Dawn of Civilization - an RFC modmod by Leoreth
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
- Status
Bonci
King
i think there is a problem with that one...it says that i failed it while constantinopolis has 19 population and is first in the city ranking
i am playing a 3000bc start on monarch.
oh and for me tyrus flipped to the arabians (not that it was a problem, i reconquered it the next turn and never ever saw an arabian unit trying to attack me)
Mmm... a few things wrong with this image.
1. There's no city called "Mesopotamia"
2. By 1300 the Ottomans only controlled the Anatolian peninsula (not even, only the Western half), not all of the Levant and the Black Sea!
3. WAYYY too much Christianity. I would recommend having Islam spread through the region a while after Arabia spawns. Its kinda unnatural if the Turks just spawn Islamic Missionaries and in a turn or two convert most of their cities.
Anyway, I'll add more comments later!
By the way, whats going on with the VD units? Will you still try to implement it?
1. There's no city called "Mesopotamia"
2. By 1300 the Ottomans only controlled the Anatolian peninsula (not even, only the Western half), not all of the Levant and the Black Sea!
3. WAYYY too much Christianity. I would recommend having Islam spread through the region a while after Arabia spawns. Its kinda unnatural if the Turks just spawn Islamic Missionaries and in a turn or two convert most of their cities.
Anyway, I'll add more comments later!
By the way, whats going on with the VD units? Will you still try to implement it?
Attachments
I'll look what's wrong with the former.i think there is a problem with that one...it says that i failed it while constantinopolis has 19 population and is first in the city ranking
i am playing a 3000bc start on monarch.
oh and for me tyrus flipped to the arabians (not that it was a problem, i reconquered it the next turn and never ever saw an arabian unit trying to attack me)
The latter is intentional in the 3000 BC scenario, it always has been this way.
1. Rhye's city name map contains a number of speculative city names especially for the Romans, which I copied over to the Byzantines (both never founded a city in these regions). That won't be relevant anymore in this case anyway though, because I intend to place Tisfun/Ctesiphon there in the 600 AD scenario.Mmm... a few things wrong with this image.
1. There's no city called "Mesopotamia"
2. By 1300 the Ottomans only controlled the Anatolian peninsula (not even, only the Western half), not all of the Levant and the Black Sea!
3. WAYYY too much Christianity. I would recommend having Islam spread through the region a while after Arabia spawns. Its kinda unnatural if the Turks just spawn Islamic Missionaries and in a turn or two convert most of their cities.
Anyway, I'll add more comments later!
By the way, whats going on with the VD units? Will you still try to implement it?
2. Well, core flips are always a little more generous than what would be historical, so that's fine. I'm just wondering about the city in the Caucasus and north of the Black Sea. Did the Byzantines found them? These parts shouldn't be in the Ottoman core anyway (but rather in their historical area).
3. More unnatural than having Islam magically appear before the Ottomans arrive? The Turkish people brought their religion with them to Anatolia (it were the Rum Seljuks in reality, but since they don't exist here ...), so that fits historically. Besides, soon I'll edit the Arabian UP that it removes all foreign religions on city conquest, which hopefully reduces Christianity's presence in the Near East somewhat.
By the way, some of the changes I mentioned in my previous post are now in the SVN.
Bonci
King
there should be a inquisition unit...or maybe religions should fade in time if the state religion is different?
Stelmack
Warlord
- Joined
- May 21, 2010
- Messages
- 111
The Ai should be much more inclined to found that water way thing. I forget what it is. The canal on the Sinai peninsula?
Also, there should be some sort of tech slowdown so that only your top 10 or 5 cities contribute tech, so that even if you have a massive empire, you can't out tech the entire world. I hate when the AI has lasers in 1700, and I have rocks.
Also, there should be some sort of tech slowdown so that only your top 10 or 5 cities contribute tech, so that even if you have a massive empire, you can't out tech the entire world. I hate when the AI has lasers in 1700, and I have rocks.
Hardcoding a fort constructed there if under AI control would do the same trick right?
Maintenance costs, and exponentially harder to get great scientists help address that issue.
I think barbarians being very inclined to raze cities is a very important mechanism for clearing up some of the mess in certain part of the world (such as in Europe) and make the game map not so static.
In areas where we don't want as many cities razed, maybe more hostile independents can spawn rather than city-razing-crazy barbarians. This should particularly be the case for North Africa and the Levant, as the lack of cities there severely hamper the progress Arabs make to conquer and spread Islam to those areas. Barbarian elephants also just seem way too unrealistic. Anachronistic resources (such as North African ivory after Classical Antiquity) should be removed to represent the exhausting of resources.
Having Arabs conquer the Mahgreb is something I would really like to see Leoreth address at some point. I think how the Arabs take North Africa would affect how to go about balancing the Byzantines as well. Possible ideas:
- reducing barbarian pressure in North Africa during Late Antiquity
- delay birth of Spain until around time of the birth of Portugal
- Use minor unplayable civs to help direct Arab (and possible Byzantine) attacks
- spawn 2 galleys in the Mediterranean for Arabs (their navy doesn't get enough credit in RoC)
eg: New minor civ Vandals have a weakly defended city in the Maghreb (such as Tunis, Algiers or Marrekesh etc...) and a weakly defended city in southeastern Spain (such as Malaga, Grenada or Cartegena). Byzantines and Arabs when controlled by AIs have a scripted total war against the Vandals, and would thus be inclined to conquer North Africa and Spain.
You think the Arabs aren't paying enough attention to the Maghreb, huh? 
My first game on the new version says otherwise!
I think I've found a typo as well: this city should be called Carchemish, not Carehemish.
My first game on the new version says otherwise!
I think I've found a typo as well: this city should be called Carchemish, not Carehemish.
You think the Arabs aren't paying enough attention to the Maghreb, huh?
Spoiler :
Haha, pretty sweet. I think it's common in previous versions as well. Sorry if I wasn't clear about what I meant. The problem isn't that the Arabs aren't paying enough attention to North Africa. Instead, it's that they pay too much attention to it 800 years too late. I've only played this new version twice just to see what the civs look like and both times North Africa was cleared of any cities in 1000AD by barbarian impis, elephants, and camel archers. The lack of cities in North Africa is definitely a hurdle for a slightly earlier Arab conquest of Northern Africa.
That said, funny as it may be to see an empire stretch out halfway across the Sahara, I'd rather see their settling strategy changed so that they don't end up surrounding Mali in every game in which they survive.
Oh btw Grue, congrats on 666th post
Whoops. Looks like I broke it... xD
Thanks for the notifications on the spelling and respawn issues, will both be taken care of (I think SoI's system for respawns makes most sense, them being disabled after a certain date).
By the way, there's now a minor civ slot available for us (the Celts formerly used to represent Byzantium are no longer necessary). Any ideas? My first thought was Berbers/Moors.
By the way, there's now a minor civ slot available for us (the Celts formerly used to represent Byzantium are no longer necessary). Any ideas? My first thought was Berbers/Moors.
A Muslim Spain would be pretty cool, now that you mention it. But I recall you mentioning some time ago that it would be really hard to implement?
I don't remember what I said back then exactly anymore, but likely I said that it's difficult to achieve the desired effect with barbarians and I fear that Spain might get squeezed in, which is still the case even with a new minor civ available. Though I was toying with the idea of having Spain spawn at Oviedo lately ...
It'd make more sense historically, I guess. It's always kind of bugged me that a (usually) Christian Spain just sort of pops up at Madrid in the 7th/8th Century.
Ya adding the Moors as a Minor civ would be a good idea, but I'm a tad concerned that the Spanish won't grow to well as a result of that. Another idea would be having another Chinese power in Southern China. Frankly China was never really united like its usually comes out to be.
Also I tested out Varanasi, and may I say that after I removed the jungle from where they spawned, the game looked A LOT better. I could not get Aachen to spawn though for some reason, but the Indians still made Delhi and Mumbai.
And how to I add spawning barbarian or Independent cities? I forgot how to do it!
Also I tested out Varanasi, and may I say that after I removed the jungle from where they spawned, the game looked A LOT better. I could not get Aachen to spawn though for some reason, but the Indians still made Delhi and Mumbai.
And how to I add spawning barbarian or Independent cities? I forgot how to do it!
jammerculture
Prince
Berbers/Moors would be the obvious choice.
Another possibility would be a Turkic "placeholder" civ in central asia. An extra enemy for Byzantines, a possible conquest route for the mongols, early enemy for Russia.
Korea? Native Americans?
The question should be "what additional minor civ could have the greatest impact on the most civs possible?"
Maybe don't make a decision until your balancing of Byzantines and the adjustment of the mideast proceeds. It might help you solve a problem that you aren't aware of yet.
My birthday is tomorrow and I've begged with everyone I know to go in on a computer for me as a gift. Hopefully I'll be thanking you for the Byzantine birthday.
Another possibility would be a Turkic "placeholder" civ in central asia. An extra enemy for Byzantines, a possible conquest route for the mongols, early enemy for Russia.
Korea? Native Americans?
The question should be "what additional minor civ could have the greatest impact on the most civs possible?"
Maybe don't make a decision until your balancing of Byzantines and the adjustment of the mideast proceeds. It might help you solve a problem that you aren't aware of yet.
My birthday is tomorrow and I've begged with everyone I know to go in on a computer for me as a gift. Hopefully I'll be thanking you for the Byzantine birthday.
Affect the most amount of civs, huh? Forgive me for brainstorming aloud.
The Berbers/Moors would affect the development of the Arabs, Spanish, Portuguese, and perhaps the French and Italians/Romans. A Turkic Central Asian minor civ (as Jammer suggested) could affect Persia, the Byzantines, the Russians, the Mongols, and maybe eventually the Turks themselves. It might be interesting to implement the poor Hittites as a minor civ for the Bronze and Iron ages. After all, IRL, they posed a far bigger threat to the Egyptians and Babylonians than the hapless barb city there currently, and they did control a fair portion of Anatolia and Syria (bigger, in fact, than the historical Babylon). Hungary, Poland/Poland-Lithuania, and Bulgaria are all plausible choices, if for nothing else than to keep Germany from dominating Eastern Europe so easily. These civs were all important powers in their time. Korea would be interesting, as Jammer also suggested, but I think it would be ultimately useless, since, as a "Let's Play" host on YouTube pointed out, Korea is "the squishy biscuit between the hammer of Japan and the anvil of China", and would probably end up crushed by those countries or perhaps Mongolia just as the independent city there right now always is. The Iroquois could also be a choice to make colonization of the Americas a bit more interesting. Kinda running out of ideas now. The Bantu, Zimbabwe, or Zulu? And maybe even the Polynesians, if only to keep the Pacific from being so... empty.
EDIT: While I'm here, I notice that the Aztecs, when vassalized by the US, are called the Colony of Mexico. That probably wouldn't fly with the anti-colonial policies of the US, really. Maybe a different dynamic name for a US-vassalized Mexico?
The Berbers/Moors would affect the development of the Arabs, Spanish, Portuguese, and perhaps the French and Italians/Romans. A Turkic Central Asian minor civ (as Jammer suggested) could affect Persia, the Byzantines, the Russians, the Mongols, and maybe eventually the Turks themselves. It might be interesting to implement the poor Hittites as a minor civ for the Bronze and Iron ages. After all, IRL, they posed a far bigger threat to the Egyptians and Babylonians than the hapless barb city there currently, and they did control a fair portion of Anatolia and Syria (bigger, in fact, than the historical Babylon). Hungary, Poland/Poland-Lithuania, and Bulgaria are all plausible choices, if for nothing else than to keep Germany from dominating Eastern Europe so easily. These civs were all important powers in their time. Korea would be interesting, as Jammer also suggested, but I think it would be ultimately useless, since, as a "Let's Play" host on YouTube pointed out, Korea is "the squishy biscuit between the hammer of Japan and the anvil of China", and would probably end up crushed by those countries or perhaps Mongolia just as the independent city there right now always is. The Iroquois could also be a choice to make colonization of the Americas a bit more interesting. Kinda running out of ideas now. The Bantu, Zimbabwe, or Zulu? And maybe even the Polynesians, if only to keep the Pacific from being so... empty.
EDIT: While I'm here, I notice that the Aztecs, when vassalized by the US, are called the Colony of Mexico. That probably wouldn't fly with the anti-colonial policies of the US, really. Maybe a different dynamic name for a US-vassalized Mexico?
fireclaw722
Imperial Guard
Actually there was a thought to annex/occupy Mexico after the Mexican-American War, it just wasn't a great idea politically.
Does America have dynamic names if it vassalizes someone, because I think they just use generic vassal names: Colony of Mexico and such.
- Status
