Minor Suggestions Thread

[deanej]

Portugal is probably better at colonizing for two reasons:
1. It has no space for a second city in Europe (in short, it has to colonize).
2. It has easy access to the sea that is not blocked in any way by other civs (the Dutch have to go through England and France to get to America).

 

[say1988]

Agreed. And yes Dutch aren't stopped by the culture, does the AI truly realize this? Or is it luck they move warships through.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Dutch aren't stopped by the culture, does the AI truly realize this?

This is an interesting question.

 

[Hangly Man]

This was a great suggestion. The results are excellent

Yes. The Great Wall now keeps African barbs out. The Persians thank you.

I wouldn't mind being able to play as the Byzantine empire in the 600AD start.

That would be really really depressing.

 

[Hangly Man]

Suggestions Re: Egypt.

- The area around the Nile should be insanely productive in terms of food, moreso than your run-of-the mill floodplain. Think of how many empires fed themselves on Egyptian grain. As it is, Egypt is agriculturally one of the poorest regions (it doesn't even have sheep!)
I propose the Nile be changed to regular grassland river (no health -, can be farmed) with several (at least two, perhaps three) wheat resources.

- What of Egypt's splendid isolation? The Sahara to the west and the Sinai to the east should be virtually impossible to cross. The first time Egypt was invaded from across the desert was when Persia did it, and that's only because the Persians engineered what amounted to the world's first inter-continental sprinkler system.

Desert should be either uncrossable, or should incur damage/turn unless the invading civ has the prerequisite techs. (Mathematics perhaps?) This also serves to keep the Egyptians in Egypt, except for south to Kush or North by ship. That should keep them from expanding all over Africa with their new food production.

Tons of food + nowhere to go means Egypt will have to make constant use of the whip, building wonders and such to keep the population down and the cities stable. Just like real life! All that food and all those wonders will make Egypt an attractive target for later civs like Persia Greece and Rome. Just like real life!

In any case, barbarians should not be wandering casually around the Sahara desert looking for something to burn down. Egypt was very very secure, which accounts for its lagging behind the middle east militarily. In Rhye's Egypt ties with Byzantion and Central America for Most Perilous Place On Earth.

- To counter this advantage, take away Egypt's copper (though they did have it, they didn't make much military use of it) and move the new gold resource south to Ethiopia. Egypt got all its gold in trade from Kush.

 

[Lone Wolf]

- What of Egypt's splendid isolation? The Sahara to the west and the Sinai to the east should be virtually impossible to cross. The first time Egypt was invaded from across the desert was when Persia did it, and that's only because the Persians engineered what amounted to the world's first inter-continental sprinkler system.

Desert should be either uncrossable,

Wrong. Egypt itself crossed the desert multiple times when fighting in Palestine, Phoenicia and parts of Mesopotamia. The New Kingdom had vassalized numerous little states in that region.

Egypt itself was invaded through Sinai by Hyksos and, if I'm not mistaken, Assyrians.

Only in the very early periods of Egyptian history it had something resembling isolation.

Egypt was very very secure, which accounts for its lagging behind the middle east militarily.

There were times before the persian conquest of Egypt where it had been ruled by Libyan and Ethiopean rulers.

I propose the Nile be changed to regular grassland river

Grassland floodplains FTW!

 

[Hangly Man]

Wrong. Egypt itself crossed the desert multiple times when fighting in Palestine, Phoenicia and parts of Mesopotamia. The New Kingdom had vassalized numerous little states in that region.

Egypt itself was invaded through Sinai by Hyksos and, if I'm not mistaken, Assyrians.

Only in the very early periods of Egyptian history it had something resembling isolation.

Er, yes. But they were planned, hence the mathematics requirement.

My point is, don't you think the desert should be at least as much of a barrier as jungle?

I believe the neverending stream of elephants and camels coming from the west is to put a check on Egypt's expansion, yes? Why not do this with terrain and shut off that cursed elephant spigot?

Perhaps I missed a crucial National Geographic special, but I don't think there are many elephants or elephant-riding nomads running around the Sahara. In fact, I think I'd feel pretty secure if I had a desert that size at my back.

Grassland floodplains FTW!

I don't want to overtax Mr. Rhye, but having a 'Nile' terrain type would be ideal. It really is a very unique place.


Edit:
Also there's no evidence I'm aware of that the Hyksos invaded over the Sinai. Records only show that they were there (in the delta) and got booted out.

And the Lybians would have invaded from along the coast, and Kush came north up the river. If the Assyrians crossed the Sinai I'd like to know how

 

[blizzrd]

I believe the neverending stream of elephants and camels coming from the west is to put a check on Egypt's expansion, yes?

No, Rhye has said in these forums that he want's at least half of the ancient civs to collapse by the spawn of the Euro civs post-600AD. Those barbs are a part of this. A little crude perhaps, but it is effective nonetheless. The barbarian AI is at least something of a challenge to the Human player as Egypt also, which is more than can be said for any of Carthage/Babylon/Greece.

 

[Hangly Man]

Then can I propose they be sandworms instead of elephants? Much more realistic in a desert setting I feel.

Sandoworms with A-TO-MICS.

 

[Hangly Man]

Or wait, I have a better idea. Add the Byzantines as a playable civ.

Byzantium can spawn in 500 AD with a dozen or so cataphracts and pikemen with a UHV similar to Persia or Mongolia's, telling them to attack Anatolia, the middle east and Egypt.
Or Rome. Rome is spared the brunt of these late-antiquity barbarian rushes.

In a hundred years the Byzantine onslaught can easily collapse, vassalize or conquer all the civs in these areas and put the map more or less where it is in the 600 AD start.

I think this is better for several reasons. It would be more fun, more realistic, Egypt and Ethiopia wouldn't have to suffer the brunt of it, and it also wouldn't spare whoever has the GW from being wiped clean by the wrath of Rhye.

It would also be a bit more fun to see an actual pitched battle between the Byzantines and the Arabs, and then with the Turks. Turkey doesn't usually have to fight for Constantinople at all.

Not sure how Greece and Rome should be handled in that case. Having Rome and Byzantium next to each other might not be so odd, but if Greece is still around at that point all Greek cities should turn into Byzantine ones.

How's that for a minor suggestion?

 

[Charles Martel]

Then can I propose they be sandworms instead of elephants? Much more realistic in a desert setting I feel.

Sandoworms with A-TO-MICS.

No, Rhye has already said he doesn't want sandworms, especially those with A-TO-MICS.

p.s. as everyone knows (read Wikpiedia!), the Assyrians crossed the Sinai riding winged bulls known as lamassi.

 

[onedreamer]

Agreed. And yes Dutch aren't stopped by the culture, does the AI truly realize this? Or is it luck they move warships through.

Of course they do, the AI doesn't take decisions based on luck AFAIK.

Suggestions Re: Egypt.

- The area around the Nile should be insanely productive in terms of food, moreso than your run-of-the mill floodplain. Think of how many empires fed themselves on Egyptian grain. As it is, Egypt is agriculturally one of the poorest regions (it doesn't even have sheep!)
I propose the Nile be changed to regular grassland river (no health -, can be farmed) with several (at least two, perhaps three) wheat resources.

yep I have been discussing this point in the Agricultural Penalty thread. This applies to Mesopotamia as well. IMHO farms should be built in flood plains without knowledge of Biology, but stone and marble should be moved away from flood plains. Changing flood plains to grasslands would actually make the situation worse than it is now. Btw the first part is easy to mod for testing, but I don't know how to edit the map for the second part.

What of Egypt's splendid isolation? The Sahara to the west and the Sinai to the east should be virtually impossible to cross. The first time Egypt was invaded from across the desert was when Persia did it, and that's only because the Persians engineered what amounted to the world's first inter-continental sprinkler system.

Egypt was all but isolated, where did you take this info ? It was invaded by the Sea Peoples (repelled by Ramesses with the help of Lybians IIRC) and the Hyksos (who started their own Dynasty) before the Persians. The Egyptian themselves crossed the Sinai for trading (Byblos being their major trading partner) and for war (vs. Hittites the most famous).

Tons of food + nowhere to go means Egypt will have to make constant use of the whip, building wonders and such to keep the population down and the cities stable. Just like real life! All that food and all those wonders will make Egypt an attractive target for later civs like Persia Greece and Rome. Just like real life!

I doubt about both points, also excessive use of whipping is detrimental on the long run for Stability.

In any case, barbarians should not be wandering casually around the Sahara desert looking for something to burn down. Egypt was very very secure, which accounts for its lagging behind the middle east militarily. In Rhye's Egypt ties with Byzantion and Central America for Most Perilous Place On Earth.

I disagree, the Camel Archers represent the Mameluks that took over Egypt. They work pretty well historically, and generally don't raze egyptian cities because of wonders.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Also there's no evidence I'm aware of that the Hyksos invaded over the Sinai. Records only show that they were there (in the delta) and got booted out.

And how did they get to Delta? By riding the Giant Radioactive Monkeys?

 

[Hangly Man]

And how did they get to Delta? By riding the Giant Radioactive Monkeys?

From the sea perhaps? No one really knows, but there's speculation that the Hyksos were the sea peoples.

IIRC the Egyptians didn't settle much in the delta. It's possible the Hyksos moved into what was essentially vacant territory.

You guys keep bringing up Rameses II and the Hyksos. Yes, I know he went on expeditions to clobber (read: be clobbered by) the Hittites, etc. That's already 1300 BC though, 150 years before the end of the New Kingdom. Egypt was plenty isolated for most of the 2000 years before that.

Just suggesting that desert is hard to cross (it is, even now) and that desert could afford the Egyptians the same kind of protection the Khmer get from their jungles.

 

[Virdrago]

From the sea perhaps? No one really knows, but there's speculation that the Hyksos were the sea peoples.

IIRC the Egyptians didn't settle much in the delta. It's possible the Hyksos moved into what was essentially vacant territory.

Um, no and maybe. The Hyksos took northern Egypt around 1600BC and were driven out about 100 years later. The Sea Peoples helped end the Hittites and were themselves defeated by the Egyptians when they entered the delta, around 1200BC. Interestingly, the Philistines who warred against early Israel seem to have been those same people (OT). Same time frame, too.

The Hyksos were generally from northern Mesopotamia - even the Egyptians called them Asians, and contemporary finds have confirmed it through their dress (in pictographs).

It seems the Hyksos may have come as peaceful migrants originally, but would probably have moved there more likely through the desert than from ships.

 

[musicfreak]

How about, on the scoreboard, making the last number of the UHV counter the number of UHV opportunities instead of always being 3? In other words, let's say I'm playing Egypt. I've completed the first objective, but failed the second one, and I haven't gotten to the third yet. Instead of showing an ambiguously grey "1/3", I'd see a "1/2", showing that I've completed 1 of the 2 objectives that I've had a chance to complete.

Here's a visual example. Compare:

In my opinion, the second one is much more readable, and I can tell at a glance how many objectives everyone has failed, without having to guess which color is which.

Thoughts?

 

[Lone Wolf]

IIRC the Egyptians didn't settle much in the delta.

They did settle there, althrough in the early periods it lagged behind the Upper (Southern) Egypt. Only in the times of the New Kingdom, when the Delta became placed in the middle between the Upper Egypt and the Egyptian's Asian vassals, the Egyptian rulers started paying more attention to the Delta. Pharaoh Ramesses II founded his new capital, Pi-Ramesses, there. The last Egyptian dynasty before Persian coquest had its capital is Sais, a city in the Delta.

 

[Hangly Man]

Um, no and maybe. The Hyksos took northern Egypt around 1600BC and were driven out about 100 years later. The Sea Peoples helped end the Hittites and were themselves defeated by the Egyptians when they entered the delta, around 1200BC. Interestingly, the Philistines who warred against early Israel seem to have been those same people (OT). Same time frame, too.

The Hyksos were generally from northern Mesopotamia - even the Egyptians called them Asians, and contemporary finds have confirmed it through their dress (in pictographs).

It seems the Hyksos may have come as peaceful migrants originally, but would probably have moved there more likely through the desert than from ships.

The Philistines had links to Mycenea and Greece. If the Hyksos are related to them they could very well have come by ship. The presence of chariots and other mesopotamian bric-brac would only demonstrate that they were in contact with other parts of the Mediterranean.

Anyway, this is all speculative. No mention is made of them until they'd been in the delta for quite a while, so no one knows how they got there.

 

[JujuLautre]

How about, on the scoreboard, making the last number of the UHV counter the number of UHV opportunities instead of always being 3? In other words, let's say I'm playing Egypt. I've completed the first objective, but failed the second one, and I haven't gotten to the third yet. Instead of showing an ambiguously grey "1/3", I'd see a "1/2", showing that I've completed 1 of the 2 objectives that I've had a chance to complete.

In my opinion, the second one is much more readable, and I can tell at a glance how many objectives everyone has failed, without having to guess which color is which.

Thoughts?

I am not sure I understand everything. Because on your example, China has a grey 0/3; so grey means that they failed an objective, but 3 means that they still have a chance on 3 objectives?

 

[say1988]

he has it so taht the first number is the conditions complete, and the second is the number that have passed the deadline (completed or failed), so in that case China has completed 0/3 and failed.
Though the current one is simpler.