Minor Suggestions Thread

[onedreamer]

Also why is it that when a player collapses he retains his capitol but when an AI collapses it disappears completely? Surely one of the factions in a civil war represents the old government...

I once wrote that I consider the game lost if I loose all cities in civil war (except capital) and Rhye confirmed it. So I assume it's supposed to be the same as for the AI but there are technical problems in kicking the human player off the game, or maybe just leave him the decision wether to continue the game or not (Can switch to another civ spawning soon).

 

[dragodon64]

Also, only independent cities represent small states that aren't significant enough to get a real civ, so the many warring factions are just that: small and unimpressive states.

 

[ninerzfan_22]

do civs respawn only if their cities are being occupied by foreign powers or can a group of independent cities respawn?

 

[onedreamer]

they can IIRC. Indipendents are (technically, not from a historic background point of view) foreign powers just as well I think.

 

[SadoMacho]

I like this wonders a lot, there basicly the same:
copernicus observatory: western astronomy
http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=11171
Cheomseongdae Wonder: Chinese astronomy -> maybe nice to add this one
http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=11234

 

[mitsho]

they can IIRC. Indipendents are (technically, not from a historic background point of view) foreign powers just as well I think.

Really? I mean I have never seen the message the Indipendents have respawned.

And i mean it is highly unlikely that every single indie city on earth is conquered. There will most of the time still be an indipendent city somewhere (yes, actually there are two civs, so ...)

 

[onedreamer]

I think he meant to ask if a civ can respawn if its cities are owned by independents.

 

[mitsho]

ah well yes, sorry of course

 

[Bowsling]

shunned religions? i've seen babylon embrace judaism after they take Jerusalem (or whatever they call it at the start), when they actually enslaved the jewish 'till persia came along

 

[Nerowannabe]

Can you make it possible for some Native Americans (natives,or barbarians) to spawn in North America at say 1400 A.D to stop the expansion west. Or to prevent the Europeans from expanding to far west as well. I think tey should spawn near the Sioux area, Iroquois area,or the Apache area.

 

[Rhye]

I once wrote that I consider the game lost if I loose all cities in civil war (except capital) and Rhye confirmed it. So I assume it's supposed to be the same as for the AI but there are technical problems in kicking the human player off the game, or maybe just leave him the decision wether to continue the game or not (Can switch to another civ spawning soon).

actually, hte main reasons are the ones lonewolf explained

 

[Rhye]

Hardly. How it can manifest itself in that case? (It's actually good for the AI colonization that Asia and Africa are different continents then Europe. If it wasn't so, the AI would refuse to send units and settlers there by ships due to bugged code. The BetterAI guys are working on it, I believe).
I would like to know more about the UNITAI_SETTLER_SEA ships, through, althrough I doubt that the problem lies there.



They are actually given free settlers by the code. I even increased the amount of them.

Even in classic BTS, on Terra maps, it's not that hard for human to claim most of the New World for himself, even with disabled barbarians.

I tried that too, but won't work.
When AI doesn't colonize, it has some lock in the code,somthing that keeps it from doing it. A lock may be on settlers production, on ships production, or in settling. Adding free units I bypassed the first two. As for the third, in a recent patch I unlocked many blocks that were added in BTS (AI felt in danger in many situations, like a close war. But being at war with someone on the same continent is very common in RFC)

 

[Rhye]

Can you make it possible for some Native Americans (natives,or barbarians) to spawn in North America at say 1400 A.D to stop the expansion west. Or to prevent the Europeans from expanding to far west as well. I think tey should spawn near the Sioux area, Iroquois area,or the Apache area.

I think they are already spawning, more or less in those regions

 

[sk8er AG]

i think there is to much aggression shown by the native americans in NA. Whoever conquers mexico always seems to have stacks of 2-3 dog soldiers in there territory every other turn. I think the units aggresions should be varied if possible. I assume some tribes came after Spanish settlements but most just became angry when there own territory was taken. I think most Dog soldiers, should if possible, guard an area of NA, similar to the dog soldiers over Bogota.

 

[Agent327]

I noticed the Indian city of Pataliputra is misspelled. (Never saw it being referred to as Patliputra.)

Ceterum censeo 1 Dutch UHV condition is inaccurate: the Dutch never founded any colonies in Asia or Australia. They did found "Nieuw Amsterdam" (=> New York) and Kaapstad (Capetown); in fact South Africa was the only region effectively colonized by Dutch settlers. The reason they ultimately colonized Indonesia was the presence of the spice islands, i.e. the Moluccas.

Also, if the Dutch do found colonies in (Northern) Australia they seem to be misnamed: Aernhem's Landt just means Land of Arnhem (= a Dutch city, like Groningen; both of these names can be found in South Africa and/or Surinam). I also don't understand why the dt letter combination is used (like in "Landt" and "-stadt"; Stadt is German for city, stad is Dutch for city); I'd be interested to know where you found these names.

Otherwise I'm still enjoying the mod.

 

[Fierabras]

Jeelen, you have to be more flexible when it comes to historical accuracy of UHV's in RFC. Like with the Greek UHV condition to be the first to circumnavigate the world. The Greek never did, but Alexander had the intent to explore the entire world, but sort of found out it was bigger than he thought.

The Dutch UHV refers to the trading colonies in Asia and the exploration of Australia (Abel Tasman).

The naming is historical accurate and based on historical sources. You have to acknowledge that Dutch as we know it now was standardized rather late. If you read Dutch from the historical sources, you will find a lot of different spelling of names and words. The -dt ending for stadt was actually very common, as was the "ae" in "Aernhem".

P.S. I agree that Pataliputra is more accurate from the standpoint of phonology. The first "t" is not the "t" as we know it, but a "t" with an unstressed vowel in it. In English the pronunciation would be closest to "Pattehl...", with a very unstressed "e". It's also written as a "t" with a cedille attached to it, but that character might not be possible in RFC, which uses a limited charset.

 

[sk8er AG]

i think having two different uhv sets for at least some civs would really widen the game. for instance all the dutch goals are more or less what a dutch leader would have wanted, but there are many more i that were goals of leaders, such as dutch having a uhv to have a certian amount of gold. same for france and west africa colonization or china's efforts to modernize in the 1800s could require a tech uhv. i think having different uhvs for earlier and later in the game would really add to the game.

 

[Agent327]

Jeelen, you have to be more flexible when it comes to historical accuracy of UHV's in RFC. Like with the Greek UHV condition to be the first to circumnavigate the world. The Greek never did, but Alexander had the intent to explore the entire world, but sort of found out it was bigger than he thought.

The Dutch UHV refers to the trading colonies in Asia and the exploration of Australia (Abel Tasman).

The naming is historical accurate and based on historical sources. You have to acknowledge that Dutch as we know it now was standardized rather late. If you read Dutch from the historical sources, you will find a lot of different spelling of names and words. The -dt ending for stadt was actually very common, as was the "ae" in "Aernhem".

P.S. I agree that Pataliputra is more accurate from the standpoint of phonology. The first "t" is not the "t" as we know it, but a "t" with an unstressed vowel in it. In English the pronunciation would be closest to "Pattehl...", with a very unstressed "e". It's also written as a "t" with a cedille attached to it, but that character might not be possible in RFC, which uses a limited charset.

Hi, Fierabras!

About historical accuracy: I've noticed Rhye changing things to increase historical accuracy (like the founding of the USA around 1775), so I don't really agree with you on that.

Also, from my study of history at the University of Leiden I'm well aware of the lack of spelling standardization of the Dutch language. But that's not really my point: a name like "Aernhem's Landt" (Arnhem Country) makes little sense when you can just use Aernhem/Arnhem. And I'm well aware of the fact that the Dutch did capture cities in Asia (Jakarta/Batavia, Sinagpore, the isles of Ceylon/Sri Lanka and Formosa/Taiwan). But their main interest was in the Indonesian spice islands. When it comes to founding colonies South Africa just seems like a better candidate, as I tried to explain. My problem with being the first to settle in Australia is mainly that it's too easy (I usually fail with the 7-spices-at-1775 UHV).

BTW, never knew you were in Hellevoetsluis!

 

[say1988]

The only reason Rhye changed the US start date is because the entire timing of the game was changed. If he had not changed the amount of turns passing he likely wouldn't have changed that date (it was like that and he knew it was wrong for quite a while).

The game is relatively accurate and has a significant focus on what-ifs.

 

[Deego3]

How about having one set of UHVs for 3000BC start and another for 600AD?