More Aggresive Colonization

[Elhoim]

Personally I find that colonization is not agressive enough, especially on the spanish side. They end up with very little cities in America, and almost never attack the Aztecs or Incas. It is possible to beef colonization up? THX!

 

[Blasphemous]

I wouldn't worry about this very much right now, as we haven't started yet to work on the real colonization system, with a whole column of civics for colonization, and probably special type of settlers and cities for colonization. We should wait till that system starts coming and then really work on this, since it will all have to be rehashed for it anyhow.

 

[Elhoim]

That´s okay for me!

 

[SilverKnight]

Personally I find that colonization is not agressive enough, especially on the spanish side. They end up with very little cities in America, and almost never attack the Aztecs or Incas. It is possible to beef colonization up? THX!

Indicates game variance more than anything... in my v0.90 Greece game, America has just spawned, smushed between two (soon to be four) English cities in Canada and a large Spanish South America. Spain has Havana, two cities in Central America (ruins nearby), and 5 confirmed cities in South America. Damn Izzy... I'm stuck in the Med cause of her.

SilverKnight

 

[Elhoim]

Yeah, I noticed that in 0.90 spanish settler colonization is more agressive, in my last "america run" she had cities in Argentina, and Cuba, but Aztecs and Incas were still very alive and kicking.

 

[Prestidigitator]

A question about colonization, with the release of Warlords, which is in a week and a half, I think it would be better to add some Minor Nations in the Americas. This meaning, Cherokee, Iroqouis and possibly Maya.

It would be more nice to interfere with natives other than the Aztecs or the Incans, and it would result in the player not knowing who will be met.
Will he meet the Mayans or will they be already distroyed before colonization? that's what I meant.

... but I'm not as anxious about the Americas, as much as I am on Mesopotamia right now .

 

[Gunner]

In my .90 game Spain has colonized pretty much the entire east coast of South America in addition to the Carribean.

 

[HÄI]

... but I'm not as anxious about the Americas, as much as I am on Mesopotamia right now .

I've always thought it's really silly to have the globally insignificant Incas and Aztecs in the game, but no Babylonia, Ottomans or Vikings.

 

[Blasphemous]

HÄI, how are they globally insignificant? They represent the existance of civilization in the Americas, which was an important factor in colonizing the "New World", which was a very big issue for a pretty long time.

 

[HÄI]

HÄI, how are they globally insignificant? They represent the existance of civilization in the Americas, which was an important factor in colonizing the "New World", which was a very big issue for a pretty long time.

They were very quickly conquered by Spain, which is their biggest effect on history - Spanish dominance in America. In the game it almost never happens, so their situation is a bit weird, remaining as a backwards nation till the end of the game.

I like how they're handled in Europa Universalis 2, my favourite global strategy game - when Spain conquers Cuzco or Tenochtithlan they annex the entire country. This is of course very restrictive to other colonial nations, but it is a historically deterministic game to some extend. In Civ I'd prefer them as strong barbarians.

 

[Rhye]

They were very quickly conquered by Spain, which is their biggest effect on history - Spanish dominance in America. In the game it almost never happens, so their situation is a bit weird, remaining as a backwards nation till the end of the game.

I like how they're handled in Europa Universalis 2, my favourite global strategy game - when Spain conquers Cuzco or Tenochtithlan they annex the entire country. This is of course very restrictive to other colonial nations, but it is a historically deterministic game to some extend. In Civ I'd prefer them as strong barbarians.

As a part of the collapse system, I could add a rule (for every civ actually) that if one conquers a capital, he gains 1 or 2 closest surrounding cities for free.

 

[Elhoim]

I find that worth a try!

 

[Blasphemous]

Sounds awesome! Make it select the cities with the highest culture in case there's a tie as far as distance.

 

[HÄI]

Great great idea Rhye, though the AI should then maybe emphasize its defence on the capitol more

 

[Elhoim]

And focus on attacking the enemies capital...

 

[Rhye]

Tweaking the AI is tricky, i don't think I can do it.

But I just had an idea.... implement this rule for capitals, and apply to every city conquered by Persia as new Persian UP

 

[dh_epic]

It's a neat UP. What's the motivation, giving it to Persia? What gameplay are you trying to create?

 

[HÄI]

It's a neat UP. What's the motivation, giving it to Persia? What gameplay are you trying to create?

Well, Persians were very effective conquerors, but I think they're so in RoC already.

 

[Rhye]

It's a neat UP. What's the motivation, giving it to Persia? What gameplay are you trying to create?

Their very quick expansion

 

[dh_epic]

Good point. But won't that make it really easy for them to keep up the entire game, even becoming surprisingly powerful by the modern age? I guess the only way to know is to test it.