Changed spawn dates

Stable masters help their vassals, but there is no negative feedback in any direction anymore.
 
Also, I wonder if pushing the Russian spawn to a later year might help with the balancing in the same way moving China's will?
 
At least it would put some check to the early expansion advantages the human player could have. But again, I will not change the Russian spawn date until another civ with the earlier plan is added, which is way beyond scope of this discussion.
 
At least it would put some check to the early expansion advantages the human player could have. But again, I will not change the Russian spawn date until another civ with the earlier plan is added, which is way beyond scope of this discussion.
GREAT
And I think 1460 is the most accurate date (Ivan III' Era);
After Ottomans but before Hollands and Iranians;
Of course North-Eastern cities of Kievan Rus OR local independent cities should go to the new Civ which give it potential for rapidly growth of territory;

#FutureMap
 
Last edited:
What part of beyond the scope of this discussion did you not understand?
 
I'd love for the Dutch to spawn in 1433, with their current spawn playing as them feels very constrained and rushed. Perhaps even earlier, I don't know, I just love to play as NL and maybe I just want them to be present for a larger part of the timespan for irrational reasons...

With regards to spawning Canada as a peace-vassal, couldn't that perhaps be considered for other post-colonial civs as well? It could solve parts of the issue of lack of player motivation to settle areas you know will (potentially) flip later if e.g. you would later gain USA or Argentina as vassals. Something like the strongest civ in the relevant area (determined by population, military, improvements, economy, what do I know) gets the new civ as vassal?
 
That would not really be accurate to how the independence of other post-colonial civs worked.
 
I'd love for the Dutch to spawn in 1433, with their current spawn playing as them feels very constrained and rushed. Perhaps even earlier, I don't know, I just love to play as NL and maybe I just want them to be present for a larger part of the timespan for irrational reasons...

With regards to spawning Canada as a peace-vassal, couldn't that perhaps be considered for other post-colonial civs as well? It could solve parts of the issue of lack of player motivation to settle areas you know will (potentially) flip later if e.g. you would later gain USA or Argentina as vassals. Something like the strongest civ in the relevant area (determined by population, military, improvements, economy, what do I know) gets the new civ as vassal?
The only way it could really make sense is if it were conditional. The US was definitely born of a violent uprising against colonial rule. So it's hard to justify having them definitely spawn as a peace vassal. Maybe it could be a condition but hardly seems a priority. I still think the only reason to get Canada to spawn as a peace vassal is if it were a condition of moving up its spawn date, otherwise I'd prefer to just keep them as is. Trying to throw off the master would take too much time/energy and possibly stunt Canada's development if Britain makes too many demands. Canada was entirely self-governing as of 1867 whether or not there was still significant political, military, social, economic and diplomatic ties to England. The Governor General was the effective Head of State and the Queen was the ceremonial Head of State.
 
If it were possible to easily code it might be nice to have it so that you could defeat a spawning colonial civ during the beginning war and more easily take them as a vassal than normal, but it’s not a high priority.
 
That would not really be accurate to how the independence of other post-colonial civs worked.
You mean consistent. You have implemented all independences/spawns the same way, that's very consistent and easy to grasp for all players of the mod.
And I guess that's what you want, not accuracy.

Historically, there were lots of very different independence movements, an "accurate" depiction in the mod would be pretty hard. Canada and Australia just slid out of Britain's empire, the USA and the Spanish viceroyalties revolted violently. India even revolted non-violently! Britain and Spain used "indirect rule"/"vice-kingdoms" while France, Portugal administrated their colonies directly and centrally. The African independence movements were pretty different, too. Fascist Portugal fought nail and teeth to keep it's colonies, Germany had them taken away by the victors, France fought pretty long against Arabs to keep theirs, Belgium followed the UN decree and diplomatic pressure, the USA released some revolting colonies (Cuba, Philippines) but kept others (Hawaii, Puerto Rico)...
And those are all just examples of modern times colonies. Vassalry/independence in ancient times worked very differently.

Tldr:
mod consistency > historical accuracy
 
That would not really be accurate to how the independence of other post-colonial civs worked.

You mean consistent. You have implemented all independence/spawns the same way, that's very consistent and easy to grasp for all players of the mod. And I guess that's what you want, not accuracy.
Tldr:
mod consistency > historical accuracy

No Leoreth is right, it is not accurate, and therefore represented by ingame standards. I want to remind everyone that the "release as a vassal" option is not available in game, and is a feature we would like to have, not one we currently have. SO the most accurate way to show the post colonial revolts is the one we currently have (with options such as release into independent if you wish to play the British straight). If you want extra historical fun, then play as Spain and try to prevent the independents from winning.
 
No, that's not what I meant. Canadian independence was mostly gradual and essentially granted top down. That's something you can represent as an initial vassal status. Nothing like that happened in the USA or Latin America.
 
My suggeston is change Persian date
Current date is not very accurate - so may be 680 BC will be better?
New Date will be represent begginnig of Medain Tsardom, political predecessor of Persia (The Achaemenid Empire)

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_(region)

My understanding is that the Persian start date is set to coincide with the Babylonian UHV. So setting a Medianite empire, with a capital at modern day Tel-Hagmatana, would interfere with the Babylonian UHV, and also force you to move the palace to one of the Farsi cities for the Achaemenid gameplay.

Now if a modern Kurdish state formed, I may argue to add it for the late game once we are still playing this mod in 2075, but until then, I think the Medianites can be shown through independent cities
 
China starting so early and lasting so long does give it a uniquely flexible ancient game. If they start later with more units but less techs, they will still have a flexible start. While if they start with techs over units then they lose that flexibility and be more predictable.
 
They will obviously have to start with some techs but I don't want to lock them into anything.
 
And how is AI Canada going to achieve independence? Would it be another job for the player to beat up the English and 'deliever' freedom to the Canadians?
 
Peace vassals can declare independence when their territory or population percentage reaches a certain ratio to their masters. Considering the space available, Canada should achieve that unless the empire is still going strong, which seems realistic to me. But I will check how this would work out exactly.
 
I'd love for the Dutch to spawn in 1433, with their current spawn playing as them feels very constrained and rushed. Perhaps even earlier, I don't know, I just love to play as NL and maybe I just want them to be present for a larger part of the timespan for irrational reasons...
Maybe the Dutch should spawn as a Spanish vassal?
 
Top Bottom