Current (SVN) development discussion thread

[ezzlar]

Religions: I was thinking scrapping Zoroastrianism and adding Hellenism. This removes the China abuse of getting all the classical wonders for the human player.

But there are probably some good reasons not to...

 

[citis]

Pantheon replaces all ancient religions (well except hinduism). China has to pay the price of +2 per city for building ancient wonders. We can add a coordinate requirement so that only civs western than Pagan can build ancient wonders.

 

[VGL]

I wish Leoreth added native american religion,Hellenism,split Islam into Shia and Sunni and introduce Judaism as a minor religion.

 

[citis]

I wish Leoreth added native american religion,Hellenism,split Islam into Shia and Sunni and introduce Judaism as a minor religion.

There was a religion thread in the forum. Minor religions, religious splits, religious bonuses were discused. I think the main problem is what all these add to the game.

Hellenism, native american religion and other ancient religions are civ-oriented. This means that every civ had its own religion, so adding them doesn't add something special in the game. All of them are in through the pantheon civic.

The only civ connected to Shia Islam is Iran, so neither Shia adds something to the game. I consider that Islam+Scholasticism represents Shia Islam and Islam+any other religious civic representes Sunni Islam.

Judaism is represented by Solomon's temple. Converting to it isn't historical. The only impact would be building a jewish temple for a minor bonus, however, the scaling is a problem here, in RFCEurope the scaling makes it interesting, however in DoC it doesn't.

Well, that's the main problem here. The time and space scaling allows a limited number of religions, else they would be pointless.

I think that the only religious matter that will have a point is the religious bonuses. Catholicism has a production bonus making it overpowered in relations with other religions.

 

[VGL]

There was a religion thread in the forum. Minor religions, religious splits, religious bonuses were discused. I think the main problem is what all these add to the game.

Hellenism, native american religion and other ancient religions are civ-oriented. This means that every civ had its own religion, so adding them doesn't add something special in the game. All of them are in through the pantheon civic.

The only civ connected to Shia Islam is Iran, so neither Shia adds something to the game. I consider that Islam+Scholasticism represents Shia Islam and Islam+any other religious civic representes Sunni Islam.

Judaism is represented by Solomon's temple. Converting to it isn't historical. The only impact would be building a jewish temple for a minor bonus, however, the scaling is a problem here, in RFCEurope the scaling makes it interesting, however in DoC it doesn't.

Well, that's the main problem here. The time and space scaling allows a limited number of religions, else they would be pointless.

I think that the only religious matter that will have a point is the religious bonuses. Catholicism has a production bonus making it overpowered in relations with other religions.

Hellenism and native american religions can be added to make other religions a challenge to be converted and if you say that they can't be represented by one religion due too many kind,then Christians should be removed due to Too many types(Like Evangelists,Church of Great Britain,Church of Christ,etc).

Islam should be splited to shia and sunni because they have (like the differences Catholicism and protestants) and gives a reason for Turkey to hate Iran or vise versa.

Judaism will be good as a minor religion so players can either support them to create money,or prosecute them to increase happiness and stability and plus,Babylonians converted to Judaism when it was founded

 

[Leoreth]

Any words on new religions?

Not in the short to mid term.

That's nice!
And what do you think about the Pagan city debacle? (you don't seem to respond each time I ask this question? Or when BenZL43 did? If you don't respond does that mean that you're at least considering something?)

I haven't had a look at the map so I cannot adequately address this concern.

 

[Civciv5]

I haven't had a look at the map so I cannot adequately address this concern.

Let me help you...

Spoiler :

As you can see, Pagan (Bagan) is more north in Burma. In game, Pagan is located where Yangon is.
You could either rename it to Yangon or Bago/Pegu or move it one or more tiles north. I assume it hasn't already been done? Otherwise you would know I guess?

 

[Hippo8085]

I assume it is Pagan to represent a minor civilization, however, there is also a city in the area to give a home for Shwedagon Paya, which is actually located in Yangon. The city in-game is actually about halfway in-between the two cities (on the above map it is more like Prome or Sandaway). Therefore, if the city stays where it is, I don't really care about the naming.

If it does stay where it is, I suggest moving the gold in the area 1S such that it is within reach of the city. There is a Banana for food and a Tea for extra commerce, plus a jungle hill which can be mined. I would actually suggest moving the spawn date of the city, no matter its name, to more like 500 CE and spawning with the Shwedagon Paya, since Independents don't seem too in to building wonders.

 

[Leoreth]

The location seems accurate to me. Moving some resources might be a better idea ... stone on the Pagan tile?

 

[Civciv5]

The location seems accurate to me. Moving some resources might be a better idea ... stone on the Pagan tile?

If you mean at the mouth of the river, then it's not accurate. The actual city of Pagan is located more north. Please either rename it to Yangon/Pegu or move it one north. This has really annoyed me since day 1. This would also make the rice workable by the city.Boosting the production of it also doesn't seem like a bad idea, it's quite useless and I can't remember ever having not razed it.

 

[Hippo8085]

Spoiler :

Here is how I see it. Yangon matches up with the southern-most tile in Burma, which is at the mouth of the river and Pagan matches up with the one indicated. The city works the best in between the two spots indicated, because 1N chokes Chengdu since Xian probably takes the other food resources in that city's BFC. 1S has absolutely no production unless it takes Angkor's hill.

Pagan is more important city historically and makes more sense as Independent city. Pagan has Banana + coastal tiles to give the Khmer UHV. A stone on its tile would definitely help it to be a bit better of a city, and I think the gold 1S might be a bit more accurate, since I don't think China specifically needs the gold for anything.

 

[Civciv5]

Chengdu? I never settle that city because I thought it was quite worthless, I settle Naypyidaw 1N of Yangon in the games where I play as a civ close to that area. And I don't seem to see it in many games (but I haven't updated my SVN for a long time). I raze it if I see it though. I would really like Pagan at the actual spot, because it was the most important city in Burma. Pegu or Yangon wasn't as important.
I also don't think Chengdu is located there, and is Chang'an located where it actually is? I don't think Chang'an is next to a mountain. Isn't it 1 tile east?
Also any city in Burma could use an iron resource on a hill, The Khmer have no access to iron and I have to destroy either China, Indonesia or India/Mughals which is quite stressing.

 

[Leoreth]

Not sure if iron in Burma is geographically accurate but that could be a solution. Definitely not moving the rice south, maybe the gold.

 

[BenZL43]

In 3000BC: none
In 600AD: Pagan (at 1N)
In 1700AD: Dagon (rename to Yangon when conquered, at 1S)

 

[Leoreth]

New commit: Fixed the first Russian UHV goal.

 

[citis]

Spoiler :

There is no need to make Pagan a productious city. One mine is enough. Moreover Pagan produces great prophets, so you can establish one to the city. Chengdu is in the right place, it can control two rices and a pig and is next to Tibet.

I agree about the new position of Pagan. Moving the gold one tile South is a good idea too, whoever controls pagan should control the gold.

Indochina doesn't need iron. It has elephant. If you want iron conquer Indonesia, or colonise North Australia, is better. Not every civ needs to have iron, fighting for it seems better to me.

 

[Civciv5]

I respectfully disagree, Pagan doesn't produce any Great Prophets because it generates them way too slow. It is quite annoying to Hanoi, which is a good city spot and can produce great people much faster, along with Angkor. Pagan should receive some kind of boost, along with moving it 1 tile north. I still suggest adding an iron resource. Do horses live in Southeast Asia? If so, we could add also add a horse resource instead.

 

[morff]

In the recent SVN versions the AI may collapse just only human player trade technology with it. Example i was playing Turks and traded divine right with Mongols, they instantly collapsed.

 

[BenZL43]

[QUOTE="Ministry of Mine of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar]
The Republic of the Union of Myanmar has a long history of mining in gemstones, gold, silver, amber, antimony, cinnabar and copper sulphate which could be traced back to the regimes of ancient Kings of Myanmar. [/quote]

There's no iron in Myanmar
But there's Burmese horses.

 

[Civciv5]

There's no iron in Myanmar
But there's Burmese horses.

Horses is it then? Or copper? Or both?

In the recent SVN versions the AI may collapse just only human player trade technology with it. Example i was playing Turks and traded divine right with Mongols, they instantly collapsed.

Indeed, I once traded some tech to China, and BOOM "Chinese civilization has collapsed!".