Beta 12

[amrod]

+5 meas is the boost from the civics that you have. The feudal combo gives you total of +5.

-8 means that you had several anarchy turns in the past. Every anarchy turn costs you -1 to -3 stability points depending on the size of your Empire (small Empires have a small penalty).

Thanks, that really helps! Though it's a bit hard - I can't change civics without anarchy, and changes are needed to set up civics that improve stability.

I though I've read somewhere that I could change without anarchy in a golden age, but apparently didn't work when tried out. Or maybe it was some mod? <getting old and forgetful>

 

[3Miro]

Thanks, that really helps! Though it's a bit hard - I can't change civics without anarchy, and changes are needed to set up civics that improve stability.

I though I've read somewhere that I could change without anarchy in a golden age, but apparently didn't work when tried out. Or maybe it was some mod? <getting old and forgetful>

Standard BtS you can change civics with Golden Age and without Anarchy. In RFC you always get anarchy. In the next beta of our mod, you will be able to change civics without anarchy again.

 

[amrod]

Defensive Crusades would never stop and Hungary can always get a defensive Crusade against the Ottomans. The late Crusades for Jerusalem would be far less likely.

How exactly can they get a defensive crusade? It comes if the Hungarians do badly against the Turks? (I didn't get it, but I quickly eliminated them from Europe..)

Also, joining the many who mentioned it, taking and keeping Jerusalem is too easy, though it probably hurts stability. As for that, is it possible to implement the standard civ4 "grant independence" button here? I know it's not easy as there are no spare civs, but maybe the option could be to create "independent cities" or such. That way we could conquer cities to weaken an enemy (and don't want to raze them or can't raze them) and still not keep them. Or in the case of Jerusalem the Kingdom of Jerusalem could be imported from Sword of Islam.

 

[3Miro]

How exactly can they get a defensive crusade? It comes if the Hungarians do badly against the Turks? (I didn't get it, but I quickly eliminated them from Europe..)

Also, joining the many who mentioned it, taking and keeping Jerusalem is too easy, though it probably hurts stability. As for that, is it possible to implement the standard civ4 "grant independence" button here? I know it's not easy as there are no spare civs, but maybe the option could be to create "independent cities" or such. That way we could conquer cities to weaken an enemy (and don't want to raze them or can't raze them) and still not keep them. Or in the case of Jerusalem the Kingdom of Jerusalem could be imported from Sword of Islam.

In the next version Jerusalem rebels often and you can let it go with little to no penalty.

To get a defensive Crusade, you need to be Catholic at war with a Muslim or Protestant layer that has a city in your tDefensiveCrusadeMap

For Hungary those the Provinces

xml.iP_Hungary, xml.iP_Transylvania, xml.iP_UpperHungary, xml.iP_Wallachia, xml.iP_Slavonia, xml.iP_Pannonia, xml.iP_Austria

We should probably add Serbia, Moesia, Thrace, and Macedonia.

 

[Opera]

I found what causes the bug with the gigantic stacks that do nothing. Unfortunately it is a Firaxis bug in code that I cannot access.

Have you guys seen the bug where you will have a large stack of units and you can move them only one tile at a time? The same happens with the huge stacks, they cannot move to their destination since the path generator fails.

I will try to limit the size of the stacks, hopefully this will help.

Oh, good to know. Too bad it can't be fixed in another way.

 

[dragodon64]

Do you mean that the Industrial Age was after the Modern Age?

Everything that we do is Middle Ages, we end at the Industrial Age.

The early modern era typically refers to roughly 1500-1800. The beginning of the industrial era is usually given as the mid to late 18th century.

In contrast, the Renaissance existed between the mid 14th and mid 16th centuries, most of which is covered in the time of the Late Middle Ages (c. 1300-1500).

 

[3Miro]

Oh, good to know. Too bad it can't be fixed in another way.

Actually it didn't quite work. Limiting the size of the stack crashes the game. I will try to fix it in another way (if possible).

I did fix some other bugs and I did split Europe into sub-continents (seems to help the AI quite a bit), but you can still see large stacks doing nothing in war-time.

I really want to know what is causing the pathing bug. The human is also affected by this when you have large stacks and try to move them more than one tile. Has anyone seen anything on any forum suggesting what may be the issue.

 

[3Miro]

The early modern era typically refers to roughly 1500-1800. The beginning of the industrial era is usually given as the mid to late 18th century.

In contrast, the Renaissance existed between the mid 14th and mid 16th centuries, most of which is covered in the time of the Late Middle Ages (c. 1300-1500).

I don't like the word "Modern". Maybe "Colonial" age would be better, even though most nations don't build colonies.

 

[AbsintheRed]

What about Early Industrial or rather Pre Industrial?

 

[3Miro]

What about Early Industrial or rather Pre Industrial?

I like Colonial better. The main thing in the era wasn't that people were trying to become Industrial, they were trying to colonize the world. The Bronze Age shouldn't be called pre-Iron Age.

Colonial Age or Imperialistic Age may also work.

 

[Science Rules]

I really want to know what is causing the pathing bug. The human is also affected by this when you have large stacks and try to move them more than one tile. Has anyone seen anything on any forum suggesting what may be the issue.

As the human, I've noticed this problem only affects stacks of greater than ten units. Could the AI be taught to manipulate its stacks piecemeal? That's how I get around this problem.

This is also a problem in default RFC; maybe Rhye knows something about it.

 

[ezzlar]

Standard BtS you can change civics with Golden Age and without Anarchy. In RFC you always get anarchy. In the next beta of our mod, you will be able to change civics without anarchy again.

Is this really an improvement? Change penalty seems most reasonable.

 

[Sian]

The Renaissance Era should really be renamed the Early Modern Era. The Renaissance is increasingly viewed as a part of the Middle Ages which was not a fundamental shift from the Late Middle Ages. Also, almost all of the techs in the Renaissance category were discovered past 1600, which better fits the Early Modern Era.

Don't know about US, but in europe at least The Renaissance is viewed as a distinct period, which starts around the time Imperialism starts (~1550-1650) dependent on the specific country (it started later in Denmark than it did in France, and even later in the Baltics and Russia), followed by the industrial in the early 1800's

Late Middle Ages here in Europe is said to be 1350 (after the Black Plauge) up to 1492, where it starts being the High Middle Ages, which is overlapping the early Renaissance

 

[dragodon64]

Don't know about US, but in europe at least The Renaissance is viewed as a distinct period, which starts around the time Imperialism starts (~1550-1650) dependent on the specific country (it started later in Denmark than it did in France, and even later in the Baltics and Russia), followed by the industrial in the early 1800's

Late Middle Ages here in Europe is said to be 1350 (after the Black Plauge) up to 1492, where it starts being the High Middle Ages, which is overlapping the early Renaissance

Up to high school, the Renaissance is usually described as a break from previous traditions (which is the traditional view), but my college history classes have all portrayed the Renaissance as the final stage of the Middle Ages.

The concept of a "rebirth" was first espoused by Dante, Petrarch and Boccaccio in 14th century Italy. They viewed the time since the time of the fall of the Western Roman Empire as a period of cultural and artistic stagnation during which nothing really changed, and that in their times, culture was once again coming to life.

However, the Middle Ages were not a static time period, and many current historians view the Renaissance as being the last phase of the middle ages. Likewise, the Early Modern Era is distinguished by various factors, such as European colonial expansion and control of global trade, the decline of feudalism/rise of absolute monarchies in Europe, factors which admittedly had their origins in the Renaissance, but grew to completion later.

 

[Opera]

@3Miro: in CvSelectionGroup.cpp, canMoveThrough() there's a hard cap of 20 units able to move through plots in such a fashion. It has been put in place by Rhye

 

[Caliom]

Standard BtS you can change civics with Golden Age and without Anarchy. In RFC you always get anarchy. In the next beta of our mod, you will be able to change civics without anarchy again.

Is this really an improvement? Change penalty seems most reasonable.

Or remove the penalty completly?
The huge temporary penalty makes a revolution already very risky when you have low stability, and then there is always the anrchy itself that makes you loose production.

With many nations i cannot switch to new civics when they become available because i cannot compansate the -3. I find the permanent penalty worse than loosing a city temporarily and recapturing it later.

If you think of it it is only annoying and restrictive. I would vote to remove the permanent penalty simply because it makes the mod more fun to play.

 

[ezzlar]

The penalty makes the "old" civs harder to play since they tend to stay in old civics for a longer period of time. Which of course negatively affects the civ. Realistic, since old big empires dont change so easily!

 

[Caliom]

Also, joining the many who mentioned it, taking and keeping Jerusalem is too easy, though it probably hurts stability. As for that, is it possible to implement the standard civ4 "grant independence" button here? I know it's not easy as there are no spare civs, but maybe the option could be to create "independent cities" or such. That way we could conquer cities to weaken an enemy (and don't want to raze them or can't raze them) and still not keep them.

One feature that i think would greatly improve the mod would be the possibility to pillage a city. When you capture a city, in addition to keeping and razing you get the option to pillage it. The city would remain under its old owner but loose some buildings. The pillager would get some benefit, mostly gold but also research points, spionage points or more fancier things like getting access to a resource inside the city cross for some turns or forcing some of the population into mercenary service could be possible.

I'm not yet sure how to implement, but i think it should be coupled on the number of units the conquerer has. Every unit that enters the city can pillage. To avoid exploits the unit should be teleported to the capitol afterwards.

 

[AbsintheRed]

I like Colonial better. The main thing in the era wasn't that people were trying to become Industrial, they were trying to colonize the world. The Bronze Age shouldn't be called pre-Iron Age.

Colonial Age or Imperialistic Age may also work.

Yeah you are right
I can live both with Colonial and Imperialistic Age
Probably Imperialistic would be better, as only 1/3 of the civs are competing to have colonies in all the games

 

[AbsintheRed]

In the next version Jerusalem rebels often and you can let it go with little to no penalty.

To get a defensive Crusade, you need to be Catholic at war with a Muslim or Protestant layer that has a city in your tDefensiveCrusadeMap

For Hungary those the Provinces

xml.iP_Hungary, xml.iP_Transylvania, xml.iP_UpperHungary, xml.iP_Wallachia, xml.iP_Slavonia, xml.iP_Pannonia, xml.iP_Austria

We should probably add Serbia, Moesia, Thrace, and Macedonia.

I'm not sure
It would be great for the hungarian UHV (keep the ottomans out of Europe)
But wouldn't adding almost all the provinces in the Balkan make it too easy?
IMO it's enough if we add Serbia
I find it too ahistorical that Hungary gets a defensive crusade only because the ottomans are present in the southern part of the peninsula.