wow amazing 90 YEARS! Wow for a game which ranges from 3000 BC - 2100 AD (or whatever it is); I doubt it really matters if they had control of it FOR ONLY 90 years.
Dawn of Civilization - an RFC modmod by Leoreth
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
- Status
wow amazing 90 YEARS! Wow for a game which ranges from 3000 BC - 2100 AD (or whatever it is); I doubt it really matters if they had control of it FOR ONLY 90 years.
Scandinavia is too small to accomodate 2 civs. When I was playing as the Vikings, the best cities were in Sweden (Sundsvall and Lulea), Copenhagen was big but had no production, Oslo got most of the food from Sweden. So, without Sweden, there are 2 bearable city spots, Copenhagen and Oslo. Copenhagen without production and Oslo without food. Of course, you can always found crappy cities, such as Trondheim or Bergen, just to get the resources.
So, I don't think we really need 2 civs in Scandinavia. Sweden as Viking respawn is the best idea. If we have them both, one of them would be very weak and could be easily conquered by the second.
Also, could you make Stockholm more powerful? Because Kalmar is now a much better choice.
So, I don't think we really need 2 civs in Scandinavia. Sweden as Viking respawn is the best idea. If we have them both, one of them would be very weak and could be easily conquered by the second.
Also, could you make Stockholm more powerful? Because Kalmar is now a much better choice.
Precisely the reason to merge them. If you are not okay with a unified Scandinavia, you can't be okay with the Khmer representing all South-East Asian peoples just because it's more practical that way. But then again I suppose you have taken such a stand already.
In my opinion, the Viking Huscarl is best represented as replacement for Axeman or Swordsman and Vikings in general as pirateering barbarians. The Viking era ended somewhere around 800 AD anyway, right around when Christianity became de facto religion in the region. I don't see why 2 civs should be crammed in the same region for any other reason than to shoot them both in the leg.
Yeah, a Sweden that'd consist only of Sweden proper and Finland would have next to zero production ... and they need production to fight the Russians, don't they?
Then since you are adding an extra civ to the region, then just buff up the resources in the area. Its ok to change the map a little bit! Just place some resources around Oslo and Copenhagen and Bergen, and make some Swedish cities in Finland more desirable; so that Russia will also have the hunger to invade the area. We want a "Battle for the Baltic"!
Also since your adding new civs, I would increase respawnability.
).Enlarging Europe would inevitably lead to many tiles of Western Europe being moved around (westward), and I would have to change every single overlay map (settler, wars, city names ...) accordingly. Maybe I'm ambitious, but I'm not crazy.
Maybe I can add a flatlands copper somewhere near Stockholm (that's somewhat historical), but I won't pour lots of ressources over Sweden because it currently feels quite realistic to me.
Maybe I can add a flatlands copper somewhere near Stockholm (that's somewhat historical), but I won't pour lots of ressources over Sweden because it currently feels quite realistic to me.
mechaerik
Tuturuu!
Well, if you count the Kalmar Union era, that comes to a total of 218 years, which isnt too bad (although it was under Danish control for 291 years). The Aztec Triple Alliance only lasted 196 years.
SanePerson
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2010
- Messages
- 123
Military Science is probably an appropriate placing, but that would need to be tested before it is added in (right after gunpowder).
One of the concerns I have about all these new civ additions is that playing RFC would be becoming more like playing historical (aka deterministic) scenarios, but with a much longer load time.
More civ spawns and respawns in crowded areas greatly reduce game variability. I fear that the additions of a Byzantine, a Prussian, a Swedish and an Italian spawn altogether to an already crowded Europe would make Europe's map static-- the exact same from game to game. In so many games, I could already predict the exact ranking of civs by score when I spawn.
For example, Sweden respawning from the Viking civ slot would mean it would be very hard to keep the Vikings strong beyond the Viking Age due to a harsh series of production and stability nerfs. A player who missed out on winning by UHVs is essentially facing a rest of the game rigged against him/her soley because the game wants that player to die for the mere reason that a separate tough Sweden could spawn from their death. None of the player's actions as the Viking from 600-1200AD would have macrohistorical impact upon civs such as Japan or Persia. Why have such a large file that loads simulations of history across the rest of the world then? There are much better maps of Europe and many more interesting scenario features that could be included if I just wanted to play a Viking historical scenario.
I very strongly believe that in this game, less civs should represent more history. And that civs should only be included if they have a chance of making changes of macrohistorical importance.
In the example with Vikings, rather than having two civs, there should just be one Scandinavian civ. That one Scandinavian civ would represent, through dynamic naming, Vikings initially and Sweden later on. That one civ would have multiple unique units (like one from the Viking era and one during the Enlightenment) and win by achieving 3 of 4 possible UHVs (2 matching pinnacles of Viking achievement, 2 matching pinnacles of Swedish Empire achievements). Production and stability boost would exist during the Viking age, then again during the Swedish Empire's "time of great power". After researching a certain technology, they could even have a 2 or 3 units spawned at their capital to help jumpstart the Scandinavian reemergence as a great power as Sweden.
This idea of combining successor civs could work for other civs in a likewise manner:
-in 3000BC start, combine Greece (or Rome) with Byzantines (pick 3 out of 4 possible UHVs to win; 2 UHVs matching Greek achievements, 2 UHVs matching Byzantine achievements). In 600AD start, could just start off civ as Byzantines (with 3 UHVs matching Byzantine achievements).
-in 3000BC start combine Achaemenid Persian Empire with Safavid Persian empire. Player will have to win some Achaemenid UHVs, then lay low surviving against Arabs and Mongols, until 16th century when Safavid UHVs become available to accomplish. In 600AD start, just have player spawn try and accomplish 3 Safavid UHVs.
-combine Portugal and Brazil
-combine HRE and Austria (i think you were already planning on having them be the same civ anyway)
I think this is an easy way for one civ to represent a large breadth of history, without the game being too deterministic or too filled with annoying spawn unit/city flips that trivializes achievements made by human or AI players.
More civ spawns and respawns in crowded areas greatly reduce game variability. I fear that the additions of a Byzantine, a Prussian, a Swedish and an Italian spawn altogether to an already crowded Europe would make Europe's map static-- the exact same from game to game. In so many games, I could already predict the exact ranking of civs by score when I spawn.
For example, Sweden respawning from the Viking civ slot would mean it would be very hard to keep the Vikings strong beyond the Viking Age due to a harsh series of production and stability nerfs. A player who missed out on winning by UHVs is essentially facing a rest of the game rigged against him/her soley because the game wants that player to die for the mere reason that a separate tough Sweden could spawn from their death. None of the player's actions as the Viking from 600-1200AD would have macrohistorical impact upon civs such as Japan or Persia. Why have such a large file that loads simulations of history across the rest of the world then? There are much better maps of Europe and many more interesting scenario features that could be included if I just wanted to play a Viking historical scenario.
I very strongly believe that in this game, less civs should represent more history. And that civs should only be included if they have a chance of making changes of macrohistorical importance. In the example with Vikings, rather than having two civs, there should just be one Scandinavian civ. That one Scandinavian civ would represent, through dynamic naming, Vikings initially and Sweden later on. That one civ would have multiple unique units (like one from the Viking era and one during the Enlightenment) and win by achieving 3 of 4 possible UHVs (2 matching pinnacles of Viking achievement, 2 matching pinnacles of Swedish Empire achievements). Production and stability boost would exist during the Viking age, then again during the Swedish Empire's "time of great power". After researching a certain technology, they could even have a 2 or 3 units spawned at their capital to help jumpstart the Scandinavian reemergence as a great power as Sweden.
This idea of combining successor civs could work for other civs in a likewise manner:
-in 3000BC start, combine Greece (or Rome) with Byzantines (pick 3 out of 4 possible UHVs to win; 2 UHVs matching Greek achievements, 2 UHVs matching Byzantine achievements). In 600AD start, could just start off civ as Byzantines (with 3 UHVs matching Byzantine achievements).
-in 3000BC start combine Achaemenid Persian Empire with Safavid Persian empire. Player will have to win some Achaemenid UHVs, then lay low surviving against Arabs and Mongols, until 16th century when Safavid UHVs become available to accomplish. In 600AD start, just have player spawn try and accomplish 3 Safavid UHVs.
-combine Portugal and Brazil
-combine HRE and Austria (i think you were already planning on having them be the same civ anyway)
I think this is an easy way for one civ to represent a large breadth of history, without the game being too deterministic or too filled with annoying spawn unit/city flips that trivializes achievements made by human or AI players.
I understand your fears, but I firmly believe they are unwarranted.
I won't ever force a human player to be penalized in neither productivity nor stability. So the worst thing hitting them would be another civ respawn in their land if it has a different slot (slots with its civ alive obviously can't respawn). And a spawning civ isn't an unstoppable enemy, they can be dealt with if necessary.
The UHVs will still be designed to stay unhampered by any change this modmod will bring forth.
All in all, I want to add diversity to the game, both in available challenges (new civs with new UHVs) and in a more alive world. It's not about forcing history down one player's throat at all.
I won't ever force a human player to be penalized in neither productivity nor stability. So the worst thing hitting them would be another civ respawn in their land if it has a different slot (slots with its civ alive obviously can't respawn). And a spawning civ isn't an unstoppable enemy, they can be dealt with if necessary.
The UHVs will still be designed to stay unhampered by any change this modmod will bring forth.
All in all, I want to add diversity to the game, both in available challenges (new civs with new UHVs) and in a more alive world. It's not about forcing history down one player's throat at all.
A few suggestions/remarks:
Started a game off as the Arabs, and I have to say I was quite pleased with everything, the game seems to run really well. Love the civics redo, it looks A LOT better now; but here are some suggestions:
1. Consider having pre-set civics for civilizations at the start of the game; kind of like what Embryodead does for SoI, so that the player doesn't have to go through 4 turns of anarchy (like I did
), just to get his civics ready. It might seem like quite a bit of work, but I know how to change starting civics, so if you wanted, I could do it for you, and send it to you; since I made the suggestion.
2. Linked to the above one; I founded Islam, BUT I had to wait 5 turns to convert, so please, can I help you implement the above suggestion
Also
3. When Islam spreads, have it erase Zoroastrianism, as it is no longer a prevalent religion in the world, nor are there a significant amount of Zoroastrians in Shiraz today, or even back then after the Arab conquests. Its like having Buddhism spread to California, to represent the small amount of Buddhists in the country
If you don't know how to implement this; I know Corosoll would know.
4. LOVE THE NEW longer Medieval Era! Also consider having Damascus included in this game. I don't know if I've recommended it here already; but moving Alexandretta, and instead having Antioch, makes a world the difference. Also for those of us who love building Baghdad, could you please move the Stone one tile left; so that we can have an ideal Baghdad spot between the two rivers?
More on the way; just have a "surprise" dentist appointment, to go to!
Started a game off as the Arabs, and I have to say I was quite pleased with everything, the game seems to run really well. Love the civics redo, it looks A LOT better now; but here are some suggestions:
1. Consider having pre-set civics for civilizations at the start of the game; kind of like what Embryodead does for SoI, so that the player doesn't have to go through 4 turns of anarchy (like I did
), just to get his civics ready. It might seem like quite a bit of work, but I know how to change starting civics, so if you wanted, I could do it for you, and send it to you; since I made the suggestion.2. Linked to the above one; I founded Islam, BUT I had to wait 5 turns to convert, so please, can I help you implement the above suggestion
Also
3. When Islam spreads, have it erase Zoroastrianism, as it is no longer a prevalent religion in the world, nor are there a significant amount of Zoroastrians in Shiraz today, or even back then after the Arab conquests. Its like having Buddhism spread to California, to represent the small amount of Buddhists in the country
If you don't know how to implement this; I know Corosoll would know.
4. LOVE THE NEW longer Medieval Era! Also consider having Damascus included in this game. I don't know if I've recommended it here already; but moving Alexandretta, and instead having Antioch, makes a world the difference. Also for those of us who love building Baghdad, could you please move the Stone one tile left; so that we can have an ideal Baghdad spot between the two rivers?
More on the way; just have a "surprise" dentist appointment, to go to!
Yeah, the medieval civs really should start with their conventional set of civics. It's really no problem for me to add this in, but thanks nonethelessA few suggestions/remarks:
Started a game off as the Arabs, and I have to say I was quite pleased with everything, the game seems to run really well. Love the civics redo, it looks A LOT better now; but here are some suggestions:
1. Consider having pre-set civics for civilizations at the start of the game; kind of like what Embryodead does for SoI, so that the player doesn't have to go through 4 turns of anarchy (like I did
Well, historically, Zoroastrianism did survive quite unbothered until the 11th century (iirc). But maybe representing that would be a bit too precise, and I'll better include removal of non-state religions to Arabia's UP.3. When Islam spreads, have it erase Zoroastrianism, as it is no longer a prevalent religion in the world, nor are there a significant amount of Zoroastrians in Shiraz today, or even back then after the Arab conquests. Its like having Buddhism spread to California, to represent the small amount of Buddhists in the country
If you don't know how to implement this; I know Corosoll would know.
I could rename Alexandretta -> Antiocheia. No idea how to fit Damascus in as well.
It's actually no problem to found Baghdad on the stone, it's not a bad resource to settle on.
I hope it didn't hurt
Am waiting already.Ok, I attached a map of what it could look like at the beginning of the game. Pleaes ignore the river delete, which I did on accident, and of course forget about the random Lion . Also you can move around the wine, to be on the hill, rather then Antioch sitting on it. Also PLEASE consider moving the stone; JUST for the 600AD start, PLEASE! Its very easy to do (as you know), and it wouldn't hinder the game that much!
Also I would suggest having Damascus flip to the Arabs with a Palace, that way, they'd put more influence in the region, rather then in the dead expanses of Makka (which wasn't their capital at all, it was Medina, and it wasn't their capital for long anyways)
Also I don't know if you have, but you should move the Turkish starting capital to Iconium (Konya), as that was the "Seljuk's" capital, which they do kind of represent. Overall though, just think of SoI
But anyways, more comments on the way.....
. Also you can move around the wine, to be on the hill, rather then Antioch sitting on it. Also PLEASE consider moving the stone; JUST for the 600AD start, PLEASE! Its very easy to do (as you know), and it wouldn't hinder the game that much! Also I would suggest having Damascus flip to the Arabs with a Palace, that way, they'd put more influence in the region, rather then in the dead expanses of Makka (which wasn't their capital at all, it was Medina, and it wasn't their capital for long anyways)
Also I don't know if you have, but you should move the Turkish starting capital to Iconium (Konya), as that was the "Seljuk's" capital, which they do kind of represent. Overall though, just think of SoI
But anyways, more comments on the way.....
Attachments
The problem with your map is that you'd end up with three crappy cities in Outremer, rather than two mildly useful ones. And isn't Antioch a bit too much north?
The Turks clearly don't represent the Seljuks, else they would spawn much earlier. They're clearly meant to be Ottomans, who spawning in Konya wouldn't make much sense. But I'd also like to get rid of Sögüt ... would it be too much of a stretch to rename it Bursa?
The Turks clearly don't represent the Seljuks, else they would spawn much earlier. They're clearly meant to be Ottomans, who spawning in Konya wouldn't make much sense. But I'd also like to get rid of Sögüt ... would it be too much of a stretch to rename it Bursa?
Why would they be 3 crappy cities? I've actually done this for my original mod, and I moved around a few resources, and they were fine! Plus having Damascus AND Antioch is SOO much better then having Alexandretta and Sogot!
Also I'm finding that EVEN though the Persians now have their own religion, (plus holy city), they are still quite weak! And they still have not conquered Babylon! At least this is what I'm seeing from my game
Also now that Zoroastrianism, has been introduced, can you stop Hinduism from spreading to the Middle East? And have it hard for Buddhism to spread too much into Persia? Because currently the game is a bit ridiculous, with a Hindu Babylon and Buddhist Shush!
Finally, why was I attacked by a barb horse archer in the Bronze Age, in NORTH AFRICA (Qart-Hadasht)??? I think you should definitely revise the barbs, as horse archers seem really misplaced, especially nomadic looking ones, in North africa
Also I'm finding that EVEN though the Persians now have their own religion, (plus holy city), they are still quite weak! And they still have not conquered Babylon! At least this is what I'm seeing from my game
Also now that Zoroastrianism, has been introduced, can you stop Hinduism from spreading to the Middle East? And have it hard for Buddhism to spread too much into Persia? Because currently the game is a bit ridiculous, with a Hindu Babylon and Buddhist Shush!
Finally, why was I attacked by a barb horse archer in the Bronze Age, in NORTH AFRICA (Qart-Hadasht)??? I think you should definitely revise the barbs, as horse archers seem really misplaced, especially nomadic looking ones, in North africa
- Status
