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

Italy and Germany changes for the bigger map

Discussion in 'Rhye's and Fall - Dawn of Civilization' started by Logoncal, Jul 21, 2018.

  1. pernas

    pernas Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2016
    Messages:
    35
    There's no need to add new civs to Europe. Just add independent cities to represent historically important areas like San Marino and Christiania.

    If we completely remove the african continent, we could have every european metropolis with over 1000 population. Wonders or projects could be added to represent european colonization of Africa, which is of course the only part of african history other than ancient egypt that's relevant. As for Egypt, just put them in the pacific ocean where there is plenty of space already.

    These seem like fairly simple changes which would help make the map more accurate
     
  2. Patine

    Patine Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    3,184
    Problem is, Israel/Judah existed as a nation between the 9th and 5th Centuries B.C., and then took a big break of existing as a sovereign nation, and Jerusalem was ruled by a succession of Mesopotamian, Hellenistic, Christian, and Moslem nations, and the Herodian Kingdom of Jedea, which was basically just a vassal state of Rome, and not independent, in truth, at all, and then re-emerged as a sovereign nation in 1948, almost 2500 years after it's last sovereign existence. How do you do this in a Civ game, exactly?
     
  3. 1SDAN

    1SDAN Brother Lady

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    Messages:
    2,072
    You don't.

    I was meming an older thread.
     
    Enyavar likes this.
  4. Enyavar

    Enyavar Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 16, 2015
    Messages:
    309
    Just before the Herodian era was, however, nearly 80 years of an autonomous/independent Hasmonean Kingdom, so I'd argue that you meant to say "about 2000 years after it's last sovereign existence".
    Sure that period is just 5 turns in our game, but for the people back then, it was three generations of independence. So far, modern Israel has not lasted as long as that kingdom. And in comparison, I'd say that the fabulous claims of ancient Eretz Israel including David and Salomon are exaggerated myths of backwater hill kingdoms that existed in the shadows of larger cities and empires - while the Hasmoneans were really a local power in their times.

    Anyway, I got it now. This thread is just for joking about demands of including important civs like Guatemala, Moldavia and Minoans. Thanks to pernas and 1SDAN who pointed it out.
     
    1SDAN and Leoreth like this.
  5. BarbarianX

    BarbarianX Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2013
    Messages:
    45
    Wait so we won't have Guatemala in the game? What about Southern Brazil? I mean, we NEED it as an independent civ to better represent the period following the Indepence of Brazil.
     
  6. Jarlaxe Baenre

    Jarlaxe Baenre Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,944
    Location:
    Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    To bring this thread back on topic and away from the , I've been thinking about this a bit.

    The problem with introducing a new civ as an offshoot of an existing one is that it weakens both—even if one conquers the other, they have to deal with the fact that they lost all of that infrastructure.

    Making buildings more likely to be retained on conquest would be required to solve this.

    Taking inspiration from how Rome and the Byzantines work, drastic changes that are outside the scope of revolution, as with China, could perhaps be represented with a similar mechanic and near-certain war. If the civ is unstable, a contender with a different core pops up (eg: South China, the Qing, Prussia, Austria, Québec).

    These contenders could also be chosen to be played, like how you can select Byzantium or Thailand and they'll appear even if conditions are not met.

    I'm not sure how many of these there would be, but I think this is a mechanic that causes the fewest problems. They only appear if the civ they're tied to is doing poorly, and can probably quickly win a war and get back on track.

    Edit: removed a word that some might find offensive
     
    AtlantaMarty and 1SDAN like this.
  7. AtlantaMarty

    AtlantaMarty Democracy Manifest: CivFanatics 1984

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2013
    Messages:
    820
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    How about making it so buildings are lost through bombardment, not actual city conquest itself?

    Or maybe even making it so city conquest damages buildings, and you can repair them for a discounted hammer cost relative to their actual price?
     
  8. Patine

    Patine Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    3,184
    So, like most RTS games (like the Ensemble Studios Age of Empires/Age of Mythology series, or the two Empire Earth games, or Rise of Nations and Rise of Legends, as very good examples)?
     
  9. need my speed

    need my speed Rex Omnium Imperarium

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    2,035
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    European Union (Magna Batavia)
    I really like the idea of bombardment / siege, not conquest, having the chance to (partially; i.e. they require less hammers to be built again) destroy buildings.
    I would even go one step further and retain (part of) the hammers invested in whatever the city is currently producing.
     
  10. BarbarianX

    BarbarianX Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2013
    Messages:
    45
    Thinking about that, and maybe going a bit off-topic here, but we could even extend the city conquest event (decision between conquering it and razing it) to add a "sack" option, which would damage buildings, maybe cause some unhapiness/extra turns for ocupation, but net more gold for the conqueror.
     
  11. Enyavar

    Enyavar Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 16, 2015
    Messages:
    309
    Both are great ideas! Conquering a city currently removes all cultural buildings - if you could restore them at half or third cost before using them again, that would be totally acceptable.

    In my opinion, the conqueror could choose to
    - "spare" the conquered city, which means that the soldiers don't get to loot and pillage. That means: No gold from conquest, instead gold has to be paid (i.e. to the soldiers and the civil population) out of the treasury. The bigger the city, the more gold needs to be paid. Poor conquerors simply can't afford that. Sparing a city means all cultural buildings are 1/3 damaged and unusable (including wonders which would have to be restored before giving the regular benefits). All regular buildings remain (with exceptions of national wonders etc...).
    - "loot" the conquered city, which means the regular gold from conquest. Cultural buildings are 2/3 damaged and unusable, including wonders. Also, the normal rate of disappearing regular buildings.
    - "sack" (special option for certain civics, replaces the "loot" option): +100% gold with conquest (increased for balance reasons - in many cases, cities will be more lucrative to spare otherwise)
    - "raze" (should yield a bit more gold than looting or sacking, and also a slave with appropriate civics)
    - and the regular option of liberating/gifting to other civs if possible.
     
  12. Leoreth

    Leoreth 古典部の会員 Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    32,592
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Kamiyama
    I thought about that as well. This could tie in with the culture conversion effect: if you spare the city, less culture is converted, but you keep more buildings.
     
  13. ozqar

    ozqar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Messages:
    602
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    In addition to the spare options (or as part of them) - I would like the option of integrating the city as a colony, mark, or whatever other type of dependent but autonomous territory, essentially creating a vassal state.
     
    AtlantaMarty likes this.
  14. Sarius1997

    Sarius1997 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Messages:
    129
    Location:
    Germany
    I like those ideas. If the event becomes to complicated though, the effects could be connected with the military civic. So a country with "Conquest" would have different effects on a conquered city than one with "Multilateralism".
     

Share This Page