1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Final Civ List.

Discussion in 'Civ4 - World 2009 Mod' started by DVS, Dec 9, 2008.

  1. Adhesive86

    Adhesive86 Warlord

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    266
    Location:
    Yorkshire, England
    As we have a guaranteed working dll for 50 civs and the existing agreed list is 53, if it does transpire that 53 must make 50 then I would imagine it'd make more sense to merge 3 civs into ones already represented in the game. I do not agree with starting to make massive changes such as splitting the EU up, which is just going to require more work and rip apart work that has already been done.

    We could argue about Europe solutions, ASEAN solutions etc all day, but since we already have I think it's most sensible to stick to what we have as far as is possible.

    I don't think it should be too difficult to remove 3 civs without goiing back to the drawing board, but i DO agree that sooner rather than later if there IS A PROBLEM with the dll that we make the cut and move on.

    Indeed it is the problem with the dll that Kai was aasking for many moons ago when he wanted to be doing city placements etc. This is not a big issue, so if we only have 50 then can we go with 50?


    Now I have no idea about dlls, how to make one, how to source one etc, but i can see this is holding things up.


    I recommend that unless we have a working 53 civ dll within 1 WEEK (10th August 2009) that we move to cut 3 civs.


    This is not alot and would move us on with minimum disruption I'm sure.

    Niknaks and team, what do you think?
     
  2. Mattygerst

    Mattygerst Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    St. Louis, Missouri, USA
    I think if you map out the map on EXACTLY what I did...it works perfectly. We have a perfectly functioning 48 civ DLL and that list I provided works perfectly within the framework of the mod.

    The thing is:

    We HAVE a perfectly functioning - bug free 48 civ DLL. Breaking it down as I have implements the BEST gameplay for the mod. The EU is mainly intact (especially when you take into account relations, defensive pacts, etc.). The West is broken down correctly. ASEAN is taken into account and it represents the present day SE Asia. This also maintains the sovereignty of some of the "big players" in Europe. They may be in the EU, but they have vastly different foreign policies...this allows us to play them as we like AND keeps the mod running well. Africa is broken down well...which will keep it underpowered. The map allows us to play the game as the world works, and it is the FASTEST WAY TO GET THE MOD UP AND RUNNING. We have a 100% bug free 48-civ DLL. The goal is to get the mod up and running. Do that and more and more and more help will come on. The mod will get done MUCH FASTER by simply adopting this. It is 48 civs...breaks down perfectly, and the map will be great. I know that DVS was hell bent on some things - but he was also hell bent on incorporating so many things that Civ simply CANNOT do. We have to break away from him and what the plan was.

    The plan from here needs to be this:

    Implement this map. The 48 civ DLL works perfectly and that map will play well, and fair. Next...develop the relations between nations, etc. Finish the unit numbers and placement and city numbers, etc. Then the map should be good for testing since we have a working tech tree and civics.

    Implement this map and lets get this thing officially going. No more sitting and waiting.
     
  3. cheesemijit

    cheesemijit Prince

    Joined:
    May 5, 2009
    Messages:
    362
    Location:
    Eastleigh, Hampshire, England
    I actually like that map. we should try and get a 55civ DLL done but not untill after version 1 is complete.

    However adding France spain and germany now means rethinking and XML'ing the new UB's and UU's. but that would be quicker than the alternative.
     
  4. Mattygerst

    Mattygerst Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    St. Louis, Missouri, USA
    Thanks for the support.

    Using the map I did (trust me, a LOT of thought went into it) will be better for us both long term and short term.

    There is already a functioning 48 civ DLL with zero bugs for BTS. We can easily compile that with Revolutions, etc. That is a lot less work than and takes less knowledge than actually creating a new DLL and testing it, etc.

    The above map is INCREDIBLY balanced and will work best for us. Study it, everyone for a bit, and you'll come to the agreement that it works well. It is best for balance and for everything else. Having a separate France, Spain, Germany, etc. makes a LOT more sense than our old map that DVS was crazily pushing along AND it will be easier for us to create and get the mod up and running so we can attract more and more help to do some of the more complicated things we want to do.
     
  5. cheesemijit

    cheesemijit Prince

    Joined:
    May 5, 2009
    Messages:
    362
    Location:
    Eastleigh, Hampshire, England
    i think the idea of the massive EU put alot of people off the mod, i am also glad to see it split up. i know RevDCM includes the 50civ DLL, but the current version is quite buggy. does anyone have any ideas for the UB's of France, Spain, Germany, Poland, Finland?
     
  6. civ editor11

    civ editor11 Ruler

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2009
    Messages:
    999
    Location:
    U.S.
    I think we should wait the one week if there isn't a bug free dll for the 53 civs by then we can go with the 48 one just to conserve time
     
  7. Mattygerst

    Mattygerst Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    St. Louis, Missouri, USA
    Civ Editor. It isn't going to happen. It hasn't happened in a year. Just move on (not that you've been here long, but others have) and lets go with the 48 civ DLL. Plus, it is totally agreed that one MASSIVE bloc of the EU put off many people from the mod. Splitting it up the way I have it labeled will be better for balance. Go back and read thru the civ list I put up, and check the map. It balances perfectly and will help us get going now.
     
  8. civ editor11

    civ editor11 Ruler

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2009
    Messages:
    999
    Location:
    U.S.
    Yeah I guess it'll work but if the 53 version comes out with no bugs we should switch to that

    Edit: We'll just wait a week and if it doesn't work use the bug free version so it doesn't hold us up much
     
  9. Joecoolyo

    Joecoolyo 99% Lightspeed

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    9,908
    Location:
    茨城県
    Ok, lets not get too hasty. I think the easiest solution (as Adhesive86) said if the 53 won't work is just to knock off three tiny civs that really aren't as important as some of the larger ones. My vote goes to knocking off Belarus, Bangladesh, and Georgia. All 3 of these are really tiny civs that really won't impact the game that much, and aren't really as important in world politics as are most of the others.
     
  10. Mattygerst

    Mattygerst Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    St. Louis, Missouri, USA
    The game, honestly, is wayyyyyyyyyy too unbalanced. The only reason its like that is because DVS was pushing for a complete EU and a free Canada.

    Placing Canada in NATO, and keeping the EU as a civ but with the smaller Europe civs is much better for balance. The "money players" - UK, France, Germany, Poland, Spain, Italy allow the game to be more balanced if they are freed up.

    This is anything but a hasty decision. This keep gameplay actually balanced and will make the mod much more playable. Otherwise - the mod will simply become a USA vs. EU vs. China vs. Russia. Breaking up the EU a bit - while leaving the alliances, allows more game play stability. ASEAN will be a better force to fight off China when it attacks in the game and will keep China from becoming a dominating superpower with little effort. NATO is much better represented.

    No doubt about it...we rushed into the map because DVS was crazily pushing us along. I went back and studied it all, and took everything into account. Study the map I made, etc. There is not doubt it will play better and provide better balance.

    Civ List below
    Map here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8329106&postcount=82
     
  11. civ editor11

    civ editor11 Ruler

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2009
    Messages:
    999
    Location:
    U.S.
    That is a great map but we should try for the 53 civ one first and then decide on a 48 one and not do it hastily but efficiently
     
  12. Mattygerst

    Mattygerst Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    St. Louis, Missouri, USA
    You are missing the point. The point is the above post that I made.
     
  13. civ editor11

    civ editor11 Ruler

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2009
    Messages:
    999
    Location:
    U.S.
    Its not that unbalanced without changing it to 48 civs
     
  14. Adhesive86

    Adhesive86 Warlord

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    266
    Location:
    Yorkshire, England
    I have no issue with whether Mattygerst's map is good or not. I'm sure he put alot of effort into it.

    However, I'm a little concerned that what was initially framed as a solution to not having a big enough dll to fit 53 civs is instead to make a new map with new civs.

    Our map is not a problem. We have argued and debated and better debated about this. Naturally some people don't like it, some people won't like it either if it is changed. What i do know is that plans have been made and work has been done based on the solution we came to months ago. By all means let's make changes in order to stop things being held up, but let's not rip things up just because a couple of people didn't like the map, which was painstakingly decided upon.

    Removing 3 or even 5 countries is not difficult. Mattygerst has managed to illustrate this himself by managing to reduce by 5 and still find time to make a load of new civs, which is great but not needed. If we change the map everytime someone comes up with a great new one we will never get this finished.

    Let's focus on what everyone wants: Getting this mod completed as quick, simply and effectively as possible- remove 3 civs if after a small stay of execution a 53civ solution is not possible.

    Otherwise I may as well go and draw my own map up too a few weeks after everyone has begun work on this one.
     
  15. civ editor11

    civ editor11 Ruler

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2009
    Messages:
    999
    Location:
    U.S.
    I agree go for the 53 civs if that doesn't work go with the 48 civs. Either way its good right?
     
  16. Arakhor

    Arakhor Dremora Courtier Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Messages:
    32,748
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    Incidentally, on the 48-civ map, Norway is labelled as Finland, which I'm sure they'll all thank you for :)
     
  17. Mattygerst

    Mattygerst Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    St. Louis, Missouri, USA
    Yeah, my bad. I added them there instead of Norway. Norway, obviously will be part of NATO, while Finland would be part of the EU.
     
  18. civ editor11

    civ editor11 Ruler

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2009
    Messages:
    999
    Location:
    U.S.
    I think we can just use the 48 civ map and maybe add more civs after version 1 comes out
     
  19. Joecoolyo

    Joecoolyo 99% Lightspeed

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    9,908
    Location:
    茨城県
    I'd say, at this point in the process, we really don't whats unbalanced or not. Before we make the unbalanced decision, first lets see if the 53 dll works. If not, lets take the three tiny civs i mentioned out of the picture and try to get this mod into beta. Once we're actually testing it, then we can decide if its unbalanced or not. Because, besides the size of the countries, you have to factor in size of armies, UU's, UB's, resources, relations, wars, etc. There are a lot of factors to factor in before we decide if its unbalanced. I have no doubt that you put a lot of effort into the new map, but right now I think its just too big of a change, especially since we're really nearing the beta. I think the best thing to do is get this into beta, and leave these larger changes until after we've tested and identified the problems with the current version.
     
  20. NikNaks

    NikNaks Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,972
    Location:
    England
    In principle, I completely agree with the new list. Any other objections? If not, motion passed. Good, now who wants to change the civs XML to fit all of this in? Once that's done, we'll start testing it.
     

Share This Page