Dawn of Civilization - an RFC modmod by Leoreth

[Leoreth]

I'm feeling the renaissance. Something related to great people. Maybe artists give science as well as culture? Or UB could be Davinci's workshop, or similar, an extra culture university? Or how about victory condition = birth x number of great people by such and such a date.

Quick question. Will this new civ be playable? Howso?

Although I was tempted to go for a Renaissance Italy (it definitely would allow for more obvious UHV conditions), it doesn't make much sense historically. Therefore it will be a 1861 spawn, with the UHV and UP focused more on modern Italy.

The civ is intended to be playable, at least for the 600 AD start. Maybe I'll also be able to change the civilization switch mechanic so that you can also take them over when they respawn.

Littorio Actually according to wikipedia and to my knowledge it was the first ship wich passed the 35k tons limit ( determined in the Washington treaty 1922, the ship was 36k tn) and is in the ranks of the more successfull Italian battleships and even the British were afraid of it.

Sounds good so far.

Power of Heritage/Legacy: Each Great Person gives +2 culture/turn./Each city has +10 culture/turn. or maybe its a bit extreme but : You are able to "hurry" units with culture.
Power of the Unification: No maintance cost and stability decreasement for cities in Europe.

3rd UHV: By 1960 control 15 obsolated wonders. The problem with this is the too much dependence on autoplay.

15 is maybe a bit much, but I also had that idea. If I've counted right, modern Italy controls only four wonders that exist ingame: Apostolic Palace, Pantheon, Colosseum and San Marco Basilica. So 7-8 might be enough of a challenge.

My idea for the UP was something along the lines of "Your wonders generate +10 commerce each".

This is a very interesting discussion. I hope I won't break up what you guys are discussing.

I have some ideas about stability, most of which arise from my failure to play rfc in general .

-How difficult would it be to include an in-game tile stability revealing feature such as the one in RFC rand? Would help noobs like me out with city placement.

Not very, I suppose. I'm not that familiar with interface modding, but I guess the hardest part will be to find the responsible part of code in the RAND files It's definitely a feature worth adding.

-I know a city like Guangzhou (coastal, south eastern China) is a bad place for Japan to expand to. But if I founded a city there (3000 BC start, when I saw the spot ~700AD the city had already been razed), and manage to control my empire's stability for next 500 years, I feel like the negative effects on my stability due to my Guangzhou should at least be lowered. I feel this would make empire-building more historical and open up many more strategic gameplay options. Would it be possible to make "red" areas on stability maps be highly unstable when first acquired (more unhappiness in city, lower stability in empire, and are more prone to negative bandits/armed rebel movements/terrorists random events) but if the same owner is retained for a set number of turns (depending on game speed) without revolts and civil disorder, stability will start to rise to "orange." Perhaps eventually after a long, long time even become "yellow." Of course, exceptions will be made (Paris will never become "yellow" for Indians no longer how long they control the city).

In some way, this already happens in RFC. The expansion stability penalties never goes away, but the longer your city exists, the more it starts contributing to your economy rating which should outweigh the penalty.
By the way, it is possible to control all of China as Japan without becoming unstable; the key is a good economy. The expansion penalty can also be softened by expanding to "green" areas like the Philippines or Manchuria simultaneously.

- If the previous idea doesn't work out, would it be possible to include dynamic tile stability ratings? Ethiopian lands would be "red" for Rome prior to 1800AD , but slowly start becoming more "orange," maybe even "yellow" by WWII.

From what I know about the Italian colonies, they had a hard time controlling Ethiopia right up until the end. So a penalty would very much be justified.
I know that stability maps would have to adapt to "reborn as another civ" civs like my planned Rome/Italy, though.

 

[Opera]

Maybe I missed something; are you gonna add other late civs like Italy (replacing an 'older' civ)? I'm not sure I see room for others but it doesn't hurt to ask.

 

[Alexius08]

That's the plan. Giving them an own UU and UB will be no problem (any suggestions?), though I'm still trying to figure out how to implement their own UP and UHV as elegantly as possible.

Once Italy works, the concept could be expanded to many other civilizations.

So Italy can't build Roman forums if then, or a second UU/UB would be added?

 

[dcode147]

In some way, this already happens in RFC. The expansion stability penalties never goes away, but the longer your city exists, the more it starts contributing to your economy rating which should outweigh the penalty.
By the way, it is possible to control all of China as Japan without becoming unstable; the key is a good economy. The expansion penalty can also be softened by expanding to "green" areas like the Philippines or Manchuria simultaneously.

But maybe the stability bonus (or equivalently lowering of stability harm) should extend beyond economic alone. There are literally cities that I've held on to for thousands of years, have 100% of civ nationality in city be from my civ that all of sudden becomes independent because I found a couple of poor colonies in the New World (yeah, i know... shouldn't have tried to build a new world empire with Carthage...). As far as I'm aware, there aren't many things you can do to control the economics stability factor (or stability in general) prior to having more civics and building options. Maybe random events that would allow for trading/choosing between effects on stability with other short-term/long-term costs and benefits would help(i'm all for having a lot more random events in general ).

From what I know about the Italian colonies, they had a hard time controlling Ethiopia right up until the end. So a penalty would very much be justified.
I know that stability maps would have to adapt to "reborn as another civ" civs like my planned Rome/Italy, though.

True, that wasn't a good example. I'm sure if the Romans were around in the 1600's with Italy unified as one state they would've liked to participate in the rush for colonization as well. Historically colonized peoples across the world probably wouldn't have hated them any more than their other historical counterpart imperialistic powers. I guess it was for alternative history cases like these that I wanted more flexible stability maps to make accomplishments of particularly powerful human or AI players more meaningful, rather than just severely limited by stability maps for sake of collapsing civs that tried to make the world map look a bit more unrealistic. Reworking stability maps for successor of that civ slot would definitely help.

 

[Jusos2108]

The expansion stability is annoying, but you can easily outweight it by the economy stability. Creating giga-empires is also possible when done carefully. Study the stability guides here and you get it done.

 

[dcode147]

The expansion stability is annoying, but you can easily outweight it by the economy stability. Creating giga-empires is also possible when done carefully. Study the stability guides here and you get it done.

not GIGA enough! If Caesar didn't give a @#$! about looking up stability maps online then why should I! If I can maintain peace, happiness and build up Roman culture in a city while weathering through initial hundred years of instability, it should be mine!

Haha, yeah thanks though. Maybe I'm just bitter that replicating 250AD Roman Empire is really hard. Still crossing my fingers that Leoreth will consider more frequent and more varied random events though!

 

[Leoreth]

Maybe I missed something; are you gonna add other late civs like Italy (replacing an 'older' civ)? I'm not sure I see room for others but it doesn't hurt to ask.

I don't know if it'll work for Italy at the moment, so I won't make any promises. Once the basic principle works, though, it would be no problem to allow for things like Sweden, Mughal India, Safavid Persia etc. Even the much wanted Byzantines could be handled as a Greek respawn. But all that's just part of my long-time goals.

So Italy can't build Roman forums if then, or a second UU/UB would be added?

No, they would lose the old UB und UU. To elaborate, Civ divides between civilizations and players. Civilizations are defined in the XML files, so I just could add a new civilization called CIV_ITALY and write their UU and UB (and flag, color etc.) into it. Players can be imagined as "civilization slots". One player can be of a specific civilization, but that civilization can theoretically change. So I can decide to set the Civ of the player "iRoman" from CIV_ROME to CIV_ITALY (or even CIV_JAPAN etc.) and everything changes automatically.
However, RFC features like UP and UHV always refer to players in the code, not to civilizations. This is why those things are not as easy to change. I hope that wasn't a too dry excourse

But maybe the stability bonus (or equivalently lowering of stability harm) should extend beyond economic alone. There are literally cities that I've held on to for thousands of years, have 100% of civ nationality in city be from my civ that all of sudden becomes independent because I found a couple of poor colonies in the New World (yeah, i know... shouldn't have tried to build a new world empire with Carthage...).

I know what you mean, but I think it would still deviate from the general principles of RFC too much. Rhye wanted civilizations to roughly control their historical areas, so he semi-scripted the AI with settler maps and set up a system to punish players who expand ahistorically. The player is free to do it, but he has to pay a price for it (which in most cases is affordable).
By the way, you seem to like playing ancient civs into modern times. This of course can be done, but always remember that they're not meant for it. Carthage won't colonise as comfortably as France, for example, and I also think it shouldn't

As far as I'm aware, there aren't many things you can do to control the economics stability factor (or stability in general) prior to having more civics and building options.

Well, you can do a lot of things, the tricky part is just that these things are often long-time behavior and not immediate actions. So once you notice your stability is screwed up, it's too late.

Maybe random events that would allow for trading/choosing between effects on stability with other short-term/long-term costs and benefits would help(i'm all for having a lot more random events in general ).

Yeah, I also miss random events related to stability. But do you mean more in the sense of frequency or in the sense of variety?

PS: I would still be very happy if someone could help me out on Japanese history

 

[Magnificent One]

What about an 800AD spawn?

I think the Tokogawa clan were descended or started around then.

 

[Leoreth]

Okay, that's something I can work with, and it's reasonable from a balance point of view (they need only a minor boost from their 600 AD starting conditions).

 

[dcode147]

Yeah, regarding Japan, originally I thought you got the start date confused since Jimmu was 600BC not AD. I don't know my dates, but regarding more general concepts... a (sorta) strong Japanese state emerged during the Nara period ~700AD. But their state was centered around Nara, not Kyoto. This might be another part of the recurring history vs gamplay conflict. The Heian period starts a bit later ~800AD if you're concerned about the starting tile of Japan. For layman's sake it's also usually considered to mark the beginning of classical Japanese history. Their capital, Heian-Kyo (literally meaning Heian capital) is geographically located in the same location as Kyoto is now.

Of course, Beijing is used as China's capital for their 3000BC start even though it didn't become the Yuan dynasty capital until Kublai Khan's time ~1250AD. Historically Chengzhou (predecessor name for Luoyang) or Chang'an(Xian) might make more sense since those two cities were much earlier cities the capital(s) of strong Chinese states frequently rotated between those two cities from as early as ~1000BC.

I guess I'm not bothered at all with Beijing as the capital city of China for 3000BC start. The only thing that might bother me a bit is the fact that the Forbidden City can't be built in Beijing.

Gameplay-wise, palaces are expensive and switching locations is rarely worth the production. All this got me thinking maybe it would be a good idea to consider slight palace effect changes since a good idea may directly impact multiple civs represented in the game (Punics from Sur to Carthage, China from Luoyang to Beijing, Vikings from Nidaros to somewhere closer to Europe such as Oslo or Stockholm, and maybe even Romans from Rome to Constantinople). As to what ideas for the palace, I have none

 

[Leoreth]

I guess it's no problem to have Japan spawn at Kyoto even if the spawn itself represents the beginning Nara period. You've listed the examples I'd thought of at that point pretty much all afterwards

Also, spawn location has much to do with balance and therefore AI performance. I remember that Rhye once tinkered with a Chang'an spawn, but that location is so bad that China got completely screwed up.

 

[dcode147]

How does Corrosol's Luoyang idea work for a start? I ran a couple tests and it seems China's capable. Of course his mod also includes unit spawns as well. Would changing a few settler maps be all it takes to make a stronger China? Plus it would make it more likely for Mongols to just conquer northern China whilst giving southern China more of a chance to hold out if its capital was south of Beijing.

Oh, I was also wondering about the barbarian event. Sorry I don't have a saved game to confirm this, but when I started one game as the Pheonicians, a random event caused lots of barbarian spearmen spawn next to my border. The next turn they had all disappeared. I had a unit on their other side as well so I know it wasn't because all the axemen had just moved away from my border. Sorry I don't have a saved game of this. When I reloaded back to my save a few turns back I didn't get the barbarian random event.

Oh also would it be possible to change the improvement on the Cyprus copper to be a fort as opposed to a mine? It doesn't seem a mine on an island gives the Pheonicians access to that resource when historically Cyprus was renown as one of the few places around the mediterranean with the rare resource.

 

[Leoreth]

Actually, I rather like it that China collapses when Beijing falls. The Mongols have a hard time achieving that already, and I don't want to hinder them any further.

You mean the "a group of Hittite swordsmen has appeared on our border" events? They are very annoying (even in normal BtS) and should be completely scrapped in my opinion. Rhye's barbarian spawns are enough pressure already and also historically correct. I don't know what happened to the stack in your situation, though, maybe you really just got lucky and they moved away.

For the Cyprus copper: I was divided on that myself, but thought that Sur also needed the production quite a lot. It's impossible to code mines to relay ressources from islands (they would need an "acts like city" tag, which would make every mine essentially a canal), sadly.

 

[rob85]

Some small bugs (600 AD):
1. France still gets musketeers in the conquerors event.
2. No one adopts aristocracy, because of the "military units produced with " bonus. I disabled it and everything works fine.
3. I noticed that Turkey sometimes switches to autocracy, though they don't have nationalism.
I'll post here if I spot anything else

 

[Leoreth]

First post on the forum in my thread, you honor me. Welcome to CFC (or to active posting), and thanks for your feedback.

1) Will be fixed immediately.
2) Good to know. I'll change it to a generic unit production boost if the AI can't handle it.
3) Did they control the Parthenon? It's pre-built in Athens in the 600 AD scenario and allows all government civics in this modmod.

 

[thwump]

First post on the forum in my thread, you honor me. Welcome to CFC (or to active posting), and thanks for your feedback.

1) Will be fixed immediately.
2) Good to know. I'll change it to a generic unit production boost if the AI can't handle it.
3) Did they control the Parthenon? It's pre-built in Athens in the 600 AD scenario and allows all government civics in this modmod.

I'm not sure how good aristocracy is for even the human except for a few really high food civs. Most of the time its fairly easy to get a high hammer unit factory and limiting growth is always annoying especially if you want the city to grow and its food surplus isn't huge anyway. Too bad you can't make it like 'units are produced with food if you want but you can choose not to use this sometimes.'

 

[Leoreth]

Yeah, that would definitely be better

I'm also thinking about changing the bonus to limited recruiting (one unit per turn) ...

 

[jammerculture]

Another instance of a bug in the foreign advisor. Maybe another missing button?

save attached

 

[Leoreth]

If you have contact to Ethiopia, then yes (Haile was also missing one). It's already fixed for the next version, but I can upload a quick patch if you like.

Edit: looked into your file and it was indeed Haile. Patch forthcoming.
Edit2: patch attached, simply extract it into your mods folder.

 

[dcode147]

For the Cyprus copper: I was divided on that myself, but thought that Sur also needed the production quite a lot. It's impossible to code mines to relay ressources from islands (they would need an "acts like city" tag, which would make every mine essentially a canal), sadly.

Making it a fort would mean players have a choice between mine or fort right? If a fort is undesired, a mine could just be built on top of that. Maybe having a worker start off on top of the copper could help facilitate the option.


Also how useful are chariots are horse archers in the game? I find that I rarely build them. Chariots don't seem to revolutionize warfare in this game as they did in real life. Likewise when Mongols spawn, horse archers seem almost obsolete. A far outcry from the pivotal roles they played in the Mongol's conquests. Any ways to possibly tweak those units?