Dawn of Civilization General Discussion

[Leoreth]

I will entirely rewrite the mechanism so that it makes sense from the start. It shouldn't be a problem to make the switch happen before anything happens, so that there will be no difference between autoplay spawns and switches. Those crutches Rhye's implementation uses are exactly what I want to get rid of.

 

[2015]

Just wanted to drop by and say great work with the mod!! It's great to see a mod community so strong even after all these years

Just one question. is there a guide or something where I can find out how to get DoC from Git? I haven't looked too closely around the forums as I've been a little busy but if anyone could link a guide or something that'd be nice!!

 

[Leoreth]

Thanks! I hope this information helps, let me know if you have any further questions.

 

[Vit20141012]

Just wanted to drop by and say great work with the mod!! It's great to see a mod community so strong even after all these years

 

[Vit20141012]

Leo, I have an idea.I offer little to correct the map of the Middle East (Scenario 3000 BC). I've played a few times on this map, and I find the idea playable.

DoC v 1.13

Spoiler :

My map

Spoiler :

 

[reposado]

has doc ever changed the mechanism for determining lifespan? the original civ says health over health plus sick.

has anyone gotten the Taoism urv. I have all my cities with all the health buildings available, tons of resources, no forges, all placed on freshwater, so the health is 18-24 for all of them. at the same time ive been limiting population so my important cities are 10-12 and a few at 2-4) yet on the leaderboard, I am 13th in life expectancy and have been in the lead a total of 2 turns.

 

[Leoreth]

Okay, but why is that better?

 

[Vit20141012]

Okay, but why is that better?

1) Map more reliable.
2) More dynamic capture of the city
3) Along the east coast of the city are placed three instead of two. In my game, the Phoenicians founded the city Gebel another, then these cities are attacking the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans. Egypt attacked Jerusalem. Just like in the history of the world
4) Jerusalem is being protected from east of the Jordan River.

 

[Tigranes]

I really like the improved map. Sinai does look like Sinai and Palestine will be more fertile and productive with Levies. It is the navel of the world and could use some improvement.

 

[Genghis Khaiser]

Leo, I have an idea.I offer little to correct the map of the Middle East (Scenario 3000 BC). I've played a few times on this map, and I find the idea playable.

DoC v 1.13

Spoiler :

My map

Spoiler :

I like that idea, it makes the map more accurate and interesting. Would Phoenicia spawn 1 tile west and 2 tiles north of Damascus? If so, then about time we have Syria and Lebanon on the same map. The only thing that to this day doesn't make much sense for me is that Ur or its ruins at least should be pre-placed since turn 0, since it's much older than all of those cities, and would make Babylon cooler since they would have a neighbor city they would inevitably conquer through culture if not through war.

If we were going for that and in case we go for that Ur idea, I would suggest moving Egypt's spawn to Memphis (Ineb-Hedj) and making Thebes (Niwt-Rst) an independent city that spawns some time later but is inevitably conquered by the Egyptians.

 

[Leoreth]

I've dealt with most pressing issues on my list today, I will take care of the open pull requests next.

 

[Publicola]

Leo, I have an idea.I offer little to correct the map of the Middle East (Scenario 3000 BC). I've played a few times on this map, and I find the idea playable.

DoC v 1.13

Spoiler :

My map

Spoiler :

I agree with the above -- this maps looks a lot better than the original one Rhye started with. It also helps that Damascus in the 600 AD scenario won't be (ahistorically) placed along the Euphrates, and in the 3000 BC scenario makes room for both Tyre/Sidon/Phoenician capital site, as well as the historically vital city of Antioch. Great suggestion, Vit20141012!

 

[Leoreth]

I think I would still prefer Damascus in its old position 1N though. Including Antioch as well would crowd the area too much.

 

[Randomness]

Why do you limit the ability to switch to a nearby new civ? Sure, it allows abuses, but so what? If a player wants to play like that, it's their choice.

Removing this restriction is a fairly simple python tweak. In RiseAndFall.py, change

def getAlreadySwitched( self ):
        return sd.scriptDict['bAlreadySwitched']

to

def getAlreadySwitched( self ):
        return false

Just make sure that the whitespace is exactally the same.

 

[ezzlar]

I saw this in the GIT log "- stricter conditions for full flips on respawn"

Does it mean that cities belonging to a stable civ wont flip upon respawn?

It would be better if the civ didnt respawn at all if a certain number of cities wouldnt flip. A 1-2 city civ on crappy locations without the proper capital placement is just a waste of turn time. And probably another neighbor giving a unstable penalty in foreign.

 

[Leoreth]

Yes, it's about the "make sure the flip is complete regardless of stability if only a few cities are missing" aspect of respawns. The conditions for "few" were mostly geared towards civs with a large respawn area, leading to unintentional outcomes for civs with a low number of cities. I have corrected that.

 

[Vit20141012]

When I play for Babylonia or even Harappa, Byzantium does not spawn in the game (3000 BC scenario). And when I play in the beginning of Babylonia, then switched to Maya, then Byzantium spawn.

 

[Leoreth]

Byzantium's spawn is conditional on the existence of Rome and Greece.

 

[Vit20141012]

Byzantium's spawn is conditional on the existence of Rome and Greece.

Then the Greece have found a new city of Constantinople and build the Hagia Sophia. And they do not.

 

[sebzilla]

I think I would still prefer Damascus in its old position 1N though. Including Antioch as well would crowd the area too much.

Boo. I want my Pentarchy!