Protestantism should be able to brutally drive out Catholicism ex. Kulturampf
Dawn of Civilization - an RFC modmod by Leoreth
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
- Status
Sandmonster1989
Knights Templar
I've played many games where I converted to Protestantism at the time of the Reformation, and the religion completely replaces my Catholics in all cities except one (usually my cap but not always), and in other games, the two co-existed. What drives the behavior of this?
And Leoreth, I'm wondering if you've looked into changed the territories of the HRE on spawn to exclude cities around Estonia/Latvia, Doresdat, and Jellings (which, like I posted earlier, is a city clearly in Denmark).
And Leoreth, I'm wondering if you've looked into changed the territories of the HRE on spawn to exclude cities around Estonia/Latvia, Doresdat, and Jellings (which, like I posted earlier, is a city clearly in Denmark).
KaiserKevin
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2009
- Messages
- 152
I don't know how much work it would be but what about giving each civ a unique wonder instead of a second UA?
Making Rome build 'Imperial Highway' makes more sense to me than them just having it from the get-go.
Making Rome build 'Imperial Highway' makes more sense to me than them just having it from the get-go.
Orka
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2010
- Messages
- 106
I was wondering, for the scripted capital changes, is Mongolia on the table? Moving to Beijing in 1270 makes sense, but since the Mongol civ would probably represent all Mongolian territories (if you go ahead and extend their spawn zone), I presume that's why you don't seem to be planning any capital changes?
Changing them to Khanbaliq actually makes sense.
It's not much, but my first little success:
They lack expanding into Gaul now and the performance against the barbarians is weak, but at least they dare attacking Greece now. I also had a lot games where they had Carthago.
Persia also looks better, they attack own Babylon more often now (this time it's razed, though). They still don't dare to attack the Levant though, presumably because I've made it belonging to Europe to aid Phoenicia's expansion. I will change the whole area of the classical world (basically Europe + North Africa + the Alexandrian Empire) to Europe in the future, so that will also get fixed.
I also removed Gordion and Hattusas and replaced them with barbarian spawns to still represent the Hittites. They seem to harass Babylonia more and stop them from expanding too much. Greece on the other hand now likes to settle in Anatolia.
It's not much, but my first little success:
Spoiler :
They lack expanding into Gaul now and the performance against the barbarians is weak, but at least they dare attacking Greece now. I also had a lot games where they had Carthago.
Persia also looks better, they attack own Babylon more often now (this time it's razed, though). They still don't dare to attack the Levant though, presumably because I've made it belonging to Europe to aid Phoenicia's expansion. I will change the whole area of the classical world (basically Europe + North Africa + the Alexandrian Empire) to Europe in the future, so that will also get fixed.
I also removed Gordion and Hattusas and replaced them with barbarian spawns to still represent the Hittites. They seem to harass Babylonia more and stop them from expanding too much. Greece on the other hand now likes to settle in Anatolia.
jammerculture
Prince
I don't really know how these things work in game terms so take my suggestions with this in mind.
Need to be careful with barbs since they tend to raze cities. In reality, Phoenicians were great colonizers. Their city sites were the seed for future civ's cities. I think it is their unhistorical behavior, probably because of the continental divide, that causes much of the problem. Under best case (historic) scenario, Phoenicia would colonize most of the med and Anatolia, which would set up the conquest later by Greece, Persia and Rome. Maybe Phoenicia needs to be removed as a civ entirely (not sure anyone would miss it), and instead pre-placed independent cities would represent these early people's. If Rome could be coded to have extreme aggression towards independants.....
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/AntikeGriechen1.jpg
Agreed, Anatolia is too small. not sure if anything can be done about this without severely changing the map.
There has to be something that gets the AI to continue conquest in the right directions. Getting them to conquer that first city might be hard enough, so a spawn at borders might work. I think to be most realistic though, it should be an army that spawns after initial conquest revolt passes. Definitely has to be something that forces the AI to use the troops at the front, so I think spawning at capital is a no go.
agreed. Would it be possible for barbs that take and keep a city, to turn into independents? This is really what happened in ancient times as barbarians moved into areas and then attempted to put down roots
Great idea. You could follow SOI's lead on this. Have companies founded in cities where certain conditions are met. I think it would have to be more then just the resources though. You should have to have trade relationships (open borders) with other civs to get the bonus. Maybe the bonus could grow with the number of open borders you have. So maybe if you are a city on the silk road that has silk, then you get gold bonus for every other civ on the road you have open borders with, and they get silk if they have open borders with you. I have always felt that the options don't really exist in this game if you wanted to be a "merchant" civ.
My latest Rome game, I attempted to do so by only building barracks, legions and catapults. Couldn't make it work. I don't really think RFC was designed with the early civs in mind. I think it will be very hard under the current framework to make it work as it should. We almost need an entirely separate mod for the ancient world. (hint, hint, wink wink)
I think one of the problems is that RFC uses the civs from vanilla civ. These were all chosen and designed to live side by side. RFC didn't really change this, except for the small handful of ancient civs which were designed to exist more or less in isolation then die out to be replaced with later civs that would exist for the rest of the game. The ancient world really needs a mechanic more like SoI, where a Phoenician/Semitic/Sumerian world is supplanted by a Perisan/Hellenistic world which is then supplanted by a Roman world. I am not sure if this is possible without changing timeframe and map and probably adding civs to populate this map. (i.e. a new mod)
Basically what I am saying Leoreth that you may be opening up a huge can of worms for yourself, and you might be better off finishing off the great work you have started making medieval/renaissance Europe as great as possible, since the framework of the existing mod allows for these adaptations much easier, then attempting to tweak an ancient world that was never designed to function as anything other then a bunch of self contained mini UHV's which have little or no bearing to the future game.
Also, have you thought about what changing Rome's behaviour could do for later civs? In particular, city placement in the ancient age does not always match up with optimal or historic city placement of later civs. A stronger Rome could create a situation later where later civs are handicapped based on Roman city placement. For example, currently Europe is wiped clean by the barbs before french/German/Italian spawns. A German spawn with Aemon Julia still around would suck as it would take away from Wien or Budapest.
Sorry for being so monosyllabic at the moment, I'm quite busy.
I'm aware that touching on the classical world means opening a can of worms, but if I am to include a Byzantine civ then I at least have to put an effort into creating a more realistic situation in 330 AD. It just detracts from the game when you spawn as a Roman successor civ and then you border Greece, Phoenicia and Babylonia.
Another great problem is Babylonia at the moment. If they don't die at Persia's initial spawn, they become insanely powerful. 4-5 cities, stronger military than Persia ... I guess their UP is just too strong.
I'm aware that touching on the classical world means opening a can of worms, but if I am to include a Byzantine civ then I at least have to put an effort into creating a more realistic situation in 330 AD. It just detracts from the game when you spawn as a Roman successor civ and then you border Greece, Phoenicia and Babylonia.
Another great problem is Babylonia at the moment. If they don't die at Persia's initial spawn, they become insanely powerful. 4-5 cities, stronger military than Persia ... I guess their UP is just too strong.
jammerculture
Prince
Have you thought about using Embryodead's solution to these problems? i.e. barb spawns that predate civ spawns to weaken the predecessor civ? I know that there is an aversion to being too deterministic, however, in the current framework of this game (RFC), these early civ's are not meant to survive, which is already deterministic. In reality, we need the ancient age to disappear before the spawn of the early "modern" civs. Your inclusion of Byzantine, has in effect, made this transition happen even earlier. Something needs to be done to force the early civs to disappear after their UHV time-frames expire and before the "modern" era can begin. In history this was due to massive destructive migrations of "barbarian" peoples, as well as internal wars and conflict. In game terms this is enforced stability hits and barbs.
In Babylon's case, maybe their needs to be some barb spawned as Assyrians, strong enough to at least severely weaken Babylon to make room for Persia. This would remove the entire Chaldean period, however in game terms this only amounts to about 6 turns. (based on Ryhe's original timeline. Have you modified this?"
also, no apology needed. I'm pretty sure we all feel the same in that we are in your debt for doing all this work for us.
I've already increased the impact of the already implemented stability hit after the historical fall date. Seems to have worked on Phoenicia, Babylonia is still in the game with their additional city and UP economy however (I might remove the new UP again).
Currently testing the effects of a more warlike personality for Julius and Augustus.
Currently testing the effects of a more warlike personality for Julius and Augustus.
Leoreth, I've a couple questions regarding these early classical era civs.
--What do you intend for Persia to represent? Just the Achaemenids, or the Parthians and Sassanids as well? Or do you intend on representing one of the latter as an independent civ? I'm not sure how the Persian buffs work, but would it be possible to give them two periods of strength, once when they represent the Achaemenid early period of growth conquering their empire, and once again later on as the Sassanids where they will be an interesting opponent for the Byzantines to fight?
--Depending on how well changes to Rome eventually end up turning out, maybe a lot of those ideas could be similarly applied to Persia?
--Would it be possible to increase the aggression towards Pheonicia by the Babylonians, Egyptians and Persians after the AI gets their settler spawned in Carthage? That will help remove some of the clutter of civs in the Middle East, and further help an AI Persia conquer the area (ie: only need to own a Babylon that owns the Levant rather than having to fight 2 civs).
--Also do you intend on having early civs such as the Phoenicians, Egyptians, Babylonians, and Greeks (when you add the Byzantine civ) survive at all?
If not, then might I suggest, only for AI civs only, for some high percentage of games (maybe like 75% of games) that...
-their stability be severely hampered
-their AI difficulty level be reduced
-get a lot more nerfs in general
I think key to this working out is 1) for this to only apply to AI civs, since it would suck as human players to have to deal with essentially a deterministic removal from the game and 2) to NOT make this happen to every one of these anachronistic civs every game to preserve some freshness in every game.
--What do you intend for Persia to represent? Just the Achaemenids, or the Parthians and Sassanids as well? Or do you intend on representing one of the latter as an independent civ? I'm not sure how the Persian buffs work, but would it be possible to give them two periods of strength, once when they represent the Achaemenid early period of growth conquering their empire, and once again later on as the Sassanids where they will be an interesting opponent for the Byzantines to fight?
--Depending on how well changes to Rome eventually end up turning out, maybe a lot of those ideas could be similarly applied to Persia?
--Would it be possible to increase the aggression towards Pheonicia by the Babylonians, Egyptians and Persians after the AI gets their settler spawned in Carthage? That will help remove some of the clutter of civs in the Middle East, and further help an AI Persia conquer the area (ie: only need to own a Babylon that owns the Levant rather than having to fight 2 civs).
--Also do you intend on having early civs such as the Phoenicians, Egyptians, Babylonians, and Greeks (when you add the Byzantine civ) survive at all?
If not, then might I suggest, only for AI civs only, for some high percentage of games (maybe like 75% of games) that...
-their stability be severely hampered
-their AI difficulty level be reduced
-get a lot more nerfs in general
I think key to this working out is 1) for this to only apply to AI civs, since it would suck as human players to have to deal with essentially a deterministic removal from the game and 2) to NOT make this happen to every one of these anachronistic civs every game to preserve some freshness in every game.
I have recreated the Roman Empire in its full extend before 200AD, while doing the UHVs (basic RFC), so it is definetly doable (proof). In RFCDawn I have managed to capture Babylon in turn 125 and my early conquest of Greece was a total disaster, because all the Phalanxes were in Athens. This campaign also ended in historical victory.
IMO it would be great that there was a UHV condition for them requiring the completion of their empire. It should be very difficult to achieve, a sort of ultimate test for RFC players.
I have recreated the Roman Empire in its full extend before 200AD, while doing the UHVs (basic RFC), so it is definetly doable (proof). In RFCDawn I have managed to capture Babylon in turn 125 and my early conquest of Greece was a total disaster, because all the Phalanxes were in Athens. This campaign also ended in historical victory.
IMO it would be great that there was a UHV condition for them requiring the completion of their empire. It should be very difficult to achieve, a sort of ultimate test for RFC players.
Haha. Quite a difficult ultimate test indeed. I'd be all for making it really easy for the AI the recreate the Roman empire through a combination of making an AI-controlled Rome much stronger and AI opponents of Rome much weaker. In general, having a historical Roman empire would help clear out a lot of the ancient age civs cluttered around the Mediterranean prior to the European and Arab civ spawns. Maybe Leoreth's new Byzantine civ can help out with that as well.
jammerculture
Prince
I have recreated the Roman Empire in its full extend before 200AD, while doing the UHVs (basic RFC), so it is definetly doable (proof). In RFCDawn I have managed to capture Babylon in turn 125 and my early conquest of Greece was a total disaster, because all the Phalanxes were in Athens. This campaign also ended in historical victory.
IMO it would be great that there was a UHV condition for them requiring the completion of their empire. It should be very difficult to achieve, a sort of ultimate test for RFC players.
I have also recreated a Roman Empire on basic RFC, although without the building UHV accomplishment (seriously man, how the hell you pulled that off is beyond me....), however, DoC is another animal entirely. As well, a major hurdle is to make these adjustments work for both the human and AI as well, in order to create the proper setup for future civ spawns. In basic RFC this is not a problem as there aren't really any civ's that spawn on top of each other. Leoreth's plans with Italy, then Byzantium and possibly Prussia, later Persia etc creates new problems as these are civs that spawn on top of older civs to supplant them entirely. In these cases if the AI does not create the proper conditions for this to occur more often then not, then it is all wasted. In a way this game is two separate games combined, an ancient civ game with UHV conditions that are accomplished before the second game starts (modern civs). Just like in history, a "dark ages" needs to exist between these two to erase what was done in the ancient era or else the modern era can not exist properly.
I have just completed two games as Phoenicia to see what would happen if the civ existed historically. In both I settled North Africa and the tip of Italy historically which led to conflict with Rome. But Rome could do nothing to mount any kind of invasion to me and eventually collapsed. For Rome to exist historically they need to:
1)conquer all of historic Phoenicia, Greece and Egypt.
2)conquer all of the independant/celtic cities in Iberia, and Gaul
3)Weaken throughout early BC due to barbarians
4)collapse only to have the eastern portion respawn as Byzantine, and the western portion be razed in preparation for France, Germany, Spain and Italy
How to accomplish this in the game is beyond me
that's why they pay you the big bucks
Orka
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2010
- Messages
- 106
With all this discussion on how to help the Roman AI be able to conquer its historical empire, keep in mind that we could just have "hard" scripted events. Of course, they would only apply to the AI. Given all the hoops we have to jump through to soft-code in Roman dominance, this may be the most practical option for tough spots.
The scripted events could be probabilistic or conditional, to prevent the game from becoming too deterministic. For example, if unstable or collapsing, Egypt automatically falls to Rome. A pop-up could state something like "A Roman traitor has escaped to Egypt, conspiring with its ruler to overthrow the Empire. Fortunately, Roman legions have defeated them; Egypt is now in Roman hands!"
Scripted events could also guide the Western Empire to its collapse. A emperor succession crisis event could lead to a section of the empire seceding, making collapse more likely (and also preventing Rome from becoming runaway due to having so many good cities, which has happened in my games before).
The scripted events could be probabilistic or conditional, to prevent the game from becoming too deterministic. For example, if unstable or collapsing, Egypt automatically falls to Rome. A pop-up could state something like "A Roman traitor has escaped to Egypt, conspiring with its ruler to overthrow the Empire. Fortunately, Roman legions have defeated them; Egypt is now in Roman hands!"
Scripted events could also guide the Western Empire to its collapse. A emperor succession crisis event could lead to a section of the empire seceding, making collapse more likely (and also preventing Rome from becoming runaway due to having so many good cities, which has happened in my games before).
Big bucks? Where do I get them?
The personality changes for the Roman LHs was very promising. I just had a game where they controlled Aelia Capitolia (Jerusalem), whole Gallia and Greece. Phoenicia was close to collapsing and Egypt and Babylonia already dead. We're already CLOSE to something that looks close enough to real history in the Eastern Mediterranean.
If we also add a new expansionist Roman UP, removed continent barriers and some conquerable cities in Spain into the mix, it might even be sufficient. I have a good feeling about this currently, at least we're getting somewhere
I think Achaemenids until Sassanids basically (they live long enough anyway). I don't know if they need any dynamic buffs to impersonate that, currently they seem to be doing fine. Byzantium (often) spawns at war with them, and that's definitely with the Sassanid wars in mind. Once I find a way to make them conquer Phoenicia more often there's even room for real conflict.
I also plan to add Persia to the 600 AD scenario as an unplayable (because their UHV can't be won) civ to picture the Sassanids better.
Persia isn't doing that bad, once the continent barrier is removed I hope they should expand until the Levant regularly, which is fine by me. If not, some little AI personality tweaks should do the trick--Depending on how well changes to Rome eventually end up turning out, maybe a lot of those ideas could be similarly applied to Persia?
Again, I hope the removed continent barrier will already fix that.
Well, as already said, the best tool we have for such thing is stability, because that's what RFC is about and is also historical. My current "stability hit after a certain date" mechanic is exactly what we were looking for; it doesn't apply to the player, only strikes when appropriate (the threshold date is usually the time they collapsed in history) and can be avoided when in a good situation. After I've increased its impact, things seem to be going fine; I haven't tested its effects on the lategame yet, though.
Yeah, I agree. Ideally, changes should be made to Roman UUs, UPs, UBs, UHVs and buffs to make a human player, playing very smartly, to achieve the historical Roman empire. In that same ideal world, more soft coding helping a computer Roman civ, and hurting computer civs historically conquered by Rome would help out the AI enough.
If neither of those ideas are enough, then hard coding probabilistic events should be the way to go.
Regarding continents, are there any down sides to just having one massive continent that encompasses Europe and the Middle East? If so, would just moving a continent from somewhere unimportant at this time in history such as South America or Australia, give you more flexibility to do more with continents?
Also would it be possible to overlap continents? For instance, have a continent called
-"Rome": encompassing Western Europe (minus northern Europe), Balkans, North Africa, Egypt and the Levant
-"Persia": encompassing the Iranian plateau, Mesopotamia, Egypt and the Levant
so Egypt and the Levant would be in both the "Rome" and "Persia" continents?
Sandmonster1989
Knights Templar
If you are still worried about having the Romans reach places fast enough (if you are changing their UP still), why not give Legions 2 movement instead of the usual 1?
- Status
