Discussion in 'Civ5 - Scenarios' started by Kruelgor, Oct 9, 2010.
And that's what is annoying me, India basically sold to all of Europe
Thanks for the feedback. I'll add another jewel or maybe two in India in version 4, if there's a version 4.
So I just tried this scenario out, played as Romans on the default scenario settings. And it is by far to easy. So i will propose some changes.
In Europe (and probly elsewhere as well) there should be alot more barbarian camp, romans shouldent be able to get of thire halfe island without taking out a few camps.
Also you should add some combat advantage to the barbarians, like +100% strenght in thire camps. So one will need several units to take them out. As the romans was contained by barbarians untill they formed thire legions.
Barbarians even raided Rome several times during it's uprising.
Also, the gold beside rome should be silver insted, as romans dident use much gold untill around 100BC, so gold could be where the silver is now or somewhere 3 spaces from rome so one have to spend quite a bit of gold to get the tile.
Also most od the gold in the roman empire came from africa(throught egypt) and from spain.
One intresting thing would be to add a city state named The Etruscans that was in north italy and controlled the mines, (the iron as well) so as rome you need to defeat/ally them before getting iron and gold.
And now to somethig different...
Why is America avaible at all, it's not in anyway an ancient civ, while Iroquois is (or rather the non-unified tribes).
There is alot of other nations that would be entitled being a nation, or at least a city-state while america is not.
I don't believe the world builder will allow the placement of barbarian camps. They seem to be random. Nothing I can do there. Sorry.
Is there any limit to how meny city-stats there can be, as quite a few is actually needed to balance up the map to be a bit more historical accurate.
I did try out greece and noticed very fast that one would deviate from the historical expansion. Insted one will expand to the north at first wich shouldent be possible.
there should be atleast two hostile city-states that prevents expansion to the north.
To the north-west the Illyrians should be (also blocking the roman expansion to the east after they anexed The Etruscans. And to the north-east the Thracians. These where both strong tribes hostile to the greece empire, blocking of the access to the north, making it easier to expand into asian minor.
I never used the scenario editor so I dont know what is possible and not. But if possible the city-states should lose alot more influence from trasspassing, so if you go like 3 squares into the they will declare war (so citystates actually limits the movements and expansion). They should also have quite strong army from the start so one cant annex them. the citystates should have walls in the cities and high defence. Also the values of degeneration of the citystates should be increased quite a bit, being between -2 (friendly) and -4 (hostile) or something like that to make it alot harder to abuse city-states.
The reason to why persia, romans, greek, cartagians etc. wage wars against eatch other insted of expanding north was that the states occuping the northen areas was very powerfull militaristic.
A map from 650bc so you can see some of the layouts.
Imo both rome and greece should be more contained to going the sea way and wage war/colonice around the mediterranean sea.
Further more id like to see a whale resource south of italy, so a city built to the furthest south will gain access to both wine and whales. (yes there was and are whales in the mediterranean sea). This would make the area more intresting for greece and giving a reason for them to make an colony there just as they had historical.
Even thought one could say that whale resources should be avaible for the ottomans as well, maybe insted of the perls. And placing the perls inside the Thracians domains (as they are between greece and asia minor) and the Thracians should be friendly towards ottomans and hostile towards greece (if that is possible).
Actually, you can place camps in the World Builder....
I'll look again.
edit: Yeah, you're right. They just call it 'encampment'. Well, that's very good to know. Thanks for letting me know.
First of all, it’s a great map. Thank you.
This is a game, but with all the other mod options available, it’s your attention to realism that entices us to play your mod. Nit-picking aside, I find the resource allocation to be well done. Obviously, there are not enough tiles to place every resource in its original location. I think it’s less about the historical accuracy of the resource location as it is about the benefits on the civilization which that resource gives. For example, when Athens discovered the large silver vein in Attica it allowed for it to build a dominating navy it used to eventually become an empire. It’s really a matter of wealth. It matters little if the resource is gold or silver both will suffice to affect the civilization accurately. But, I would disagree with placing horses in North America….that’s just wrong. hehe
As you seem interested in feedback and/or constructive criticism, here’s a few suggestions:
1. Add city states Illyria and Thrace.
I’ve been playing with the Greek civilization and I too found expanding North the only natural recourse and way too easy which is historically wrong. I agree with someone who posted earlier that militaristic city-states, Illyria and Thrace, could solve this problem by limiting expansion north-west and north-east. Illyria could also limit Roman expansion east.
2. Replace American Civilization with Iroquois.
I also agree with several posts earlier that America has no business being on this map. I’m not some anti-American bashing ex-pat, but I am interested in playing a map that values realism and has consistent justifications for variations. America is merely a colony of Europe and is culturally nearly identical. The Iroquois, on the other hand, have more legitimate claim to being a distinct civilization with more natural development in America. This also gives the Europeans a chance to re-colonize. =P
3. Remove Ottoman Civilization and replace with Hittite City-State.
On that same mode of thinking, the Ottomans, though distinct from the Arabian civilization in some aspects, are a direct descendent with little cultural variation from the Arabians and thus a redundant civilization the same as the Americans. Their location at Istanbul/Constantinople is the single biggest barrier to eastward and even Aegean Sea sovereignty for Greece. I’d propose that the Ottoman civilization be removed and replaced with a slightly more inland militaristic Hittite city-state.
4. Switch start conditions of Greece and Persia.
Also, I don’t understand the logic behind Greece starting with two cities while all others start with 1 and a worker/warrior. With historic considerations, it should be the Persians who start with two cities. They were the first super power of the ancient world. Greece was, and very important for identity sake, a SMALL country that faced off with the largest nation on the planet, at the time. I’d propose switching the two. Make Persia two cities but no worker or warrior. Persepolis and Susa or even Babylon since there’s no Nebuchadnezzar in this mod; and make Greece 1 city.
5. Make Greek capital Athens and give them at least a Hoplite.
Pella is nice since it was the Macedonian capital but Alexander didn’t exactly spend a lot of time on the thrown there. Athens is much more important as the cultural source of the Greek World. There is no Alexander the Great if there is no Athens. Also, I’d give the Athenians at least a Hoplite. The Bronze Age is too short in civilization and the Roman legions are only a few clicks away. A Trireme too would be way cool.
6. Finally, the City State of Poland should be cultured rather than militaristic.
Thanks again for all your hard work and attention to detail. It’s a real fun mod to play.
Thanks for the feedback. Perhaps I will create a separate version with some of your suggestions. Thanks.
A good idea that i dident think of, with this chnage the cartagians should be added, and russia should be moved to be just north of Illyria and Thrace, as it's there the ancient swedes built the trading post that became Rus and then Russia.
I do agree with this, the mesopothanian cultures was way larger then any other in the ancient era.
This is one way, another would be to start with Pella, but the spot for adding the city Athens would be much better then Pella so Athens would quite soon outgrow Pella once setteled.
I cant realy agree to this, althought imo Poland could be renamed to Goths (actually it should be on the swedish isle of Gothland but..) and sweden would symbolize the Geets (Götar) both the Geets and Goths ehere strong militaristic and in trading, sure they had a very rich culture as well. But I think it would be to much of a help to germany if they where cultural.
Also the citystate of denmark, could be added to make it harder for france and germany.
Maybe let Etrusia have gold (so romans can aquire it) and the Greek have silver. Making it more intresting for thoes two to wage war.
Also south italy and cartago should have whales, making it intresting for the greeks to colonize south rome. Or maybe even remove the perls from greece, and put thoes in south italy. And give Cartagians whales. Splitting up different lux between them related to the sea would add good reason to wage war the same way they did historical.
In another note, Romans shouldent start with a worker, nither germany nor france either. Roamans should be contained by Etrusians and Illyria and start with no units at all, but have a city wall. France and Germany could eatch start with a warrior but no worker.
For a more historical feel I would suggest adding Denmark and Norway in Scandinavia. Also put a tile of hills where Zealand is supposed to be and place their capitol there.
I agree with pretty much everything you've said. I think I was learning toward Poland being a cultured city-state since the Polish nation has made such significant contributions in the arts especially in classical music. I didn't think the Poles were descendents of the Gauls. I was under the impression that the Poles and Celts had different cultural and genetic lineages.
Anyways, its not important in the big picture.
So, the problem with the current map, that a few of us have recognized, is how the current lay-out makes it less likely that historical events will occur naturally at least in Southern Europe. Though the distal causes of historical events may be beyond the scope of the civilization gaming platform, a realistic scenario will, at least, attempt to take into consideration the proximate causes that led to historical events.
The single biggest factor for influencing historical events in southern Europe has been terrain. Take a look at this map: Terrain Map of Europe If you look at this map, you'll notice that east of the Alps is a gap, filled by Vienna, then the Carpathian Mountains go all the way down to Bucharest in a backward C formation. These mountains made northern influence in Greece and Rome less pronounce while the narrow gaps filled completely on both sides by militaristic nations made expansion north for the Greeks and Romans less of a viable option than South and West into the Mediterranean or East into Asia. This mountain range was so significant on historical events that when the Ottomans eventually did break out into Europe they were forced to try to pass through Vienna and were stopped by European forces at the siege of Vienna. If they would have been able to get past Vienna there would have been no other natural obstacle other than rivers to stop their invasion and World history would have turned out completely different. So, a solution could be a slight modification of the terrain to reflect the very strategic mountains east of the Alps. If you leave just two narrow passes you can easily fill those with militaristic city-states, then gravity does the rest.
After looking into it further, it appears that Thrace, Illyria, Etruscans, Hittites and a few other city-states suggested in this thread aren't easy additions, but require a more complicated level of modding as they aren't part of the default city-state package. But, another possible quick fix is available. One solution for Illyria and Thrace is to use the city-states, Belgrade and Bucharest to cap northern expansion. While Florence could act like the Etruscans capping the Romans, at least temporarily, until the legions break loose.
An Anatolia Solution:
In Civ V, there are no Hittites and little that could fit naturally into that region using just the default city-states available . Now, city-state name changes arent part of the default Civ V world builder options but civilizations name changes are. We could simply change the name of the Ottoman civilization or another one of your choosing to the Hittites.
Walla! Weve got Hittites!
I think Finland is a nice add being a traditional enemy of the Russian peoples.
Oh, I forgot. I disagree with your thought of starting with Pella then building Athens. This is one we'll have to agree to disagree. Pella isn't even in the top 3 for most influential city-states of Greece.
I know it's mere speculation, but if Alexander had been able to return to Greece, I wouldn't have been surprised if he would have pulled up his court and moved it to Athens. I believe Pella just lacked the cultural sophistication he had become acquainted to living in the palaces of Persia for a decade.
Athens has been continually inhabited for over 7,000 years...going back further than the Trojan War. Sparta, Corinth, Thebes, and Pella can't claim the same. I think she's earned the right to claim legitimacy over any other. Though and intriquing idea, if civ city name changes could be made is to name the city Mycenae and the Leader Agamemnon. Then edit the great generals to spawn as Trojan Heros, Odysseus, Ajax, Hector, and of course Achilles.
I think I'm getting a bit off topic, or onto a topic for a new mod idea.
Denmark I do agree with, but Norway is not needed unless Sweden is added as a playable civ I think. Althought I have not yet play-tested England, so maybe they indeed is needed to limit them.
They are not, Gauls where Celtic tribes in the area of where belgium is today.
My idea was to make them symbolize the Goths, these where a people from the swedish isle Gotland and they roamed around in Europe quite alot, and spred alot of culture as well (gothic inspired buildings are quite popular even today). And thire natural entry to Europe was by sea landing in what is today the Baltik countries and Poland as well as Germany and Denmark obviusly. But these places where more common for the Geet's(from mainland sweden) to roam into.
Hopefully Kruelgor will agree with us as well ;D
I agree with your solution, dosent matter what thire names is, at least not in this stage.
Well in the days Finland was a thorn to Russia it was a part of Sweden. If we want a bit more historical accuracy the citystate could be Nyen wich was a swedish trading port that later became St. Petersburg.
This is why I suggested that the spot for athens would be alot better so it would outgrow pella fast, the reason to why Pella is it's location. If you start with Pella it would be very natural to get a settler and build athens quite fast, and then go to colonice south of italy or something. While if you get Athens from start, then you wouldent want to settle the area where Pella is realy as its not very lucrative area.
Another reason for starting with Pella is to slow down the growth of greece, forcing them to get the city of athens before they get any real production and growth going.
If you get Athens right away you will advance pretty fast thanks to the great location of it.
Ok I know, alot of Sweden all over, but the truth is that Sweden and Denmark have huge inpact on the formation of Europe as even Russia is from start a "swedish" trading colony. And in the middle Ages the swedish forces defeted the Vaticans expansion and victory for protstantism over catholism. Not to mention the Vikings etc.. Sweden is even more entiled to be a playable civ then most of thoes already in the game. So is Denmark. O well scandinavia is always neglected, the price for 200years of peace
Ahh! I understand and agree.
Great points all around.
I wonder, what is your aim Kruelgor. Maybe you dont find our suggestins fitting well into your aim?
One possibilaty would be for us to make a spinoff where we add the changes to enforce/promote a more historical correct expansion of the empires. If this dosent suit your aim that is.
Thanks for all your feedback, but right now I'm busy making a Roman Empire scenario.
I finally got the scenario downloaded and installed (duh). It's a very nice piece of work. I particularly like the raging barbarians choice. I played the Greeks up to about 150 turns and managed to pretty much copy Alexander's moves, taking the Ottomans, Arabia, Egypt, and Persia. I found alliances with Poland and Israel to be useful. The Greeks played well by focusing on military, getting a few Hoplites and Companion Cavalry, and taking several Honor social choices. Rome and Germany both tried to put cities in the West of Greece, but they were easily blown out and then Rome gave a great amount of good things for a peace treaty (Germany remained contentious). Overall, very nice, but I want to play on King to make it tougher so will look for where to set that on the next try.
Will be working on a Version 4 over the course of the next few days.
- Will add Mongols
- Will remove America
- Will add Native Americans (city state)
- Will add LOTS more barbarian camps in the Americas.
- There is an issue with Japan being too close to America (much closer than Europe is to America). I'm considering possibly removing the wrap-around.
Separate names with a comma.