Current (SVN) development discussion thread

I think Scandinavia should be a separate continent on 3000BC and 600AD scenario while NOT separated in 1700AD. Is that even possible?

 

I don't think making Scandinavia a separate continent would enhance their performance. Just look at Egypt and Mali. They can't deal with intercontinental resource at all.

 

Never mind. Just found out that actually Sweden took St. Petersburg and Prussia took Norway NOT via land, but also from the sea.. so I think it should be a separate continent in all scenarios.

So the idea is, if Scandinavia is NOT a separate continent, then Viking/Swedia would NOT attack via naval but instead prefer through Finland and Baltic coast?

 

Theoretically, yes, though, considering the AI's naval incompetence, they probably would attack very lethargically.

 

Hi,
does anyone know which files are responsible for Aztec/Inca conquerors army? I want to change army, replacing pikemen (which are useless against Native Americans, since they don't have cavalry) to heavy swordsmen and add a crossbowman, and, if Spain triggers the conquerors, place conquistadors instead of knights. Just to make sure that European troops are capable to capture all Aztec/Inca cities, instead of sitting in first captured city and making peace with Native Americans (which I see many times in game).
Thanks in advance!

 

Isn't if the conqueror = Spain, the Knight will become Conquistador already?
Conquistador is UU of Spain that iirc replace Knight

That makes me wonder: which line control the unit names? Please don't tell me it's in C++. Naming one of the conquistadors as "Hernan Cortez" will be cool

 

The Conquistador replaces the Cuirassier, Ben.

By the way, it's a little hard to get Conquistadors in the conqueror stack, because Spain doesn't really have time to tech Military Tradition without getting beat to the Americas by France or England. Perhaps it could replace the Knight?

 

Iirc the Conquistador requires gunpowder instead of MT.

 

This is great, but I'd be a little worried about it overpowering Rome. If Greece, Phoenicia, Egypt, Babylon and either Ethiopia or Persia are dead, which is very common, there will be only five living civilizations (Rome, China, India, the Tamils and one of Persia/Ethiopia) for a long time. Similar for Persia, actually (choice of killing India or Ethiopia--or Rome if you're very successful), though less of a risk I think.

 

Whaaaaat?

Maybe I should know what I'm talking about before making suggestions.

 

Here's a question: Why is Austria 'contested' for Prussia, but Germany is 'foreign core' for Austria?

Shouldn't Austria be foreign core for Prussia?

 

When Prussia became Germany, eventually Germany took over Austria, but Austria never took back German land.

 

Shouldn't Wien at least be foreign though?

 

Why? Vienna was also part of Hitler's Germany.

 

Remember, foreign core means foreign but with someone else's core there.

 

That's not how the rule is applied elsewhere.

Yeah, that's what I meant.

 

It's to help stimulate HRE collapse.
The HRE is intended to be one of the "dead end" civs, similarly to Babylon and Rome, albeit, it's a very late dead-ender.