Ijnavy's Scenarios on GEM

[Agent327]

Seleucid- You have built the biggest Empire in the world, will you keep it, or be conquered by the ones that you conquered over a century ago, Persia?

Parthia- You have the Greatest army in the world, now go with your immortals and show the world your power.

Actually the Parthians were overthrown by the New-Persian Sassanids, making Parthia once again part of Persia. And the Immortals died with Darius; Parthia (and New Persia) was famed for its cavalry, the basis of the Byzantine kataphrakt.

After this I'm planning 1300 AD on Gem and then either 500 AD of 1700 AD.

Ooh! Do 500 AD!

 

[NByz]

I second 500 AD.

And look forward to 200 BC.

 

[Traiano]

I second 500 AD.

And look forward to 200 BC.

Thumbs up for 500 AD also for me.

 

[ijnavy]

Presenting, 200 BC on GEM!!!
I will probably need to update it soon, I didn't get much play testing in it. I'll upload it to the download center soon. Enjoy.

Is it possible to rename the thread to 1100 AD/200 BC on GEM?

Will post 1300 AD city statistics tonight.

 

[Traiano]

I was going to playtest the game but then I noticed the religions are screwed up again, like in 1100 AD.
Or so it seems at first glance, am I mistaken?

I do not know you guys, but for me is beginning to be quite a deal if every GEM scenario has the religions upside down (well, 1500 AD is good ;-))

That said, if someone can show me where to edit the WBS I am going to try to do it myself.
Then I'll playtest the game.

 

[Agent327]

Is it possible to rename the thread to 1100 AD/200 BC on GEM?

You should ask a Moderator (top right of Forum).

I was going to playtest the game but then I noticed the religions are screwed up again, like in 1100 AD.
Or so it seems at first glance, am I mistaken?

I do not know you guys, but for me is beginning to be quite a deal if every GEM scenario has the religions upside down (well, 1500 AD is good ;-))

That said, if someone can show me where to edit the WBS I am going to try to do it myself.

WBS files can simply be edited with Notepad.

 

[Ajidica]

I would not reccomed 500AD. You would have to show the conquests of Justinian, Avar Invasion, Arrival of the Bulgars. In addition, the Lombard invaisions, rise of Islam, and the Creation of the Caliphate. I would reccomend making it 660AD. I have done some reasearch for my Byzantine mod, and that is one of the best start dates.

 

[ijnavy]

With the religions, I'll have to rename the religions, religious buildings, religious units and many of the leaderhead's favorite religions. That is what I know that I need to change in the XML and maybe even python. I can, but it would take some time, should I? I did get 4 of the religions right.

Also, I'm still toward something like 1700 AD than 500 (660).

How is the game itself? I haven't play tested it much, so I want to know if there is something to change before I upload it to the download center.

 

[ijnavy]

Also, here are the city statistics for 1300 AD.
I'm still not sure if the Papal States should be a civ.
Portugal- 3 cities
Castile-Aragon- 5 cities
France- 5 cities
England- 5 cities
Wittelsbach- 4 cities
Austria- 4 cities
Scandinavia- 5 cities
Venice- 4 cities
Papal States- 3 cities
Hungary- 4 cities
Poland-Lithuania- 5 cities
Moscow- 4 cities
Golden Horde- 10 cities
Ottomans – 5 cities
Marinids- 4 cities
Mamluk- 8 cities
Il-khanate- 7 cities
Delhi Sultanate- 6 cities
Bahmani- 4 cities
Vijayanagar- 4 cities
Chagatai- 6 cities
Ayutthaya- 3 cities
Yuan- 10 cities
Japan- 4 cities
Timur- 2 cities
Aztec- 4 cities
Ethiopia- 3 cities
Byzantium- 3 cities

 

[Traiano]

With the religions, I'll have to rename the religions, religious buildings, religious units and many of the leaderhead's favorite religions. That is what I know that I need to change in the XML and maybe even python. I can, but it would take some time, should I? I did get 4 of the religions right.

Yes.
You definitely should.
Better 1 scenario properly done than 3 with a few flaws.
My two cents.

 

[Agent327]

Also, here are the city statistics for 1300 AD.
I'm still not sure if the Papal States should be a civ.

I'd say: yes, certainly, as the Papal States were a distinctive feature in Italy tight until the unification of Italy in the 19th century, but I notice there's nothing in the New World, which, at 1300 AD, seems fairly odd.

PS: Also, perhaps ask a Moderator to change the thread title to jnavy's scenarios for GEM (since you plan to do more).

EDIT: Forgot to mention - can't give any feedback, because 200 BC map won't load. Maybe this has something to do with it being for GEM 4.0, whereas I have 4.2 installed?

 

[NByz]

Anyone else getting CTDs around 130 BC (on the 200 BC one)

I played as Rome, and have tried a couple of restarts and loads from past saves (all the way back to 200 BC).


I haven't tried just starting from the beginning again. Maybe I'll try that tomorrow.

 

[ijnavy]

What are CTDs? I even added some things that are in version 4.2 map to my 4.0 map, maybe I shouldn't of?
Maybe no papal states and add someone in South America, there are the Aztecs already added, I just don't want more than 28 civs.

 

[mikhrr]

Also, here are the city statistics for 1300 AD.
I'm still not sure if the Papal States should be a civ.
Portugal- 3 cities
Castile-Aragon- 5 cities

i think papal states should be a civ because it was very important and another thing... why do you put castile-aragon as one civ? please if you can put them in two separate civs, i am aragonese and i like to play aragon as a civ but if you're puting castile-aragon as civ one question: who will be the leader of the civ?

 

[Traiano]

What are CTDs? I even added some things that are in version 4.2 map to my 4.0 map, maybe I shouldn't of?
Maybe no papal states and add someone in South America, there are the Aztecs already added, I just don't want more than 28 civs.

CTDS: The 200 BC game crashes around 130 BC.

re: 1300 AD--> The Papal State should definitely be in the game.
It was too relevant to be dismissed.

Imo the Papal State should have been included also in 1100 AD.
It is one of the reason why I like - but do not love - that scenario.
If you hand Rome/Papal State to the HRE, it becomes way too powerful and screws up the whole game.
If the religions were fixed and the Papal States included - in place of like Khara Khanids or Ethiopia, that would be def my # 1 scenario/mods.

I believe it is better to have the Pope than a distant euro-asian civs, especially considering the relevance of religion during the Middle Ages and the feud between the Pope and the HR Emperor (see Canossa).

My two cents.


p.s. The new Gem Map with the Balears, Zante etc, looks great.
Way better than the first.


p.p.s. no, I'm not catholic, not even baptized ;-)

 

[Traiano]

i think papal states should be a civ because it was very important and another thing... why do you put castile-aragon as one civ? please if you can put them in two separate civs, i am aragonese and i like to play aragon as a civ but if you're puting castile-aragon as civ one question: who will be the leader of the civ?

The reason why I believe Jnavy merged Castille & Aragon is because he doesnt have available slots for new civs.
Also, Spain is heading toward unification.
I hear where you are coming from, but then according to this "realistic" criteria he would have also had to split the Holy Roman Empire among the 7 Great Elector provinces, or fragment Scandinavia into Kingdom of Denmark, Sweden and Norway.

In conclusion, for game mechanics, it is better to have Portugal and Spain (Castille & Aragon), than have Castille & Aragon and no Portugal.
Do not you agree? ;-)

In the 1100 AD scenario - a pretty good one - he maintained the political differences.
You should try that one...even though Aragon is very weak at the beginning of the Reconquista.

 

[Padma]

What are CTDs?

Crash To Desktop.

 

[mikhrr]

The reason why I believe Jnavy merged Castille & Aragon is because he doesnt have available slots for new civs.
Also, Spain is heading toward unification.
I hear where you are coming from,

ok i see... well i have no problem playing other civs it's not that i can only play with aragon or spain (in fact i sometimes prefer to play with greece) only that i like to play with aragon because, well i dont know how to say in english i think its "i am thrilled" to play with my "home" civ dont know if its well said i just looked it up in the dictionary.

but then according to this "realistic" criteria he would have also had to split the Holy Roman Empire among the 7 Great Elector provinces, or fragment Scandinavia into Kingdom of Denmark, Sweden and Norway.

yeah that's true i hadn't realized it because the thing of castile-aragon is just at the beggining

In conclusion, for game mechanics, it is better to have Portugal and Spain (Castille & Aragon), than have Castille & Aragon and no Portugal.
Do not you agree? ;-)

yes i agree, only that it shocked me to find castile aragon united rather than separated or named as "spain" (although spain wasnt united until 1512 when navarra united castile-aragon)

i have already tried 1100 ad on GEM but i dont know why i start in turn 520 year 2060 and that drives me mad

sorry my awful english

 

[Agent327]

ok i see... well i have no problem playing other civs it's not that i can only play with aragon or spain (in fact i sometimes prefer to play with greece) only that i like to play with aragon because, well i dont know how to say in english i think its "i am thrilled" to play with my "home" civ dont know if its well said i just looked it up in the dictionary.

Well, you can choose "Spain" and use any Aragonese leadername you like - in fact, you can choose "Spain" and name it "Aragon (& Castile)".

@ijnavy: You did it! (Or should I call you Ijnavy now?)

 

[mikhrr]

ok just solved the thing of the date i download it again and now it starts 1100