Charles Martel
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2007
- Messages
- 244
How about making Asia Minor a shared part, one that belongs both to Asia and Europe? I don't know if this is codable or free of inconsistencies. If it is, it may be a good compromise.
Minor Suggestions Thread
- Thread starter Lokolus
- Start date
How about making Asia Minor a shared part, one that belongs both to Asia and Europe? I don't know if this is codable or free of inconsistencies. If it is, it may be a good compromise.
I think it's acceptably rare for the Turkish AI to fail to conquer Constantinople; after all, we can legitimately imagine a world in which the Byzantine Empire survived (even if it's unfortunate that the continuing Byzantines can't conduct diplomacy).
Even the method isn't really wrong. Yes, for gameplay reasons it's strange that the Turks land troops in Thrace and attack Constantinople from Thrace, but that's exactly what happened in real history.
Even the method isn't really wrong. Yes, for gameplay reasons it's strange that the Turks land troops in Thrace and attack Constantinople from Thrace, but that's exactly what happened in real history.
because of side-effects of existing continent only wonders.
And in case, the switch should happen around the turkish spawn, because earlier Rome wouldn't be able to take it, and Greece to found it. But later, while it would help Turkish AI, the invisible line would make things more difficult for Germany, Russia or any other civ interested in the area. Usually Germany, which is not necessarily a bad thing.
Those invisible lines are very effective. With the new Africa, I've seen the Turkish empire stretching from Melilla to Delhi! While Mali and Ethiopia were a little more contained in their home regions (no north or south Africa).
plots can't be shared by 2 areas anyway.
AnotherPacifist
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Messages
- 4,878
What's more historically inaccurate is the frequent LATE conquest of Byzantine Constantinople by Russia or European civs that have open borders with Germany (I've seen France, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Germany and even occasionally Vikings do it). This happens more often when you do 3000 BC when Christianity isn't as widespread, but also happens in the 600 AD to an annoying extent. Constantinople was sacked and occupied for a while in the 4th Crusade but that was in 1200, and as currently implemented the Crusades aren't a factor. (This may change though with the new patch, I haven't tried it yet...)
The problem is that for 600 AD Turkey almost never conquers Constantinople, it only gets it flipped when the Byzantines collapse due to loss of their Asia Minor cities, and by default gets Istanbul and Athens because of Sogut's culture as a capital. This Byzantine collapse doesn't happen all the time because occasionally Arabia will avoid going into Egypt and beyond, and the Byzantines can withstand some instability from losing Asia Minor.
Maybe this is actually accurate because the Ottomans are historically the successor state to the Byzantines in the 1450's, but how to avoid that flip from happening in 1300 is tough to code.
The problem is that for 600 AD Turkey almost never conquers Constantinople, it only gets it flipped when the Byzantines collapse due to loss of their Asia Minor cities, and by default gets Istanbul and Athens because of Sogut's culture as a capital. This Byzantine collapse doesn't happen all the time because occasionally Arabia will avoid going into Egypt and beyond, and the Byzantines can withstand some instability from losing Asia Minor.
Maybe this is actually accurate because the Ottomans are historically the successor state to the Byzantines in the 1450's, but how to avoid that flip from happening in 1300 is tough to code.
FTR, I have never, in recent patches, seen the Byzantines survive until 1450 unless I was playing the Arabs and made a point of weakening the Turks myself. The Turks always conquer Constantinople, usually long before the historical date on which they did so.
blizzrd
Micromanager
I agree that I usually see Turkey control Constantinople and therefore succeed with 1/3 of their UHV conditions very early.
But do you find that this is because Turkey actally assaulted the walls of Constantinople and captured the city? Or is it perhaps because after Turkey spawned and flipped a bunch of Byzantine cities in Asia Minor that these losses caused Byzantium to collapse - at which point the Turkish culture from Sogut (with the Turkish UP) caused cities on the western side of the Aegean sea to then flip to Turkey?
AnotherPacifist
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Messages
- 4,878
You know, the unfair thing is that the Sogut culture thing never happens to the human player, we have to CONQUER Istanbul and then we have to make it our capital, unlike the free palace move the AI gets.
At least give the human the option to move the palace there freely.
At least give the human the option to move the palace there freely.
india is like a mixture. Ok for mosques, but are you sure Hindu architecture doesn't look more like chinese?
LukeUeda-Sarson
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2007
- Messages
- 341
I for one am certainly sure it doesn't...
AnotherPacifist
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Messages
- 4,878
South Asian/Indian architecture is definitely more ornate and emphasizes curves/rounded elements than Chinese (who stick with straight lines in most things other than roofs and columns). There's also more emphasis on depicting the human form in the former (when have you EVER seen a human face or body on a Chinese pagoda, unless it was Buddhist?).
So no, they don't look alike. I agree Middle Eastern architecture looks more like Indian, except the former has no human depiction. The Taj Mahal was built by a Muslim shah of India.
So no, they don't look alike. I agree Middle Eastern architecture looks more like Indian, except the former has no human depiction. The Taj Mahal was built by a Muslim shah of India.
I didn't say they look like. I asked if they looked like chinese more than middle eastern. They seem now very different from both, but if you all agree with the latter, alright, the change is very quick anyway.
wow...when I just looked at the Indian picture for the first time, I immediately thought about meso-american culture.
Of course...I'm no expert in these matters...but it sure looks a lot like meso-american (except for the body art...which definitely doesn't look meso-american)
Of course...I'm no expert in these matters...but it sure looks a lot like meso-american (except for the body art...which definitely doesn't look meso-american)
star15389
Prince
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2008
- Messages
- 493
The Meso-American art-style actually looks a lot like that, being all stone and unlike the Mid-Eastern style it isn't too boxy.
What to do about Khmer? The Baray and Angkor Wat look a lot like Indian architecture, as does a lot of other stuff in Thailand and Cambodia. But Vietnam, which they will also control, looks very Chinese.
What to do about Khmer? The Baray and Angkor Wat look a lot like Indian architecture, as does a lot of other stuff in Thailand and Cambodia. But Vietnam, which they will also control, looks very Chinese.
AnotherPacifist
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Messages
- 4,878
You know, SE Asian cultures (of which Khmer is one) owe a lot to Hinduism. In fact the Angkor Wat was dedicated to a Hindu deity. So it's not surprising that Indian (at least pre-Mughal) and Khmer architecture look similar.
Hinduism has significant pockets in SE Asia, just like Islam left large regions in India after the Mughal empire.
Hinduism has significant pockets in SE Asia, just like Islam left large regions in India after the Mughal empire.
Historically, Khmer and all of SE Asia were more fundamentally closer to Indian culture than Chinese (Vietnam excepted). The Vietnamese were actually latecomers to SE Asia compared to most of the other cultures (Khmer, Javanese, Siamese, Mon, Burmese, Laotian) already there. Maybe the Khmer should have the Mesoamerican city style?
Similar threads
