Dawn of Civilization v1.12 Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Relating to original RFC, England in DoC has awesome gameplay. I've had so much fun with it, can't even explain. If every civ would have same gameplay. Especially civs in Asia. They are pretty boring relating to civs in Europe.
 
I decided to start an Egyptian game to first see if I could complete the UHVs, and then to see if I could survive until later in the game.

The UHV was lost when China got the Sphinx, so I decided to see how far in the game I could go without dying.

I'm playing on Monarch in the fresh 1.12 version.

My stability simply sucks! I got -5 happiness in the domestic tab, for no apparent reason. I say that because checking the stability guide, nothing tells me why I was losing 5 points due to happiness.

Each 3 turns it sees how many happy and unhappy cities I have, then it decreases my score if I have more unhappy then happy, increases if the opposite, and slowly goes to 0 if even. Well, I had only 1 city for most of the time. It never celebrated we love the king, but if there was a time where I had enough non-pop :mad: to make my city an unhappy city, then it was only when I needed a whip and just after it I had an herbalist event. This didn't take long to fix, and Egypt being Dynasticism since beginning, and with at least 2 troops inside of my city all the time, my happiness was always far superior then unhappiness (which must have made my city a happy city while I had this +3:mad: from other sources).

This -5 stayed on for a really long time, only starting to fade in the times of the roman conquests, when I finally made my second city in my historical area near Ethiopia. It's on -3 now that the arab have just spawned. Even so I think there is something really wrong with this part of the stability mechanic.

Also problems with relations, isolationism and borders were always crippling me even further. I only knew the state of Shaky, and I almost got to Unstable.

Another thing I noticed is that 2 Flood Plains turn into desert in Upper Egypt. Is that really necessary? Will that make any difference towards balancing? Egypt is already crippled by the fact it can't make Farms in most of its core and historical tiles, so the only thing you may have are Cottages (you'll probably only get watermills after those tiles became desert), and these will keep in place, even though you can't build cottages on desert tiles. That just to lose 6:food:. Is that really necessary? The only thing I could think at the moment was: Great! Another thing to cripple my game. With such a small Core Area, also small Historical Area, the impossibility of making farms in most of its territory until Biology, the obvious lack of :hammers: in Egypt as a whole, does Egypt really needs 2 tiles to lose a total of 6:food:? I doubt Egypt was op before coding this removal, and I doubt any conqueror of its area would become OP because of 2 extra flood plains.


The last thing that caught my attention was the arab flip. I restricted my expansion until the arabs because of the flip. I thought all my core would flip. But then there was no flip, some tiles became neutral for one turn, but no cities asked for flipping. Is that because the capital can't flip? (it was the only city I had in the flip zone on the flip map of DoC) or did the flip zone changed over the updates but the stability map didn't?
 
Ok here we go again with these questions :). Cause of my long time with this mod I like to try different approaches. I was playing Rome and decided to change to Spain with a bonuscity Tarraco along with the flip (screenshot). For my suprise Tarraco did'n t flip to Spain although it should have. So I reloaded the game and tried what happens if I still build Tarraco by romans AND contiuned playing with Rome. Spain spawned and as I thought, Tarraco will flip to spanish (screenshot).

Could the boss himself or someone who knows what's going on, please explaine this?

Oh and has anyone else experienced while playing the romans, that when Turkey spawns they will flip Athena as well? This happened in my latest game and I was like whatta hell :confused:
 

Attachments

  • Civ4ScreenShot0036.JPG
    Civ4ScreenShot0036.JPG
    269.2 KB · Views: 138
  • Civ4ScreenShot0038.JPG
    Civ4ScreenShot0038.JPG
    329.6 KB · Views: 175
Ok here we go again with these questions :). Cause of my long time with this mod I like to try different approaches. I was playing Rome and decided to change to Spain with a bonuscity Tarraco along with the flip (screenshot). For my suprise Tarraco did'n t flip to Spain although it should have. So I reloaded the game and tried what happens if I still build Tarraco by romans AND contiuned playing with Rome. Spain spawned and as I thought, Tarraco will flip to spanish (screenshot).

Could the boss himself or someone who knows what's going on, please explaine this?

Oh and has anyone else experienced while playing the romans, that when Turkey spawns they will flip Athena as well? This happened in my latest game and I was like whatta hell :confused:

In regards to Spain, AI Spain has a larger flip zone than human Spain. This is the case for several other civs.

As for Turkey, IIRC the AI will flip cities in Greece if they aren't owned by the Greeks or Byzantines.
 
The last thing that caught my attention was the arab flip. I restricted my expansion until the arabs because of the flip. I thought all my core would flip. But then there was no flip, some tiles became neutral for one turn, but no cities asked for flipping. Is that because the capital can't flip? (it was the only city I had in the flip zone on the flip map of DoC) or did the flip zone changed over the updates but the stability map didn't?

Your cities don't get flipped anymore if it's part of your core and not part of their core. Basically this means that all of Egypt is safe for you, since the starting Arab core is basically just Arabia now.
 
The UHV was lost when China got the Sphinx, so I decided to see how far in the game I could go without dying.
You still have chances (conquer Parsa, Athens), but still chinese sphinx is too strange!!

Another thing I noticed is that 2 Flood Plains turn into desert in Upper Egypt. Is that really necessary? Will that make any difference towards balancing? Egypt is already crippled by the fact it can't make Farms in most of its core and historical tiles, so the only thing you may have are Cottages (you'll probably only get watermills after those tiles became desert), and these will keep in place, even though you can't build cottages on desert tiles. That just to lose 6:food:. Is that really necessary? The only thing I could think at the moment was: Great! Another thing to cripple my game.

It is slightly frastrating. Maybe it should be absent from the beginning of the game.

With such a small Core Area, also small Historical Area, the impossibility of making farms in most of its territory until Biology, the obvious lack of :hammers: in Egypt as a whole, does Egypt really needs 2 tiles to lose a total of 6:food:? I doubt Egypt was op before coding this removal, and I doubt any conqueror of its area would become OP because of 2 extra flood plains.

Jerusalem and Cyrinaica is historical. Jerusalem has the temple of Solomon (bust to economy and GProphet, who helps production ang gold). Cyrinaica has two seafoods in radius.

Egyptian land is really productive. You have three hills (Sena, Bronze, near Aksum), one with bronze/iron, two quarries, one horse and three forests. You just need to place your cities in the right spots and discover mining, masonry and animal husbandry. If you are desperate for more hammers, maybe conquer Jerusalem or discover metal casting to build workshops.

But if you want to enjoy the game you need to aquire other lands or build wonders. Sitting peacefully in Egypt with limited resources isn't enough.
 
Hello again, I need some help in regards to Tundra spaces. In the Sevopedia it says "Cannot build cities here unless coastal or" It does not finish the sentence, it just cuts off abruptly. I assumed it was "or near fresh water". But that is not the case, because I'm trying to build along a river and it won't let me.

So could someone please tell me the rules on tundra spaces. Thanks.
 
Hello again, I need some help in regards to Tundra spaces. In the Sevopedia it says "Cannot build cities here unless coastal or" It does not finish the sentence, it just cuts off abruptly. I assumed it was "or near fresh water". But that is not the case, because I'm trying to build along a river and it won't let me.

So could someone please tell me the rules on tundra spaces. Thanks.
I asked the same question and was told: you can only build cities on tundra next to coast. Rivers are not good enough.
 
I asked the same question and was told: you can only build cities on tundra next to coast. Rivers are not good enough.

Thanks for the answer. That's unfortunate that I hauled a settler, missionary, and 2 workers out to the middle of the tundra for no reason lol.
 
In regards to Spain, AI Spain has a larger flip zone than human Spain. This is the case for several other civs.

As for Turkey, IIRC the AI will flip cities in Greece if they aren't owned by the Greeks or Byzantines.

So that latter one has changed from the ver1.11, cause not ever before has Turkey claimed my city of Athena no matter what's the nation im playing at...

I wonder does Tomis flip to Turkey if AI is playing Rome....? (screenshot).

EDIT: Turkey flipzone from ver1.12 says "it's a negative" for all flipping.
 

Attachments

  • Civ4ScreenShot0055.JPG
    Civ4ScreenShot0055.JPG
    402.2 KB · Views: 114
  • Turkey.png
    Turkey.png
    4.7 KB · Views: 138
IIRC AI Turkey flips Greece if it's not held by Byzantium or Greece. I don't think the stability maps show extended AI flips.
 
Playing a game as America on a 600 AD start. Was kinda fun! A few observations, some of them mentioned earlier:

- No tech penalty for many cities favours some civs more than others. England for example.
- Late game techs are cheap, no more than 5-7 turns
- Late game techs often contain new strong units
- Early game play can be 20-40 turns betwen techs and far from all bring in new strong units.
- The era from 1800-1900 feels short
- Too many early civs dont collapse often enough: Moors, Byzantines, Holy Rome, Mongols.
- Continental Europe is not offering a challenge to England due to amphibious deficiency. They will never be invaded.

Otherwise, the action in the Americas and Asia is good. Europe could be better, they have the pontential conflicts but stay put too long. Africa and Australia are dead, settle and stay put.
 
Late game is when? Modern era, or earlier? I agree that tech turns have to increase from the Industrial era onwards.
 
Moors are supposed to represent north African civ and the holy roman empire is supposed to represent Austria after Prussia. the rest i agree that they should collapse often
 
- Late game techs are cheap, no more than 5-7 turns
- Late game techs often contain new strong units
- Early game play can be 20-40 turns betwen techs and far from all bring in new strong units.
- The era from 1800-1900 feels short
- Too many early civs dont collapse often enough: Moors, Byzantines, Holy Rome, Mongols.
- Continental Europe is not offering a challenge to England due to amphibious deficiency. They will never be invaded.

Otherwise, the action in the Americas and Asia is good. Europe could be better, they have the pontential conflicts but stay put too long. Africa and Australia are dead, settle and stay put.

Late game tech rate needs balancing, both industrial and modern eras need balancing.

In late game there is more unit variety and units are stronger. Maybe the game should include only units that have been actually used. WWII units are enough, (so no parartoopers, tactical nukes, merchanised infanrty, mobile artillery, stealth aircraft, modern armor etc).

The era 1800-1900 is ok, it has 50 turns, which is a large amount of turns, no need for more turns in this period.

Moors shouldn't collapse, but they should be weak enough to lose Cordoba. Mongolia collapses at appropriate dates at my games. (around 1500AD).
 
Industrial era somewhat. But if the tech cost is increased and the number of turns stay the same...

Why not steal some turns from the early (empty) eras and invest them in the 19th/20th century? Another option could be shorten the early turns, remove some early techs (add the removed units/buildings to other existing techs), and add new techs in late game as buffers between key techs.

North africa was colonized as much rest of Africa. But with Moors alive that doesnt happen so often. They have their own stacks of riflemen sitting put.

And Germany/Austria was a threat to rest of continental Europe but in game play terms they mess up each others cities making them both weak(er). Given the small amount of land in Europe they would be better of with the Union mechanic from RFCE++. But otherwise, let Holy Romans collapse and Germany take over their territory.
 
Late game tech rate needs balancing, both industrial and modern eras need balancing.

In late game there is more unit variety and units are stronger. Maybe the game should include only units that have been actually used. WWII units are enough, (so no parartoopers, tactical nukes, merchanised infanrty, mobile artillery, stealth aircraft, modern armor etc).

The era 1800-1900 is ok, it has 50 turns, which is a large amount of turns, no need for more turns in this period.

Moors shouldn't collapse, but they should be weak enough to lose Cordoba. Mongolia collapses at appropriate dates at my games. (around 1500AD).

Good suggestions as well! Then maybe I am a bit biased when it comes to the Imperialistic era which is represented nicely in this mod. Now that era comes mostly to settling, more conflicts would be interesting, and more time would probably give that. Now the conflicts start when all the civs have reached the 20th century and with the units that belong there.
 
I'm confused by the Japanese UP: what is it? One extra promotion at 2 xp? Because I can't see anything else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom