General A New Dawn discussion

Thank you for responding to my post. I take from your response to my question that there is NO concern about AI expansion at this time. Is that so?
Thank you for responding to my post. I take from your response to my question that there is NO interest on your side on getting help. Is that so?
 
All I did was ask a simple question. what is wrong with that? A simple yes or no answer would have satisfied me. Instead of answering the question you made a suggestion that I change the way that I play the mod. The mod is designed to accommodate many styles of gameplay.
You like apples, I like oranges. the mod is fruit. we can both enjoy fruit!
My question is not a criticism. It is not a provocation. It is an attempt to understand the direction the mod is moving so that I can adjust my gameplay. Simple as that.
 
All I did was ask a simple question. what is wrong with that? A simple yes or no answer would have satisfied me. Instead of answering the question you made a suggestion that I change the way that I play the mod. The mod is designed to accommodate many styles of gameplay.
You like apples, I like oranges. the mod is fruit. we can both enjoy fruit!
My question is not a criticism. It is not a provocation. It is an attempt to understand the direction the mod is moving so that I can adjust my gameplay. Simple as that.
Listen, if I ask a question there's a reason even if you don't understand what it might be and I have no time to explain. I wasn't suggesting anything but I was simply asking a question. That said, you can be sure that I'll ignore your posts from now on. You'll get assistance from other team members, I'm sure. Since you always have that attitude when talking to me, have it your way: one less person willing to help you.
 
@oldnoob: When you talk about AI expansion, do you mean about wars? I think the heal problem + the bad tweaks I made to the AI siege are causing problems about making wars. That will be fixed, probably this week-end.
 
45°38'N-13°47'E;13757091 said:
I agree about production cost for buildings. I'm not sure I agree for tech cost.

Yeah I think I agree, tech pace seems ok. I don't play with tech trading, usually this increases speed by quite a lot. Currently im AD1599 and im just getting Cossacks and have riflemen etc. Mayans are quite far ahead though and have marines and transports and stuff, (not sure exactly).

Anyway, tech costs if its a problem is negligible as is in my opinion. Production costs need to be slowed a little bit for sure. Not so much military costs (maybe a little) but definitely buildings.
 
Yeah I think I agree, tech pace seems ok. I don't play with tech trading, usually this increases speed by quite a lot. Currently im AD1599 and im just getting Cossacks and have riflemen etc. Mayans are quite far ahead though and have marines and transports and stuff, (not sure exactly).

Anyway, tech costs if its a problem is negligible as is in my opinion. Production costs need to be slowed a little bit for sure. Not so much military costs (maybe a little) but definitely buildings.
Uh, wait a minute neither you nor Mayan are supposed to be that far advanced. Mayan especially should get those techs not before 1800 at least. Are you also using Realistic Timescale? I hope not. Anyway the problem might be here that using no tech trading techs cost less. I know they seem ok to you but if you're using realistic timescale I think they need to be increased
 
@45°: I always have tech trading on but tech brokering off if that can help.
 
Getting rifles in 1600 doesn't seem too unreasonable to me. Marines and transports would seem to be a different issue though.
 
Getting rifles in 1600 doesn't seem too unreasonable to me. Marines and transports would seem to be a different issue though.
Well, rifling is an industrial era tech. Industrial era shouldn't definitely start before 1700-1750 (if you consider that when you start industrial era you might still missing some renaissance era tech)
 
45°38'N-13°47'E;13757992 said:
Well, rifling is an industrial era tech. Industrial era shouldn't definitely start before 1700-1750 (if you consider that when you start industrial era you might still missing some renaissance era tech)

Rifling is actually very late Renaissance. My assumption was that the Industrial Era should start around 1800. Looking back over my timelines, I have Grand War and Military Tradition (both Ren Era) at 1800, Steam Power at 1765 (Watt's condenser), Machine Tools in 1800, and every other Industrial Era tech after 1800.
 
Keep in mind map type and how well (or poorly) players cooperate will cause wide variances in tech scales.
 
Rifling is actually very late Renaissance. My assumption was that the Industrial Era should start around 1800. Looking back over my timelines, I have Grand War and Military Tradition (both Ren Era) at 1800, Steam Power at 1765 (Watt's condenser), Machine Tools in 1800, and every other Industrial Era tech after 1800.
Yeah, that's OK to me. Let's just say that using realistic timescale that's a good timing. But even if some industrial techs are discovered a bit earlier that's OK in my opinion, because usually you still need to grab some renaissance tech when you get your first industrial tech.

And yes, definitely tech pace is connected to map and how well/bad players perform. But that's why there's realistic timescale and/or flexible difficulty. But on the contrary in almost every game I've played or autoplayed, tech pace slows down a lot when starting industrial era and AI very seldom reach early Transhuman techs (and me too). That's why I think those tech cost should be reduced. Try it yourself, I'd like to see a game with very quick development as dbkblk reported so that I can understand what's causing that huge difference from my test.
 
That's funny, because when I reach transhuman era I tend to research techs faster. I build in every city computer networks and info nets when I can, so that really increases research. I don't even know if the AI even builds info nets. Also having a bunch of cities to allow construction of a bunch of info nets helps a lot. Perhaps they could be a 3 time national wonder so large civs don't get the advantage (which they already have a huge advantage anyways)?
 
Purely anecdotal:
I arrived at Transhumanist Era in one of my game. Granted it was begun many, many revisions ago I noticed an interesting difference from my old game experiences. Though I am at the top of the Scoreboard, the military strength of top civs below mine are alarming on their own. In old games, all of my rivals were in 2.0 or weaker range. Granted, that just signal military strength in numbers, not the quality of AI strategies of utilizing various Unit Types and mesh them together too! In that area, I am very thankful to Afforess and Dbkdlk for their work on improving these!
 
Hey, in PIE's ancient Europe, they figured out a way to alter map discovery that, IMO, is very realistic and would be a great asset to this mod. It works like this:

At start, no discovery sticks. Whatever you find turns to black soon after you leave it.
After first tech, only river tiles and coastal tiles stay discovered.
After second tech, all land stays discovered.
After third tech, all sea tiles stay discovered.

I doubt it'd be that hard to port it into RoM. I have no idea how to do it or who to ask.
 
The Barbarians can have Golden Ages? That's a first :lol:
Civ4ScreenShot0189.JPG

I've seen them be the "First" to a tech before, but never a golden age.


Also, there was talk of an additional diplomacy option between civilizations... One would make everyone like them more, the other makes everyone dislike them... Or something like that, was that implemented? I did a horrible job of summarizing but that's the best way I could explain it from memory
 
Also, there was talk of an additional diplomacy option between civilizations... One would make everyone like them more, the other makes everyone dislike them... Or something like that, was that implemented? I did a horrible job of summarizing but that's the best way I could explain it from memory
Not yet.
 
Nationalism... Is there really any true downside to using this? Most of my games I see the majority of the world switching to that and sticking with it once they unlock it. We're close to entering the Modern Era in my current game and all but two AIs are running Nationalism and most have been in it since discovering the tech.

So much for spreading the coperation I founded :p



I'd sort of say the same for Atheism, but the main downside to that one only really pops up if your entire empire has one of every religion in it - though that is easily countered by the massive amount of Happiness you can get, so there's not a lot of downside to it overall. Unless it disabled Religious Buildings as well (Temples, Cathedrals, etc) I don't see why you wouldn't want to run it.


*Edit* Well well, just checked the Info board and it seems all but two leaders are running both Republic and Nationalist.
Myself - Federation + Nationalist
Sitting Bull - Monarchy + Bourgeois

Everyone else, despite sitting at 12 ~ 20+ cities - is running Republic and Nationalist. :eek:
I'd post logs, but I forgot how to enable the proper ones that go over these things >< Since I think it's a touch strange that EVERYONE in the game is running Republic and many have been for a very very long time. Most civilizations have quite a few cities, one has just over twenty. I saw Aku Bakr switch into Republic a while ago, and he was getting -870 income until he switched out of it a few dozen turns later (And he's back in Republic now)
 
Top Bottom