Linkman226
#anarchy
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2007
- Messages
- 2,493
Um anyone else with DoC's SVN experiencing this? It won't let you update without a username and password.
Dawn of Civilization - an RFC modmod by Leoreth
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
- Status
Linkman226
#anarchy
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2007
- Messages
- 2,493
From Leoreth's Assembla page, I cans see he hasn't changed anything since April, so at least we're not missing out...
Well, that's changed now 
Right, I'm back to DoC modding, and to give you something to make up for the long period of inactivity, I release the last update for 1.7, version 1.73, right along with it.
That's the reason why the SVN has been unavailable for some days - I didn't want anyone to download any of the intermediate versions which didn't work properly.
Special thanks go to Algor Mortis and robf32, who were able to detect errors I was unable to find for some time. Their fixes have been incorporated into 1.73. Its other features are mainly a UHV progress display similar to SoI's, as well as small bugfixes and balancing issues. All features:
You have the usual three methods of downloading the update: via SVN (the password requirement has been removed), downloading the whole mod at the download center or downloading the 1.72 to 1.73 patch attached to this post. As always, this patch only works if you have 1.72 (overwrite everything) and doesn't include the current C++ sourcecode.
I'll now commence with the work on 1.8, following the ideas laid out in the first post.
Right, I'm back to DoC modding, and to give you something to make up for the long period of inactivity, I release the last update for 1.7, version 1.73, right along with it.
That's the reason why the SVN has been unavailable for some days - I didn't want anyone to download any of the intermediate versions which didn't work properly.
Special thanks go to Algor Mortis and robf32, who were able to detect errors I was unable to find for some time. Their fixes have been incorporated into 1.73. Its other features are mainly a UHV progress display similar to SoI's, as well as small bugfixes and balancing issues. All features:
Spoiler :
You have the usual three methods of downloading the update: via SVN (the password requirement has been removed), downloading the whole mod at the download center or downloading the 1.72 to 1.73 patch attached to this post. As always, this patch only works if you have 1.72 (overwrite everything) and doesn't include the current C++ sourcecode.
I'll now commence with the work on 1.8, following the ideas laid out in the first post.
You're a god among men, Leoreth.
hoplitejoe
Top fun-poster
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2010
- Messages
- 5,470
Welcome back
Welcome Back, Leoreth,
I just had a few questions/suggestions on the version 1.8
1) What would be a Mongolian/Arabian conquerers event look like?
2) Are u sure about Korea, my concern is that adding them would cause unhistorical expansion into Siberia and Manchuria.
3) There is no mention of changing Chinese and Indian capitals; does that mean that it is not included in this version? ( Louyang or Xian for China, Pataliputra for India)
4) Are u adding the following cities to the game:
-Nanjing (replaces Qofu)
-Turfan and Kashgar along the silk road; these cities would later flip to the mongols thus opening the way for western expansion. Also Ive noticed that the Mongols should not get settler, first because they waste them and second they were primarily a conquering civilization
I just had a few questions/suggestions on the version 1.8
1) What would be a Mongolian/Arabian conquerers event look like?
2) Are u sure about Korea, my concern is that adding them would cause unhistorical expansion into Siberia and Manchuria.
3) There is no mention of changing Chinese and Indian capitals; does that mean that it is not included in this version? ( Louyang or Xian for China, Pataliputra for India)
4) Are u adding the following cities to the game:
-Nanjing (replaces Qofu)
-Turfan and Kashgar along the silk road; these cities would later flip to the mongols thus opening the way for western expansion. Also Ive noticed that the Mongols should not get settler, first because they waste them and second they were primarily a conquering civilization
1) I don't think the Arabians still need it, that's kinda obsolete. For the Mongols, currently I picture it as an AI only event that triggers when they make contact with appropriate civilizations (Russia, Byzantium, Arabia, Persia, India), gives them a sizeable army close to their borders and starts a war.
2) I am. Undesired expansion can easily be kept at bay with settler maps, and they ought to add a little more complexity to the diplomacy in the far east.
3) The list is far from comprehensive. Changed capitals have to be tested, though (I'm in favor of Varanasi for the Indians) - for example the Indian candidates would be stuck in a lot of jungle.
4) Yeah, Nanjing really makes sense (though it looks a little odd to have holy cities there), especially with a certain new wonder I plan to add
I agree about the silk route cities as well; they should spawn or be already present in 600 AD.
2) I am. Undesired expansion can easily be kept at bay with settler maps, and they ought to add a little more complexity to the diplomacy in the far east.
3) The list is far from comprehensive. Changed capitals have to be tested, though (I'm in favor of Varanasi for the Indians) - for example the Indian candidates would be stuck in a lot of jungle.
4) Yeah, Nanjing really makes sense (though it looks a little odd to have holy cities there), especially with a certain new wonder I plan to add
I agree about the silk route cities as well; they should spawn or be already present in 600 AD.
Arabia and Persia are appropriate targets for the mongols but the rest I dont think are good ideas for the following reasons:
Byzantine- were allies of the Mongols (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine–Mongol_alliance). The better thing to do would be to spawn seljuk barbarians in Anotolia in the 12th century ad that spread Islam on conquest. I recall that you also wanted to spawn seljuk barbs in the Middle East but i wouldnt recommend that because unlike the conquest of Anatolia the seljuk conquest of the Middle East was largely peaceful even to an extent that the Abbasid Caliph and the Seljuk Sultan could co-exist. Instead for the Middle East, the Mongol conquerors event would be more fitting.
India- The Mongol Empire never conquered India; they stopped at the Indus River which was the boundry between Ancient Persia and India.
Russia- It would be better if the Russians just vassalize to the Mongols because if the Russians collapse it would just be mess later on. On a similar note, I think you should push the Russian spawn back and they should have more cities flip to them instead of settling (their settlers are just terrible at picking a good spot)
BTW: Leoreth, You should consider merging the feature from Civilizations in Abundance where Jarkov gave every Independent Civ unique Graphics, Stats, etc.
That would not only look really cool but also can be tweaked in a way where u can have those indies to behave a certain way like if u want the Arabs to conquer the Sassanids or the French to conquer Rome
hoplitejoe
Top fun-poster
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2010
- Messages
- 5,470
but if you do make them a separate folder in the civpeadia otherwise it gets quite messy.
Orka
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2010
- Messages
- 106
Welcome back Leoreth! Can't wait for the next version. How exactly do you plan to implement the Silk Road (I saw the Silk corporation thing, but is that the final choice?).Also I noticed Confucianism is on the list? I thought you removed it long ago b/c it was redundant.
No, did you find anything else?
That's how it actually played out in history, but that's no reason to enforce it. I see no reason why the Mongols shouldn't ally with say Arabia to conquer Anatolia instead.
And the Mongols tried to conquer India (not very hard though) and failed. Consider that ingame the war could end without a city conquered, only a few cities conquered or the target vassalizing.
I haven't followed CiA for a while, what exactly did Jarkov do? Split the independents into lots of different players?
I don't see much use in having the Sassanids when they'll just be conquered in a few years by the Arabs any way (despite the fact that the Arabs often don't conquer the Persian indies any way).
- Status
Similar threads
