine different culture groups, each BIQ selecting their civs from five of them? Alternatively, do we work it out BIQ by BIQ, depending on the civs in it - so, for example, Egypt can be mixed in with other North African or Middle-East civs if I'm struggling for culture groups in one scenario and given it's own unique style in another scenario where there's the chance to do it? It seems to make sense doing it BIQ by BIQ.

 

[Stormrage]

But the thing is, when you have all the civs in one .biq you can choose which ones to play. If you have more .biqs, you can`t play with the extra civs that are in the other .biq/s

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

But the thing is, when you have all the civs in one .biq you can choose which ones to play. If you have more .biqs, you can`t play with the extra civs that are in the other .biq/s

It doesn't matter though surely? Each civ would be in a number of different BIQs. In fact, if anyone was that bothered, they'd be able to modify one of the BIQs to incorporate their preferred combination. I like my British civs...well, if they were in other BIQs, they wouldn't all have to be in the "classic" BIQ - leaving space for the more popular civs. I guess what I'm trying to do is have a BIQ for the civs that really come before around 1AD, a BIQ for the civs that come after 1AD (naturally, there'll be some civs in both, like Rome), a BIQ for those active somewhere in the middle (i.e. the "classic" mod we're doing now). There could be peripheral BIQs, such as ones focussing on the ancient Med that could have the extra Greek civs in; one that is predominantly European, that could have our British civs in along with minor Gallic tribes and a BIQ that only has minor civs - leaving civs such as Rome and Egypt out of the mix. I'm sure that there would be enough combinations to keep people happy - and with all the artwork done and a mod made, creating new BIQs with different combinations wouldn't be such a big job.

 

[Stormrage]

Oh, OK then I like that "-AD, + AD, Classic" idea!

Question: Did you see my request for an Generic European Archer, like the Swordsman and Spearman you are making? And what ever happened to that Egyptian Archer you previewed?

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

Oh, OK then I like that "-AD, + AD, Classic" idea!

Question: Did you see my request for an Generic European Archer, like the Swordsman and Spearman you are making? And what ever happened to that Egyptian Archer you previewed?

I did see the request; sadly the Egyptian Archer was accidently deleted, but I'll have a go at creating him again. Have you seen my Coritani Archer, which might keep you going for now?

In fact, I've just reviewed the Coritani Archer thread and you got the first post - but it was six months ago!

 

[Stormrage]

Doh! I forgot that I already decided to use him. Sorry, "unit-greed" fever I suppose

 

[Partizanac]

O those Croats always want every thing, and when they get it! they don't know what to do with that!

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

Does anyone have any other ideas for non-hardcoded traits?