Large Map and New Civilizations are now playable

[TsimTsigal]

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.

Not going to start a debate here, but that's a very ideology-warped view of history. A common mistake is to assume that democracy brings prosperity: it's prosperity which brings democracy, RoK and modern Russia being prime example and counter-example (democracy devolving to mild dictatorship due to poverty). You can't expect a hungry, poor man to care about freedom of speech: they will gladly welcome a tyrant (perhaps even good-natured) with a bowl of soup and promise to keep them safe.

As a side note, the USSR couldn't win the Cold War regardless of government form due to two world wars and a civil war on its territory in less than 30 years, while the US chilled across the ocean. The US also kinda contradict you idea: they were an isolationist power with little competition which grown very powerful.

Regarding game implications: I think DoC 1.17 already pretty faithfully represented our world up to XXI century? It was especially cool to see that the US and Russia almost always becoming leading power in the late game. 1.18 is very early in testing but people already mentioned super historical Britain (kek). I don't think the mod needs some special mechanic to punish stable non-democratic states, especially given that Democracy + Constitution + Egalitarism is already a very powerful combo.

 

[CivEnthusiast]

Not going to start a debate here, but that's a very ideology-warped view of history. A common mistake is to assume that democracy brings prosperity: it's prosperity which brings democracy, RoK and modern Russia being prime example and counter-example (democracy devolving to mild dictatorship due to poverty). You can't expect a hungry, poor man to care about freedom of speech: they will gladly welcome a tyrant (perhaps even good-natured) with a bowl of soup and promise to keep them safe.

As a side note, the USSR couldn't win the Cold War regardless of government form due to two world wars and a civil war on its territory in less than 30 years, while the US chilled across the ocean. The US also kinda contradict you idea: they were an isolationist power with little competition which grown very powerful.

Regarding game implications: I think DoC 1.17 already pretty faithfully represented our world up to XXI century? It was especially cool to see that the US and Russia almost always becoming leading power in the late game. 1.18 is very early in testing but people already mentioned super historical Britain (kek). I don't think the mod needs some special mechanic to punish stable non-democratic states, especially given that Democracy + Constitution + Egalitarism is already a very powerful combo.

I was never to deny why the tyrannies exist in the first place, including the fact that people in poverty will choose any "strong hand". My point was completely not about that. Until the American and French revolutions, nearly all of history with minor exceptions the nations were ruled by the authoritarian regimes and tyrannies of many forms and shapes. There were attempts to create republican systems in ancient era, but they eventually fell to the empires and "strong hands" like Rome transitioning from the Republic to the Absolutist empire by the IV Century under Diocletian with the Senate getting less and less important and influent.

Only after the revolutionary waves that first swept Western Europe and America in XVIII-XIX Centuries and later Eastern Europe after the Soviet Bloc collapse, an "experiment" of the modern democratic system was created and run successfully with the restrictions to prevent the power to fall into hands of a single person. Now a significant number of nations across the planet consider themselves democratic republics with the voting system, the problem still remaining corruption and loopholes for dictators to still control the power even in such systems. What always existed throughout history is a strive to create a better society, and there's an undeniably consistent trend with the changes that improve the lives of the ordinary people. Emancipation of women, freedom of speech, principles of freedom, all those things only started coming world-wide in modern era and were "inevitable" to come with a never ending strive for a better world. That was my point on "inevitability".

Post-Communist nations of Eastern Europe also had to suffer from poverty, yet we didn't see Poland or the Baltics to fall to the dictatorships again after the Soviet Bloc fell, being soon integrated into the broader European Community and helped to overcome the crisis rather than left to themselves, people there strived for that. People in Ukraine refused to see a wannabe dictator coming to power, having a strong desire to also live like the rest of Europe, making their way out of poverty and corruption until the invasion of their country began. People in Belarus and Russia also strive for that, with the state-run propaganda making a fake impression of that nearly all the people "support" their dictators, which isn't true. Many people flee the dictatorships, contrary to what those regimes claim about being supported by everyone in their states. Those who stay are forced to remain silent or speak very carefully to not fall under the repressive machine

Also yes, my viewpoints are rather idealistic and there's no denial, and I had no choice but to become a such to battle the propaganda of the regime I'm living in. Will end that here to not turn it into a long debate in a chat that isn't fit for that, please forgive me for causing a debate here in the first place

 

[Leoreth]

I don't want to disagree with your personal experience at all, or even with this description of authoritarian regimes and their negative impact on brain drain and long term economic development.

I just don't think that you can stretch out that explanatory framework to cover and explain all of history from Rome to China and the great divergence.

 

[CivEnthusiast]

I don't want to disagree with your personal experience at all, or even with this description of authoritarian regimes and their negative impact on brain drain and long term economic development.

I just don't think that you can stretch out that explanatory framework to cover and explain all of history from Rome to China and the great divergence.

I agree, it doesn't work all the way through history. That was more like my attempt to explain to myself and rationalize all the historical shifts and changes through such a simplification. History is too complex to be simplified to one single aspect, there are too many variables to take the consideration of. Ancient World also worked drastically differently compared to the modern one. And also random things in history often changed its entire course

 

[TsimTsigal]

Also yes, my viewpoints are rather idealistic and there's no denial, and I had no choice but to become a such to battle the propaganda of the regime I'm living in.

You always have a choice, assuming we live in the same country i gone in completely opposite direction instead. Used to like lemons back in my university years, if you catch my drift. Anyway, that's enough for offtopic.

 

[CivEnthusiast]

You always have a choice, assuming we live in the same country i gone in completely opposite direction instead. Used to like lemons back in my university years, if you catch my drift. Anyway, that's enough for offtopic.

Lack of choice comes here from the way I view the world around myself. Sure I could always decide to bend my knee under the regime and even turn supportive of it. In fact I was in the past, when I was an ignorant enough teen. But it goes against my morals and principles that over the years developed in me

 

[TsimTsigal]

Lack of choice comes here from the way I view the world around myself. Sure I could always decide to bend my knee under the regime and even turn supportive of it. In fact I was when I was an ignorant enough teen. But it goes against my morals and principles that over time developed in me

That's not what i meant.

 

[Leoreth]

I don't think this is a good place to discuss someone's personal choices and history. If you want to continue that conversation, please take it to DMs.

 

[CivEnthusiast]

A quick question, which python script in the folders is responsible for switching to the new rising civs? Trying to find out if I could manually find a way to enable a switch prompt for the nations that don't have it like Rome

 

[TsimTsigal]

Aaaand back to the topic. As usual, Regent/Normal/3000 BC

HITTITES

I guess that enormous amount of Sea People is to be fixed so won't comment on this.

Their UP is much more impactful on Normal speed due to how little time (i think around 40 turns?) you have to conquer Mesopotamia (i tried to go west instead and conquer Greece, Balkans have enough metal resources to fulfil UHV, but Hoplites make a quite formidable opposition + it's not your historical area). I feel that it would become much more useful if Melee units restriction is lifted: Hulaganni are overall a much better unit than Swordsmen, especially given that Sea People axes eat them alive, so it's unlikely you will ever have more melee units than starting ones (although i got a Warrior from a hut ). Also conquering Assyria early seems to be both necessary for UHV and pure RNG, but i guess it's inevitable for short, Ancient games, where every unit counts. Sometimes Assyrians will lose almost all their forces on that Levant town, and you will waltz with a single Hulaganni to Babylon. Sometimes you will spawn and see 2 Archers and some UUs in both cities. Also i've noticed that if Greece settles Byzantium/Ephesos the amount of Sea People units increases - might be a subjective bias, tho.

Getting a tribute UHV is fun and easy. It's a cherry on the top you are basically guaranteed to get, yet it's so thematic that i can't help but admire it, especially given that the rest of Hittite gameplay is a bit boring - it's too obvious what you have to do to win. I was afraid of Bloomery being too weak but in a short game doubling production speed was truly godsent.

NUBIANS

Spam Medjay. Conquer Egypt. Win.

Really, that's all. UHV1 seems to be impossible on Normal without conquering at least one Egyptian town, UHV2 seems to be impossible without several Egyptian towns, and UHV3 certainly becomes a lot easier if you control Egypt. Medjay are also impressivly good at defending cities, and are much better at counterattacking.

UHV3 time limit seems a bit too generous, you generally want to found Orthodoxy before 1 AD (it's possible to ensure that Jerusalem is neutral or yours, but beelining Ethics appears to be easier), and several dozens turns is more than enough to build/whip a Cathedral. There is a more severe problem with the timing of UHV:

The Power of Baqt is absolutely, totally useless, and ahistorical to add some salt to the wound.

First of all, the Baqt was forged between the Nubians and the Arabs, yet you win before the Arabs even spawn. Second, there is no way to utilize the power in current UHV games: the only real power that has a different religion from you will be Persia, and they won't invade you no matter what. Pagan Ethiopia might get a bit grumpy but they can be safely ignored. Obviously the Baqt will be a lot more useful in longer games, when Arabs spawn and get 8-12 points penatly with all non-Muslim civs, but at this point you 've either won or lost the game, unless you go for a full walkthrough (which probably should not be the focus of an UP).

This might sound like i'm not happy with the Nubians - far from it, i like their starting position, their UB, their UU, their UP, everything about them... save for the UHV3. It ruins the UP, it's too easy, and it's that drop of vinegar that makes entire barrel sour.

 

[TsimTsigal]

A quick question, which python script in the folders is responsible for switching to the new rising civs? Trying to find out if I could manually find a way to enable a switch prompt for the nations that don't have it like Rome

Rome has the switch, you can't switch twice in a single game or if too few turns have passed since your own "birth". Anyway, it's Rise.py, line 875 onwards.

EDIT: it seems like Leoreth patched out an exploit with "setting up" an empire for another civ that spawns nearby by preventing a switch to neigbouring civs.

 

[CivEnthusiast]

Rome has the switch, you can't switch twice in a single game or if too few turns have passed since your own "birth". Anyway, it's Rise.py, line 875 onwards.

Thanks, also you can actually, I switched from Assyria to Persia to France to Arabia in a single game and still kept on receiving prompts. There's no limit unlike in the original RFC

 

[CivEnthusiast]

Thanks, also you can actually, I switched from Assyria to Persia to France to Arabia in a single game and still kept on receiving prompts. There's no limit unlike in the original RFC

Just checked, the line generally covers all prompts, no subdivision on switch popups for each individual civilization. In game there's currently an issue with popups never appearing for particular civs

EDIT: Also I tried to switch to Rome from Persia, a civ which cannot be called neighbouring. Waited until 509 BC, no popup ever emerged, twice as I played Persia. Also it never appears for Assyria as I was mentioning in other posts, really wanting to fix it myself as soon as I'll find it in scripts instead of waiting a while for the update to have a seamless gameplay from 3000 BC with switching to Rome

 

[CivEnthusiast]

Just a few turns into the Arabia gameplay and already going bankrupt, I'm not sure if it's supposed to be that way. Barely even having much units to begin with expansion and now will have even less from the deletions due to strikes

 

[BaneFire]

NUBIANS

Spam Medjay. Conquer Egypt. Win.

Really, that's all. UHV1 seems to be impossible on Normal without conquering at least one Egyptian town, UHV2 seems to be impossible without several Egyptian towns, and UHV3 certainly becomes a lot easier if you control Egypt. Medjay are also impressivly good at defending cities, and are much better at counterattacking.

UHV3 time limit seems a bit too generous, you generally want to found Orthodoxy before 1 AD (it's possible to ensure that Jerusalem is neutral or yours, but beelining Ethics appears to be easier), and several dozens turns is more than enough to build/whip a Cathedral. There is a more severe problem with the timing of UHV:

The Power of Baqt is absolutely, totally useless, and ahistorical to add some salt to the wound.

First of all, the Baqt was forged between the Nubians and the Arabs, yet you win before the Arabs even spawn. Second, there is no way to utilize the power in current UHV games: the only real power that has a different religion from you will be Persia, and they won't invade you no matter what. Pagan Ethiopia might get a bit grumpy but they can be safely ignored. Obviously the Baqt will be a lot more useful in longer games, when Arabs spawn and get 8-12 points penatly with all non-Muslim civs, but at this point you 've either won or lost the game, unless you go for a full walkthrough (which probably should not be the focus of an UP).

This might sound like i'm not happy with the Nubians - far from it, i like their starting position, their UB, their UU, their UP, everything about them... save for the UHV3. It ruins the UP, it's too easy, and it's that drop of vinegar that makes entire barrel sour.

Nubia was super fun, and felt like a real accomplishment, even though it actually wasn't that difficult. I actually think there's a lot more room with this civ:
- I'd merge the 1st and 2nd UHVs, probably just "20 pop by xxx BC, 40 pop by xxx BC", as they both require the same thing (conquer Egypt).
- I'd therefore add a second UHV about the Makurian Kingdom and its attempts to retain Coptic Christianity. Maybe something like "ensure Egypt and the Levant are ruled by Christians in xxx AD", where you have to fight the Arabs, Turks, Mongols and maybe even Ottomans.
- Lastly, considering Sudan is still an extant country, I'd wonder if there was something akin to the Mahdist War and the Siege of Khartoum... problem is this civ then becomes just a lot of military/territory goals, and we already have an Ethiopian decolonisation UHV.

 

[Dracosolon]

For Nubia, Incense doesn't count for the Happiness resources until you have Priesthood, right? I've struggled to reach that tech in time so I wonder if you're supposed to settle on a far away resource to get to five of them.

 

[RustyBrick]

how that maintenance breaks down into number of cities, distance, and colony maintenance?

This is for Assyria on Monarch @1130 BC, I have 0% research, 100% taxes, and still have -18 gold/turn.

City	Ashur (9)	Babylon (6)	Khalphe (6)	Ormahzd-Ardashir(3)	Jerusalem (2)	Abdju (5)	Inebu Hedj (1)	Amunia (1)	Hattusa (1)
Distance	-	0.96	0.96	1.23	1.55	3.85	2.56	2.96	1.58
Number of Cities	1.80	1.80	1.80	1.80	1.80	1.80	1.80	1.80	1.80
Colony Maintenance	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-

I made that table before I looked at the numbers so I didn't know two rows would be useless, not changing it though lol.

Overall I have a maintenance of 31.85 gold per turn from cities, it's nearly split between the two at 16.2 from # and 15.65 from distance. This becomes~29 gold after the Assyrian UB is factored in because I had only built those in my low-maintenance cities before I conquered Egypt, Jerusalem, and the Hittites, although I did build 4. I also have 26 gold from civic maintenance across 9 cities while just running Slavery and Deification. I also have 16 gold from unit expenses (this is fair I have 31 units because I can't build anything new or research anything atm). I also only have 53 taxable income meaning it's 53 income -71 expenses. I noticed that population also impacts the maintenance, this is causing Abdju(5) to have higher maintenance than Inebu-Hedj(1) which makes sense as they're around the same distance +/- a tile.

Hopefully, this is what yer want.

 

[TsimTsigal]

For Nubia, Incense doesn't count for the Happiness resources until you have Priesthood, right? I've struggled to reach that tech in time so I wonder if you're supposed to settle on a far away resource to get to five of them.

That is correct. I think that's the beauty of Nubian UHV and what bothered me about Hittite one: it's decepitve. You must spend a few tries to realise that there is no way you can complete a "peaceful" goal of connecting resources and producing culture without spamming units and beating living lights off Egypt. In theory you can achieve UHV1 with some suboptimal city placement and intensive whipping but it's just amusing/amazing how it's a warmongering goal in sheep clothes.

 

[CivEnthusiast]

Stuff I noticed so far after the further Medieval playthrough on 3000 BC save:

1. Bankrupt Arabia. As soon as it spawned and I switched onto it, almost immediatelly I started running out of all money, only starting to have some income by IX Century playthrough. Things went as far as all the worker units getting deleted, same with nearly all the military units. That was despite me receiving cities with decent population and some buildings upon flip as well as the improved tiles with plantations and stuff.

2. Nubian units. There's a thing with long-lasting civs that they tend to spam and then upgrade to the maximum a sizeable amount of military units, eventually making them extremely tough to be dealt with. Or they can simply just send their large army that they never found use for thoughout many centuries, send it to Europe and capture some Italian city.

3. A word about Constantinople. Or better to say Byzantium as the city didn't get renamed after the Byzantine Empire was born.

4. Javans sending their boats and conquering a coastal city in Southern China, that was unexpected to see.

5. The Norse, after they built their first city of Nidaros they... didn't build any more cities. By XIII century of the gameplay they still had only one single city built and never even thought of expanding.

6. The city of Qazan. French being French in the game and sending their lancer unit to capture Volga Bulgaria that remains rather vulnerable to such random attacks by the wandering units.

7. The Malinese all of sudden were the first to step onto the American continent very early in the High Middle Ages, had one post-Mayan Independent conquered and never done anything else with that afterwards, with the stack of units just sitting there and never exiting to seize more territory.

8. Byzantium vassalized Swahili in High Middle Ages despite an insane distance between them.

9. Met the Mongols and their unit while playing as Ruthenia on 1211 AD and it never resulted in the Mongol Invasion of Eastern Europe to be triggered. It also never happened until when Duchy of Moscow spawned and afterwards too.

10. When spawning, Duchy of Moscow didn't receive Novgorod upon flip even though it was located right inside the blue core territory, but rather a red foreign core city of Polotsk, very oddly.

 

[AOS9001]

I've been taking a break from Europe to play civs in Asia. I think the increased cathedral count goal for China is great: you can either make a super-dense empire in China proper to get those 16 Confucian temples, or you can Han/Tang dynasty it out and go conquer Vietnam, Korea, and the Tarim basin. Lots of flexibility in how you do it, lots of choices to make on where to settle, with no clear winners in some areas.

I got swarmed by Yue barbarians on the 3000 BC start until I figured out the right order to research techs in for the Taixue -> swordsmen -> walls -> Confucianism -> Terracotta army/Great Wall combo that let me not only survive, but thrive. The Yue barbs/independents kept me on my toes in the south, until I'd conquered/settled Fujian, Guangzhou and Yunnan. By the time I'd established the empire I needed for those four Confucian cathedrals, I'd built an economy that could let me catch up and then pass everyone else in the tech race...

Everyone but Arabia, that is. Because it's 3000 BC and neither the Greeks (immediately died to sea peoples), nor the Persians (stayed in Iran until the Arabs killed them), nor the Romans ever conquered and pillaged the Middle East, Arabia's economy is supercharged and kept beating me to printing no matter what I did. It can't be helped, sadly.

Still, new map China is a ton of fun. China actually feels like a huge place now, it's very rewarding to get all the resources hooked up and watch your economy take off. We still have a ways to go for balancing, but I'm really liking China right now.