ariel552
Chieftain
and what about adding the Garibaldi revolution in 1870 so they can independence from Austria? Like what happens with Canada
Large Map and New Civilizations are now playable
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
Landyn Linhares
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 15, 2022
- Messages
- 56
Why not make italy's color scheme green and red, rather than green and white?
Played an unserious game as the Maya on marathon and I have to say, the addition of rubber as well as the Yucatan being bigger solves the abysmal production levels the civ has in 1.17! Oh and not to mention the obsidian letting me build spears + light swords is a good buff to their mil strength.
Because that's not how respawns work. Every civilization has a set spawn date but there is no such thing as a deterministic respawn.
Zaddy
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2018
- Messages
- 361
Personally I'm a fan of 1622 Eiffel Tower (by the usual suspect, of course
)Spoiler :
triplebassist
Warlord
I didn't grab a screenshot, but Rome founded Islam in Carthage in 90AD when I was playing around in a Khmer game last night.
BigSchwartzzz
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2019
- Messages
- 116
That Arabia though. Yikes.Personally I'm a fan of 1622 Eiffel Tower (by the usual suspect, of course
Spoiler :
Anyway, Kushans so far?
- Religious buildings are easy, just conquer India and whip out.
- Spread Buddhism is variable but fairly easy, Tamils and China open borders...
- But Silk Route is hard. With four cities in Afghanistan that's four silk routes, but it won't spread to the Punjab for me. I had giga-Persia so that was not an option. I founded a couple cities in Central Asia, but still, that's only six silk routes. Therefore, conquer Persia? Good luck killing six Saravans on hills. Reload save maybe and hope Rome/Greece collapses them I guess; or; spam out an army instead of building caravanserais?
- Gold and culture unclear to me, but probably doable by dropping science and running culture/gold plus building caravanserais and culture... except you need an army to conquer Persia!
Not sure I'll try again, this is one of those civs that requires pretty tight gameplay, but very fun. Only shame is that you couldn't really play ahistorically, I imagine successive Turkish+Mughal spawns would prevent you ever building your core up.
- Religious buildings are easy, just conquer India and whip out.
- Spread Buddhism is variable but fairly easy, Tamils and China open borders...
- But Silk Route is hard. With four cities in Afghanistan that's four silk routes, but it won't spread to the Punjab for me. I had giga-Persia so that was not an option. I founded a couple cities in Central Asia, but still, that's only six silk routes. Therefore, conquer Persia? Good luck killing six Saravans on hills. Reload save maybe and hope Rome/Greece collapses them I guess; or; spam out an army instead of building caravanserais?
- Gold and culture unclear to me, but probably doable by dropping science and running culture/gold plus building caravanserais and culture... except you need an army to conquer Persia!
Not sure I'll try again, this is one of those civs that requires pretty tight gameplay, but very fun. Only shame is that you couldn't really play ahistorically, I imagine successive Turkish+Mughal spawns would prevent you ever building your core up.
NOOOOOOOO Persia collapsed, I was midway through conquering Parsa, only for them to respawn
Attachments
Strange. I have always perceived Rus' as something that was destroyed by the Mongol conquests, and the remnants are at the level of free cities in fashion. I expected to see Rus' (as AI) collapse during the Mongol invasion, and only then Muscovy appears, and a little later most of the collapsed Rus' is captured by Poland.
Surviving Rus' is perceived as a sufficient center of power in this region at this time, which somehow does not fit with my idea that its fate was decided mainly by Russia and Poland.
I would like to know more about why Rus' remains after the emergence of Muscovy, how this relates to the simulation of real history, and what kind of continuity there is. What worries me is that, perhaps, playing for Poland, for some reason, now, after appearing, I will not be able to quickly capture the territory of modern Ukraine and Belarus, and also why, playing for Russia, I will have to fight for these territories, perhaps not with Poland, and with Ruthenia.
I think you misunderstand the purpose of the game as recreating historical events piece by piece from the historical record, when instead it is about giving the player and AI actors agency to produce different outcomes based on their decisions and success.
I'm talking about Rus''s behavior when it is controlled by a computer player. Because now, it only seems to me that the non-destruction of computer Rus' creates, in most games, a completely different story from what was in reality. I don't know how normal this is. But it will be unusual for me if in many games we see an independent Kyiv under computer control from approximately 1500-1600 to 1900.
Perhaps because I use English primarily through a translator, I sometimes use terms in a way that makes sense in the context of our conversation but may not align with their usual meanings.
To clarify my question: It seems to me that in the current settings, Rus' as a civilization continues to exist during the Russian Empire era, even when controlled by an AI player. This seems unusual to me, and I wonder about the rationale behind this. When Russia is controlled by a human player, it makes sense, but it's less clear when controlled by an AI.
I'm very interested in how you view the existence of the Rus' civilization after the emergence of Russia. Do you see it as representing a specific territory and its people, which could become a vassal of Poland or Russia, or remain independent with proper management? If so, I would prefer to think about renaming the civilization from Kievan Rus to something else. Alternatively, do you envision this civilization differently during this era?
I agree that the Rus civilization should not continue to exist during the late medieval and early modern period, and only return at the earliest in the 19th century (I think the respawn interval already reflects this), in most games.
The ideal scenario is that they are destroyed or weakened into collapse by the Mongols, but that is not something you can guarantee in every game. I think it is also a fine scenario if the Rus get attacked and eventually conquered by Russia. After all, the Rus civilization does not just represent the Kievan polity but any pre-Muscovite Russian polity, and e.g. states like Novgorod survived the Mongol invasion and co-existed with Muscovy for a while before being eventually conquered. An alternate history where these states hold out and do not get subsumed by Muscovite Russia is not that far fetched to me to be totally out of the question. Either way Russia will naturally eclipse this civilization due to its modifiers and expansion potential.
To be entirely clear, when I talk about "what should happen" I am talking about what should occur in the majority of the games played and what the outside influences (stability maps, modifiers etc.) should make more likely. It does not mean that the opposite of "what should happen" should never happen, and I believe that the game would be worse off if it never happened, because part of the appeal of the game is agency and seeing different things occur based on the convergence of choices.
I definitely do not think a game where Rus are prescribed to collapse at a predetermined date because now the Russian civ is here makes for a fun playing experience, neither as the Rus, nor the Russians, nor any other civilization for that matter. And I also do not think it would be more historical, not just because it would be historically inaccurate (independent Rus states continued to coexist with Muscovy before being gradually absorbed into neighbouring states), but also because the understanding of history I care about and want to promote is not about set sequences of historically correct events but the historical forces of cause and effect.
Finally, and I think I made this clear when I initially shared it, what you are currently looking at is a development version and is therefore inherently incomplete. So if something looks off to you it is more likely that it is that way because I have not yet invested effort into addressing it, instead of assuming that I made it that way on purpose. That is not to say you shouldn't ask about it or bring it up as a problem. However there is a difference in pointing out an issue or a discrepancy with your expectation, and essentially interrogating me about why things are this way considering I am unaware of or ignoring X Y and Z historical facts.
If you see me bristle at feedback framed in this way, it is often because it seems either at odds with the overall design philosophy of the mod (i.e. an overly scripted view of what makes "correct history") or because it assumes that everything that happens in the mod happens as an intentional act on my part (again, properly due to the wrong assumption that my part is to script the right things to happen, rather than design and fine tune a complex system).
You might know a lot about Russian history and care a lot about Russian history and notice when things are off and want them to be improved. Me too. But you have to be aware that there are 40+ civilizations in this game while you are worried about Russia I have ten other people in my ear asking the same for Portugal and Brazil and Egypt and so on. Not to mention that I have to care about civilizations that nobody is actively bothering me about as well. And fix bugs. And so on. My time is fundamentally limited and has to be spread across a billion different concerns and things that I want or need to do and I cannot do all of them with the level of detail and completeness that you expect for the one thing you care about.
And none of this is your problem. But I think you will find that our conversations are going to be more productive if you keep that in mind.
The ideal scenario is that they are destroyed or weakened into collapse by the Mongols, but that is not something you can guarantee in every game. I think it is also a fine scenario if the Rus get attacked and eventually conquered by Russia. After all, the Rus civilization does not just represent the Kievan polity but any pre-Muscovite Russian polity, and e.g. states like Novgorod survived the Mongol invasion and co-existed with Muscovy for a while before being eventually conquered. An alternate history where these states hold out and do not get subsumed by Muscovite Russia is not that far fetched to me to be totally out of the question. Either way Russia will naturally eclipse this civilization due to its modifiers and expansion potential.
To be entirely clear, when I talk about "what should happen" I am talking about what should occur in the majority of the games played and what the outside influences (stability maps, modifiers etc.) should make more likely. It does not mean that the opposite of "what should happen" should never happen, and I believe that the game would be worse off if it never happened, because part of the appeal of the game is agency and seeing different things occur based on the convergence of choices.
I definitely do not think a game where Rus are prescribed to collapse at a predetermined date because now the Russian civ is here makes for a fun playing experience, neither as the Rus, nor the Russians, nor any other civilization for that matter. And I also do not think it would be more historical, not just because it would be historically inaccurate (independent Rus states continued to coexist with Muscovy before being gradually absorbed into neighbouring states), but also because the understanding of history I care about and want to promote is not about set sequences of historically correct events but the historical forces of cause and effect.
Finally, and I think I made this clear when I initially shared it, what you are currently looking at is a development version and is therefore inherently incomplete. So if something looks off to you it is more likely that it is that way because I have not yet invested effort into addressing it, instead of assuming that I made it that way on purpose. That is not to say you shouldn't ask about it or bring it up as a problem. However there is a difference in pointing out an issue or a discrepancy with your expectation, and essentially interrogating me about why things are this way considering I am unaware of or ignoring X Y and Z historical facts.
If you see me bristle at feedback framed in this way, it is often because it seems either at odds with the overall design philosophy of the mod (i.e. an overly scripted view of what makes "correct history") or because it assumes that everything that happens in the mod happens as an intentional act on my part (again, properly due to the wrong assumption that my part is to script the right things to happen, rather than design and fine tune a complex system).
You might know a lot about Russian history and care a lot about Russian history and notice when things are off and want them to be improved. Me too. But you have to be aware that there are 40+ civilizations in this game while you are worried about Russia I have ten other people in my ear asking the same for Portugal and Brazil and Egypt and so on. Not to mention that I have to care about civilizations that nobody is actively bothering me about as well. And fix bugs. And so on. My time is fundamentally limited and has to be spread across a billion different concerns and things that I want or need to do and I cannot do all of them with the level of detail and completeness that you expect for the one thing you care about.
And none of this is your problem. But I think you will find that our conversations are going to be more productive if you keep that in mind.
Similar threads
