Dawn of Civilization - an RFC modmod by Leoreth

[jammerculture]

this type of stuff would be awesome, but would need a total overhaul of the stability system to be make it more dynamic. I would love to see it but not sure if it's in leoreth's to do list.

i would love to see more dynamic stability effects like rebel armies, partisan uprisings and revolutions, warlords etc etc. these effects would occur as your stability gets bad, first in your occupied foreign cores, then foreign areas, contested areas etc. Instead of going from full on empire to collapse once a threshold is reached, your empire would disintegrate bit by bit as your stability worsened.

anyone up for making a modmodmod?

 

[ImNotHere]

if you want, the usurpation event can deactive upon entering a certain era or gaining a tech like constitution or something. Basically where rule of law and elections does away with rule by the strongest and pretender armies. . .

Even after nations created constitutions and codes of law there were still usurpers and coups. Look at fascists mostly, Mussolini basicly said "give me power or else" to the Italian government. One could also argue Hitler took a similar approach (he was intimidating, but he was elected).

More examples can be found in Latin America. In Venezuela, Guatemala, Chile, and (I think) Argentina there were coups that overthrew the established (elected) governments that were governed by constitutions.

I think that if this is implemented it should be based stability and maybe overall happiness. While the fascists in Europe gained power due to instability, I think happiness should also factor in (like how much people love the government).

IDK, just my opinion.

 

[rogue131]

this type of stuff would be awesome, but would need a total overhaul of the stability system to be make it more dynamic. I would love to see it but not sure if it's in leoreth's to do list.

i would love to see more dynamic stability effects like rebel armies, partisan uprisings and revolutions, warlords etc etc. these effects would occur as your stability gets bad, first in your occupied foreign cores, then foreign areas, contested areas etc. Instead of going from full on empire to collapse once a threshold is reached, your empire would disintegrate bit by bit as your stability worsened.

anyone up for making a modmodmod?

Not a bad idea, so instead of simply collapsing at the last second; you could say rebel armies, usurpers, revolts, etc are precursors to it. I know currently now on occassion a civ either respawns or a city just flips indie. I'm not really the IT type, so programming is way out of my league..

 

[rogue131]

Even after nations created constitutions and codes of law there were still usurpers and coups. Look at fascists mostly, Mussolini basicly said "give me power or else" to the Italian government. One could also argue Hitler took a similar approach (he was intimidating, but he was elected).

More examples can be found in Latin America. In Venezuela, Guatemala, Chile, and (I think) Argentina there were coups that overthrew the established (elected) governments that were governed by constitutions.

I think that if this is implemented it should be based stability and maybe overall happiness. While the fascists in Europe gained power due to instability, I think happiness should also factor in (like how much people love the government).

IDK, just my opinion.

True, just trying to make it a bit easier and condensed for Leoreth...

 

[Leoreth]

One could also argue Hitler took a similar approach (he was intimidating, but he was elected).

Not wanting to sound like the apologist German, but no, he wasn't. I see this myth too often to not point it out.

 

[Cosmos1985]

Not wanting to sound like the apologist German, but no, he wasn't. I see this myth too often to not point it out.

Well the Nazi Party got more than 30% of the votes in an election, so to say that "he was elected" isn't that absurd a statement. A stretch maybe though, not like they elected him to be supreme dictator all of a sudden. But SOME democratic mandate he had.

 

[Leoreth]

Well the Nazi Party got more than 30% of the votes in an election, so to say that "he was elected" isn't that absurd a statement. A stretch maybe though, not like they elected him to be supreme dictator all of a sudden. But SOME democratic mandate he had.

To me, election and mandate implies a majority, and I don't know how you can define democratic legitimacy any other way. The communists had a similar number of voters at the time, for example.

That of course is less a point of responsibility than technicality, though, because once Hitler was Chancellor, all of his further actions were supported at least through passive consent by the majority of Germans.

It's still a pet peeve of mine, because when Hitler was appointed Chancellor, the economy was already improving and the NSDAP declining in the polls, which quite clearly shows that his rise to power was not the consequence of popular vote.

 

[rogue131]

see I was hoping we could avoid this...usurpation and the rise of Hitler ARE two different things as Leoreth points out.

 

[Cosmos1985]

To me, election and mandate implies a majority, and I don't know how you can define democratic legitimacy any other way. The communists had a similar number of voters at the time, for example.

That of course is less a point of responsibility than technicality, though, because once Hitler was Chancellor, all of his further actions were supported at least through passive consent by the majority of Germans.

It's still a pet peeve of mine, because when Hitler was appointed Chancellor, the economy was already improving and the NSDAP declining in the polls, which quite clearly shows that his rise to power was not the consequence of popular vote.

I understood your point, and I'm not disagreeing as such, but the only statement in the original post was that he was elected, and that is to me not necessarily untrue. "The current prime minister of Denmark was elected" - that is not really a controversial statement to me, and her party got even less votes than the nazis did in that election. Yeah, a few differences of course But anyway. A word on words, and I dont think we disagree about the substance really.

 

[Leoreth]

Yeah, we better stop this tangent now

 

[Barak]

Any idea when 1.9 will be released?

 

[Leoreth]

No. Not very soon though.

 

[rogue131]

waiting...

 

[rogue131]

Yeah, we better stop this tangent now

 

[OnlySigurd]

Hey Leoreth, long time lurker, first time poster. Just wanted to get my intro/thanks out of the way, and here seemed as good a place as any. When BTS came out I played RFC so much that it got to the point where I don't feel right playing a reg Civ IV game but after taking a break for awhile I was disappointed when the Rhye wiki was dead. But then I found DoC Thanks so much for the awesome additions and changes (especially the Religion/Resource/Civic reqs for some wonders, makes it a lot more interesting). I'm more than ready be an abused beta tester

 

[Leoreth]

Great, nice to hear you like it Welcome to active posting

 

[srpt]

here is the Canadian content. settler map and city name map in spreadsheet form and a WBS with flags showing suggested terrain changes, as shown in the picture. a couple of notes:

the shores of the Hudson bay are desolate. there are no towns above 10,000 people probably. hence the marsh at the south end. I would almost add that ice at the top just to keep the continent from being settled from there, even in the fur trade days the St. Lawrence was the more important route.

there are 3 cities over 500,000 people between Toronto and Vancouver: Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton, which are indicated on the map. I gave those sites, and only those, a 400 on the settler map. there are some 150s and lots of 90s as well.

the triangle between those 3 cities is mostly prime farmland, fading to ranching in the drier southwest. west of Winnipeg it approaches "black earth" quality. even 8 hours drive north of Edmonton they farm wheat.

the Canadian Rockies shouldn't be impassable as they are. our railroad reached the Pacific 16 years after the American. central British Columbia (peaks on Rhye's map) is cattle ranching country.

you could add a late-spawning oil (or unlocked by a tech like the Viking ocean/coast) in Alberta to represent the oilsands. they are geopolitically significant these days. maybe it would unbalance the American UHV, but we are their number one supplier now I think.

 

[Leoreth]

Looks good, thanks!

 

[civ_king]

here is the Canadian content. settler map and city name map in spreadsheet form and a WBS with flags showing suggested terrain changes, as shown in the picture. a couple of notes:

the shores of the Hudson bay are desolate. there are no towns above 10,000 people probably. hence the marsh at the south end. I would almost add that ice at the top just to keep the continent from being settled from there, even in the fur trade days the St. Lawrence was the more important route.

there are 3 cities over 500,000 people between Toronto and Vancouver: Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton, which are indicated on the map. I gave those sites, and only those, a 400 on the settler map. there are some 150s and lots of 90s as well.

the triangle between those 3 cities is mostly prime farmland, fading to ranching in the drier southwest. west of Winnipeg it approaches "black earth" quality. even 8 hours drive north of Edmonton they farm wheat.

the Canadian Rockies shouldn't be impassable as they are. our railroad reached the Pacific 16 years after the American. central British Columbia (peaks on Rhye's map) is cattle ranching country.

you could add a late-spawning oil (or unlocked by a tech like the Viking ocean/coast) in Alberta to represent the oilsands. they are geopolitically significant these days. maybe it would unbalance the American UHV, but we are their number one supplier now I think.

There should be some wheat and cattle in that area (otherwise Canada wouldn't have any on the map and that'd be weird).

Good job at enabling a Canadian national Railway.

For the oil I recommend it being either 1S or 1SE of the ice lake (that's Lake Athabasca!). Canada accounts for ~1/4 of the US's crude oil imports and it gets bigger by year (in '05 it was ~16%, in '11 it was ~24%).

 

[ImNotHere]

here is the Canadian content. settler map and city name map in spreadsheet form and a WBS with flags showing suggested terrain changes, as shown in the picture. a couple of notes:

the shores of the Hudson bay are desolate. there are no towns above 10,000 people probably. hence the marsh at the south end. I would almost add that ice at the top just to keep the continent from being settled from there, even in the fur trade days the St. Lawrence was the more important route.

there are 3 cities over 500,000 people between Toronto and Vancouver: Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton, which are indicated on the map. I gave those sites, and only those, a 400 on the settler map. there are some 150s and lots of 90s as well.

the triangle between those 3 cities is mostly prime farmland, fading to ranching in the drier southwest. west of Winnipeg it approaches "black earth" quality. even 8 hours drive north of Edmonton they farm wheat.

the Canadian Rockies shouldn't be impassable as they are. our railroad reached the Pacific 16 years after the American. central British Columbia (peaks on Rhye's map) is cattle ranching country.

you could add a late-spawning oil (or unlocked by a tech like the Viking ocean/coast) in Alberta to represent the oilsands. they are geopolitically significant these days. maybe it would unbalance the American UHV, but we are their number one supplier now I think.

Could you also add in a Vancouver island tile where Victoria could be settled? Aside from my bias, it was also quite important in the early days of BC settlement.