Current v1.13 Development Discussion

[Leoreth]

Creating a scenario that is roughly historically accurate and provides a satisfying experience is a lot of work, more so the later it starts because there are more things to be added. Also, each scenario adds extra effort when adding a new civ and similar stuff. If anything, I would add a 1500 AD scenario first though.

Edit: if you have a GP name to suggest, please also post it in the corresponding thread so it doesn't get buried here.

 

[Leoreth]

New commit:
- fixed spawn flips so the dialog to reject the flip appears again
- reborn civs always start at peace with their previous enemies
- fixed the display of the third Secular victory goal
- included various text, event and building adjustments (credit to Sgt. Bears)
- fixed multiple disband city options in the acquire city dialog

 

[Julius Americus]

Creating a scenario that is roughly historically accurate and provides a satisfying experience is a lot of work, more so the later it starts because there are more things to be added. Also, each scenario adds extra effort when adding a new civ and similar stuff. If anything, I would add a 1500 AD scenario first though.

Edit: if you have a GP name to suggest, please also post it in the corresponding thread so it doesn't get buried here.

That makes sense - didn't mean to pressure. What would be even cooler would be a multiplayer version, but I imagine that might be even more difficult to balance. I'm mostly just grateful for this awesome simulation you've created. Kudos again.

 

[BenZL43]

Creating a scenario that is roughly historically accurate and provides a satisfying experience is a lot of work, more so the later it starts because there are more things to be added. Also, each scenario adds extra effort when adding a new civ and similar stuff. If anything, I would add a 1500 AD scenario first though.

Edit: if you have a GP name to suggest, please also post it in the corresponding thread so it doesn't get buried here.

Why not 1200AD?
- Mongol start attacking China and began their golden era
- Crusade in Byzantine, Egypt and Levants
- Indonesian political center moves to Java island permanently.
- Delhi Sultanate began in India
- Mali Empire
- Turning point of Christian against Muslim army in Spain
etc

besides, 1500AD is too near to the 1700AD

 

[borhap88]

Why not 1200AD?
- Mongol start attacking China and began their golden era
- Crusade in Byzantine, Egypt and Levants
- Indonesian political center moves to Java island permanently.
- Delhi Sultanate began in India
- Mali Empire
- Turning point of Christian against Muslim army in Spain
etc

besides, 1500AD is too near to the 1700AD

No, these events are foreseen by 600 AD start. There's always a Mongol invasion in China/Russia/Middle East, Mughal civilization appears, Mali Empire is expansive, Spain is (or is going to start a war) at war with Moors...
1500 AD is better, because, starting a 600 AD game and playing until that year, we don't know if:
-Ottomans has taken Constantinople
-If Protestantism has been founded and in which nations it has spread
-If New World has been discovered and which civilization has received huge conquerors armies
-If China/Russia are reborn or still alive
etc.

16th century is a turning point of the human history and of the game. I'd like to start a preliminary thread to decide how to shape a future and hypothetical 1500 AD scenario.

 

[Leoreth]

Yeah, basically what borhap88 said. Not opposed to a 1200 AD scenario either but most of that scenario would happen from a 600 AD start as well. In a 1500 AD scenario I can set some stuff that does not always happen in 600 AD starts.

And I haven't checked, but 600-1200 AD might be fewer turns than 1500-1700 AD.

 

[merijn_v1]

I turns out both both have equal lenght (40 turns).

(Assuming the normal speed timeline didn't change between RFC and DoC)
http://web.archive.org/web/20100725...itle=Rhye's_and_Fall_of_Civilization_timeline

 

[citis]

1700AD was chosen over 1500AD due to two things:
*By 1700AD spanish empire had grown at its extend
*English empire started to emerge around 1700AD.

I propose 500AD instead of 600AD to include a collapsing sassanid empire.

And I propose all goals of civs born before the scenario date to be failed.

 

[Leoreth]

I propose 500AD instead of 600AD to include a collapsing sassanid empire.

Point being?

And I propose all goals of civs born before the scenario date to be failed.

Who would be affected by that?

 

[citis]

Point being?

To include the collapsing Sassanid empire. Additionally it would give time to Byzantium and play Viking and Japanese game starting in the right date.

Who would be affected by that?

The corresponding civs.

 

[Leoreth]

To include the collapsing Sassanid empire. Additionally it would give time to Byzantium and play Viking and Japanese game starting in the right date.

That was my question, what is the point of starting earlier to include a collapsing Sassanid Empire. Watching it collapse?

The corresponding civs.

What are they? I don't think any 600 AD civ has an expired goal at the beginning.

 

[citis]

That was my question, what is the point of starting earlier to include a collapsing Sassanid Empire. Watching it collapse?

Yes, what confuses you?

What are they? I don't think any 600 AD civ has an expired goal at the beginning.

it can apply to China. It is meant for 1500/1700AD scenarios mostly.

 

[Novicenoble]

Also, each scenario adds extra effort when adding a new civ and similar stuff.

YES THIS

Text editing WBSave file for a new civ is just boring and kinda grinding work.

 

[Leoreth]

Yes, what confuses you?

The inanity of it.

 

[citis]

The inanity of it.

So according to you history is inane, or should I report your post?

Moderator Action: Either report the post or don't, but please do not discuss your intention. That is trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

So according to you history is inane, or should I report your post?

Oh boy, this is gonna be good.

 

[Leoreth]

Moderator Action: I won't act in my own capacity here, but please don't discuss moderator actions until a staff member has address the situation.

 

[ales_]

Actually, I support the 500 AD idea too. As I've already posted somewhere else, it will make better Japan and Vikings start, some more time for Byzantium to prepare for the Arabian spawn, more sense to add India, (Persia,) Tamils, Maya.

 

[ozqar]

Why not 400 AD or something in the 300s AD? Something like the start of the Byzantine Empire?

 

[ales_]

Rome would have to be alive in the beginning and this may cause problems.