Large Map and New Civilizations are now playable

[TwoF]

The infamous 2014 "Novorossiya" would be a better fit for the modern day Ruthenian vassal of Russia in my opinion

Novorossiya (New Russia) is a Black Sea region of Ukraine that was historically populated by Russia. Novorossiya has nothing to do with what Ruthenia is in this mod for most of history. The region with its center in Kyiv was called Malorossiya (Little Russia).

 

[CivEnthusiast]

Novorossiya (New Russia) is a Black Sea region of Ukraine that was historically populated by Russia. Novorossiya has nothing to do with what Ruthenia is in this mod for most of history. The region with its center in Kyiv was called Malorossiya (Little Russia).

I'm aware, however there're no other existing real parallels to the modern day puppets of Russia in Ukraine, Yanukovich's Ukraine wouldn't have any rename as a puppet

 

[TwoF]

I can also suggest vassal titles for Russia, assuming it were a vassal of Ruthenia. In this case, Russia would most likely be called Muscovy, since both Ruthenia and Russia claim the historical legacy of ancient Rus. Therefore, neither Russia nor Ruthenia would allow their vassal to have a name related to Rus.
Historically, we have already seen that when Russia controlled the lands of what is now Ukraine, it tried to refer to this region as "Little Russia" or, accordingly, "Ukraine" (which literally translates as "at the edge/borderland"), while, of course, maintaining in its own historical narrative that Russia is the rightful heir of the fallen Rus.
At the same time, Ukraine, now being an independent state, considers itself the legitimate heir of Rus (due to its capital) and views Russia as merely a state of Moscow (Muscovy) that broke away from Rus.

 

[TwoF]

I'm aware, however there're no other existing real parallels to the modern day puppets of Russia in Ukraine, Yanukovich's Ukraine wouldn't have any rename as a puppet

We have what Ukraine was called under the empire and under the Soviet power. This is quite enough. I do not think that "for the sake of purity" we need the lands of Ruthenia not to be part of the Russian state, but to be subordinated to them as vassals. In fashion, there are already vassal names of countries for regions that were not formally vassals, but were directly part of the state.

 

[Mcbc_6]

Won a historical victory as Dravidia on normal settings. The larger map really helps Southern India feel less cramped; it actually felt like a conquest moving up to Bengal.

The gameplay loop itself was really fun. I researched the techs for citizenship, merchant trade, thassalocracy, and caste system and switched ASAP before focusing on culture then gold production. Citizenship was mandatory to build markets in time, not only for gold but for the great merchants essential for goal 1. It's also amazing for building a mercenary army for goal #2. Buying military units and cranking research all the way up with your massive treasure (and strong south Indian economy) feels powerful and incredible. Goal 1 part 1 was easy enough using only merchant specialists; goal 2 was also easy enough after buying enough transports and swordsmen.

The biggest challenge was getting 7500 gold thru trade. In hindsight I could have had a much easier time if I didn't settle a great merchant in Kanichapuram, but I was trying to plan for the pop goal. I sold off techs like a maniac and traded resources for whatever gold I could, got lucky getting a great merchant and sent him to Seoul (I was trying to kill India for settling a city I had razed 3 times). I hit the req 2 turns before the timer. Goal 3 seemed difficult, but I built the wonder with +1 food to religious buildings and Wat Preah Pisnulok to help, then switched to redistribution and syncretism (+2 food on paddy fields) to make food production skyrocket. I won in 1405, well before the goal.

As I wrote before, the gameplay loop was incredible. You never feel too far behind when you're gold hoarding; after, you become powerful, but not so powerful that you're curbstomping everything (along with your tiny core holding you back). Dharani's were very useful for conquering Malaya and making contact with far away nations to check for tech trades. My only complaint is about the unique building, which comes pretty late in the tech tree to really make a difference in your games. It's only real purpose is in reaching the 3rd goal, which +10% food only helps slightly. Perhaps it could be moved slightly earlier in the tree? Even at close to max research for after 600 AD I only reached staecraft right when the game was finished.

Overall, a really fun experience. I felt like a naval, commercial empire.

 

[Crossphazer]

Not sure which thread would be most appropriate, but I see a consistent problem with Rome's stability, where the spawn of Byzantium causes Rome to collapse within a turn or two. If anything, Byzantium spawning should give Rome a temporary stability buff to offset its losses, reflecting the reasoning for the division of the empire in the first place (to have an emperor closer at hand no matter the province). Rome collapsing in the 400s is perfectly appropriate, but collapsing in the mid 330s leaves a void in the western Mediterranean. It also leaves out any chance, even if rare, that Rome survives just long enough to meet the French spawn.

 

[CivEnthusiast]

Not sure which thread would be most appropriate, but I see a consistent problem with Rome's stability, where the spawn of Byzantium causes Rome to collapse within a turn or two. If anything, Byzantium spawning should give Rome a temporary stability buff to offset its losses, reflecting the reasoning for the division of the empire in the first place (to have an emperor closer at hand no matter the province). Rome collapsing in the 400s is perfectly appropriate, but collapsing in the mid 330s leaves a void in the western Mediterranean. It also leaves out any chance, even if rare, that Rome survives just long enough to meet the French spawn.

Also having the Roman Units stationed in the Eastern half cede to Byzantium instead of all of them being forcibly relocated into Western Rome would've been neat. Last time when I switched from Rome to Byzantium after reaching Rome's greatest extent had to take some significant effort to just topple Western Rome by taking Italy due to all of the Roman Legion units that I previously stamped having remained with Western Rome, which then also hindered the barbarian efforts at doing any damage to them until my Byzantine pressure made them collapse

 

[Crossphazer]

Also having the Roman Units stationed in the Eastern half cede to Byzantium instead of all of them being forcibly relocated into Western Rome would've been neat. Last time when I switched from Rome to Byzantium after reaching Rome's greatest extent had to take some significant effort to just topple Western Rome by taking Italy due to all of the Roman Legion units that I previously stamped having remained with Western Rome, which then also hindered the barbarian efforts at doing any damage to them until my Byzantine pressure made them collapse

Agreed, although super-charging Byz with those additional legions may have knock-on effects, so it would have to be validated with a spawning into an ~1500s nation and checking the game history.

On a different topic, I've been playing China a few times. It might need some kind of Three Kingdoms event, because playing up until the Mongols is a bit too calm. The barbarian and independent cities & units that spawn add some variety but I think it might need a bit more to do. It would also make the later waves of East Asian spawns feel more like the post-Roman European spawns, filling a void left by a divided China. Naturally, this might affect the UHV since China would be more difficult.

I don't think this would require adding another civ; you could achieve it by splitting China into Shu, Wu and Wei, where the player gets one part, Indy1 gets the second, and Indy2 gets the third. Player might be able to choose which splinter nation to play (i.e. they don't lose those cities to Indy1 or Indy2) via a pop-up. If China is AI-controlled, default to Wei, since it is in the Chinese core.

This could probably be preceded by Yellow Turban style uprisings of "barbarian" units.

For fun I might see what kind of changes I can make in scripting to support these events, how much work they would represent and what the effect on gameplay would be.

 

[IrishDragon]

On a different topic, I've been playing China a few times. It might need some kind of Three Kingdoms event, because playing up until the Mongols is a bit too calm. The barbarian and independent cities & units that spawn add some variety but I think it might need a bit more to do. It would also make the later waves of East Asian spawns feel more like the post-Roman European spawns, filling a void left by a divided China. Naturally, this might affect the UHV since China would be more difficult.

I don't think this would require adding another civ; you could achieve it by splitting China into Shu, Wu and Wei, where the player gets one part, Indy1 gets the second, and Indy2 gets the third. Player might be able to choose which splinter nation to play (i.e. they don't lose those cities to Indy1 or Indy2) via a pop-up. If China is AI-controlled, default to Wei, since it is in the Chinese core.

This could probably be preceded by Yellow Turban style uprisings of "barbarian" units.

For fun I might see what kind of changes I can make in scripting to support these events, how much work they would represent and what the effect on gameplay would be.

I still think the best option for China is to flesh them out to at least 2 leaders per era, then clone the civ. During periods of instability, the cloned civ can emerge with the other leader to represent the civil wars and periods of disunity (and throw a city or two to independents if you want to represent the 3 kingdoms or warlords era). Have them primarily focused on each other so one China eventually wins out, or outsiders conquer them

 

[Crossphazer]

I still think the best option for China is to flesh them out to at least 2 leaders per era, then clone the civ. During periods of instability, the cloned civ can emerge with the other leader to represent the civil wars and periods of disunity (and throw a city or two to independents if you want to represent the 3 kingdoms or warlords era). Have them primarily focused on each other so one China eventually wins out, or outsiders conquer them

I think this is a fine idea, but I thought I'd offer my suggestion of just using independents as a quick solution. Asking for extra civs (even if one is just a clone of the other) might be too ambitious. I don't know Leoreth's thoughts on the matter of China.

 

[SOVNARKOM]

I don't think this would require adding another civ; you could achieve it by splitting China into Shu, Wu and Wei, where the player gets one part, Indy1 gets the second, and Indy2 gets the third. Player might be able to choose which splinter nation to play (i.e. they don't lose those cities to Indy1 or Indy2) via a pop-up. If China is AI-controlled, default to Wei, since it is in the Chinese core.

I doubt if this makes any sense, There is already a mechanism in the game to separate cities when stability is low,and forced separation doesn't seem interesting, especially considering that independent cities AI are not keen on building troops, so both players and AI China can easily retrieve them. I think it might be more appropriate to solve this problem by increasing the generation of barbarians, just like Rome.(Compared to the Three Kingdoms period, the weakness caused by the barbarians destroying the Western Jin and Northern Song dynasties seems more reasonable)

 

[Crossphazer]

I doubt if this makes any sense, There is already a mechanism in the game to separate cities when stability is low [emphasis mine], and forced separation doesn't seem interesting, especially considering that independent cities AI are not keen on building troops, so both players and AI China can easily retrieve them. I think it might be more appropriate to solve this problem by increasing the generation of barbarians, just like Rome.(Compared to the Three Kingdoms period, the weakness caused by the barbarians destroying the Western Jin and Northern Song dynasties seems more reasonable)

At present, there is really no reason to have low stability as China. The core area is large, and so is the historical area. You barely need to go into conquest zones if you go for UHV (which requires at least 16 confucian cities for the temples). Barbarian pressure could be increased (although I think the latest commit's description says it buffed barbarians for Rome & China) to put pressure from the north, but I think China needs something to convey its cycles of division and unification. The Byzantine faction is an equally arbitrary additional civ viewed through the lens of political continuity, but a useful one.

On the topic of city separation on stability loss, I don't see much of it with AIs. They typically keep chugging along until final collapse all at once, like with the Romans, Arabians, Persians and Indians, as far as I've seen in a number of antiquity / early medieval games. Maybe that mechanic should get an increase in frequency (and a corresponding grace period for collapse) to help out collapsing civs, or rather to make them collapse in pieces rather than all at once.

 

[SOVNARKOM]

At present, there is really no reason to have low stability as China. The core area is large, and so is the historical area. You barely need to go into conquest zones if you go for UHV (which requires at least 16 confucian cities for the temples). Barbarian pressure could be increased (although I think the latest commit's description says it buffed barbarians for Rome & China) to put pressure from the north, but I think China needs something to convey its cycles of division and unification. The Byzantine faction is an equally arbitrary additional civ viewed through the lens of political continuity, but a useful one.

On the topic of city separation on stability loss, I don't see much of it with AIs. They typically keep chugging along until final collapse all at once, like with the Romans, Arabians, Persians and Indians, as far as I've seen in a number of antiquity / early medieval games. Maybe that mechanic should get an increase in frequency (and a corresponding grace period for collapse) to help out collapsing civs, or rather to make them collapse in pieces rather than all at once.

Perhaps players do not need it, but I believe that under the current war map mechanism, AI seems to be enthusiastic about excessive expansion, which means they are more likely to become unstable.
I also agree that more should be allowed for unstable civilizations to separate into independent cities, which seems also to be applicable to Rome's Crisis of the Third Century

 

[Jesusocalypse]

I still think the best option for China is to flesh them out to at least 2 leaders per era, then clone the civ. During periods of instability, the cloned civ can emerge with the other leader to represent the civil wars and periods of disunity (and throw a city or two to independents if you want to represent the 3 kingdoms or warlords era). Have them primarily focused on each other so one China eventually wins out, or outsiders conquer them

I like this idea a lot, if only because it would be a lot more interesting to see from the AI than collapsing and reforming every other era which seems to happen at least for me on 3000BC.

 

[Crossphazer]

I like this idea a lot, if only because it would be a lot more interesting to see from the AI than collapsing and reforming every other era which seems to happen at least for me on 3000BC.

Maybe the original China with its northern Core area, and another China with the south as its Core.

 

[Gen1_]

Maybe the original China with its northern Core area, and another China with the south as its Core.

Two Chinas ? Good luck with Leoreth.

 

[Dracosolon]

is this what the One China Policy is about

 

[Crossphazer]

Two Chinas ? Good luck with Leoreth.

Yeah, hence why my initial suggestion makes use of Indy1 and Indy2 and events rather than a new civ, although I'm not opposed to that idea, since China has more room than on the original RFC sized map.

 

[1SDANi]

I feel like warrings states periods and cold war divisions kinda fall into the camp that there'd need to be some sort of a civil war mechanic for them to be able to exist in a way that makes any sense, and no, this is not a backdoor US Civil War post any more than Andorra has a chance of being a civ

 

[Mcbc_6]

Finished a Colombia game last night, normal settings. I should mention I'm a few gif updates behind (I'm lazy) - at least behind the one "fixing 1700 scenario issues" and further 1700 changes, but with the new civics. So I'll focus more on Colombia overall. Apologies for the long text.

This one is difficult for its second goal: control all of South America in 1920, or around 60-70 turns after your spawn. This means no vassals; you must directly own every city, which I missed on my first playthrough. With Colombia's truly miniscule core and poor growth within said core for the majority of the game due to jungles and rainforest, managing overextension becomes the 2nd biggest obstacle (I'll get to the first later). Their UP preventing resistance works well towards reducing it, as using your starting despotism civic you can whip jails and courthouses to keep periphery population down. Peru's spawn helped a lot in finishing goal 1, and their cities are excellent for whipping/drafting units. Around 1870 I declared on Argentina and made sure to settle Santiago and Rawson to cover gaps on the coast that greedy Europeans were looking at. Albion Legions really crush cities and make conquest much easier; be aware you have to research chemistry before building more for your initial stack.

Finishing Argentina around 1896, I declared on Brazil and made quick work of their armies. Around 1910 the biggest obstacle appeared. On my first attempt, Peru respawned because I razed a poorly settled Brazilian city, on top of overextension nearly hitting the max -25, even with mass whipping. It was bad enough that all my units were far from Peru, but due to the 10 turn peace treaty, I would have no chance to retake the cities if I didn't deny their spawn. They received a massive stack of units that I had no chance of overcoming. I reloaded a save a few turns prior to see if keeping the Brazilian city would work. It did, but when Brazil collapsed (either that turn or the turn prior), Portugal respawned and was granted Belem, and the Dutch were given Recife. The particularly annoying part was the 10 year protection on Portugal because I didn't know whether it would run out in time. I wish there was some way to prevent European civs randomly getting former colonial cities when they collapse - it happened in Peru with Spain taking the inland mountainous city - and I suspect its a settler/war maps thing since the Dutch always get Recife. Luckily, Portugal's protection ran out in 1920 exactly, and I took the last city I needed to win (I achieved the resource trading goal in 1914).

TL;DR: Finally, some review. Aside from the annoying collapse mechanic, I enjoyed how Colombia's goals and gameplay reinforce each other. Trading resources requires you to conquer land to hit the goal; your conquests will start to cost a lot of money, meaning you need to trade resources for money. The UU works well for its specific goals, and the Hacienda is okay, though it feels limited to basically helping Bogota. Everything works well towards your goals. It felt challenging but rewarding seeing my economy swell while balancing your stability. UHV #2 defines your campaign and centralizes everything around it. Overall, a fun, hectic game.