Dawn of Civilization - an RFC modmod by Leoreth

[Gruekiller]

Also Leoreth I would recommend giving these "celts", the Arab settler map.

That'd be interesting. It opens the door for Moorish/Andalusian colonization of of East Africa, Indonesia, or the Philippines.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, Leoreth, are you going to make any changes to the stability/settler maps in the near future? I have some suggestions which I think may improve the game experience a little.

 

[Leoreth]

I don't think minor civs can build settlers, so that doesn't matter (they have no settler maps after all).

I plan to adapt the Byzantines' because currently they use the Roman settler map which causes some weird results. But beyond that, go ahead

 

[Gruekiller]

Really? I thought the Byzzies were using the Greek settler map. When I played my first game as them (admittedly, before you uploaded the version without all those SVN thingies) Persia was yellow for them but northern Italy was red.

 

[Leoreth]

Yeah, you're right, I mixed that up. They use the Greek settler map, but the Roman city names map. Both will be revised to by uniquely Byzantine.

Edit: ran a few Turkish test games and almost all looked like these:

Spoiler :

The settler and AI wars maps need some work indeed. I never saw Arabian Tisfun/Baghdad, so it's probably better to flip it to them as well. Justinian's personality might be unviable for RFC as well - imperialist settler spam like in BtS isn't that historical. I'll shift him more to a defensive/religious agenda.

 

[Gruekiller]

Good plan. Maybe a more expansive/aggressive leader could be useful later on in history to represent the Komnenian Restoration? Alexios himself, perhaps? There's a few good Byzzie leaderheads floating around on this site that could stand in for him (but I'm surprised no one's ever tried to make Alexios).

 

[J. pride]

about to test Byzantine

 

[Gruekiller]

I'm going to do a Byzantium game, play it through to the American spawn, and let you know what I think. I'm looking forward to showing those schismatic Latins what a real Rhomaioi is capable of...

 

[jammerculture]

No computer for me as a gift but I was able to run a few test games on my brothers computer. I ran two 3000bc starts which I then played around with each in a number of different ways.

First off there is something wrong with the flip. I get a "these cities are trying to defect to the new civ" message, even though the new civ is me. If you say no you get a buttload of cataphracts which then teleport all over your lands as they defect to the new civ which is me. Saying yes to the flip allows the game to proceed as normal, but I have noticed a wide discrepancy in the number of troops you receive. Once I even got nothing!

Second, the Cataphract is uber-op at 330 ad. On the games when I started with the aformentioned buttload of cataphracts I was able to expand outward in all directions with only stability to hold me back. Even on games when I didn't start with a lot of cataphracts, the easy access to iron and horses, and the plethora of seafood for whipping allows you to field an invincible army that easily sweeps aside all of the ancient age civs. Once arabia spawns, even they only have a slight defence, I was getting 75% against longbowmen behind walls or camel archers with combat 2 cataphracts.

I suggest that the byzantines don't spawn with the ability to create cataphracts so they will have to withstand the initial onslaught of barbs and praets with contemporary units.

Other notes:
- twice my capital moved to Tyrus on the flip.
-the byzantine horse archer is the coolest looking unit in the game
-Rome is super expansive now. They even took over Greece in one of the games! Their new UP keeps surprising me, funny to see a roman army appear on Crete!
-Both Carthage and Babylon were alive and kicking, until I showed up!
-the barb pressure is great in Europe
-Maybe there should be an early diplomacy bonus with Rome, they declared on me every single time.

 

[Gruekiller]

It's the early 1400s in my Byzantine game now. After crushing those upstart Turks (Roma invicta!) I noticed that, shortly thereafter, my stability rapidly went to poop. I noticed that, even though I didn't control any cities outside my historical range, my expansion score was -34 (!). Upon investigation, I found that under my civics, it wasn't even running Subjugation (the default civic for expansion). So apparently my government had... no policy on expansion? A timely Golden Age from getting the second UHV goal managed to save me from utter collapse, but the expansion score still hasn't gone up, even though I've switched it to Viceroyalty now.

EDIT: Just hit 1450, but the third ability didn't trigger, even though I'm certain I have three cities in each of the prescribed regions: Athenae, Dyrrachium, and Singidunum in the Balkans; Hierusalem, Ctesiphon, and "Armenia" in the Near East; and Carthago, Tripoli, and Hesperides in North Africa. I'm not sure that Armenia is in the Near East. Is Alexandretta? Or the Anatolian cities? Where exactly are the boundaries for the Near East defined in DoC?

EDIT EDIT: Nevermind, founding Susa got it. Just won an historical victory. Let's see how much longer I can survive given my amazingly bad expansion score. (-44 now...)

EDIT EDIT EDIT LOLOLOL: It's the early 17th Century now. I revolted to the democratic civics to force a collapse, and now I'm taking back the parts of the Empire that I still want. Really, I only need the Balkans, Levant, and Egypt. Italy, North Africa, and the further reaches of the east aren't really worth the trouble. And if I may recommend something, perhaps the dynamic name for a Byzantine republic should the the Republic of Rhomania?

 

[The Turk]

That'd be interesting. It opens the door for Moorish/Andalusian colonization of of East Africa, Indonesia, or the Philippines.

First off, minor civs don't build cities, second off, when I meant "settler maps", I meant the city names which they have, if they conquer a city in Spain or w/e.

 

[Gruekiller]

Huh. I forgot about the minor civs thing. You do have to admit that a Moorish colonial empire sounds pretty awesome, though.

 

[dcode147]

Second, the Cataphract is uber-op at 330 ad.
...
Their new UP keeps surprising me, funny to see a roman army appear on Crete!
...
-the barb pressure is great in Europe
...

Yeah, for Cataphracts, can they be made into something like Knights with 9 str (rather than 12), but are available earlier technology and do not require certain civics. Then they should also either have a strength bonus either versus barbarian units or versus units such as axemen and swordsmen.

Is there any way to guarantee the Roman UP units won't appear on islands? I saw an army of 4 Praetorians on Rhodes during my game.

Regarding barbarian pressure for 3000BC, is there some way of disbanding all those barbarian units immediately prior to the rise of the European states? It seems like France and Germany always begin with a huge number of horse archers and catapults flipped to them.

 

[Gruekiller]

The Rhomanian Republic as of AD 1640.

 

[jammerculture]

I'm not sure the cataphract needs to be nerfed in power, maybe just in time. When Byzantines spawn they are the only civ with access to knights. The initial turns of 3000bc byantine game should be played out with classical age military. The challenge is to survive the violent collapse of the classical world before the medieval age begins with the spawning of the European civs and the Arabs. As it stands, these civs will be spawning with a strong medeival Byzantine Empire already in existence because it is very easy for Byzantine to collapse and conquer every civ in the region.

 

[Gruekiller]

I have to agree with Jammer. As devious as I am, I still don't like the idea of having access to the most awesome overpowered Medieval unit in the 4th Century.

EDIT: By the way, are you making any changes to the city names map in the near future? Because I noticed that, as the Portuguese went on the warpath across the former France and Germany, that the names of Marseilles, Bordeaux, and Vienna stayed the same when they should be Marselha, Bordéus, and Viena, respectively. Similarly, Russian Stockholm should be Stokgol'm.

 

[civ_king]

Yeah, for Cataphracts, can they be made into something like Knights with 9 str (rather than 12), but are available earlier technology and do not require certain civics. Then they should also either have a strength bonus either versus barbarian units or versus units such as axemen and swordsmen.

Is there any way to guarantee the Roman UP units won't appear on islands? I saw an army of 4 Praetorians on Rhodes during my game.

Regarding barbarian pressure for 3000BC, is there some way of disbanding all those barbarian units immediately prior to the rise of the European states? It seems like France and Germany always begin with a huge number of horse archers and catapults flipped to them.

That's not Rhodes, that's Cyprus
The Cataphract is a foil to the Praetorian banhammer. I suggest Byzantines don't spawn with Cataphracts and that Cataphracts cost 10 more because of their power level

I have to agree with Jammer. As devious as I am, I still don't like the idea of having access to the most awesome overpowered Medieval unit in the 4th Century.

EDIT: By the way, are you making any changes to the city names map in the near future? Because I noticed that, as the Portuguese went on the warpath across the former France and Germany, that the names of Marseilles, Bordeaux, and Vienna stayed the same when they should be Marselha, Bordéus, and Viena, respectively. Similarly, Russian Stockholm should be Stokgol'm.

I support the name changes

 

[jammerculture]

doh! I meant Cyprus too

 

[dcode147]

That's not Rhodes, that's Cyprus

Heh, ooooooooooooooops

The Cataphract is a foil to the Praetorian banhammer. I suggest Byzantines don't spawn with Cataphracts and that Cataphracts cost 10 more because of their power level I support the name changes

Meh, I've always envisioned the "Knight" unit (at least as depicted by the picture in the game) to represent heavy plate-body armored warriors of the high middle ages. Cataphracts seem to represent a slightly earlier era of cavalry with scale mail and padded cloth armor.

Changing cataphracts to having 9 str, +25% strength against melee units (possibly +50% against barbarians) isn't necessarily nerfing the unit. It just means the Byzantine cataphracts will now be more suited to facing the masses of barbarian infantry that plague the Byzantines. Byzantines cataphracts will no longer be able to easily crush European knights and fight on equal footing with cuirassiers 800 years later. Due to the cataphract's bonus vs melee units, Turks and Arabs will have slightly more incentive to use their mounted units to fight against the Byzantines rather than rely on (ahistorical) dense formations of infantry or pikemen as an easy way for victory.

 

[J. pride]

So i tested out the Ai Byzantine; around the spawn of Mongolia and Mali (roughly 1000 ad). The Byzantines are way way to powerful. In my tests they conquered Mesopotamia, Persia, Central Asia. Really the Arabs were confined to Arabia with the exception of Sihriaz (sometimes). In one game they destroyed the Arabs and conquered Mecca. Byzantines have to be nerfed

As for the Arabs, the Ai is weak and dosnt conquer anything (although human players shoudnt have a prob). Around the same time period the arabs are suppose to conquer everything between Pakistan and Morrocco. Is it possible (just for the Ai) to have a bigger spawn area. Ive also noticed that the Arabs found too many cities in Arabia and dont try to settle cities like Damascus, Baghdad, Fez and Luxor. Cud u discourage them from settling more that one city in Arabia.

And for 600 ad can there be Damascus rather than Alexendratte. Damascus was much more important than Alexendratte. Maybe u can switch the resources around for Damascus and especially for Tisfun/Baghdad (for it to be able to be the largest and most important city in the middle ages).

By the way Leoreth have u decided which cities u want for the moors?

 

[dcode147]

Leoreth, are you planning on making changes to units, esp mounted units soon?

Some suggestions:

Cataphract (Byzantines)
- 9 str; +25% vs melee units; +25% vs barbarian units; available before knights

Chariot
- cost raised to 45 hammers; +50% attack vs warriors, archers, axemen, spearmen; -25% city attack; everything else same
- Immortals, swordsmen, hoplites, horseman all get +50% str vs chariot
- basically chariot is a godly ancient age unit but quickly gets outdated in the classical age

Horse Archer
- str raised to 7; cost raised to 70 hammers; higher withdraw rate ~30%; 1 first strike; requires slightly later technology;
- basically so that the horse archer will still be still useful when the Arabs and Turks are fighting the Byzantines, the Mongols fight China etc...
- Stronger horse archers will also help barbarians crush Western Rome. Then these stronger horse archers will also start spawning in the American plains ~AD1800 (in addition to dog soldiers)

Optional: Horseman (represents Companion cavalry, Numidian cavalry, Gallic cavalry, Roman equites, Gothic cavalry, generic early light cavalry unit)
- basically same thing as current Horse Archer, kinda worthless, but occasionally useful.