JFD and Janboruta's Civilisations

I'm playing with Lincoln and barbarian units inside my territory are taking 10 attrition damage, but Stalin is also in the game. Unless that was supposed to happen with the US the stalin UA might be working for every civ.
 
I bet you have no ideology yet?
On the other hand, JFD could forget that -1 = -1, again. :crazyeye:

You must remember that going out of comfort database zone brings bugs... betatesters.

Yay, modern civs have no place in my games, but I like the ideas. Some of them sounds <forbidden word>, but there is also a rule saying that if something is not hurrying your science, then it is completely fine.
 
I have to say free Seaports, Harbours, Banks, Stock Exchanges, Mints, Caravansaries and Markets in all cities is a super, super, super strong ability. That being said - Lincoln does look really good.
 
For all intensive porpoises, waiting one turn for them to pop and have to unlock a respective tech still makes the pretty "free". You'll pay maintenance cost though (however only on the Harbor and Seaport as all other 5 buildings either have no maintenance or add additional gold into your treasury).

The full second half of the UA is essentially:

Mints and Markets take one turn to build in all cities after researching Currency, Banks take one turn to build in all cities after researching Banking, Caravansaries take one turn to build in all cities after researching Horseback Riding, Harbors take one turn to build in all cities after researching Compass, Seaports take one turn to build in all cities after researching Navigation, Stock Exchanges take one turn to build in all cities after researching Electricity.

Maybe if it was the capital it wouldn't be so powerful - but in all cities combined with Mercantilism (Purchasing items in Cities requires 25% less Gold. +1 Science from every Mint, Market, Bank, and Stock Exchange).

You are also essentially saving 1,250 production in each city (basically the production cost of the Sydney Opera House).
 
Personally I have the extremely nitpicky issue with UA name: Warsaw Pact. I mean, it would rather suit Brezhnev or Khrushchev (...I hate English translations of Slavic names and feel sorry for non - Slavic people forced to pronounce that :D ) not Stalin - during Stalin's lifetime Warsaw Pact didn't exist.
Personally I would choose the name of UA which fits Stalin's theme:
- The Great Patriotic War (by the way, this fits the entire 'receive damage when on Stalin lands)
- World Revolution (or something epic like that, fits the entire city states/allies theme)


I agree, Why not just use the most recognized phrase "Iron Curtain"
 
For all intensive porpoises, waiting one turn for them to pop and have to unlock a respective tech still makes the pretty "free". You'll pay maintenance cost though (however only on the Harbor and Seaport as all other 5 buildings either have no maintenance or add additional gold into your treasury).

The full second half of the UA is essentially:



Maybe if it was the capital it wouldn't be so powerful - but in all cities combined with Mercantilism (Purchasing items in Cities requires 25% less Gold. +1 Science from every Mint, Market, Bank, and Stock Exchange).

You are also essentially saving 1,250 production in each city (basically the production cost of the Sydney Opera House).

That's not at all what it is. You still have to wait as many turns as it takes to produce the buildings, it's just that you can produce other things at the same time.

I agree, Why not just use the most recognized phrase "Iron Curtain"

As the UA represents the Warsaw Pact better than it does the Iron Curtain.
 
Mistaken then. Still pretty damn powerful though.
 
Mistaken then. Still pretty damn powerful though.

Powerful or not, its designed in the way that I want it, so please just leave it at that. Power is subjective to the player, and I am not the best at this game; so to me, it gives me the advantage that I often need to enjoy the game. These are civs I design for myself, after all.

I'm playing with Lincoln and barbarian units inside my territory are taking 10 attrition damage, but Stalin is also in the game. Unless that was supposed to happen with the US the stalin UA might be working for every civ.

I'll look into it. The coding is a bit fragile behind Stalin's UA, so I wouldn't be surprised if this was at my fault. Thanks for bringing it up.
 
I'm playing with Lincoln and barbarian units inside my territory are taking 10 attrition damage, but Stalin is also in the game. Unless that was supposed to happen with the US the stalin UA might be working for every civ.

I'm afraid I can't replicate this. I played as Lincoln, with Stalin in-game, and no barbarians were receiving the promotion that handles the attrition; I even declared war on Stalin in case that effected it, but nothing. Perhaps another one of your mods? Or a confederate conspiracy?
 
Armenia and Lithuania have no text ingame (every aspect of the game&every menus). Instead of the descrpitions there were weird codes: "TXTKEYS_something". It looked like a bug in the coding.
 
Not really. At most, you can produce what - two buildings - at the same time? That's hardly game-breaking
I'm not terribly good at strategy, but I can't say I really agree with this statement. As TPangolin pointed out, that's a heck of a lot of hammers you're saving. In a low-production city (say, &#8805;10) , this can be crucial, where every hammer counts because it can take 100+ turns to build a normal building. 2 buildings at once? Production instantly doubled. And that's a lot fewer buildings that you need to add to the queue.

And consider your capital. Likely - at least in the early game - it will be your most productive city. It, therefore, will already have more than enough things to build. (Again, maybe it's just my bad strategery*) Why pile on even more turns for extremely important builds like markets? I think it could very potentially be game-breaking.

Up to a point. I mean, the UA only specifies a certain 7 buildings that can be built at the same time as other buildings. That's probably the only reason it isn't game-breaking. But imagine... you'd barely have to worry about your economy at all! (Except maybe keeping your eye on unit maintenance and caravans)

As long as the "unique wartime bonuses" are balanced, I don't think the UA is very OP. Which reminds me - JFD, does the AI have logic to be more hesitant to attack America due to the wartime bonuses?

@TPangolin: "intensive porpoises"... that's a new one. :lol:

*Intentionally spelled
 
Hi there, JFD!

I seem to be the only one to wonder about this.

So:

Since you have changed Bismarck to be more aggressive towards City-States, will you replace the Hanse? It really does not fit his style IMO. Maybe you could make a Hanseatic League civ or something and cram it in there instead. Would make sense considering you're planning on a Teutonic Order mod.

Anyways, thanks for making my civ games that much more enjoyable :goodjob:
 
i really like the stalin-based russia design (also having a strong liking to all the russia civs)
your custom civs are all very cool.

however: i would really like to see something that drives them (game mechanic-wise, slight bonus, whatever) towards choosing the order ideology.
as it is, with freedom being the best ideology its kinda weird seeing stalin choosing freedom or (in case of playing out the warlike-theme) autocracy.
(although i have to admit, the last one wouldnt be as misfitting as freedom.)

one question left: whats with the last part of his ua and the autocracy tenet doing the same? will they add up or will taking it be useless to him (only the intimidation bonus) ?
 
That's the point. When playing Bismarck, you have to decide which city states to attack, and with which ones to trade to reap the benefits from the Hanse.

Mkay. I didn't think of it that way. It makes sense.
 
"Blood and Iron" is infinitely better than Mongolia's UA, which is entirely geared toward attacking CSs. :lol:
 
Top Bottom