banzay13
Emperor
Coz in my game happen this, then Roman spawn
Large Map and New Civilizations are now playable
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
banzay13
Emperor
And more fun. After 1st peace with Rome - i settle Iberia. And then Rome captured city - i lost London to independent coz losing too much cites))I was able to do it. (well, i cheated. at 1000AD my missionary failed to spread religion in Kiev, so i added another one with WB)
So. Settle instead Bordeaux on Salt 2N, and chop 2 trees for galley, settle in Ireland and London. (on Epic speed you be just in time, with Bordeaux you can miss 1-2 turn and lost game). After capture Milan - move all your forces to Brest spot, they will stay with you after Roman spawn. I declared war to Rome (fliped city). Since my pack of Oathworns moce twice fast - i was able avoid Legions and capture Milan and Rome(!), after some time made peace for Rome as tribute with Romans)) And captured back from independent city in France. When settled city in Iberia and got 2UHV. Then fortify troops with woodman on hill with forest, so you can heal, while Rome will attack you (i killed 20 legion in 1st attempt, but reloaded and made peace to keep more troops alive). Then just wait for Rome collapse, and opportunity to capture city with religion). I got 1 city in Scotland (London got automatically Catholicism), 1 in Ireland. 1 in Norse (viking didn't found any more cites for some reason till 1000AD), 2 in France 2 in Spain, 2 in HRE, independet Budin, and 2 to Rus (last one was Kiev there i cheated). As you can see - i got Rome. You need city on continent, coz babrs longships will beat you. I was able to send 4 missionary from Ireland but it cost me 4 galley.
Good news - Scotland will not flip. Also you can settle at Brest area or free space in Germany/Denmark or Poland to spread religion. Settle, spread, and let barbs take them
Or. I settle Reykjavik, i forgot about it. Its also in historical area, bwt
UPD. Look like only in my game was BUG with my cites on continent switching to independent then Rome spawn?and i was forced move to Ireland to early?
TsimTsigal
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2023
- Messages
- 177
Given the message, i presume that the collapse occured after the Celts invented My Little Pony 2500 years earlier.
Jokes aside - how the hell you collapsed so fast?!
banzay13
Emperor
Same happened with me the core switch just makes all your cities insta independent. Even if you have em in Britain.
From now on I will put one virtual dollar into a virtual piggy bank whenever anyone reports an incorrect city name or makes a suggestion that clearly presumes that city names are already finished on the 1.18 map. And if my coffee donations do not match that virtual amount at the release of 1.18 I will quit modding DoC forever.
Spoiler :
Lord_Buckethead
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2024
- Messages
- 7
Hello, thank you Leoreth for your continued dedication to your mod! The new map will truly be a new era, i hope that many people will find this gem.
I wanted to give some feedback after finishing a game as Japan but i noticed that the Citizen Automation is acting a bit weird, it was not this way in older versions. It seems to prioritize coastal tiles over grassland cottage (and also hamlet, town etc.). Like in the screenshot:
Anyone else noticed this? Its not a big deal but can lead to some annoying micromanagement, because you have to assign the worked tiles manually to towns etc.
I wanted to give some feedback after finishing a game as Japan but i noticed that the Citizen Automation is acting a bit weird, it was not this way in older versions. It seems to prioritize coastal tiles over grassland cottage (and also hamlet, town etc.). Like in the screenshot:
Anyone else noticed this? Its not a big deal but can lead to some annoying micromanagement, because you have to assign the worked tiles manually to towns etc.
I've been working from home this week and so have had the time to run some autoplay games while working. I ran several America games from a 600AD start to see how the world looks like in 1775 and here are some general observations that caught my eye:
-Ottomans seem a bit op. Almost every game they absolutely dominate militarily and are among top 3 of Technology if not the leader. On top of that they might also sometimes even have 1 or 2 vassals in Europe. Maybe they could be looked in to if they're a bit too strong atm? Mughals also seem to do a bit too well militarily and technologically consistently being among the top civs on my games.
-I feel Europe as a whole ought to do better by the start of 19th Century, but it seems that there's often only one civ (once on my run it was Spain, once France and a couple of times Germany or Britain) that does very well while the rest lag behind in points, power and tech.
-Colonization of New World looks pretty good in Central and South America but in my games North America has always been very empty in 1775 when compared to what it was in the old map. I counted at best a total of 4 cities settled in USA/Canada on my autoplays. I don't know what other people think but I think it's a bit too empty.
-Britain is still often among the tech leaders but in my games they've also been very unstable and a couple of times had collapsed to the Core once I spawned as America. Bad luck or is there something specific causing low stability for Britain?
-Some places on the map could do with tweaking settler values. Russia tends to settle a very tightly packed group of cities near the Ural mountains while Holy Rome settles 5 cities (Linz, Prague, Inglostadt, Wittemberg and Breslau if I remember correctly) very tightly with each being one tile apart from another city. China also pretty weirdly settles Luyoang in a very narrow space between two other cities when it makes little sense and when there's far better options available.
-Norway doesn't seem to want to adopt a religion but instead prefers to stick to their Pagan religion
-Ottomans seem a bit op. Almost every game they absolutely dominate militarily and are among top 3 of Technology if not the leader. On top of that they might also sometimes even have 1 or 2 vassals in Europe. Maybe they could be looked in to if they're a bit too strong atm? Mughals also seem to do a bit too well militarily and technologically consistently being among the top civs on my games.
-I feel Europe as a whole ought to do better by the start of 19th Century, but it seems that there's often only one civ (once on my run it was Spain, once France and a couple of times Germany or Britain) that does very well while the rest lag behind in points, power and tech.
-Colonization of New World looks pretty good in Central and South America but in my games North America has always been very empty in 1775 when compared to what it was in the old map. I counted at best a total of 4 cities settled in USA/Canada on my autoplays. I don't know what other people think but I think it's a bit too empty.
-Britain is still often among the tech leaders but in my games they've also been very unstable and a couple of times had collapsed to the Core once I spawned as America. Bad luck or is there something specific causing low stability for Britain?
-Some places on the map could do with tweaking settler values. Russia tends to settle a very tightly packed group of cities near the Ural mountains while Holy Rome settles 5 cities (Linz, Prague, Inglostadt, Wittemberg and Breslau if I remember correctly) very tightly with each being one tile apart from another city. China also pretty weirdly settles Luyoang in a very narrow space between two other cities when it makes little sense and when there's far better options available.
-Norway doesn't seem to want to adopt a religion but instead prefers to stick to their Pagan religion
TsimTsigal
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2023
- Messages
- 177
The problem is overbuffed Middle East and Asia Minor. In 3000 BC games Arabs usually get insane tech lead (and if not them then China does, huge and rich historical area with no rivals). I saw the horror of Economics in 1100 AD on Regent/Normal (!!!). Once let my computer on entire night to calculate a 3000 BC Paragon/Marathon Canada game - and saw MBTs and nuclear fallout in China. These two regions - China and Middle East - seem to be too rich atm. Mughals always were good from my experience, goodish modifiers + insanely good core with loads of food and luxuries.
The British Isles notably almost haven't grown in 1.18 and became a bit poorer (i think there is no more Fur and Deer). It causes Britain to have weak core cities, plus worse metropoly/colony cities ratio that leads to religion penalties.
AI overall became weirdly reluctant to emrace major religions, in all my 3 tries of Swahili UHV Ethiopia and Nubia were pagan.
Dracosolon
Emperor
Ireland is bigger (6 tiles to 9), but Britain was 23 tiles in the old map and now 24 with a Peak and a Marsh, so in terms of useable tiles it's now smaller.
As it should be.
AOS9001
Slightly over 9000.
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2009
- Messages
- 1,278
Is it time for the yearly request for a south China civ?
In all seriousness, China's rich land is historically accurate, and China being tech leader is also historically accurate until the Ming... maybe they could get some new modifiers that slow them down a lot in the Renaissance and lift in the Global era?
Regarding Britain: they're doing much better in the 1700 scenario, probably because they start off in a position to conquer India. Like I've said before, Britain has film by 1850 every single time. And in a Brazil game I did, they were three turns from building Wembley in 1886. I genuinely don't think Brazil is possible on 1700 right now, look how far ahead Britain has pulled:
Spoiler :
TsimTsigal
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2023
- Messages
- 177
As much as i hate it, i'd call for replacing Chinese UP (which i consider an exemplary UP: simple, thematic and useful) with the Power of Dynasties: whenever China enters a new era, it collapses (to Conquest area for Stable, to Historical for Shaky, to Core with Unstable; no collapse with Solid, game over with Collapsing), enters a Golden Age and gets all benefits of Rise of China (expansion zone, cheaper techs, immunity to DoW and/or GP reset).
The problem with China is that it was continiously stepping in and out of Maltusian trap, creating a cycle of rapid economic growth, hitting a population threshold and losing "excess" population in social cataclysms. In the game it could be reflected only by enforcing AI governor focusing on food with zero regard for happiness, which is stupid (but experience of whipping a Great Wall solely to reduce your own pop would be hilariously tragic).
AOS9001
Slightly over 9000.
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2009
- Messages
- 1,278
I remember reading this suggestion a while back, I still really like it. Not as elegantly simple as the Power of the Myriads but fun and representative of China's 2500 year cycle of consolidation and collapse.
Haha yeah who would use despotism to clear out their non-core populations for a stability boost, haha....
urbestfriend
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2014
- Messages
- 188
In my one long game I played I watched Britain expand out and collapse to core multiple times. By the third time since all their expansion zones were occupied by independents too strong for them to conquer, they just sat on their island making grumpy faces as everyone caught up and then surpassed them, quickly becoming irrelevant while they kept making demands as if they didn't realize they had gone from neck and neck with #1 to the bottom of the scoreboard.
So completely accurate to real life, A+ job
So completely accurate to real life, A+ job
RustyBrick
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2020
- Messages
- 69
I've had a lot of free time this week so I've played most ancient civs on the new map. This was almost entirely on marathon and regent/monarch. I realized I wrote too much so I underlined comments that I thought were important and any suggestion I had.
I love the early game right now, I like that barbarians are more common and that there are larger armies in the ancient era now + the expanded eras in the early game are nice. I do think this has caused a bit of a problem though where the world has way too many improvements, almost every tile in the ME was developed before the Romans spawned, maybe due to the expanded early era, too many workers from slavery due to the new civs in the early game, lack of aggression by these civs or no conquest event by the Greeks. I also noticed that most ancient civs didn't expand at all or weren't aggressive enough during wars. This might be because maintenance is too high with the size of the empires in the new map, especially with almost no way to get gold or commerce during these early eras, making expansion unappealing to me too, unless it's to achieve a UHV.
Egpyt
Egypt was pretty fun, maybe a bit too easy. I think the Nubians were the most difficult part. The Medjays are very powerful against anything you can throw at them. The Egyptian AI usually expands a lot less than in 1.17. Egypt as a region might be smaller on the new map though since I settled 4 cities while the AI has only ever settled 3, however, my 4th was to take the copper and iron from the Nubians so I didn't expand much more than the AI tbh. The land is very good and the few cities you make will have enough population to work everything you might want to work since everything is so close to the Nile and your 2 core cities anyway. The Greeks died and never had conquerors, but the Roman conquerors were too powerful IMO with 8 units per city, I think 3 legions and 3 ballistae would be fairer, but I don't think they need a conqueror event once their army is large enough with how the Roman AI seems to play now.
Babylon
I never settled new cities nor did the AI in other games. Persia is very weak and was not an issue. I like the UHVs, UP, and UU, including their changes. I restarted only once when the Hrappans discovered construction because that was the last tech I was going to research. Hittites never invaded or expanded weirdly. Lastly, Arabia shouldn't flip Ashur IMO, they should be able to conquer it fairly easily anyways. The flip made a very skinny boomerang out of my territory and would have even if I wasn't Babylon since it doesn't say it's in 'Rise of the Arabs' on or around Babylon. I had also built Theodosian walls in this city so maybe I'm just spiteful that I couldn't take it back.
Assyria
It seems like you get don't enough gold for the UHV, on marathon at the very least. Even though I conquered the entire known world and sacked every city, I was still far away(200 gold) in both marathon games I played. I think this could be due to a lack of expansion from other civs. One way to fix this would be to give Assyria conquest at the start as part of their UP which would be fitting or add pillaged improvements to UHV to make the ME less improved, hitting two birds with one stone. The UU are great, dare I say too good. I didn't really use the siege ram until I went after the Hittites/Hattusha as the final civ/city I conquered, but they are good nonetheless.
Hittites
As AI they never expanded or invaded, and were not invaded themselves by anyone besides the Romans and whatever civ I might be playing. I had a lot of fun playing as them though and think the UHVs are fitting. I think there could be more production for UHV 1. Their UU were also pretty interesting and I used them well past the time I could upgrade them but I think they're balanced I just kept them because I liked their movement. Since I didn't have a problem with production I think the UP is not that useful even though I did use it just because I could. I had a lot of workers due to using slavery, as I did for most of these games so I didn't need to use my melee units. The UP promotes chopping down every forest in sight too which is sort of unsightly given the era. This is related to the problem that workers build too fast and the world is much more developed than I think it should be, like I said, the entire ME is usually developed in the games I've been playing. Maybe workers start with slower build times and construction could increase worker speed to what it is to begin with. An idea I had for a UP that synergizes with the UHVs would be 1 trade route per copper/iron in the BFC since you're unlikely to trade any of these resources while you're supposed to be alive, even though the Hittites extensively traded both.
I've also played and won as the Romans and Celts and tried to win as the Greeks but failed. I don't have too much to say about these for a few reasons. One of them is that I played on Heir as the Romans for my first game, but even so, I can say the Celts were too easy to conquer regardless of me being on heir. The Celts might be somewhat broken, but I managed to win on heir though as well. The problem was that when I lost any city I would collapse to the British Isles which happened when I conquered Rome and sacked it but they took it ~5 turns later. I ended up reloading and razing Rome instead which I didn't mind doing. The Greeks were too difficult for me to play historically with their relatively weak core area which seems smaller than in 1.17 along with the sea people problem, the AI has never survived it and it made it too difficult for me to complete the UHVs.
I've already said more than I needed to, but regarding civs that I haven't played. For Carthage, Sur is too weak in every game I've played, with it barely being defended. Persia is very weak in every game I've played. India is almost always invaded and conquered by the Kushans, and I don't know if they are intended to always collapse but they do. For Nubia, all I'll say is that the Medjays are pretty powerful.
I love the early game right now, I like that barbarians are more common and that there are larger armies in the ancient era now + the expanded eras in the early game are nice. I do think this has caused a bit of a problem though where the world has way too many improvements, almost every tile in the ME was developed before the Romans spawned, maybe due to the expanded early era, too many workers from slavery due to the new civs in the early game, lack of aggression by these civs or no conquest event by the Greeks. I also noticed that most ancient civs didn't expand at all or weren't aggressive enough during wars. This might be because maintenance is too high with the size of the empires in the new map, especially with almost no way to get gold or commerce during these early eras, making expansion unappealing to me too, unless it's to achieve a UHV.
Egpyt
Egypt was pretty fun, maybe a bit too easy. I think the Nubians were the most difficult part. The Medjays are very powerful against anything you can throw at them. The Egyptian AI usually expands a lot less than in 1.17. Egypt as a region might be smaller on the new map though since I settled 4 cities while the AI has only ever settled 3, however, my 4th was to take the copper and iron from the Nubians so I didn't expand much more than the AI tbh. The land is very good and the few cities you make will have enough population to work everything you might want to work since everything is so close to the Nile and your 2 core cities anyway. The Greeks died and never had conquerors, but the Roman conquerors were too powerful IMO with 8 units per city, I think 3 legions and 3 ballistae would be fairer, but I don't think they need a conqueror event once their army is large enough with how the Roman AI seems to play now.
Babylon
I never settled new cities nor did the AI in other games. Persia is very weak and was not an issue. I like the UHVs, UP, and UU, including their changes. I restarted only once when the Hrappans discovered construction because that was the last tech I was going to research. Hittites never invaded or expanded weirdly. Lastly, Arabia shouldn't flip Ashur IMO, they should be able to conquer it fairly easily anyways. The flip made a very skinny boomerang out of my territory and would have even if I wasn't Babylon since it doesn't say it's in 'Rise of the Arabs' on or around Babylon. I had also built Theodosian walls in this city so maybe I'm just spiteful that I couldn't take it back.
Assyria
It seems like you get don't enough gold for the UHV, on marathon at the very least. Even though I conquered the entire known world and sacked every city, I was still far away(200 gold) in both marathon games I played. I think this could be due to a lack of expansion from other civs. One way to fix this would be to give Assyria conquest at the start as part of their UP which would be fitting or add pillaged improvements to UHV to make the ME less improved, hitting two birds with one stone. The UU are great, dare I say too good. I didn't really use the siege ram until I went after the Hittites/Hattusha as the final civ/city I conquered, but they are good nonetheless.
Hittites
As AI they never expanded or invaded, and were not invaded themselves by anyone besides the Romans and whatever civ I might be playing. I had a lot of fun playing as them though and think the UHVs are fitting. I think there could be more production for UHV 1. Their UU were also pretty interesting and I used them well past the time I could upgrade them but I think they're balanced I just kept them because I liked their movement. Since I didn't have a problem with production I think the UP is not that useful even though I did use it just because I could. I had a lot of workers due to using slavery, as I did for most of these games so I didn't need to use my melee units. The UP promotes chopping down every forest in sight too which is sort of unsightly given the era. This is related to the problem that workers build too fast and the world is much more developed than I think it should be, like I said, the entire ME is usually developed in the games I've been playing. Maybe workers start with slower build times and construction could increase worker speed to what it is to begin with. An idea I had for a UP that synergizes with the UHVs would be 1 trade route per copper/iron in the BFC since you're unlikely to trade any of these resources while you're supposed to be alive, even though the Hittites extensively traded both.
I've also played and won as the Romans and Celts and tried to win as the Greeks but failed. I don't have too much to say about these for a few reasons. One of them is that I played on Heir as the Romans for my first game, but even so, I can say the Celts were too easy to conquer regardless of me being on heir. The Celts might be somewhat broken, but I managed to win on heir though as well. The problem was that when I lost any city I would collapse to the British Isles which happened when I conquered Rome and sacked it but they took it ~5 turns later. I ended up reloading and razing Rome instead which I didn't mind doing. The Greeks were too difficult for me to play historically with their relatively weak core area which seems smaller than in 1.17 along with the sea people problem, the AI has never survived it and it made it too difficult for me to complete the UHVs.
I've already said more than I needed to, but regarding civs that I haven't played. For Carthage, Sur is too weak in every game I've played, with it barely being defended. Persia is very weak in every game I've played. India is almost always invaded and conquered by the Kushans, and I don't know if they are intended to always collapse but they do. For Nubia, all I'll say is that the Medjays are pretty powerful.
Last edited:
Regarding the maintenance cost feedback, can you also have a look how that maintenance breaks down into number of cities, distance, and colony maintenance? It is shown in the city screen maintenance tooltip. That would be helpful for balancing it.
CivEnthusiast
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2023
- Messages
- 173
About that, there's a thing that massive and stable empires naturally tend to stagnate. This happened with the Roman Empire after the conquests era, and since II Century AD they began their gradual decline. Competition creates progress, and with the Romans having had nobody to compete with they just sat back and stagnated their way throughout the III Century crisis until their eventual demise under the barbarians. Ancient Romans I mean, excluding the Eastern Romans. Same with China, the reason why Europe was so fast to progress towards the Industrial Revolution eventually was due to how much broken and disunified the region was, with many warring states and duchies trying to outcompete each other. This created competition, competition created progress. While China on the other hand proceeded to stagnate and lag behind as there was barely any competition under the absolutist Ming and Qing Empire regimes.
I wonder if it is possible to include this mechanic where the bigger you are, the more authoritarian (despotism, monarchy, dictatorship, all the forms of tyranny) the nation you're playing as is and the less nations you're able to trade and interact with (Like in case with the Romans after conquering almost everyone in their vicinity), the slower your science progress gets. Being at war with many nations at once also pretty much equals the latter with many nations cutting ties with you. This in turn will also force you eventually to play peaceful and democratize while playing a certain nation into the modern era, especially if you want to achieve a science victory.
In that scenario a democratic USA will always tend to go into leaders during the late game, and all the dictatorships and absolutist monarchies will receive penalties in the form of the slowed science progress. Like the USSR irl for example, they developed fast at first because of the forced industrialization under the fist of terror of the communist regime, but then the Soviets began to stagnate and eventually declined and collapsed. All the tyrannies in the long run proceed to stagnate and decline and it would've also been great to see this represented in some form, besides just having the unhappiness rising from wars and certain outdated civics
Last edited:
That's a very whiggish perspective that cannot really be sustained in the context of modern historical knowledge.
CivEnthusiast
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2023
- Messages
- 173
Please don't get me wrong, just living under one of such dictatorships made me eventually come to realizing a number of things about how the democracies are better. I understand if the historical knowledge disagrees, just the trends I was noticing myself after exploring much of history especially for my own history projects. It's universal in my opinion that tyrannies restrict all the competition, causing what is called "brain drain" and many free-thinking people to flee, usually the most studied people who see no perspectives in living under the dictatorial regimes that keep their countries as hostages. This was especially the case under the Soviet regime with the planned economy and the state control of everything
Last edited:
Similar threads
