Dawn of Civilization - an RFC modmod by Leoreth

Status
Not open for further replies.

J. pride

King
Joined
Feb 23, 2011
Messages
788
Ok the Turks flipping cities in Armenia and Crimea is rather unhistorical and unrealistic. This should probably be stopped. As far as Anitochia is concerned,id rather not have it in the first place.

So in my opinion, a barbarian invasion and a reduced Turkish spawn area to include Iconium and Trabizond will solve the problem. ;)

Also as far as the Byzantine are concerned, it shouldnt matter if their Anatolian cities are taken becuz it is historical and accurate
 

Gatsby

King
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
655
Ok the Turks flipping cities in Armenia and Crimea is rather unhistorical and unrealistic. This should probably be stopped. As far as Anitochia is concerned,id rather not have it in the first place.

So in my opinion, a barbarian invasion and a reduced Turkish spawn area to include Iconium and Trabizond will solve the problem. ;)

Also as far as the Byzantine are concerned, it shouldnt matter if their Anatolian cities are taken becuz it is historical and accurate

Yeah, I think that sounds reasonable enough :). Fyi, here is an article with a neat map of the historical expansion of the Ottoman Empire.
 

Leoreth

Blue Period
Moderator
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
36,254
Location
東京藝術大学
1. Having waves of barbarian units spawn in northern Persia/ the southern Caucasus from about 1000AD onwards which attack targets in Anatolia and the Levant could help make it more challenging for the Byzantines to hold onto enough cities in the Mid-East to fulfill their 3rd UHV goal.
2. Such being the case, the Ottomans should be a conditional spawn like Italy e.g. they only spawn if there is at least one city in Anatolia which is controlled by Barbarians or Independents in 1280AD. This is still historically accurate - the Ottoman Empire started out as one of a number of emirates in Anatolia which formed after the collapse of the Seljuk Sultunate of Rum. However the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum only came into being because the Byzantines lost control of Anatolia to Seljuk Turk invaders in the 1060's -1070's AD. These Seljuk invaders could be represented be the aformentioned barbarian spawns in the southern Caucasus and northern Persia.
3. I can see how this might be problematic. Like I said before you could just have waves of barbarians occur in the Khazakstan area after the Turks spawn, so they eventually lose their cities in central Asia. But the conditional spawn in Anatolia would probably make more sense, especially if the Turkish spawn area was simply reduced to Anatolia proper and north-western Persia.
That's all good in theory, but probably won't work out in the majority of games without heavy scripting, and for what exactly? Historical accuracy? Flips are broad for all civs and often flip more than they actually had in their spawning date (Rome flips Mediolanum in 750 BC for example). Personally I'm okay with that. It works out in the long run, and that is what counts.

If the Turks were a military-only spawn preceded by wave of Seljuk barbarians invading Anatolia, and if they didn't instantly flip all those cities in the Levant and on the Black Sea (rather unhistorical and incredibly annoying imo), then perhaps you wouldn't necessarily need to make their spawn conditional. I think it would help though if the Turk's spawn area was reduced while their number of military units at spawn was increased.
They flip the Levant to make confrontation with Arabia more likely, and they flip the Black Sea coast to make confrontation with Russia more likely, both situations that are desireable considering Turkish history as a whole that likely won't occur on their own. Especially that Turkey flips Chersonesos is the best reason to let the Byzantines continue founding it.
 

Gatsby

King
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
655
That's all good in theory, but probably won't work out in the majority of games without heavy scripting, and for what exactly? Historical accuracy? Flips are broad for all civs and often flip more than they actually had in their spawning date (Rome flips Mediolanum in 750 BC for example). Personally I'm okay with that. It works out in the long run, and that is what counts.

Fair enough, I see your point.

They flip the Levant to make confrontation with Arabia more likely, and they flip the Black Sea coast to make confrontation with Russia more likely, both situations that are desireable considering Turkish history as a whole that likely won't occur on their own. Especially that Turkey flips Chersonesos is the best reason to let the Byzantines continue founding it.

Could this also be done by having the Turks start automatically at war with the Arabs and the Russians, like they do with the Byzantines? You could still have a stack of Turkish military units spawn on the north-eastern shore of the black sea as well, but without them flipping cities on the western shore of the black sea.
 

Linkman226

#anarchy
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
2,493
That runs the risk of having Turkish units march all the way to Moscow, considering Russia's usually technologically ******ed.

I've had the Seljuk Barbs idea in the back of my mind for a while. I'll see how that works out in terms of balance in Synthesis.
 

Sikandar

Prince
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
397
I just had a strange game as Ethiopia on the middle difficulty.

China, Egypt, India, Japan, and Persia are massive when I spawn. Babylon had already collapsed. Egypt declares war on Phoenicia and causes them to collapse. Greece collapses a couple of turns later for reasons I'm not sure of and then a few turns later the Celts cause Rome to collapse after taking Rome. Byzantium spawns but is quickly devoured by Persia and collapses. Egypt then collapses for unknown reasons. When the Arabs spawn they don't expand and just seem content to chill in Arabia.

That's when I lost interest in the game and quit. Strange game.
 

Gatsby

King
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
655
That runs the risk of having Turkish units march all the way to Moscow, considering Russia's usually technologically ******ed.

I've had the Seljuk Barbs idea in the back of my mind for a while. I'll see how that works out in terms of balance in Synthesis.

Maybe, it might depend on whether or not the Russians have settled near the black sea. I just don't like the idea of the Turks flipping cities on the western and northern shores of the Black Sea straight away - they should at least have to fight for these cities.

Your Synthesis mod looks very interesting. I'll definitely be keen to try it when it's ready for play.
 

Leoreth

Blue Period
Moderator
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
36,254
Location
東京藝術大学
Could this also be done by having the Turks start automatically at war with the Arabs and the Russians, like they do with the Byzantines? You could still have a stack of Turkish military units spawn on the north-eastern shore of the black sea as well, but without them flipping cities on the western shore of the black sea.
They do even start on total war with the Arabs in most of the games. The problem is that we also have to direct the conquests into the "right" direction: Egypt and Hejaz, not Persia. For Russia it's more that they share a common border that makes conflicts morelikely compared to the whole Black Sea between them.
 

dcode147

Warlord
Joined
Jan 19, 2006
Messages
178
With the inclusion of a Safavid civ, they would stand as a barrier to Turkish expansion. That in conjunction with what you've done with the war map might be able to help?
 

BenZL43

awkward cat
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
3,200
Location
Indonesia
Why Taj Mahal become Hinduism Wonder ?
Weren't Taj Mahal was built during Mughal rule in India, which was a Muslim Empire ?
CMIIW :)
 

civ_king

Deus Caritas Est
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
16,368
Why Taj Mahal become Hinduism Wonder ?
Weren't Taj Mahal was built during Mughal rule in India, which was a Muslim Empire ?
CMIIW :)
Probably to make sure it is built in India
 

Linkman226

#anarchy
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
2,493
Can't you make it so you need two religions, i.e., Islam and Hinduism?

Because when I visited Agra (where the Taj Mahal is), I learned that the builders were generally Hindu but the architects and the ruler (Shah Jahan) were Muslim.

If you can't make it require two religions, I'm sure you can make it require one religion and a building of the other religion.
 

Leoreth

Blue Period
Moderator
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
36,254
Location
東京藝術大学
With the inclusion of a Safavid civ, they would stand as a barrier to Turkish expansion. That in conjunction with what you've done with the war map might be able to help?
A Persian civ would definitely help filling a vacuum in the middle east, yes. And when it's there, Turkey's war maps would be a lot more sense either.

Can't you make it so you need two religions, i.e., Islam and Hinduism?

Because when I visited Agra (where the Taj Mahal is), I learned that the builders were generally Hindu but the architects and the ruler (Shah Jahan) were Muslim.

If you can't make it require two religions, I'm sure you can make it require one religion and a building of the other religion.
You've been to Agra? *jealous*

I think its possible to let the wonder require religion A in the city and religion B as state religion. It's just that these kind of things makes it even more unlikely to see the wonder built (it's rare already). And if a non-muslim nation controls India and orders the construction of the Taj Mahal by local architects, I don't see a problem with it from an alt-hist point of view.
 

Sikandar

Prince
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
397
Increasing Mongol settlement westward through the Iranian Plateau would help to prevent Turkish settlement eastward.

A Mongol Iran is much more historically accurate than an Ottoman Iran.
 

Gruekiller

Back From The Beyond
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
2,375
Location
Ohio
Come to think of it, it may be good idea to give the Mongols a bigger settler/war map. In my RFC games they usually seem to languish away into obscurity in Central Asia rather than being the continent-bestriding badasses that they historically were. :p
 

J. pride

King
Joined
Feb 23, 2011
Messages
788
I tested out the arabs and it turns out that arabs still dont conqer Central asia and kandahar (pehaps the 2 camel archers in mecca should be in Iran). And the Byzantines seem to reconquer Jerusalem alot
 

Leoreth

Blue Period
Moderator
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
36,254
Location
東京藝術大学
I've already got some ideas for Mongols up in my sleeve to make them resemble their historical counterpart more, both in player and AI role. Currently I just don't want to open up another front. But more western Mongolian presence is definitely desired. :)

With 1.7 concentrating on the middle east, I think 1.8 will then focus on the Far East. Many things I'm planning fit with this theme:
- playable Korea faction
- India map revamp
- India UHV revamp
- more Hinduist and Buddhist wonders
- more historical Mongolia

I see...
Btw, is the current version is stable enough ?
I can't wait to try it ! hehe
Sorry, overlooked your post in my previous response. 1.7 still crashes sometimes when the Romans are around. The 600 AD is playable without troubles though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom