Nine Ideas

[lumpthing]

I like that idea... But I see one problem; sometimes the AI will build settlers and escorts, drop them off somewheres and then they'll just sit there (I've seen this happen especially around Australia, New Guinea and New Zealand). If they have these settlers sitting around not being used, then won't that prevent them from building any more settlers and therefore cut off any colonization or expanding through settlers they might do?

The idea would be combined with the proposal in my original post on this thread. The first kind of settler would be land-only and there can be two or three of these per civ at any one time. Since they can't go on boats they can't be dropped off anywhere. Later these land-settlers would be made obsolete by 'colonists', who can go on boats. There would be no limits on the number of colonists a civ can have so wouldn't really matterif they didn't anything.

 

[Phallus]

That's an interesting idea but I'd hate to play Britain.

 

[Elhoim]

That´s a good point, Phallus.

 

[hamtastic]

Could implement it with techs that only certain civs can research. It might be too goofy, but you could have "English colonization" to enable English colonists that came earlier in the tech tree than "Japanese colonization." It's doable code-wise, right - I think it's just using the palace for a specific civ to enable research a particular tech. I'm not sure, but I know it was done in the European Empires mod.

 

[kairob]

I know in civ 3 all ya had to do was give them a start tech that wasnt researchable and then have other ones require it, cant be much m0ore complex in civ 4 can it?

 

[Hitti-Litti]

Hamtastic's idea is made in EE3 mode, and it works in it fine enough.

 

[lumpthing]

That's an interesting idea but I'd hate to play Britain.

I think I said in a previous post that some civs could have their own ancient sea-faring colonist very early on as a unique unit. The only civs I would definitely want restricted are China, Japan and India, and even they could always expand overseas early on by conquest.

Hamtastic's idea would also work. I think the unique unit solution would be the least intrusive method though.

 

[Phallus]

Why should India be restricted? Though they didn't exactly found Singapore or Jayakarta etc, their influence stretched throughout Pacific Asia and nowhere is this more evident than in Angkor Wat or Borobodur.

 

[kairob]

I agree its to determanistic...

 

[Tom Veil]

We were talking about Judaism spreading to and dominating Europe to the extent that it could become the state religion of Europe. Sure there have long been Jewish communities all over Europe, but it's never come anywhere remotely close to be being the official religion and it's difficult to imagine an alternate history in which it did (unless its character were radically altered).

But that's my point -- that's emphatically NOT how religion works in Civ IV. If one were to accurately map Real World 1939 into Civ IV, virtually every city in Europe would have BOTH Christianity and Judaism in it -- even though every single nation in Europe was either Christian or Religious Freedom. If one to accurately map Real World 2006 into Civ IV, virtually every city in Europe would have both Christianity and Islam, and a couple would have Judaism and/or the Eastern religions, even though every nation in Europe now has Religious Freedom. Religious minorities, even those with no hope of domination, often have an outsize effect on a nation's culture; the Jews in Europe are merely one well documented example.

 

[Tom Veil]

if you know know any city in a non major-civ's area worth to be included, please tell its name/location/date/owner.

Before I go spouting off dozens of cities, I'd like to ask two questions:
1. Is it worth including cities that were very tiny, given the risk that the AI will make them ridiculously huge? I'm thinking mainly of Native American cities like Cahokia (Mississippian) and Canandaigua (Seneca).

2. Is it worth including cities that will be inside a civ's spawn zone, and have to flip when that civ spawns? For instance, Barbarian Massalia (Phoenecia) becoming Roman Massilia/French Marseille, Barbarian Erewan (Armenia) becoming Greek Ereban/Persian Iravaan/Arabic Yirīfān.

 

[lumpthing]

But that's my point -- that's emphatically NOT how religion works in Civ IV. If one were to accurately map Real World 1939 into Civ IV, virtually every city in Europe would have BOTH Christianity and Judaism in it -- even though every single nation in Europe was either Christian or Religious Freedom. If one to accurately map Real World 2006 into Civ IV, virtually every city in Europe would have both Christianity and Islam, and a couple would have Judaism and/or the Eastern religions, even though every nation in Europe now has Religious Freedom. Religious minorities, even those with no hope of domination, often have an outsize effect on a nation's culture; the Jews in Europe are merely one well documented example.

I'm not sure I understand your point. I'm not asking for a truly realistic model of religion in civ4. All I'm asking is that religions that would never even hope to be the state religion of any of the civs in RFC, be excluded from the mod. When I'm playing a mod like this, I like to let it play on my imagination and view it as a kind of alternate history. When Rome and Eygpt become evangelically Jewish empires, I can't do this, unless I imagine that Judaism's character is radically altered from it is real-world character. It would be okay if Judaism was modded so it could never become a state religion, but that would undermine gameplay. With Zoroastrianism, there would be no problem.

I find it difficult to understand why some people are so resistant to switching Judaism to Zoroastrianism: it would clearly enhance the historical flavour of the mod and there are no disadvantages. What's the problem?

 

[lumpthing]

Why should India be restricted? Though they didn't exactly found Singapore or Jayakarta etc, their influence stretched throughout Pacific Asia and nowhere is this more evident than in Angkor Wat or Borobodur.

Looking at the wikipedia articles for the cities you mentioned it seems a fair case could be made for considering them as Indian satellites (though it's a bit difficult to know what should count as India since for most of history it has been no more united than Europe).

Anyone played games where an AI-controlled India has colonized Australia and New Zealand?

 

[Tom Veil]

lumpthing: my resistance has do to with 2 things. One, I (mistakenly) thought people were saying Judaism is a historically insignificant religion. Now I realize that ppl weren't actually saying that, they (and you) were saying that they don't want any religions that, in our history, had no chance of becoming state religions.

So that's my second problem. You point out that you could improve Persia by adding Zoroastrianism. But what of Egypt, Rome, Greece, Aztec, Japan, Mongolia, and Inca? They all, at their peaks, had state religions that are not present in the game, too. I don't see why we should give Persia their state religion and not give all these other nations theirs.

 

[Tom Veil]

Anyone played games where an AI-controlled India has colonized Australia and New Zealand?

In my experience, it's rather difficult. In two recent games as India and Japan, I tried to race to Australia, and ended up with severe budget problems and therefore having to share the continent with the British. Meanwhile, my AI counterparts in Asia were lucky if they could found Singapore. I believe that the mod rule that prevents clearing Jungle before discovering Biology has its intended effect of making Indonesia exactly what it was in real life -- a forbidding mashup of myriad biomes that is daunting for outsiders to either colonize or cross.

 

[McA123]

I've never seen India do any colonizing aside from Singapore, and China does none. Japan always seems to wind up controlling the area.

 

[lumpthing]

In my last game, by the 18th Century, China had New Zealand (and quickly started on Australia), Japan had a city in Australia and the Indonesia arpichelago was divided up between the two. It's true that AI-India doesn't seem like to overseas settlement anyway, but maybe if Japan and China couldn't do it, India would fill the gap.

Going back to Pallus' points about Indian influence in the South-East Asian arpichelago... I realised since my last post that if you're going to count places like Jakarta and Borobadour (sp?) as Indian colonies, rather than independent barbarian cites, then you'd need to get of the existing barbarian cities in South-East Asia. If Jakarta is an Indian colony because of Indian cultural influence, then Vietnam should definitely be a Chinese colony, despite China's frequent wars with Vietnam.

 

[lumpthing]

lumpthing: my resistance has do to with 2 things. One, I (mistakenly) thought people were saying Judaism is a historically insignificant religion.

I certainly didn't mean to suggest that since I believe quite the opposite. I would say Judaism has had more historical significance than Zoroastrianism, just not in a way that is simulated by civ4's religion model.

So that's my second problem. You point out that you could improve Persia by adding Zoroastrianism. But what of Egypt, Rome, Greece, Aztec, Japan, Mongolia, and Inca? They all, at their peaks, had state religions that are not present in the game, too. I don't see why we should give Persia their state religion and not give all these other nations theirs.

A decent case can be made for all those religions. However, the default number of religion in civ4 so, without substantial modding, we can only replace Judaism with one religion. Which of the myriad of candidates should be picked? I propose Zoroastrianism because...

1) It was a lot more long-lived than the others. The state religions of Egypt, Rome, Greece were very rapidly replaced by Christianity and later Islam. Inca and Aztec religions did not survive the collapse of their states. Mongolia's religion was quickly overshadowed (if not eliminated) when Buddhism arrived. Japan's folk religion was also overshadowed by Buddhism. What we know as Shinto borrowed hugely from Buddhist and Chinese beliefs and can't be easily separated from them. Zoroastrianism survived the multiple collapses of the Persian Empire and still exists today in its homeland and amongst the diaspora. I'm not saying that Zoroastrianism is an inherently stronger religion than the others, just that the historical fact of its longevity and resiliance make it much more suitable as a civ4 religion in this mod.

2) Zoroastrianism is more distinct than the other religions. While the other state religions you mentioned embraced a whole mish-mash of assorted dieties and spirits, Zoroastrianism worshipped one god and had a much more distinctive and unified set of doctrines.

3) Zoroastrianism is historically significant. It is probably the world's oldest monotheistic faith: a possible successor to Hinduism and a precursor to Judaism.

4) Zoroastrianism is more equivalent to the other current civ4 religions than the other state religions you mentioned in that it possesses the typical characteristics of the 'younger' faiths which have ended up dominating the world. Early religions invariably worship a profusion of dieties who extol a diverse range of virtues and ethics and have no focus on a path to salvation. The later religions, the ones which now dominate and are included in civ4, narrow this down to either a single god (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) (with a corresponding single set of ethics) or remove the focus on gods entirely and concentre on a single spiritual 'path' (Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism). Hinduism appears to be the exception in its worship of many gods, but Hinduism is (arguably) different from most other polytheisms in that it has the concept of a definite spiritual path, which all beings should follow and does have the concept of all the gods being an aspect of one single greater god. All seven civ4 religions clearly espouse a definite path to spiritual salvation. Zoroastrianism fits nearly into this club in that it worships a single god who espouses a path to salvation.

So, in conclusion, it just seems the most natural choice .

 

[captain beaver]

On the religion point, I would like to propose another solution. Keep Judaism because it was and still is an important religion much like zoroastrianism. As you said, there are still small communities of followers in Iran, but there is an even bigger one in Israël for the Jews (lets not go into the "Jews only came back recently", as it means they were simply more dispersed before). However, Judaism shouldn't be able to build missionaries, which fits perfectly with its character. With this modification, whoever founds Judaism will only have a local religion with few cities with it. Consequently, it is doubtful that many civs would be able to adopt Judaism as a state religion as it will probably be confined to a handful of cities in the middle east.
As of Zoroastrianism, it would probably better to remove taoism and then implement zoroastrianism. There are 4 religions in the east for 3 nations. And msot of the times, India is Hinduist while Japan and China are Confucianists. Removing Taoism wouldn't be that big a loss and it would add a much needed religion in the west as most of the times ,you end up with one big homogenous religion block over there (mainly Christians vs Arabia).

 

[McA123]

I find Taoism to be a pretty useless religion, confucianism is founded first and usually spreads to Japan and Mongolia before Taosim has a chance to, so it winds up being a minor religion confined to a few cities in the east with confucianism being the state religion of our 3 asian nations. The only time I've ever seen Taoism shine was in a much earlier version where it was founded by Persia, who then crushed the Arabs and spread Taoism to Egypt, who spanned from Alexandria straight down to the border with South Africa.