Dawn of Civilization - an RFC modmod by Leoreth
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
- Status
embryodead
Caliph
There are several ways to deal with the city ruins problem, one is to make sure the player is revived by a unit first, before it gets any cities. I'm not sure if it will work right for human player, so if it doesn't, you can force graphical update in the DLL, i.e. look at the CvPlayer:setCurrentEra and "dirty all of this player's cities" loop in particular. The same has to be done with the flag and units, if Italy is to be human controlled. I didn't manage to do unit update properly but didn't really tried it, as I use dynamic civs for non-playable civs only.
I hoped you had some insight into this, thanks. I'll see what I can get out of the DLL.
I consider myself more of an RFC player now, rather than a Civ player. So I'll stay playing and modding RFC.
If you can live with many Roman artifacts and missing UP and UHV, then it'll be playable as soon as I got the above problem sorted out.
Massive wall of quotes incoming 
For the UHV, I was thinking about:
The UP is difficult. Possibilities:
Byzantine Diplomacy: I like SoI's take on it very much; it's both a good historical representation and also heaps of fun. As already said, the UP would have to be tweaked a little because Byzantium has less cities on a world map.
Mercenaries: Phoenicia will lose that power soon, so it would be available. Historically, that UP fits the army of the late Empire.
Themata: Another possible military UP. It could give +2 recruitments per turn, representing the Byzantine themata system.
I'm not too positive to carrying over the UP from RFCE. Even if we take Greece and Anatolia as core, it's only 3-4 cities including Constantinople that are kept from collapse. It's not that great of a power.
But they really called the building Big Ben? That's even worse than the Kremlin/Basil's Cathedral fiasco from Civ4
You're right, I completely forgot about that. Will add it before the next release.
That were my exactly my thoughts as well.
What do you mean by "moving tiles around"? I didn't have a good idea for their new UP, yet, though.
UU and UB will be Cataphract and Hippodrome, as usual.
For the UHV, I was thinking about:
- Have X gold in 1000 AD (the value of X would have to be balanced to be challenging yet possible)
- Make Constantinopolis the biggest and culturally most advanced city in the world in 1200 AD
- Control 3 cities in Europe, Africa and Asia in 1450 AD (ahistorical; resisting Turks and Arabs)
The UP is difficult. Possibilities:
Byzantine Diplomacy: I like SoI's take on it very much; it's both a good historical representation and also heaps of fun. As already said, the UP would have to be tweaked a little because Byzantium has less cities on a world map.
Mercenaries: Phoenicia will lose that power soon, so it would be available. Historically, that UP fits the army of the late Empire.
Themata: Another possible military UP. It could give +2 recruitments per turn, representing the Byzantine themata system.
I'm not too positive to carrying over the UP from RFCE. Even if we take Greece and Anatolia as core, it's only 3-4 cities including Constantinople that are kept from collapse. It's not that great of a power.
Protestantism's impact is definitely greater than Orthodoxy, and having three Christian confessions feels somewhat blurted. I could imagine some kind of negative diplomacy modifier or even a schism event, though.
I agree here. And that's although I've already thought of a interesting UHV for the Polynesians
Exactly. I first thought it had something to do with RFCM, but there is no such problem. I'm currently lost on what's causing it.
They're clearly stealing our ideas. Should we file a lawsuit?Looks like Firaxis was thinking the same thing when they designed the Big Ben for Civ V. They share the same effect with Westminster.
But they really called the building Big Ben? That's even worse than the Kremlin/Basil's Cathedral fiasco from Civ4
I've noticed that as well. My current guess is that my civic modifications have made it easier to get positive stability out of them (many civs tend to survive longer in DoC in my impression). To counter this, I've implemented a "fall" date for every civ now, after which it suffers worse stability. Super-Arabia is now less likely from my experience. Civic stability might still get a rebalance effort.
Well, that's odd, and I also have no idea what could cause this. Maybe it's coincidence after all?
Finally someone who appreciates WienOh yeah, and I love Wien as Germany's capital. Maybe not in 3000 BC start but at least in the 600 AD one it creates a nice "border" city to oppose the Byzantine culture. Good choice, also blocks the threat of German Poland.
That's mostly Rhye's doing, to be fair. Since he's included a settler galley in their spawn, they tend to behave a lot more historically.PS: The Vikings also control Aarhus a fair amount of time as well. Looks like all they needed was a push in the right direction.
Your "3 cities in all three continents" idea is very good, although it'd be embarassingly easy if you settled only the Balkans, Africa's northwestern coast and like, 3 cities between Russia and Afghanistan (easily accomplished by 1450 AD); there'd be no competition. Maybe the areas could be specified more strictly, like "3 cities in Italy+Balkans, 3 cities in Levant, 3 cities in Egypt". That would theoretically make them a mini-Turkey.
Actually, nevermind.
But they really called the building Big Ben? That's even worse than the Kremlin/Basil's Cathedral fiasco from Civ4
Which they didn't see appropriate to fix in Civ5, either.
Well, Viking Berserks were just as small minority of the army as Praetorians were and never wore spikes on their helmets for obvious reasons, so what can we expect...
I guess when you make it big, it's more a matter of making an entertaining expression than historical accuracy.Spoiler :
I didn't say I didn't like it, but I suppose that's inevitable.
I always hated receiving destability just because "you're not supposed to be around anymore, what are you doing here?"Are you sure they couldn't just receive a little adjustment in the leader personality and a few extra Janissars? I always got the idea Mehmed was more expansionist than militaristic leader, could be mistaken though.
Anyway, I'm against punishing the player (AI or not) for merely surviving until a certain era.
If it keeps happening, I'll WB a spy to infiltrate their secrets for us.
The betterment of your mod weighs more than their national security.Finally someone who appreciates Wien
Personally I don't understand why it's received so much hate. If people wanted historical capitals, China would be landlocked (mountainlocked?) in Xi'an, USA would start at 1 tile NE from Washington at Philadelphia, Spain would be condemned with Léon at 2 SW from Madrid, and so on. What's the big deal? The capitals are there to serve a gameplay purpose. Luoyand and Xi'an aren't as good in practice as they are on paper, so give them some slack.
Wien's good at being... I guess you could call it 'plot device'. It serves its purpose well.Didn't that already happen a few updates back with no visible effects? You can't deny situating them at a crossroad where they have the option to go anywhere wouldn't have improved the situation.
Still, Rhye's final update did a number on AI's unpredictability. Russian New Orleans and Mongol Japan inspire us all.
In Civ terms, he truly would be a 'Great Person'. There was something I liked to address as well. I requested a while back that you add Ethiopia in 600 AD start, are you still feeling up to it? I think it would make for interesting politics.
SanePerson
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2010
- Messages
- 123
You should make Rhye an Italian/Roman GE.
IMO he is better as a GA
MessageMan
Prince
- Joined
- May 9, 2010
- Messages
- 346
Scrap those, Rhye could be the Italian UU.
I like this idea. Hilarious.
Or if you wanted to make him more unique but still use him to do battle make him a Great General.
KMRblue1027
Deity
One of the reasons I don't like Wein is because it is way too close to Venice and it prevents good Budapest from being any good.
I exactly wanted to avoid that, but you're right, you shouldn't be able to trick your way out of confronting Arabia and Turkey.Your "3 cities in all three continents" idea is very good, although it'd be embarassingly easy if you settled only the Balkans, Africa's northwestern coast and like, 3 cities between Russia and Afghanistan (easily accomplished by 1450 AD); there'd be no competition. Maybe the areas could be specified more strictly, like "3 cities in Italy+Balkans, 3 cities in Levant, 3 cities in Egypt". That would theoretically make them a mini-Turkey.
Yeah, I know, but the penalty is not too harsh, just enough to push them over the cliff when they're already standing next to it.I didn't say I didn't like it, but I suppose that's inevitable.
Are you sure they couldn't just receive a little adjustment in the leader personality and a few extra Janissars? I always got the idea Mehmed was more expansionist than militaristic leader, could be mistaken though.
Anyway, I'm against punishing the player (AI or not) for merely surviving until a certain era.
AI behavior is one of the most mysterious aspects of the game to me; I don't even get what most of the items in the leaderhead XML affect. And I would have to get involved into AI wars etc ...
I guess the general problem is that they share a religion and tend to get along too well. I just checked and saw that Turkey gets no war on spawn on Arabia, so maybe that would already help.
It moves me to see what you're willing to sacrifice for the well-being of my modmodIf it keeps happening, I'll WB a spy to infiltrate their secrets for us.
Oh, that got completely off my radar. Let me gather some historical background to see if it's justifiable
"The Power of Rhye: All your game mods produce +100% happiness"?
I personally never cared much about Venice, but if you want Budapest, why not move your initial settler? And if you plan on founding Budapest with another civ than Germany, I can only say that I'm happy to have found a way to prohibit that
haakonsfls
Chieftain
Hello
First of all I want to thank you, Leoreth, for a great modmod Not saying that Rhye's mod is not great of course (it was he who started it), but I have not played the original for some time now...
Personally I find the new civics really interesting. I am still a bit confused about what autocracy mostly represents though. Maybe it is just some different use of terms in different languages, but for me autocracy means rule by an absolute monarch or emperor (autocrat). Especially the Byzantine and Russian emperors used this title for themselves at different times. "Autocrator" is the traditional Greek translation of Latin "imperator", and the "tsars" used the title "Emperor and autocrat of all the Russias" The Russian tsarist triad of "Pravoslavie, samoderzhavie, narodnost" is also translated "Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality". Does autocracy in the game mostly represent this, or does it mostly represent more "modern" authoritarian regimes (like that of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and probably the Soviet Union (under the rule of Stalin especially)), or both of them? If it is mostly the second one, I think I would have preferred just "authoritarian" (even though I like all the "-cracies" in the civic screen), but it is of course just a personal view.
Another thing that I am confused about is which civic can cause a great depression. In-game it says in the civic screen that mercantilism (an economy civic) can cause great depression, while in the "Stability guide"-document included in the RFC-DoC folder it says that great depressions can be triggered when running capitalism (a society civic). Do both cause great depression, and does running both of them give some kind of doubled negative effect? It also says in the stability guide that if you are running mercantilism, great depressions have less effect on your stability, so if there is no stack effect, this would imply that you get a benefit from running mercantilism as well if you are planning to use capitalism. I am confused here. I am sorry if information about this is included somewhere, but I have not found anything, so I am asking you here.
I also find the idea of including Preussen really interesting, especially since the plan (as I have understood it) also includes putting more emphasize on the HRE in the early game of civ that later becomes Austria. Even though the current Germany has quite a lot of space, I do not think it will be enough for 2 civs during the late game when Preussen arrives, especially since none of the civs had any colonies of much importance, compared to almost all the other European civs. Am I right when saying that your plan is that Preussen will mostly take over the areas of Austria/Germany during the late game? I know this is what happened in real history to a large degree, but I think it at least should be possible for both of them to exist and be quite powerful at the same time. To be honest I am really hoping for some map changes. Europe is already bigger than it is in the real world, but I think it should be due to its importance. It is mostly Western Europe that has been increased in size though, and I think it is time to increase the size of Central and Eastern Europe (again depending en definition), if you want to include another important civ in that area. I guess this will be hard to do, because it might easily effect a lot of civs, but I just want to know if you have been thinking about it. One of the reasons I am asking, is that I really hope someone will some day include a Polish civ in RFC, and in my opinion map changes would be needed for that, but that is another story.
To avoid annoying you too much, I will try to force myself to submit now...
First of all I want to thank you, Leoreth, for a great modmod
Not saying that Rhye's mod is not great of course (it was he who started it), but I have not played the original for some time now...Personally I find the new civics really interesting
. I am still a bit confused about what autocracy mostly represents though. Maybe it is just some different use of terms in different languages, but for me autocracy means rule by an absolute monarch or emperor (autocrat). Especially the Byzantine and Russian emperors used this title for themselves at different times. "Autocrator" is the traditional Greek translation of Latin "imperator", and the "tsars" used the title "Emperor and autocrat of all the Russias" The Russian tsarist triad of "Pravoslavie, samoderzhavie, narodnost" is also translated "Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality". Does autocracy in the game mostly represent this, or does it mostly represent more "modern" authoritarian regimes (like that of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and probably the Soviet Union (under the rule of Stalin especially)), or both of them? If it is mostly the second one, I think I would have preferred just "authoritarian" (even though I like all the "-cracies" in the civic screen), but it is of course just a personal view. Another thing that I am confused about is which civic can cause a great depression. In-game it says in the civic screen that mercantilism (an economy civic) can cause great depression, while in the "Stability guide"-document included in the RFC-DoC folder it says that great depressions can be triggered when running capitalism (a society civic). Do both cause great depression, and does running both of them give some kind of doubled negative effect? It also says in the stability guide that if you are running mercantilism, great depressions have less effect on your stability, so if there is no stack effect, this would imply that you get a benefit from running mercantilism as well if you are planning to use capitalism. I am confused here. I am sorry if information about this is included somewhere, but I have not found anything, so I am asking you here.
I also find the idea of including Preussen really interesting, especially since the plan (as I have understood it) also includes putting more emphasize on the HRE in the early game of civ that later becomes Austria. Even though the current Germany has quite a lot of space, I do not think it will be enough for 2 civs during the late game when Preussen arrives, especially since none of the civs had any colonies of much importance, compared to almost all the other European civs. Am I right when saying that your plan is that Preussen will mostly take over the areas of Austria/Germany during the late game? I know this is what happened in real history to a large degree, but I think it at least should be possible for both of them to exist and be quite powerful at the same time. To be honest I am really hoping for some map changes. Europe is already bigger than it is in the real world, but I think it should be due to its importance. It is mostly Western Europe that has been increased in size though, and I think it is time to increase the size of Central and Eastern Europe (again depending en definition), if you want to include another important civ in that area. I guess this will be hard to do, because it might easily effect a lot of civs, but I just want to know if you have been thinking about it. One of the reasons I am asking, is that I really hope someone will some day include a Polish civ in RFC, and in my opinion map changes would be needed for that, but that is another story.
To avoid annoying you too much, I will try to force myself to submit now...
Thanks! It's always flattering to see someone make one of his first posts to comment on my workHello
First of all I want to thank you, Leoreth, for a great modmod
Well, I generally tried to label my civic as broad as possible, to "catch" as many real life forms of government as possible. Autocracy in this case would be best described as "country under the rule of a firm man without hereditary tradition", as opposed to Monarchy, which is basically the same thing, just with different justification. So in this game, I would file hereditary governments like tsars, emperors and the like under "Monarchy".Personally I find the new civics really interesting
Although my first idea for this civic were indeed those regimes you mentioned (Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Stalinist Russia), Autocracy doesn't necessarily mean oppressive. I'd also sort Napoleonic France under that civic, for example.
"Authoritarian" would also be appropriate, I think. It seems like it's only a matter of flavour here
Maybe the reason I didn't use it was that I tried to use proper nouns, and "Authoritarianism" is rather unwieldy.On the contrary, I'm sorry for not being clear enough. If you look at the places in the civic selection screen where the "causes depression" etc. notes appear, you will notice that they're exactly the same as in RFC. That's because I didn't know how to edit them when I moved all the civics around. But that's already been corrected for the next version.
So just to clarify: don't believe the ingame info text on these "RFC features". The README and version history files are right; Capitalism causes great depressions, and Mercantilism doesn't in any way (it even softens a depression's impact).
I agree that Western Europe got much of the enlargement, but sadly, the map size is something I definitely won't modify. There's just too much work to be done in accounting for that change in settlers maps, city names maps etc.
The most common outcome of Prussia's spawn should be that the HRE is forced out of Germany proper and only continues to hold Vienna and maybe some Balkan city. But I'll try my best to tweak things that it's also possible for them to survive or collapse completely. I just don't think that both of them could be formidable states at the same time, with the space available.
Posting here never annoys meTo avoid annoying you too much, I will try to force myself to submit now...
rigo92
Chieftain
There is one thing i've been thinking about, not sure how doable it is, but for the sake of historical accuracy: So far we have historical holy cities in 600 AD, islam in mecca, zoroastrinism in persia, hinduism/budhism in india, etc...
But for protestantism (although the founding date could vary, as the protestant reformation lasted quite a while, there were religious wars for some time), the holy city should be Wittenberg, as it holds the All-Saints church IRL. Now I know that founding it on the exact spot would be complicated (I don't even think Lutherstadt Wittenberg is in the game), but it doesn't necesarily have to be so, it could be founded in another city, maybe in a significant city in Saxony-Anhalt (if its even in the game) or another suitable location.
I was hoping for Prussia to spawn with protestantism, (b/c, if im not mistaken, Austria is a catholic country, as was the HRE, I think it would be somewhat more historical to make prussia, besides the usual England, vikings, etc.... to be the main protestant power) but that hope was crushed by the fact that prussia would spawn in the 1700s and the protestant reformation occurred way before that.
Hopefully leoreth, being in germany, has some insight or has at least thought about this.
But for protestantism (although the founding date could vary, as the protestant reformation lasted quite a while, there were religious wars for some time), the holy city should be Wittenberg, as it holds the All-Saints church IRL. Now I know that founding it on the exact spot would be complicated (I don't even think Lutherstadt Wittenberg is in the game), but it doesn't necesarily have to be so, it could be founded in another city, maybe in a significant city in Saxony-Anhalt (if its even in the game) or another suitable location.
I was hoping for Prussia to spawn with protestantism, (b/c, if im not mistaken, Austria is a catholic country, as was the HRE, I think it would be somewhat more historical to make prussia, besides the usual England, vikings, etc.... to be the main protestant power) but that hope was crushed by the fact that prussia would spawn in the 1700s and the protestant reformation occurred way before that.
Hopefully leoreth, being in germany, has some insight or has at least thought about this.
KMRblue1027
Deity
I personally never cared much about Venice, but if you want Budapest, why not move your initial settler? And if you plan on founding Budapest with another civ than Germany, I can only say that I'm happy to have found a way to prohibit that
I'm not allowed to found Budapest as Rome? Very ahistoical
rigo92
Chieftain
Not really, actually you can, you will just lose it later (like IRL) or you can choose to fight off the rebels.
Edit: What I said before is valid, unless budapest gets deleted on germany's spawn. Still, you can always "found" it, even if it gets erased later.
KMRblue1027
Deity
IIRC Vienna (I'm done calling it Wein) is one tile from Budapest so founding it would screw up the capitals
rigo92
Chieftain
I mentioned the "if budapest gets deleted" thing because once, playing as vikings, with my capital at copenhagen, I had already killed the germans, french and english respectively, but I had no beef with spain - spain founded "amberes" if I am not mistaken, 1 tile SW (i.e. right next to) the spot where the dutch where to spawn and found amsterdam. Well, when the dutch spawned, I literally saw the spanish city vanish for no apparent reason and the dutch just founded amsterdam as if nothing had ever happened, I would have thought amberes was going to revolt from the spanish and the dutch would have a capital on a different spot, but that obviously didn't happen. It was just weird (unless i've missed something in the programming in regards to spawns).
KMRblue1027
Deity
Hmm that's strange maybe DoC changes that behavior but in regular RFC I founded Orthad (At least I think that's what it was called) as Germany in my first RFC game on Amsterdam's spot and it just flipped for me...
- Status
