Dawn of Civilization - an RFC modmod by Leoreth

Status
Not open for further replies.

The Turk

Deity
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
2,216
Location
Canada
What if Carthage (AI) quickly settles Iberia?

In relation to what? :confused:
If they settle Spain then thats great! They should settle Spain more often, AND Sicily for that matter of fact.
 

civ_king

Deus Caritas Est
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
16,368
And the Borgias were patrons of the arts too. Dude the guy was nicknamed Il Papa Terribile (The Fearsome Pope) and Il Papa Guerriero (The Warrior Pope).
Pope Julius II was actively involved in uniting Italy and had no qualms about fighting people who stole Papal lands
*snip*

While there's still a lot to criticize about Julius II, he's definitely more awesome. Moreover, he was politically more active, which is exactly what we want for a LH, and he's ethnically Italian, which I forgot the Borgias are not. Unfortunately we're lacking a bearded pope ... but the standard ones will do as well.

*snip*

It already has three hills of which one has copper, which is a lot more production than Constantinople can muster. All that river floodplains are also awesome, and it has wheat. Maybe a sheep resource from Mecca can be moved there, but that's it. Imo the city has only the problem of its tiled not getting improved.

*snip*

Okay, but what would this goal actually entail? Allow no foreign cities at the coast of the mediterranean? This would make for more conflict with their eastern enemies, however, they could easily ignore Gaul and Iberia then.
the beard is not integral to Pope Julius II, also see post 2520

Baghdad is a good city spot.

Yeah, they need to get Gaul and Iberia

I did a little search and found out that is possible to leave the floodplains.

So if you are interested to do that you should check this thread out:
Unofficial Patch for BTS 3.19:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=324024
Version 1.50 changes:
- CvCity::init - Reverted to standard BTS code where floodplains are removed when a city is founded
- CvCity::kill - Replace floodplain after city is destroyed

awesome, now Egypt won't be a barren patch of worthless desert
 

need my speed

Rex Omnium Imperarium
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Messages
2,281
Location
European Union (Magna Batavia)
Antioch will stay for the moment.
Okay, that's actually quite a good goal. But you can still ignore the interior of Iberia and Gaul then.

I was saying, if Carthage, which historically settled Iberia (due to which the second Punic war officially began), settles Iberia, then you can't ignore Iberia any longer.

And indeed, would it terribly harm Carthage / Phoenicia if it got an additional Settler in Sicily?
 

Leoreth

Vampire of the Blue Moon
Moderator
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
36,007
Location
Paris
I did a little search and found out that is possible to leave the floodplains.

So if you are interested to do that you should check this thread out:
Unofficial Patch for BTS 3.19:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=324024
Version 1.50 changes:
- CvCity::init - Reverted to standard BTS code where floodplains are removed when a city is founded
- CvCity::kill - Replace floodplain after city is destroyed
Ah, thanks for the find, the only problem is that we can't generally put floodplains on river deserts after a city is founded because unlike in BtS, in RFC there are river deserts that have no floodplains from the start (Transoxania for example). And it seems there's some downside to having cities keep floodplains after being founded, or else he wouldn't have reverted it. I'll investigate.

Pope Julius II was actively involved in uniting Italy and had no qualms about fighting people who stole Papal lands

the beard is not integral to Pope Julius II, also see post 2520
Well, he was also actively involved in fracturing Italy by resisting those who rather wanted to unite it under their flag :lol:

I know about the beard, in fact I recently read he didn't wear it for long. It's just that he's commonly known for it because of that famous painting and the fact he was the first Pope after a long time to have one. And usually using commonly known features of leaders helps recognizing them ingame, even if they're wrong or exaggerated (see Ragnar's horned helmet).

I was saying, if Carthage, which historically settled Iberia (due to which the second Punic war officially began), settles Iberia, then you can't ignore Iberia any longer.

And indeed, would it terribly harm Carthage / Phoenicia if it got an additional Settler in Sicily?
Depends. If the goal really is only to control all coastal tiles, you could (but shouldn't, which is why I said the goal needs to be revised).

It would definitely harm inpredictability, where Phoenicia is already a major offender.
 

Ekolite

Deity
Joined
Sep 15, 2007
Messages
5,451
For the Romans, what about control every tile in the med for one, and subjugate the celts for another? That would provide a really challenging goal that encompasses the med but also encourages them to conquer inside as well. Celtic cities can spawn in France, cental Spain and Southern England providing targets for the Romans. It might be fun to play around with the cities that spawn too, I get bored of the same ones all the time, so why not make it slightly more random. The cities stop spawning after a certain date, or once all the relevent land is controlled, and if there are no celtic cities after another certain date you complete it.
 

Sikandar

Prince
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
397
Why not make the Celts a proper civ who spawn about 1200-1000 BC and who colonize western Europe? It would make the conquest of Britannia/Gaul/Hispania more interesting for sure. Then have the Franks spawn with Charlemagne and then France and Germany only spawn if Francia collapses.

The English only spawn if the Romans or the Celts collapse while one is still in control of Britain.

Portugal/Spain should only spawn if Francia pushes the Arabs out of northern Iberia.

I dislike historical determinism so I think the level of uncertainty would make for a more interesting game. But I guess my suggestions heavily favor ancient/classical civs.
 

jammerculture

Prince
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
514
Location
Canada
For the Romans, what about control every tile in the med for one, and subjugate the celts for another? That would provide a really challenging goal that encompasses the med but also encourages them to conquer inside as well. Celtic cities can spawn in France, cental Spain and Southern England providing targets for the Romans. It might be fun to play around with the cities that spawn too, I get bored of the same ones all the time, so why not make it slightly more random. The cities stop spawning after a certain date, or once all the relevent land is controlled, and if there are no celtic cities after another certain date you complete it.

I like this but I have a feeling that it may be hard to implement.

As well, unless your deliberately settling only coastal cities, then the Mediterranean goal requires you to settle/conquer most of the relevant territories anyway. If someone wants to "cheat" by just going after the coast, then they are really only cheating themselves.

For Rome, the UHV conditions should entail a high level of conquest, but also bringing "civilization" and security to the conquered lands. the original UHV goals attempted to to this by focusing on conquest and the building of buildings that were integral to roman civilization, however nothing stopped you from only developing the homeland, in fact, strategy guides to the original rfc advised you to do just that. I have always felt that the inclusion of "lose no cities" was Ryhe's homage to the "raging barbarians" setting of civ, as it was distinctively roman in flavour.

What about changing the UHV conditions to: control every tile of the Mediterranean by x, build 1 barracks, colliseum and aqueduct in Iberia, Gaul, North Africa, Italy or Greece and the Middle east (same condition but requires you to spread the wealth), and I'm not sure for the third one, maybe subjugate the celts if possible.

These conditions would require you to conquer the historic roman empire and civilize it in a historic as well as creative way. It would also be very challenging.
 

The Turk

Deity
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
2,216
Location
Canada
Ya, I think that UHV would be way to hard to do. Trying to control all the cities in the Med, is a disaster just waiting to happen. I think we should stick to the current UHV's, until we come up with truly a better one, that does not involve all sorts of extra work for Leoreth, like adding an entirely new civilization ;)
 

jammerculture

Prince
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
514
Location
Canada
Ya, I think that UHV would be way to hard to do. Trying to control all the cities in the Med, is a disaster just waiting to happen. I think we should stick to the current UHV's, until we come up with truly a better one, that does not involve all sorts of extra work for Leoreth, like adding an entirely new civilization ;)

Actually I have done this with the new Rome and it wasn't even that difficult. I posted a screenshot earlier.
 

Linkman226

#anarchy
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
2,493
Settling only coastal tiles as Romans to achieve the UHV could result in REALLY crap cities.

As for Italy, I still think they should be minor until 1861.

As for new civilizations, Poland first. Then we can think of other civs.

The problem with just making a highly fortified Indie Warsaw is that the AI treats Indies almost like barbarians- free cities for the grabbing. Which means they'll just end up conquering the area anyways.
 

jammerculture

Prince
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
514
Location
Canada
Settling only coastal tiles as Romans to achieve the UHV could result in REALLY crap cities.

As for Italy, I still think they should be minor until 1861.

As for new civilizations, Poland first. Then we can think of other civs.

The problem with just making a highly fortified Indie Warsaw is that the AI treats Indies almost like barbarians- free cities for the grabbing. Which means they'll just end up conquering the area anyways.

what would be the point of doing so? do you get a junior-g-man badge for accomplishing UHV's in horrible ways? I have never understood why the need to prevent people from ruining their own games.

Also, Italy rocks as is, although slight balancing may be needed.

The mid game presence of an independant kiev in a large number of test games would argue otherwise, as well, the Ai treats weak minor civs the same way too. Besides, the whole dynamic in the area is going to change drastically once the Germany/HRE split occurs and Leoreth is already being criticized for being nationalistic and Eurocentric lol.

The following screenshots illustrate my previously reported bug when you say no to flipping to yourself. Basically when getting the message that cities are wishing to join your rising empire, if you say no, then a few things happen

1)you go to war with your neighbors.
2)a buttload of cataphracts appear (in this case it was half a buttload of cataphracts and half a buttload of legions. The first time it happened I got about 8 cataphracts in asia minor)
3)your troops defect to the rising civilization who is yourself. the result is your troops teleport all over the place for the next few turns.


Bonus: for those of you who highly value historic realism. The last picture illustrates how far Leoreth has brought the game in those terms. Scenes like this were impossible under regular rfc, and are becoming increasingly more likely with every tweak, although I would still like to see a more probable Persian, rather then Babylonian empire.
 

Attachments

  • flip to myself.jpg
    flip to myself.jpg
    384.6 KB · Views: 87
  • buttload of cataphracts.jpg
    buttload of cataphracts.jpg
    428.2 KB · Views: 81
  • buttload of cataphracts2.jpg
    buttload of cataphracts2.jpg
    454.8 KB · Views: 76
  • thebyzantineempireisthefirsttodiscoverteleportation.jpg
    thebyzantineempireisthefirsttodiscoverteleportation.jpg
    430.7 KB · Views: 83
  • heywhere'dmyarchergo.jpg
    heywhere'dmyarchergo.jpg
    430.2 KB · Views: 75
  • Justinian I Medieval Age Turn 163 Persia ftw.CivBeyondSwordSave
    269.6 KB · Views: 51
  • historicrealism.jpg
    historicrealism.jpg
    385.4 KB · Views: 130

J. pride

King
Joined
Feb 23, 2011
Messages
788
I tested out the map, 1300 ad Turk spawn. Somethings i noticed:

1) Kiev was still independent in 1300 (while surrounded by Germany, Russia, and Byzantine). Just proves my point that that an independent krakow would be a sufficiet buffer for the Germans. ;)
2). Its 1300 ad, and italy only has 2 cities (in core area). Can there be a preplaced Naples ( independent or perhaps one controlled by Byzantine to show their influence in Southern Italy. Also Milan is missing (should be independent or German controlled to represent the influence of HRE on Northern Italy; after the Italian spawn it could flip to Italy).
3). Byzantine, a bit overpowered still. (conquered back Cairo and jerusalem and still control tripoli and anitoch). But more importantly can they be discouraged or even stopped from conquering territory in the Crimea and the Balkans.
4) Arabia: already discussed

5). The Vikings control Northern UK in 1300 ad, is that normal? And England has Islam in one city and no religion in London (they only have 3 cities). Should they spawn with missionary(s).

6).The Austrian, an independent Krakow should solve their eastern expantion. But is it possible for them to found Budapest for often?

7). Can there be an independent Norovgrod that flips to Russia.

8). China, can Qufu (only significance, birth place of Confucius and Confuciusism isnt in the game) be replaced with Nanjing (capital for several centuris). And can the there be more of a chance of china founding Louyand and Chang an. and the chinese should have completed reunification by now.
9). India, there should be more independents in India (espesically Southern India). The cities should be better defended (arabia shouldnt conquer them so easily). And why the BArbarian pressure from Southern India; if there was any pressure it was foreigners from the north west.
 

Attachments

  • Civ4ScreenShot0013.JPG
    Civ4ScreenShot0013.JPG
    203.2 KB · Views: 64
  • Civ4ScreenShot0015.JPG
    Civ4ScreenShot0015.JPG
    192.7 KB · Views: 60
  • Civ4ScreenShot0014.JPG
    Civ4ScreenShot0014.JPG
    192.2 KB · Views: 72
  • Civ4ScreenShot0016.JPG
    Civ4ScreenShot0016.JPG
    160.3 KB · Views: 93
  • Civ4ScreenShot0017.JPG
    Civ4ScreenShot0017.JPG
    197 KB · Views: 65
  • Civ4ScreenShot0018.JPG
    Civ4ScreenShot0018.JPG
    180.5 KB · Views: 65
  • Civ4ScreenShot0020.JPG
    Civ4ScreenShot0020.JPG
    201.4 KB · Views: 59
  • Civ4ScreenShot0019.JPG
    Civ4ScreenShot0019.JPG
    202.3 KB · Views: 64

Linkman226

#anarchy
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
2,493
Leoreth a few comments:

The inclination of barbs to raize cities needs to be severely proscribed. Especially in the 3000 AD start, this can be a problem. Let's see what happened in my most recent game, as the Ottomans, upon spawning:

Civ4ScreenShot0112.JPG Civ4ScreenShot0113.JPG

...As you can see, the religions are all screwed up. I am assuming that this is because Athens or Jerusalem, as the Christian holy city, got razed (as you can see to the left in the first attachment, Athens is razed, and some further exploration revealed that Jerusalem was razed too). Although almost any city could have been the holy city, there's no way of finding out now. Another fix might be the holy city relocation mod.

what would be the point of doing so? do you get a junior-g-man badge for accomplishing UHV's in horrible ways? I have never understood why the need to prevent people from ruining their own games.

No, my point is that it's unlikely that people will just settle coastal tiles to achieve the UHV for Rome if we change it.

Also, Italy rocks as is, although slight balancing may be needed.

Slight=major understatement

The mid game presence of an independant kiev in a large number of test games would argue otherwise, as well, the Ai treats weak minor civs the same way too. Besides, the whole dynamic in the area is going to change drastically once the Germany/HRE split occurs and Leoreth is already being criticized for being nationalistic and Eurocentric lol.

Kiev always gets conquered.

And yes, I agree, the HRE/ Germany split might make Poland superfluous, although spawning an indie Warsaw would still be nice.

Bonus: for those of you who highly value historic realism. The last picture illustrates how far Leoreth has brought the game in those terms. Scenes like this were impossible under regular rfc, and are becoming increasingly more likely with every tweak, although I would still like to see a more probable Persian, rather then Babylonian empire.

I agree, it IS a lot more realistic. A few tweaks do need to be made, but this is a massive improvement nonetheless.

EDIT:

Better fix for German/ Russian overexpansion:
  • An extra two longbowmen and a pikeman spawning in Kiev, instead of just two longbows.
  • Indie Krakow/ Warsaw with two, three longbows
  • Indie Riga with two/ three longbows; take this region out of Russian spawn zone
  • Germany/ HRE Split- HRE spawn remains the same, in Vienna; Germany spawns in Berlin, 1871. Dynamic name change for HRE- changes to Austria or Austria-Hungary after a certain date. New LH would be nice, like this Metternich or this Franz Joseph. Reduce HRE spawn zone so all that Eastern European land is not included.
 

The Turk

Deity
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
2,216
Location
Canada
A pre-placed Palermo would be better, AND (optional) a pre-placed Bari (on the far right tip of Italy), both controlled by the Byzantines at the beginning, and both lightly defended, so that the Vikings (yes the Normans invaded Sicily and Southern Italy), French or Spanish and conquer it. Or even the Italians, although the Kingdom of Sicily was always nominally separate from the North Italian states.
 

Linkman226

#anarchy
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
2,493
A pre-placed Palermo would be better, AND (optional) a pre-placed Bari (on the far right tip of Italy), both controlled by the Byzantines at the beginning, and both lightly defended, so that the Vikings (yes the Normans invaded Sicily and Southern Italy), French or Spanish and conquer it. Or even the Italians, although the Kingdom of Sicily was always nominally separate from the North Italian states.

All the Italian states were nominally- and non-nominally- separate from each other. Which is why I'm slightly opposed to this whole early Italy spawn business.
 

The Turk

Deity
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
2,216
Location
Canada
All the Italian states were nominally- and non-nominally- separate from each other. Which is why I'm slightly opposed to this whole early Italy spawn business.

Linkman, I turned off the Renaissance Italy spawn, currenlty they only spawn in 1861 :mischief:
The games I've played are much better IMO due to that.

Also I encourage Leoreth to move the Indian capital to Varanasi, instead of ahistorical Delhi. I already did it, removed the jungle there, and had a great game! Also the AI Varanasi capital Indians built Delhi later on, so that was good as well! :)
So I encourage you to make the change for the next version.
 

Linkman226

#anarchy
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
2,493
Linkman, I turned off the Renaissance Italy spawn, currenlty they only spawn in 1861 :mischief:
The games I've played are much better IMO due to that.

Also I encourage Leoreth to move the Indian capital to Varanasi, instead of ahistorical Delhi. I already did it, removed the jungle there, and had a great game! Also the AI Varanasi capital Indians built Delhi later on, so that was good as well! :)
So I encourage you to make the change for the next version.

Concerning Italy- How'd you make the change? Pardon my coding inexperience.

As for India- In my copy of CityNameManager.py I changed the name of Delhi to Indraprastha for the Ancient Era, because Delhi as a city in the Ancient period is also quite ahistorical (I'm of Indian descent, by the way).
 

J. pride

King
Joined
Feb 23, 2011
Messages
788
Turk, I agree with u on moving the Indian capital but where is Varsani on the map? same city as pataliputra in 600 ad or different??

And what do u think of moving the chinese capital to Luoyang in 3000 Bc.
 

lumpthing

generic lump
Joined
Sep 11, 2004
Messages
781
Location
Lumpinium, England
This would be my ideal Roman UHV:

1) Control all Mediterranean tiles in 200 AD

2) Have a continuous cultural area stretching from Rome to at least one tile of Britain by 300 AD

3) Possess all classical techs by 400 AD

I know that's extremely tough, but it's actually significantly less than the Romans achieved in real life, and surely civs should be able to achieve their historical glory in RFC?

With regard to UHV no. 3, I accept that the Romans were not particularly innovative, but they were certainly more advanced then the barbarian tribes which challenged and succeeded them. If Rome survives into the medieval age then the Western European civs should, initially, be in awe of Rome. Rome should not be a technological backwater struggling against advanced barbarian usurpers.

I think it would be good if Rome were buffed to be make the above UHVs achievable, but then the barbarian uprisings in Western Europe were made much more terrifying after 400 AD. I find that if I have two legions behind city walls in every exposed city I am completely invincible against barbarians.

I feel like it should be easier to achieve the historical glory of Rome and harder to maintain it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom