Dawn of Civilization - an RFC modmod by Leoreth
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
- Status
rogue131
Byzantine Historian
I also find the civics to be confusing, the guide covers it, but it's not entirely clear to me either. Basically I find myself stuck as a free market, patriarche (sp), resettlement oriented, representative monarch. I mean I want to switch civics and gain indepedence to my colonies in later years, like basically wanting to become secular, but I take heavy civic stablility losses.
rogue131
Byzantine Historian
Well on their impact on stability, but also in general. I mean I read your readme file about it, several times and I'm still sort of confused. Basically I could use a massive crash course on it.
While you're on here, can you tell me if there are plans to integrate into the coding the re-birth of Greece in the 19th century and the rebirth of Arabia after the Ottomans always conquer them. Just wondeirng if the Greeks and Ethiopia and Zulu and Korea could be programmed in or woudl that be too difficult? I'm not really a DLL or whatever programmer, but I think the game would be more interesting if these states were born. Like you're playing as the Ottomans or Egypta and Greece is born in the 19th century, and immediately you are at war with Greece and Europe and maybe one of the cities, like Constantinople (for balance purposes) flips during the war. I think that would be challenging.
While you're on here, can you tell me if there are plans to integrate into the coding the re-birth of Greece in the 19th century and the rebirth of Arabia after the Ottomans always conquer them. Just wondeirng if the Greeks and Ethiopia and Zulu and Korea could be programmed in or woudl that be too difficult? I'm not really a DLL or whatever programmer, but I think the game would be more interesting if these states were born. Like you're playing as the Ottomans or Egypta and Greece is born in the 19th century, and immediately you are at war with Greece and Europe and maybe one of the cities, like Constantinople (for balance purposes) flips during the war. I think that would be challenging.
I still don't know where to start clarifying the civics to you, because I haven't yet understood where your problems are. Is it that you don't know what concepts are meant by some of the new civics?
On Greece/Ethiopia etc. respawning, the normal respawn mechanism tied to the Nationalism tech takes already care of that (Greece is even a prime example of the emergence of a state due to nationalism). That means they won't respawn exactly at the historical date, of course, but a little indeterminism is good here imo.
On Korea, it is planned to add them, but the Byzantines and their surroundings come first, and I'm afraid you can only expect some progress there in February again.
On Greece/Ethiopia etc. respawning, the normal respawn mechanism tied to the Nationalism tech takes already care of that (Greece is even a prime example of the emergence of a state due to nationalism). That means they won't respawn exactly at the historical date, of course, but a little indeterminism is good here imo.
On Korea, it is planned to add them, but the Byzantines and their surroundings come first, and I'm afraid you can only expect some progress there in February again.
Leoreth, just to confirm that my SVN is still working, have you not been uploading any new content for a while? I've realized that everytime I've updated the SVN for a month now, nor you or Edead have added anything new, is that true? Or is something wrong with my SVN?
TowerWizard
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Messages
- 274
The game I am referring to is Arabia on the 600 bc start. I think I have changed civics three times, and in the year 1800ish I have Republic, Free Market, Capitalism, Secularism and Parlamentarism. According to your guide, this should be worth 8 stability points (Republic + Parliament= +5, Capitalism + Free Market= +3, Republic + Secularism= +2, Republic= -5 (since more than 10 cities, Parliamentatrism= +3 (from Democracy)). At the moment it is worth -44. This is a difference in 52 points. How big is the pemanent civic-switch penalty? Are you really supposed to fear civic-switches? Should you not be glad to upgrade to more modern ones?
Also, I have never understood why you would like to change civ. Either you just make it harder by playing the first civ good, or the reverse is true. You don't get any kind of reward for the achievements of the first played civ. The reason seems to be because the first one failed, and that is kind of ok, but isn't the point of the game NOT to fail? I would love some kind of mechanic thar would reward you for playing older civs, especially for completing their UHVs, when you choose a new one.
Also, I have never understood why you would like to change civ. Either you just make it harder by playing the first civ good, or the reverse is true. You don't get any kind of reward for the achievements of the first played civ. The reason seems to be because the first one failed, and that is kind of ok, but isn't the point of the game NOT to fail? I would love some kind of mechanic thar would reward you for playing older civs, especially for completing their UHVs, when you choose a new one.
rogue131
Byzantine Historian
I think I mean how combining certain civics damages stability and the historical periods of the civics. I.e.-if you have serfdom in the modern world, you suffer stability right?
That's weird then? When I research nationalism sometimes the Greeks won't show up at all, actually they have yet to. As for Ethiopia, they only showed up in one game and I can't remember if I had nationalism yet, I guess I had to have.
So you're re-adding the Byzantines? I thought they were already there, just not playable? Asfor Korea, ok, I can wait till Feb. Maybe using the RFC Europe mod somehow we can add the Papal States as a permanent Catholic AI? Just a thought, don't want to overburden you. Loved to help if I knew what I was doing.
That's weird then? When I research nationalism sometimes the Greeks won't show up at all, actually they have yet to. As for Ethiopia, they only showed up in one game and I can't remember if I had nationalism yet, I guess I had to have.
So you're re-adding the Byzantines? I thought they were already there, just not playable? Asfor Korea, ok, I can wait till Feb. Maybe using the RFC Europe mod somehow we can add the Papal States as a permanent Catholic AI? Just a thought, don't want to overburden you. Loved to help if I knew what I was doing.
corovanrobber
King
Survived Greece and Rome should be both some kind weakened since Medieval Age for being too awesome without much effort while taken by player. Maybe some kind of penalty for very late (industrial age and later) techs during VI-XVIII centuries?
Spoiler :
The permanent penalty isn't that high. You should note though, that the number that appears in the financial advisor is not a direct sum of the modifiers I listed in the documentation (there's even a disclaimer that says that). I've never went into the details of what Rhye actually factors in there. A value that low is strange still. Possibilities:
- You're suffering from the effect of a transition to democracy (did you switch to Representation before you chose Parliamentarism?)
- Normalization, i.e. your figures in other categories (like economy) are that high that the displayed civics value is exceptionally low (this is basically to balance different categories against each other).
- Factors playing into the civics score that are unrelated to civic combination and eras. I've honestly no idea which though.
I can think of several reasons:
- not wanting to wait through autoplay to get to the civ you like to play
- you fail your desired UHV with one civ and want to have another try with a later civ
- creating a more historical starting situation for the second civ, without necessarily affecting its challenge
- you build up a large empire to see if you can conquer it
Yes, for example. The stability guide is quite detailed in this sort of thing (every effect has a relative modifier), which should make judging these things rather easy ...
It doesn't have to be you who discovers Nationalism, I think there just have to be three civs that know it. Also, the respawn is tied to other criteria as well, most important that the civ that controls the core of the dead civ has to be shaky or worse. That's fairly historical, as in the case of the Greeks, without the Ottoman Empire being as weakened as it was, they wouldn't have been able to gain independence.
They're a minor faction currently, I intend to replace them with a completely playable faction that you can interact with etc. The basics are already done (and already available to those who play unofficial versions), there are just some graphical issues and balancing left.
Once that is done, I'll release the next version and then will take care of a heap of minor features first, before I consider adding additional civs next. The Koreans are likely to be it though, especially because their inclusion likely won't mess up the regional dynamics like Byzantines' did.
A Papal States civ wouldn't make much sense imo. To behave historical, it would have to sit around in Rome for the whole game and doing nothing. RFCE has the crusades and faith features that make interactions with him more justified, but even there he doesn't add too much for my tastes.
Yeah, that's definitely a problem. Should be easily solvable by severely reducing their research coefficients from the Renaissance on.
Ready_set_go
Too Late
Or how about reducing it in the earlier stages, so they have a chance to be equal late game?
christos200
Never tell me the odds
hi i have some ideas to make this mod better. first i think that if you are to make byzantines a civ i think that it should be a respaw of greece because the byzantines :
1) they spoke greeks
2)the most of the population was greek
3) the other civs after the holy roman empire was created they call them greeks
4) after 1204 the byzantines consider themshelves greeks
also there should be an event about taking con/nople after 1204 ad and if the player accept he will take 500 gold or something like that.
1) they spoke greeks
2)the most of the population was greek
3) the other civs after the holy roman empire was created they call them greeks
4) after 1204 the byzantines consider themshelves greeks
also there should be an event about taking con/nople after 1204 ad and if the player accept he will take 500 gold or something like that.
I don't get it. That would achieve the opposite of what we want.
Making them a Greek respawn creates more problems than it solves actually. But thanks for the suggestion
False, up until the fall of Constantinople in 1453 did the people of Constantinople call themselves Roman, even today certain number of Greeks still call themselves "Romanoi" (or something along those lines), in recognition of the Roman Empire.
But I would agree, using the Greeks to represent the Byzantines (with a changed flag) would be better IMO, because I don't see the point in adding all those extra civilizations.
Agreed. In general I think less civilizations each representing longer time periods of their culture makes the game less repetitive (like how the Chinese and Indian civs currently work)
I'd be really, really, really excited if something like the following could be done
- Greek and Roman UHVs all slightly adjusted. Both civs have an ahistorical and challenging 4th UHV: Have more at least 300 culture in 2 cities in Greece/Balkans; 1 city in Turkey; 1 city in the Levant; 1 city in North Africa/Egypt; and 1 city in Italy/Sicily in turn before Turkish spawn.
- Hagia Sofia wonder grants ability to produce Cataphracts (knights) and Hippodromes (theaters) without need of prerequisite technology or civic. The wonder also changes the civ name to Byzantines and leader to Justinian.
- Cataphract stats changed so that they aren’t better than European knights at fighting the Arab UU.
- Increase barbarian pressure to intolerable levels in Western Europe and Northern Africa (possibly through scripted events) from years AD400-700. This reduces the likelihood of stupid ahistorical European rebellions against the Roman empire. Also this means that between Rome and Greece, usually only one of the two (whichever has managed to control Greece and Turkey) will manage to survive past AD700.
It'd be really really awesome if some of the ideas suggested above could happen. But then again, I don't' know anything about modding...
fireclaw722
Imperial Guard
Personally with all of the possibe ways of going about making the Byzantines playable, I would just make it so that they weren't a minor plus UHV's, UP, et cetera.
And I see why Leoreth would'nt want to make the Byzantines to be a Greek/Roman respawn; Greek because when they were to respawn some time post-Nationalism they would be the Byzantine civ, not really Greek, and Roman because that's already used(Italy).
Suggestions though:
-Roma still owned by Romans then the Dynamic name for Byzantines should be the Eastern Roman Empire
-When Byzantines spawn, the Roman Dynamic name should change to Western Roman Empire
And I see why Leoreth would'nt want to make the Byzantines to be a Greek/Roman respawn; Greek because when they were to respawn some time post-Nationalism they would be the Byzantine civ, not really Greek, and Roman because that's already used(Italy).
Suggestions though:
-Roma still owned by Romans then the Dynamic name for Byzantines should be the Eastern Roman Empire
-When Byzantines spawn, the Roman Dynamic name should change to Western Roman Empire
The Byzantines could still start on the AD600 start as the Byzantines.
I just think having the Byzantine cities initiate a rebellion against Alexander the Great game after game is repetitive to play and ahistorical. It's annoying when a civ gets screwed over by game technicalities (such unit flips from civ spawns) rather than the actual strategies employed the a human player or AI. Spawns are okay to deal with if they occur at around the same time (as in the case with Western European civs), but in the case an area as small as the Balkans, we have a glut of spawns (Greeks, Byzantines, HRE, Turks, Greek respawn) all staggered out so that whichever civ you play as has to deal a lot more with annoying unit flips and losing cities beyond your control.
By incorporating the Byzantine story within the Greek or Rome civilization for the 3000BC start, we get an extra 1000 years of epic survive-the-test-of-time gameplay with those civs. Representing Byzantines with Greece or Rome is reasonable since in the case of the Byzantines, we have an example of both a political and cultural continuation of the Greek and Roman civilizations.
If someone wants to play as the Byzantines, they would still have the option of the AD600 start. But as for the 3000BC start, there's no real reason of simulating Greek and Roman history from 3000BC-AD600 if the Byzantines, upon spawning, are fated to destroy those civs within the first couple of turns anyway.
And the "Byzantines" should be called "Eastern Roman Empire", and then once the Western Roman Empire collapses, they should be called the "Roman Empire"
I believe thats why the Byzantines are a conditional spawn. I don't know what their conditions are, but if I was Leoreth I would make it so that the Romans control Constantinople and that the Greeks are dead.
AOS9001
Slightly over 9000.
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2009
- Messages
- 784
I'll always second that, for sure. And conditional spawning could work well, but it might be a substantial bit more of modding.
- Status
Similar threads
