Current (SVN) development discussion thread

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

1.81 contains some unpolished stuff, like unplayable Mughals. I am fine with 1.9, though. Prussia/HRE split turned to be fine, unlike I feared.

Yeah, Prussia, for the most part is fine. The super-Netherlands thing isn't so much of an issue in comparison to uber-Britain or mega-Spain.
I might write a Strategy Guide for Prussia, but basically, chop off Amsterdam and the whole Dutch Empire shrivels and dies.
I'm fine with the Dutch being powerful because of that.

In the Persian game I am playing, I rejected the flip and won over the Arabs using War Elephants. It was quite a harrowing war, though. On occasion I felt that I am losing.

I fought off two flips as the Persians, one from the Arabs, one from the Mongols,
but in conjunction with certain factors, like the Seljuks & Byzantines DoWing me,
it felt oddly like losing, even though I was winning each war. Mostly because the feeling of being boxed in
(Mughals spawn in the east, Mongols flip Samarqand in the north, Arabs flip Shush in... the Persian core..., yeah) as well.
Also, weird Seljuk auto-capture of Artacoana was seriously demoralizing and made my stability plummet from there.

Constantinople is a special case, though. In most cases the shock of Turkish spawn is enough to collapse Byzantium. Then Turks get Istanbul.

There are several instances where Byzantium is stable enough to not collapse,
and Turkey ends up having a capital in Armenia or someplace else.
Turkey without Istanbul, to mirror what Leoreth once said about Mecca without Islam,
to be frank, worries me.

What happens with Beijing?

When the Chinese respawn, the Mongols squat Beijing as their capital and the Chinese never get it back.

 

[Lone Wolf]

There are several instances where Byzantium is stable enough to not collapse,
and Turkey ends up having a capital in Armenia or someplace else.

If Byzantium is stable enough, let it be for the sake of alternate history. No civ, even Byzantium, should have a predetermined collapse (Turks flipping Constantinople would surely lead to it).

When the Chinese respawn, the Mongols squat Beijing as their capital and the Chinese never get it back.

This probably needs to be changed, though, since it's not really necessary, and if the Chinese respawn, the Mongolians already have bad times. Just have the Mongolians keep Karakorum as their capital and improve its surrounding land a bit.

it felt oddly like losing, even though I was winning each war. Mostly because the feeling of being boxed in (Mughals spawn in the east, Mongols flip Samarqand in the north, Arabs flip Shush in... the Persian core..., yeah) as well.

Well, I am now playing as Persia, so wish me luck, I guess. I seem to have neutralized the Byzantines, though. And I'll let Mongolia have Samarqand. I neglected it anyway. I agree that the Arabs flipping Susa is a bit unnecessary.

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

If Byzantium is stable enough, let it be for the sake of alternate history. No civ, even Byzantium, should have a predetermined collapse (Turks flipping Constantinople would surely lead to it).

Well, I agree with that sentiment for the most part.
However, predetermined collapse already applies to
civs like Phoenicia, Babylon & Rome for instance.
If you share my sentiment, they should probably get some nice things too.

This probably needs to be changed, though, since it's not really necessary, and if the Chinese respawn, the Mongolians already have bad times. Just have the Mongolians keep Karakorum as their capital and improve its surrounding land a bit.

I agree. While Mongolian land isn't good per se, it's decent enough for grazing.
A couple extra grassland tiles instead of plains shouldn't hurt so much.
But Beijing needs to go back; if we can't squat, the AI shouldn't either.

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

Well, I am now playing as Persia, so wish me luck, I guess. I seem to have neutralized the Byzantines, though. And I'll let Mongolia have Samarqand. I neglected it anyway. I agree that the Arabs flipping Susa is a bit unnecessary.

If you're playing straight up 1.9, the Seljuks' second wave
is going to auto-capture and expel your garrison on one of the cities.
Just a fair warning.

EDIT: I just remembered that I had occupied Athens, so that was a third flip from the Byzantines.
That one I will admit is by my own bad, but the Arabian flip is bad and the Seljuk auto-capture expel nonsense is asinine.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I've seen Rome not collapse and survive. It happens, so I don't think that a change is needed there. It suffers from European flips, but Byzantium also suffers from Turkish Asia Minor flip. I did disable the plague altogether, seems like it made Rome stronger.

Phoenicia is a weird case, should probably have stayed Carthage or receive more bonuses when founding Carthage (extra workers, maybe even a capital flip). I admit, when I tired to play as them, the whole gameplay was annoying as hell.

Babylon is one of the civs I don't really care about. However, if it still exists when the Arabs spawn, Babylon, human or AI, shouldn't flip to the Arabs, just like Byzantium/Turkey. "Natural" capitals shouldn't flip. In fact, Babylon as the capital of Babylon probably already doesn't flip.

But Beijing needs to go back; if we can't squat, the AI shouldn't either.

That's what I've been saying. In fact, I don't get why the Mongols should automatically move their capital to Beijing at all.

Turkey without Istanbul, to mirror what Leoreth once said about Mecca without Islam,
to be frank, worries me.

It worries me only if it happens often. I'm fine with it on occasion - in the beginning of 14th century it did seem that the Orthodox Balkan states/Turkish beyliks dividing line was converging on Bosporus. For what it's worth, player Byzantium doesn't have Constantinople flip to the Turks, either, so there's no human-AI double standard in this case.

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

It worries me only if it happens often. I'm fine with it on occasion - in the beginning of 14th century it did seem that the Orthodox Balkan states/Turkish beyliks dividing line was converging on Bosporus. For what it's worth, player Byzantium doesn't have Constantinople flip to the Turks, either, so there's no human-AI double standard in this case.

I've seen it with varying frequency in at least one or two other 1.9 screenshots recently.
In my own games, once it was by my interference, as Persia, I had the Byzantines as a peace-vassal.
On two other recent occasions, not by my hand and without interference (Prussia & China), it has happened on it's own.

But yeah, I'm glad a double standard doesn't occur in this case.

 

[Caesar Augustus]

The Shush flip is a fair point. One should hardly expect one's capital, within one's core, to flip to a rising civ. Even from the Arab standpoint, I'd rather not see Shush flip so I can raze it

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

The Shush flip is a fair point. One should hardly expect one's capital, within one's core, to flip to a rising civ. Even from the Arab standpoint, I'd rather not see Shush flip so I can raze it

Well, Shush isn't the proper Persian capital. I was moving my initial Settlers
when I got the flip early and Shush ended up being my capital, so I rolled with it.
But it does flip to the Arabs which is a problem because Persia flips Shush from the Babylonians in the first place.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Okay, I resigned my Persian game. The Seljuks were too cheezy. Especially that second wave. Frankly, after being on the receiving end of them, I question their usefulness to the mod. I mean, what purpose do they serve? Removing "proper" civilizations from the Middle East? Why do we need it? It's not like the Seljuk sultanates were some barbaric states. Weakening Arabia/Persia? Honestly, why do we need them to weaken at this particular moment? The Crusades? They don't happen anyway, and in case they're added, just have more Crusaders spawn or something. I always interpreted RFC Arabia (and sometimes Persia) to represent all Iranian and Mesopotamian Muslim states anyway. It's civilization, after all. Taking Asia Minor from the Byzantines? This is such a minor detail, RFC-wise.

Okay, resentful rant ended. I guess I'll refrain from playing Persia in the future

And to offer a compliment to the mod, the Arabian-Persian war was a majestic experience

 

[BenZL43]

Frankly, after being on the receiving end of them, I question their usefulness to the mod.
I mean, what purpose do they serve?
Removing "proper" civilizations from the Middle East? Why do we need it?
It's not like the Seljuk sultanates were some barbaric states.
Weakening Arabia/Persia?
Honestly, why do we need them to weaken at this particular moment?

+1

 

[Lone Wolf]

Or maybe make the Seljuks a proper civilization, current Savafid Iran - style. It shouldn't spawn if ancient Persia is still alive. Unsure how to represent the spawning of the Savafids when the Seljuks are also present.

 

[iOnlySignIn]

Okay, I resigned my Persian game. The Seljuks were too cheezy. Especially that second wave.

Cheesy? Second Wave?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11442613&postcount=473

 

[BenZL43]

I think the main problem with Seljuk here is their territory overlap with the current setting of Arab civilization.

Though I don't recall a major differ of this civilization from the vanilla version like Khmer one, they can't be considered historical again in DoC as they do not cover the united Arabian civilization anymore.

There's respawned Egypt, Safavid, Mughal, and Seljuk now in DoC and according to the Wikipedia, the current settings of Arab civilization should already gradually declining by 800AD and reduced to around Baghdad only.

However, I think Seljuk shouldn't be a proper civilization as there's Safavid later on. This will cause a new problem

 

[Bair_the_Normal]

Wasn't there already a firm no about making the Seljuks a full civ? In my opinion, though, I thoroughly agree with BenZL43 here, that having both the Seljuks and the Safavids would cause a problem not unlike the former India-Mughal-France/England Trading Companies one.

 

[BenZL43]

Yeah, I remember there was already firm no from Leo. That's also another reason why now I'm against it

 

[Lone Wolf]

There's respawned Egypt, Safavid, Mughal, and Seljuk now in DoC

Safavids and especially Mughals were never Arabic. Egyptian respawn is the only thing that divides the DoC Arabs. To me, RFC Arabs still represent non-Turkish Muslim polities east of Suez.

I'm actually fine with removing the Seljuks altogether. But since removing features isn't going to be popular, I advocate changing them. Not necessary to playable status, though. Right now, they're just a major annoyance to anyone playing the Middle East, and not in a good way.

Cheesy? Second Wave?

Frankly, having to play the exciting "produce scouts and place them on all tiles in Persia!" game is only a bit less annoying then the actual Seljuk spawn.

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

I actually don't mind the Seljuks; it's just free EXP for me,
just like how the Mongols are pretty much free EXP for China.
A stack of War Elephants just demolishes the Seljuk waves,
and prepares your Cuirrassiers/Cavalries beforehand.
It can be frustrating for a new player to a DoC Middle-Eastern civ though.
My problem currently is just we seem to have went back to the whole:
"Stack spawns on top of city and expels garrison"

 

[Lone Wolf]

My Elephant stack dealt with the stacks that spawn in Persia, but was unable to deal with the ones that spawn in Northern Syria after that.

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

Were you holding Anatolia+Mesopotamia?

My Persian Empire consisted of Athens, Rome, Shush, Sirajis, Artacoana & Samarqand,
although, with all the knowledge I've gained, the only safe places to go are...
Rome...and Kiev, sadly enough, maybe Hanseong if you're feeling exceptionally gutsy.
Carthage is not even an option because resurrected Egypt flips it.

You can't even build Artacoana in your core because the second Seljuk wave auto-drops onto it.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I was holding Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Persia and Egypt.