Dawn of Civilization - an RFC modmod by Leoreth

[The Turk]

It's not Blasphemy. It's Sparta.
I was trying to say that you shouldn't make stupid rules narrow your creativity. And translating a wikipedia article into CIV isn't all to creative, i'm afraid.
Aachen is (57, 51); 2 tiles south of Amsterdam. The dutch and french flip-zone should be reduced. Varanasi either (93, 39) or (94, 39), whatever you like better. Make sure to remove the jungle, though. Krakow would be at (64, 51); it's hard to tell because central europe is deformed.

Thanks a lot! I'll input these points and try to balance them from there. Thanks!

 

[Leoreth]

Spoiler :

BLASPHEMY!!!!

There's this thing called university which only lets itself be ignored for so long

The +25% science output has to come from somewhere, I guess

I would still like to test out Aachen as the German capital and Varanasi as the new Indian capital. But first things first, can ANYONE tell me where you think, Aachen and Krakow should be placed on a map? This will help me A LOT in trying to help Leoreth balance. So if anyone could give me the coordinates for the two cities that would be the best! IIRC someone said they used to build Aachen all the time, so if that person could tell me what the coordinates are, then that would help me a lot.
As for Varanasi, I will figure out the coordinates for that myself.

It's already been answered, but you could also simply have looked into the city name manager file

 

[Alexius08]

The only civ that historically was Shi'ite would be respawned Persia, so I'm not sure what the point would be with this.

As for Shi'ite Islam, it could also be an option for the Egyptians (Fatimids), and even possibly the Mongols (if they reach Persia).

Make Zoroastrianism act as Shia Islam in the Middle Ages. Problem solved.

 

[The Turk]

Make Zoroastrianism act as Shia Islam in the Middle Ages. Problem solved.

I can't believe I didn't think about that before!
Ya, why not in 600 AD start, remove Zoroastrianism and instead add in Shi'ite Islam or Orthodox Christianity (split of 1054)! Problem solved!

 

[Ekolite]

I don't think Shia Islam is neccessary. There just aren't enough civs that are regularly muslim, and not every sect and division can or needs to be represented. Orthodox Christianity has a better case for it imo, the game is already eurocentric so you don't really loose anything by making it more so. Seeing as one of the main projects going on right now is making the Byzantines playable it might make sense to add Orthodoxy as an appropriate religion for them.

 

[Leoreth]

And I don't know where those ideas like "replace X with Y in the 600 AD scenario" come from. They're different scenarios, not different games, so I think this is the wrong approach.

 

[The Turk]

And I don't know where those ideas like "replace X with Y in the 600 AD scenario" come from. They're different scenarios, not different games, so I think this is the wrong approach.

So you can't do that then? Is that what your saying?

 

[Sir Tornado]

BTW (don't know if this is a known bug or not) when France gains a city in congress (before discovery of Rifling), it comes with Musketeers. It should be regular Musketmen.

 

[Sandmonster1989]

BTW (don't know if this is a known bug or not) when France gains a city in congress (before discovery of Rifling), it comes with Musketeers. It should be regular Musketmen.

Lol. I was unaware the "musketeer" unit still existed.

Leoreth, I'm wondering if you had enacted any changes to the United Nations?

And have fun with "university"

 

[Leoreth]

So you can't do that then? Is that what your saying?

It's possible, but it would be complicated and it's simply not desired in my opinion. The basic principles of the game should be the same regardless of scenario.

BTW (don't know if this is a known bug or not) when France gains a city in congress (before discovery of Rifling), it comes with Musketeers. It should be regular Musketmen.

Thanks, will be fixed.

Lol. I was unaware the "musketeer" unit still existed.

It's still in the game, and it seems there are still artifacts of it in the code

Leoreth, I'm wondering if you had enacted any changes to the United Nations?

No, not at all. They usually come quite late to matter in most games anyway.

And have fun with "university"

I don't know what these quotation marks are supposed to mean

 

[Gruekiller]

I just got around to playing the Italians for the first time, and I have to say, I was impressed. It was clever of you to have the Romans respawn as (seemingly) an entirely different civ. I have a small quibble, though. The Bersagliere seems awfully... underpowered. Don't get me wrong, the extra point of movement is great, but that's really all they have going. Perhaps a bonus against some other type of unit? Or allowing them to move through jungle?

 

[civ_king]

I just got around to playing the Italians for the first time, and I have to say, I was impressed. It was clever of you to have the Romans respawn as (seemingly) an entirely different civ. I have a small quibble, though. The Bersagliere seems awfully... underpowered. Don't get me wrong, the extra point of movement is great, but that's really all they have going. Perhaps a bonus against some other type of unit? Or allowing them to move through jungle?

It isn't entirely different, it sort of has geographical ties

 

[Leoreth]

I just got around to playing the Italians for the first time, and I have to say, I was impressed. It was clever of you to have the Romans respawn as (seemingly) an entirely different civ. I have a small quibble, though. The Bersagliere seems awfully... underpowered. Don't get me wrong, the extra point of movement is great, but that's really all they have going. Perhaps a bonus against some other type of unit? Or allowing them to move through jungle?

Well, their point is to make up for Italy's lack of horses and cavalry, both historically and ingame, so I don't know which other ability to give them. Maybe the commando promotion instead of an extra movement point?

 

[Gruekiller]

Well, I think you should keep the extra movement no matter what you do with it. It's probably fine the way it is. Upon investigation though, I think it's supposed to be spelled Bersaglieri, not Bersagliere.

 

[jammerculture]

I had this big, well thought out post typed up and it got lost in uploading so here goes again, this time in point form!

-Founding religions as a strategy exists in civ and should be represented in rfc

-India fits the bill, semi-historically and by game design

_we don't want all the civs to play the same

-however, nothing to stop us from changing uhv conditions that keep the same flavor

-Few ideas to replace 5 religion condition:

-Found three religions (Bud, Hind, Zor) and spread your founded religions to x % of land (Asia, Persia)
This keeps the race to monarchy which is the only thing good about the current UHV and is slightly more historical. So it would be a tech race, production UHV

-Acquire X gold from shrine income by x
Same effect as first but different implementation

-I had a third but don't remember it. Doh! Something about building religious wonders or building.

Anyway, definitely something lost in translation but this will have to do lol

 

[Leoreth]

Well, I think you should keep the extra movement no matter what you do with it. It's probably fine the way it is. Upon investigation though, I think it's supposed to be spelled Bersaglieri, not Bersagliere.

Usually, the unit names are in singular (axeman, swordsman etc.), therefore I kept the Italian singular as well.

On India: I've once read a great suggestion that instead of founding five religions, they were required a certain amount of temples, say, 20. So the player is left with the choice of founding few religions and many cities or vice versa.

 

[Opera]

Doesn't India's stability suffer from having non-state religions?

I kinda like the idea of a great number of temples, although it shifts the focus on spreading religion rather than founding it. Still it sounds more interesting than founding 5 religions.

Tangential but, would you mind trying to give us an interface for UHV progress? In the case of the above idea, it would be nice to know at a glance at how many temples you are.

 

[Alexius08]

Would you mind trying to give us an interface for UHV progress? In the case of the above idea, it would be nice to know at a glance at how many temples you are.

For that example, you can simply look at the statistics section of the info screen. You'll see there the number of temples you have built (one entry for each religion).

 

[Leoreth]

Doesn't India's stability suffer from having non-state religions?

I kinda like the idea of a great number of temples, although it shifts the focus on spreading religion rather than founding it. Still it sounds more interesting than founding 5 religions.

Tangential but, would you mind trying to give us an interface for UHV progress? In the case of the above idea, it would be nice to know at a glance at how many temples you are.

A new UP could help with the stability

I think spreading the religions you found further adds to the uniqueness of India's UHV, because otherwise it's really only a veiled tech race (and we got plenty of that).

I've also thought about a UHV progress interface, and in the case of India's temples it's no problem because that'd need a counter variable anyway (when it's "build x temples by" - "own x temples in" is another matter). But there are UHV conditions that are not checked regularly, but only when their deadline is met, and most of them for good reason because the algorithm to determine them isn't always very fast. So doing that every turn to show the current state in the victory screen produces quite an additional overhead.
Given that, I think it's counterintuitive to display some goals and others not, so probably everything has to stay as is.

 

[Opera]

Ah yeah, forgot about that.

But why not, a new UP and a new UHV with religion-spreading as a focus of sorts. Sounds way more interesting than the current UHVs. However, the "no anarchy" UP they got is really neat and will be missed