More, stronger, better independents

[Lokolus]

I really like this mod but I think it should have more independent cities in europe and all over the Globe, places like Poland and eastern Europe should'nt be German or Russian, at least in the earlier turns. also in the 3000 BC start there should be places as Teotihuacán or Tiwanaku who were thousands of years before the Aztecs and Incans. around the Black sea there should be a Scythian city and a nubian city near the Nile. and how about some independent revolutions? Jerusalem should revolt somewhere in the 20th century and so does samarkand and a lot of European colonies such as Capetown and Buenos Aires, and one last thing stronger Independents! in all of my games that I didnt capture Rome France did it, so some more military units in independent cities will be great.
So here are some suggestions:

Tiwanaku: should be one spot South of Cuzco until the Incans apear. spawn in -1600
Teotihuacán: should be two spots east to mexico city. spawn in -400
Meroe: south to Buhen. Spawn in -600
Gelonus- (scythian city) north to the Black sea spawn in -600
Kraków- 900 AD (if Germans didnt settle there)
Kiev-600 AD

 

[TheAmerican]

I'd like to conduct simple diplomacy with Independents. Open borders and defensive pacts would be good enough for me. Even the ability to gift units would be nice. I'd also love to see independents get names based on where they spawn. This would make for great proxy wars and diplomatic manuevering.

 

[Theodorick]

I do agree this would be a neat addition... but you have to think of the game...

Independents by definition are weak because they tend to form large empires when civilizations collapse. If suddenly Independent 1 is a massive super power after a few countries collapse, with colonies all around the world, then you can assume a good part of the world is screwed. You can solve this by opening up more Independent slots, but Rhye said he doesn't want to do that.

 

[sennomulo]

I agree that Italy is a bit of a sticky thing to deal with in the 600AD start, since there is no Italian civ to fill in the peninsula once the Romans are gone. In history Italy was full of various independent states up until 1870, so they're represented by the Independents in the game, and thus Italy is quickly taken by France or sometimes Germany. This isn't completely unhistorical, since both France (under Napoleon) and Germany (as the Holy Roman Empire) have had control over northern Italy in the past, including the cities of Milan and Rome.

http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=698&rendTypeId=4
http://www.uncp.edu/home/rwb/Holy_roman_Empire_Map1.jpg

But you have to remember that this game is a big balancing act. Previous versions had Indy's who were too strong, or major civs who were uninterested in taking their cities, and the imperial powers would never incorporate those cities into their empires. The Indy civs need to be weak so their cities can be taken with more ease than taking cities from major civs, and the AI civs need to be at war with them frequently.

I don't think the player should have to put as much effort into defeating Indy cities as they do other cities. Landing some units in Africa and carving out a colony from an Indy city, or invading a fallen empire, needs to be easier than taking someone else's colony or invading a standing empire. I don't want to spend half the game fighting armies I can't even negotiate with. I want to crush them and move on to the serious imperial powers.

P.S. One thing I have noticed is that whenever I play as France, there's usually a French uprising in Milan a few turns into the game since it's so close to Marseille. The two units in the city are injured, and using a few of the units you start with it is easily conquered. Perhaps something could be done to prevent this uprising from happening so soon?

 

[onedreamer]

well, since there are Celts in the 3000 BC start, I think it would make sense to have italian states in the 600 AD start. Anyways to my understanding the Mod is not under development anymore. Only minor balance and bug fixing.

 

[Lokolus]

well, since there are Celts in the 3000 BC start, I think it would make sense to have italian states in the 600 AD start. Anyways to my understanding the Mod is not under development anymore. Only minor balance and bug fixing.

The Byzantines replace the celts, so it cant be done.

 

[Rhye]

P.S. One thing I have noticed is that whenever I play as France, there's usually a French uprising in Milan a few turns into the game since it's so close to Marseille. The two units in the city are injured, and using a few of the units you start with it is easily conquered. Perhaps something could be done to prevent this uprising from happening so soon?

I'll add 1 more unit there (in 2 patches)

 

[senturus]

Finally, i think it's normal to have independant states in Italy. It reflects well the situation in Italy, with various small italians kingdoms, with the permanent threat of France and Holy roman empire.

However, i would put a few more units to defend Rome (possibly some "elite pikemen" from Charlemagne scenario?) and Milan, as well as some additional culture (in Milan especially). And perhaps directly the apostolic palace in Rome? (and the holy cite in Jerusalem in order to launch crusades)

A question regarding Celts and Byzantins : would it possible in further patch or a mod to have them as "real" civilisations, with UHVs and being playable? It would be very interesting.

 

[Úmarth]

I'd like to conduct simple diplomacy with Independents. Open borders and defensive pacts would be good enough for me. Even the ability to gift units would be nice. I'd also love to see independents get names based on where they spawn. This would make for great proxy wars and diplomatic manuevering.

In other words you want the independents to be civs in their own right? Nah, I think the independents are more or less spot on.

 

[Lokolus]

the real problem with Italy is that who ever controls rome become an imediatte superpower because of the Christian holy city. so I suggest making Jerusalem the holy city of both Judaism and Christianity.
but what about more independents? some civs as the Maya dont see another city until the Aztecs, while Meso-America had a lot of advanced civs since ancient times.

 

[onedreamer]

Well, Delhi can potentially provide more gold than Rome.

 

[say1988]

But Rome is in the centre of Europe with a number of civs surrounding it. Dehli is off in the middle of nowhere.

 

[onedreamer]

who cares, the cap is still 20, not that hard to spread right ?

 

[sennomulo]

I agree that Rome is not really the Christian holy city. Rome is not where Christianity was founded; it's where the Christian Apostolic Palace is. Since the Vatican was around in 600AD, I say the late start should begin with the Apostolic Palace in Rome, and Jerusalem as the Jewish and Christian holy city. As it stands, there is little incentive to go after Jerusalem, because the small number of Jewish cities doesn't provide for much profit.

The only problem I can see with this, and it is not an inconsiderable one, is that Jerusalem flips to the Arabs on their spawn. Considering the number of other civs that are Christian, we might see the Arabs frequently converting to Christianity just because they hold the Christian holy city.

 

[Úmarth]

To a certain extent Christianity was founded in Rome. Yes, Jesus was Jewish but we all know that it was through the Roman empire that Christianity became the world's largest religion. And though some Christians may disagree, what we recognise as Christianity today mainly took shape within the Roman empire by later theologians rather than Jesus' teachings -- so in that respect many cities, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Nicea, etc. play important roles in its "founding". But ultimately Christianity is a Roman religion inspired by earlier Jewish ideas, so Rome is the appropriate historical place. IMO it also is the best place in terms of gameplay, since having a relatively useless city like Jerusalem with two shrines is kind of wasteful.

 

[Lokolus]

well, the Church of the Nativity is built in Israel, not in Rome. I agree that it was a Roman religion but the holy city in civ is where the religion was founded, which is Israel.

 

[sdLeo]

I also don't think Rome should be the holy city. I do think it X-ty's HC should be in the Roman Empire (i.e. around the Mediterranean)

 

[das]

Rome functioned as the holy city historically, for the most part (at least as far as Civ IV holy cities are concerned); and ownership over it certainly should grant a major bonus, as opposed to ownership over Jerusalem. Rome was simply in an excellent position to centralise the greater part of Christendom, and for the 600 AD scenario that should probably hold.

 

[LuKo]

That's why crusaders didn't bother to conquer Jerusalem. [/irony mode off]

 

[dionysos2048]

Personally I'd like Jerusalem to be Holy City and not part of the Arab or Turkish spawning area, and Rome to have Apostolic Palace and to be much better defended. Shall we have a poll on that?