Large Map and New Civilizations are now playable

[HNation]

I would suggest moving Mecca 1E for a more geographically accurate placement (unless it's placed where it is to overlap less with Sana'a)

 

[SOVNARKOM]

Should olive and citrus orchards only provide food bonus? As far as I know, they exist more as economic crops than providing food. Perhaps it would be more reasonable to transfer a portion of the citrus and olive food bonus to commerce?

 

[Lokki242]

I would suggest moving Mecca 1E for a more geographically accurate placement (unless it's placed where it is to overlap less with Sana'a)

i think for gameplay reasons it's also preferable to keep it as a port city

 

[hnrysml]

I like Mecca staying as a port city too, from at least the mid-600s Jeddah has existed as a dedicated port for facilitating travel and trade to and from Mecca, which is only about 50km or less from the coast if I recall correctly

 

[HNation]

i think for gameplay reasons it's also preferable to keep it as a port city

I like Mecca staying as a port city too, from at least the mid-600s Jeddah has existed as a dedicated port for facilitating travel and trade to and from Mecca, which is only about 50km or less from the coast if I recall correctly

It would still be a port city, but it would just be 1E. It would lead to Mecca and Sana'a sharing one tile between their first ring, but it's an unworkable mountain tile that they would share, so I don't think it really matters.

 

[hnrysml]

Oh yes I see what you are suggesting. I'm not sure, do you think that would improve the gameplay? Visually that would look a bit off to me given the distance from Mecca to Sana'a should be only slightly less than the distance from Mecca to say the the bottom tip of the Sinai Peninsula/the bottom of the Gulf of Aqaba

 

[ThreeBlackSevens]

Won the Swahili UHV! (Regent, Marathon, 600 AD start)

In terms of balance, I would say it might lean on the easier side, but not too easy, since it only took one try, but it was a very close one try as I only discovered cartography on the very last turn of UHV 2 (discover 35% of the world's coasts) and had to give away techs to get people to like me and then buy their maps. UHV 1 was easy as there's plenty of resources to trade away for happiness resources, and sailing around the Indian ocean meeting people to trade with also nicely plays into UHV 2. UHV 3 was almost easy, but dealing with the barbarian spawns and a surprise attack by a respawned Ethiopia threw some drama into the mix in my case. In hindsight I did a lot of things very suboptimally, so I don't think it would take an experienced player more than 2 tries at most to win. Overall, it was a fun game!

One thing I will point out, not sure if this is considered a bad thing or not, but by far the best strategy is to expand into south Africa, in fact the main place I think I went wrong is founding 3 cities in my core to start instead of 1-2 in the core and 1-2 in south Africa (2 in the core would be to support an early capture of Zimbabwe). I think you would still want to take the whole core area eventually though, and I ended up playing the whole game without capturing Mombasa though that was what I was going to try to do before Ethiopia surprise attacked me

Some non-UHV related things of note, Swahili seems to be a very strong civ in player hands outside of the UHV - even while going for it it was easy for me to keep up in tech with basically everyone but Japan into the end of the game at 1480. I don't think that's a bad thing, in fact it makes me want to play a new game with them and see how far I can take them, but I thought I'd mention it for maximum information

Also, I've been having the same situation as I think I've seen mentioned elsewhere where Mughals remain Hindu throughout the game. They actually don't have a single Muslim city as of 1480. The Ottomans also are Orthodox, not sure if that's a common thing too or just an occasional fun quirk. Finally, in this game and others I've played there seems to be a tendency for Nubia to respawn as an Orthodox civ after Arabia collapses. It seems that Islam has trouble spreading in general at the moment.

 

[WhiteEyes]

Should Turkic UHV1 be changed to be more achievable?
Like settle cities in 7 different regions(Khorasan, Mongolia, Urals, etc) instead of controlling 6% of the world.


Controlling 6% of the world requires the player to go roleplaying Seljuk way too early instead of emulating Gokturk empire territory at its height.

 

[Tigranes]

Should Turkic UHV1 be changed to be more achievable?
Like settle cities in 7 different regions(Khorasan, Mongolia, Urals, etc) instead of controlling 6% of the world.


Controlling 6% of the world requires the player to go roleplaying Seljuk way too early instead of emulating Gokturk empire territory at its height.

I don't think you can actually do that with the bonuses Arabs have in future "Seljuk" lands during "Gokturk" era, you have to wait for Rise of Arabia to expire. The inspiration for 7% (not 6! ) goal comes from the First Turkic Khaganate era (552–603), so gameplay-wise meaningful 900 ad deadline is in between Gokturk and Seljuk eras, actually.
By the way, the only plausible way to achieve 7% is to settle a city in NW corner of Turkic historical area AND NE corner (future Mongol capital), that's Gokturks plus upcoming Seljuks. So you enter 900 AD with something like this (old map but the idea is the same):

 

[Lokki242]

o

It would still be a port city, but it would just be 1E. It would lead to Mecca and Sana'a sharing one tile between their first ring, but it's an unworkable mountain tile that they would share, so I don't think it really matters.

oh woops I didn't have the map at hand and didn't realize it would be a diagonal port still

 

[WhiteEyes]

I don't think you can actually do that with the bonuses Arabs have in future "Seljuk" lands during "Gokturk" era, you have to wait for Rise of Arabia to expire. The inspiration for 7% (not 6! ) goal comes from the First Turkic Khaganate era (552–603), so gameplay-wise meaningful 900 ad deadline is in between Gokturk and Seljuk eras, actually.
By the way, the only plausible way to achieve 7% is to settle a city in NW corner of Turkic historical area AND NE corner (future Mongol capital), that's Gokturks plus upcoming Seljuks. So you enter 900 AD with something like this (old map but the idea is the same):

View attachment 701480

Lets see how you achieve that in the 600AD start, in the large map without steady supply of 3 Oghuz and 8 Horse Archers.

This isn't a challenge, just my sincere request for help.

Also i dont think the Seljuk Invasion have to be portrayed under the 900AD deadline, we already have UHV2 for that.

 

[Tigranes]

Lets see how you achieve that in the 600AD start, in the large map without steady supply of 3 Oghuz and 8 Horse Archers.

This isn't a challenge, just my sincere request for help.

Also i dont think the Seljuk Invasion have to be portrayed under the 900AD deadline, we already have UHV2 for that.

What I meant is 7% goal alludes to the First Gokturk empire (6 mil sq. km in 557 AD), while the largest extent of Seljuks in 1090 was 3.9 mil. sq. km. Since the goal is "by" it makes sense to finish 2/3 UHV together, without thinking much about the difference between Seljuks and Gokturks. The moment Arabs lose their bonuses they must be attacked. Why wait for "historical" date if DoC is meant to represent the spirit of history, not the letter, with year by year developments being interpreted rather liberally. With 600 AD starts, strictly speaking, you start with the united Gokturk prime being already over. And yes, I should try 600 AD start one day, but preoccupied with SE Asia for now. I love to dive into historical podcasts and videos when I play any given civ and there are frustratingly few resources about Vietnam -- 15th most populous country in the world .

 

[CivEnthusiast]

Probably an insignificant thing to even mention but still want to let it out of my head while I remember to say about it. Usually when starting a civ or when switching from one civ to another you get a set of units including a settler who then you use to place a first city of yours. With some civs however, like in case when I switched from Byzantium to Ruthenia last time when I played 1.18, I wasn't even given such an opportunity, with the computer doing the first turn as Ruthenia instead of me and having the first city placed

 

[Leoreth]

Good point. It depends on where the new civ is in the turn order relative to you. I assume you already switched to Byzantium from another starting civ? Because you are probably late in the turn order and whatever slot that was assigned to Ruthenia happens to be earlier than that.

It should be possible to address this by sending the option to switch one tun earlier in such a situation.

 

[CivEnthusiast]

Good point. It depends on where the new civ is in the turn order relative to you. I assume you already switched to Byzantium from another starting civ? Because you are probably late in the turn order and whatever slot that was assigned to Ruthenia happens to be earlier than that.

It should be possible to address this by sending the option to switch one tun earlier in such a situation.

Yeah, before then I was switching from Babylonia to Greece to Rome to Byzantium, and each time was able to make a first turn with the first city placement until I switched to Ruthenia. Then after that when I switched to Muscovy, I was once again able to make a first city placement (Moscow)

 

[Leoreth]

Probably an insignificant thing to even mention but still want to let it out of my head while I remember to say about it. Usually when starting a civ or when switching from one civ to another you get a set of units including a settler who then you use to place a first city of yours. With some civs however, like in case when I switched from Byzantium to Ruthenia last time when I played 1.18, I wasn't even given such an opportunity, with the computer doing the first turn as Ruthenia instead of me and having the first city placed

Good point. It depends on where the new civ is in the turn order relative to you. I assume you already switched to Byzantium from another starting civ? Because you are probably late in the turn order and whatever slot that was assigned to Ruthenia happens to be earlier than that.

It should be possible to address this by sending the option to switch one tun earlier in such a situation.

Yeah, before then I was switching from Babylonia to Greece to Rome to Byzantium, and each time was able to make a first turn with the first city placement until I switched to Ruthenia. Then after that when I switched to Muscovy, I was once again able to make a first city placement (Moscow)

Do you have a save of this or a similar situation? It would help reproducing the issue and confirming a fix.

 

[CivEnthusiast]

Do you have a save of this or a similar situation? It would help reproducing the issue and confirming a fix.

Here, although note that the save uses the version of the 1.18 from June, last time I played this was 25 June precisely

 

[KdNseer]

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.

It can be solved by add Xiongnu、Khitay、Manju or some else as new civs or add more barbarians at least.The map of Northen China is totally empty.Maybe next version

 

[Mcbc_6]

Wanted to drop a review of my Mexico game from a week back or so. I also had updated my game to the most recent version. Normal settings.

I overall enjoyed the game, as again the expanded map makes you feel much less cramped. The level of detail is especially noticeable for your cities in the Yucatan penninsula. However, it's missing a level of challenge since the American AI does not aggressively expand west. I understand this is a known issue, however.

The first two goals require you to actively settle American territories. I think it would usually result in them attacking you, but the AI took its time pushing west after founding Birmingham (it didn't even found St. Louis, and Chicago was settled much later). As a result, I had an easy time settling Texas, California and Colorado. I also placed a city in the south of Baja and one in Nicaragua. I used despotism to ruch the churches and cathedrals (you need 3 in total). I finished the goal with a few turns to spare while not particularly min-maxxing. Because the US didn't aggresively expand west we were relatively equal in power once I focused on building military for goal #2 (generating great generals). I had dreams of conquering at least the southern half of the US, but I generated enough GG points fast enough that I completed the goal around 1917 (for Pancho Villa of course). I will say the US built up quite a strong military, so I couldn't have conquered the US anyways. Finally, goal 3 was close, as I used the former version of Isolationism that gave +1 food to all specialists to boost it above a strong London with Tsukiji Fish Market (around 28 pop). I'd be curious to test it now with the change, but I also figured I'd switch to redistribution if push came to shove - I was very stable nearly the entire game.

The unique power, buildings, and units were good enough. I didn't get to use many Rural's, but I appreciated their synergy with the Charreada Arena that provided a nice boost to my cities and military power. The UP is passive but encourages the player to focus on industrialization. By the end of the game in 1960 I was close to the tech level of the major powers which felt appropriate. The US was also teching up at the same speed while pumping out military units, so I never felt safe despite their reduced size.

I think the Mexico experience is fun, but the challenge from the US will make it even better when the issues with plotting AI are figured out. I'm curious to try and truly battle against the US in the west.

 

[CivEnthusiast]

Some weird moments during my fresh playthrough of the latest Git 1.18 version.

China collapsed by itself during the Bronze Age era, and this is the earliest China collapse I ever witnessed, without any noticeable pressure. Additionally, after it was said some time ago that the Sea Peoples invasions were fixed to prevent them from destroying Greece, it seems like that they may have been fixed a bit too much from what it feels like. Only saw two small Sea Peoples Invasions, one in Levant and the other one on Hitties, and that's all.

China never regenerated afterwards all the way until and after Rome spawned and this is when I stopped the gameplay for now