[Mod-Devolpment] Rise of Empires - Where YOU chose WHAT is in IT!

[Ball Lightning]

The Units list has been released at our website*! WE NEED YOUR HELP, to name all these units and to help us with Unique Units.



*You must be a member to see the site.

 

[Lachlan]

Cool ! A new mod !

 

[Ball Lightning]

Cool ! A new mod !

It won't be out for some time, but in the mean time you can tell me (us ) what you want.

 

[Ball Lightning]

Food in citys & Food on squares

Each person in a city costs 3 food to support. But the squares still only give you the SAME stuff. This means that with out bonus resources your city cannot grow past size 2. Farms give you the default +1 food with Agriculture, +1 with Irragation, +1 with Crop Rotation, +1 with Mechanic Farming (not on tech tree). Corn, Rice, Wheat all give you the normal starting bonus, but once farmed you get another +1 food compared to normal civ. Same with Pigs, Sheep, Cattle, Fish, Clams & crabs.

Fertile Rate

Each square has a fertile level, from 0%-100%. The game starts the tile on 100% fertile, with technology and worker actions it can increase above 100%. When you use a square extensively, then the fertile rate goes down, different improvements make the FR (fertile rate) on the square go down at different rates.
eg: a grassland which has been used for 20 turns would have lost 5% fertility, but if it had a farm it would have gone down 15%, as farms destroy the land. To fix a fertile rate, just don't use a square, or in later ages, use workers.

Global Warming/Tree Cutting

There is a global Warming factor. For each tree you cut down it increases by 8, for every factory it increases by 1\turn, for every coal plant it increases by 2\turn. For every Airport/drydocks it increases by 1\turn. Once cars are invented the size of the city diveded by 10\turn increases GW by that much. Trees can be regrown to decrease GW, you can build solar or nuclear power plants, you can enforce hybrid cars, and the list goes on to what can decrease GW. The amount of squares below 50% fertile rate divided by 5 increases GW by that much.
Global Warming makes squares less fertile, the chance and the power of it is effected by the size of the GW factor.

Next post (when i have time)
Nukes
Fallout
And whatever else i can think of

To be continued.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Food in citys & Food on squares

Each person in a city costs 3 food to support. But the squares still only give you the SAME stuff. This means that with out bonus resources your city cannot grow past size 2. Farms give you the default +1 food with Agriculture, +1 with Irragation, +1 with Crop Rotation, +1 with Mechanic Farming (not on tech tree). Corn, Rice, Wheat all give you the normal starting bonus, but once farmed you get another +1 food compared to normal civ. Same with Pigs, Sheep, Cattle, Fish, Clams & crabs.

What about to allow the ressources to be cultivated then? Like in this topic: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=188227

Fertile Rate

Each square has a fertile level, from 0%-100%. The game starts the tile on 100% fertile, with technology and worker actions it can increase above 100%. When you use a square extensively, then the fertile rate goes down, different improvements make the FR (fertile rate) on the square go down at different rates.
eg: a grassland which has been used for 20 turns would have lost 5% fertility, but if it had a farm it would have gone down 15%, as farms destroy the land. To fix a fertile rate, just don't use a square, or in later ages, use workers.

What about to allow the fertile rate to grow by putting fire to the trees? It was this way soils were fertilized in areas of rain-based agriculture. In the river-irrigated areas, it was fertilized by the natural movement of it. So river-irrigated squares shoud simply not unfertilize.

Global Warming/Tree Cutting

There is a global Warming factor. For each tree you cut down it increases by 8, for every factory it increases by 1\turn, for every coal plant it increases by 2\turn. For every Airport/drydocks it increases by 1\turn. Once cars are invented the size of the city diveded by 10\turn increases GW by that much. Trees can be regrown to decrease GW, you can build solar or nuclear power plants, you can enforce hybrid cars, and the list goes on to what can decrease GW. The amount of squares below 50% fertile rate divided by 5 increases GW by that much.
Global Warming makes squares less fertile, the chance and the power of it is effected by the size of the GW factor.

Pardon me, but I don't feel it that great. Cutting trees can be very helpful, plus scientifically, this is not proved that trees are fighting against global warming. On contrary, they have recently been proved to release as much CO2 as O2, if not more.

However, that's true that trees have been very usefull through History and that the Man planted many of them. The uses of trees are numerous: for the marine, to fertilize the soils, for the industry, as fuel, for the economy.

IMHO, if you have to change something to the way how trees work in Civ, this is to give in priority the possibility to plant any as soon as possible. Plus this may please many players.

Further, you may want to implement more bonuses for forests, like economic ones, and possibly implement several types of them. This system would work the same way ressources. (see above) For example, one would have to road forests in order to build ships for example, or even to let the cities grow (to allow houses building)

 

[Lachlan]

You should add Sumeria, Akkadia, and Media perhaps Babylonia for middle east
For Italy : Etruscs

 

[gsman]

cool! I'd like to see the "modern" civs removed, those that started later than ancient times, and add more from ancient times; for this mod only because, it focuses on early game, not "modern warmongers" game

 

[alms66]

Just a few comments/suggestions, based on the thread thus far:

New features will include:
- 32 civs! But you can play with less

What if I want to play with more? And what about people with dial-up or slow connections? Make the mod easier for them to use by leaving the number of civs at default (won't have to download the new civ's graphics) for the basic mod and make an add-on patch that changes the default to 64 or more and adds in a bunch of new civs (enough to cover whatever # you set the max civs to) so that if your computer can handle it, you can actually play this many civs. Also, you'll probably need some additional map sizes for anything more than 24 civs.

This is already done with the trading routes, but i can make a merchant unit which does get gold. One option is that you can use a bit of a resource (fertilty, above post) and sell it to another civ for gold. That civ gets nothing. You just use a bit of your resourse for gold. Good Idea.

What about having a few different types of merchant units:
Agricultural Merchant - Food bonus + small Gold bonus
Commercial Merchant - large Gold bonus
Industrial Merchant - Hammer bonus + small Gold bonus

Pardon me, but I don't feel it that great. Cutting trees can be very helpful, plus scientifically, this is not proved that trees are fighting against global warming. On contrary, they have recently been proved to release as much CO2 as O2, if not more.

I'm pretty sure that it's methane that has been found to be released by forests, not carbon dioxide. It is a proven fact, has been so for many, many years that trees absorb carbon dioxide which turns to oxygen - they don't release the stuff. The new studies show that the methane being released is actually from decomposition on the forest floor, btw.

 

[Ball Lightning]

What about to allow the fertile rate to grow by putting fire to the trees? It was this way soils were fertilized in areas of rain-based agriculture. In the river-irrigated areas, it was fertilized by the natural movement of it. So river-irrigated squares shoud simply not unfertilize.

River squares will have slower decrease of fertility depending on how big the river is, because a one square river isn't foing to be a impact much.

Pardon me, but I don't feel it that great. Cutting trees can be very helpful, plus scientifically, this is not proved that trees are fighting against global warming. On contrary, they have recently been proved to release as much CO2 as O2, if not more.

They relaese methane which does contribute to Global Warming, and the loss of the trees not breathing out oxygen also contributes to it.

However, that's true that trees have been very usefull through History and that the Man planted many of them. The uses of trees are numerous: for the marine, to fertilize the soils, for the industry, as fuel, for the economy.

You will be able to plant them, it takes 10 turns to, and it slightly decreases the GW factor.

IMHO, if you have to change something to the way how trees work in Civ, this is to give in priority the possibility to plant any as soon as possible. Plus this may please many players.

Trees will be alot more usful as most improvements can be put on forests, alos there are forest specific recouses which will dissapear if cut down.

Further, you may want to implement more bonuses for forests, like economic ones, and possibly implement several types of them. This system would work the same way ressources. (see above) For example, one would have to road forests in order to build ships for example, or even to let the cities grow (to allow houses building)

There will be forest specific recourses which some will go if cut down. And the ships idea is good.

 

[Ball Lightning]

You should add Sumeria, Akkadia, and Media perhaps Babylonia for middle east
For Italy : Etruscs

I've got a list of civs i'm going to add, but your imput has helped those civs to go up the ranking .

cool! I'd like to see the "modern" civs removed, those that started later than ancient times, and add more from ancient times; for this mod only because, it focuses on early game, not "modern warmongers" game

The only really modern civ is america and there will be a poll here which asks whever or not it should be in.

What if I want to play with more? And what about people with dial-up or slow connections? Make the mod easier for them to use by leaving the number of civs at default (won't have to download the new civ's graphics) for the basic mod and make an add-on patch that changes the default to 64 or more and adds in a bunch of new civs (enough to cover whatever # you set the max civs to) so that if your computer can handle it, you can actually play this many civs. Also, you'll probably need some additional map sizes for anything more than 24 civs.

I will make a version which has no new civ graphics, and one which has 32 civs and more leaders, which you can play with up to 64, you will of course be ablr to add your own leaders in your own time if you know how.

What about having a few different types of merchant units:
Agricultural Merchant - Food bonus + small Gold bonus
Commercial Merchant - large Gold bonus
Industrial Merchant - Hammer bonus + small Gold bonus

If its sending a quick load of food from city a to b, you could use a caravan/merchant to have large amounts of food going to the city.

I'm pretty sure that it's methane that has been found to be released by forests, not carbon dioxide. It is a proven fact, has been so for many, many years that trees absorb carbon dioxide which turns to oxygen - they don't release the stuff. The new studies show that the methane being released is actually from decomposition on the forest floor, btw.

talked about in previous post.

 

[Naokaukodem]

River adjacent squares only should not suffer from a decrease of their fertility.

As to carbone, it is only fixed by young forests. Old forests simply emit as much carbone than it fix it, considering the animals living in them. So, I don't think that cutting trees should provoke so much GW...

In fact, for each forest cut, if you plant one, this does not affect GW.

I still believe that treating forests as ressources, with economic, food or productions variations from one species to another, would srongly encourage the management of them... if this is in your modding capacity of course.

 

[Ball Lightning]

River adjacent squares only should not suffer from a decrease of their fertility.

As to carbone, it is only fixed by young forests. Old forests simply emit as much carbone than it fix it, considering the animals living in them. So, I don't think that cutting trees should provoke so much GW...

In fact, for each forest cut, if you plant one, this does not affect GW.

I still believe that treating forests as ressources, with economic, food or productions variations from one species to another, would srongly encourage the management of them... if this is in your modding capacity of course.

They still suffer from defertilization as shown by what happened in the middle east in the early ages.
It is only some types of forest produce more CO2 and these are rare, and most forest produce not much oxygen but store the CO2 in the ground and trees, which escape when logged.
And forests as recourses is possible, but i don't really think it is needed, and it would make to many of them. But there will be recourses on forest which go after chopping.

 

[Ball Lightning]

I'm going on holidays for a week and will not answer questions.

 

[Naokaukodem]

What happened in the middle east in early ages?

I still think that a GW penalty of 8 for each forest cut is way too much.

Make forests as ressources is only a possibility, just as creating several species of them. No need to create forests of every single tree found of the planet, but of the more common species on earth, and if this is still too much, you can make a selection. For example there could be one species with economic advantages, one with production ones. (that makes only two)

But I agree on the fact to put ressources on them, instead of giving a food bonus to every forest. Ressource that would dry up.

 

[Ball Lightning]

The Middle East was alot more temperate, it wasn't dry and desert, at least most of it, in modern day iraq it was a flood plain, but over use helped cause the end of the sumarian empire as these rivers weren't refilled like the nile, this caused the area to dry up and the sumarians were in trouble.

Considering a factory does 1 a turn, which in 100 years about 50, it is rather small.

It is possible, but also it would create alot more you have to learn and you wouldn't want to have ever different thing you want. Its a good idea, but i don't think it is suited to my mod, sorry .

 

[Naokaukodem]

What do you mean they weren't refilled like the Nile?

I read about the sumerian irrigation infrastructure that it felt into decay, not because of over use but because of wars and/or lack of maintenance. This system has been reestablished in modern age. With this system is born the first regional civilization, before, I believe, the discovering of the natural fertilizers in rain based cultivation areas.

As to GW, planting a forest should decrease it as much as cutting a forest increases it, only fact: for "managed forests", as they are kept young and thus fix more C than they release any, but are cut also, the balance sheet is null.

But I wouldn't force you to do as so, after all I am not an expert, I can be wrong and this is your mod, not mine.

As to having different things to learn, it would just give you the feeling to have a new game.

 

[Guest01]

Ball Lightning,

I strongly suggest completely remove any traces of man-made GW from your modification. From scientific POV that’s a great nonsense, just as nuclear winter, DDT stories, resource depletion and so on. There’s no such kind of problems at all.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Ball Lightning,

I strongly suggest completely remove any traces of man-made GW from your modification. From scientific POV that’s a great nonsense, just as nuclear winter, DDT stories, resource depletion and so on. There’s no such kind of problems at all.

Is that ironic? The problem is not to consider if there is GW or not, but if forests cuts affect it that much or not... there IS GW, from a scientific point of view precisely.

 

[Guest01]

Is that ironic? The problem is not to consider if there is GW or not, but if forests cuts affect it that much or not... there IS GW, from a scientific point of view precisely.

I'm serious as a stone at garden.

No one suggests to consider is there is GW or not. What is suggested is to remove from mod faulty conception of man-made GW (and so forest cutting effect on that). Hypothesis of man-made GW has not any scientific proof. (Try to find one!) Instead only 30 years ago were much talking about global cooling (with the same suggested cause - CO2 emission).

Moreover there's no such thing as environmental crisis at all. Just think for a moment that your real environment is not a wild nature but civilization instead: houses, pipelines, cars, cell phones, jets, broadband cables, farms, factories, research centers, satellites etc. That environment depends on people's ability to build houses, cars, jets, factories; civilization is rather self-dependant system. And our real problem is conditions of that, artificial, environment. In reality our vast infrastructure is slowly deteriorate as a result of a desperate deficit of labour force. For some unknown reason our artifacts (our artificial environment) rapidly becomes useless for people's reproduction. You can't make bigger impact on that fragile environment than you do with so named "environmentalism". It's the same insanity as open all kingstons of already sinking ship - except you just stabilize it's sinking by counter-drowning...

And that's not all. You principally can't decrease emission and pollution with conservation policies and other ways to "increase effectiveness". Instead that actions leads to growth of emission and pollution - just look at appropriate statistics.

After all I suggest you "turn off TV" and dig in problem at least for little. You can start from wikipedia or from that site. I've also uploaded Michael Crichton' s famous novel "State of fear", in which he closely discuss GW, for you.

 

[Naokaukodem]

The only two things that suggest that GW is made-man are:

1) Anormally high GW gazes presence in the atmosphere since 5 ice ages. (a long time and twice more there should be!)

2) Coincidence of this with the man industrial activities.

Now this can be a proper coincidence but why should we take the risk? Anyway, those gazes are alarmingly high... better to try to do something don't you think? For example, by limiting our emissions of those gazes on the atmosphere.

Now would those limitations have an impact? I think scientists can answer, answered and this answer was: yes. A good reason given in Al Gore's movie "An inconvenient truth" is that the atmosphere is pretty thin. So now, it is only a matter of calculations.