Preview of the new patch

[blizzrd]

And blizzrd, maybe they're not "doomed" per se but Tokugawa's diplomacy often leaves Japan an outsider with no friends, not to mention it's pretty tiring to see Suryavarman II be the leader of the Khmer for about 1400 years in the best case scenario, whereareas USA changes its leaders about every 100 years. Besides, one reason why Japan is so succesful today is the Meiji Restoration that took place in 1868. They embraces more western policies (which in RFC would be implemented by chaging the leader) which cannot currently be done, thanks to Tokugawa "the Isolationist Bastard" being in the head of Japan for all eternity. So, at least Japan is one country that has poor success due to its leader.

So do you think that Japan is so unsuccessful even though the AI can win the UHV under patch 1.181 (yes I know this is about to change)? Getting to first in score is in my book a reasonable measure of AI successfulness.

 

[Tigranes]

So do you think that Japan is so unsuccessful even though the AI can win the UHV under patch 1.181 (yes I know this is about to change)? Getting to first in score is in my book a reasonable measure of AI successfulness.

I can confirm this. In my Khmer game Japan won 2/3 and was leading the scoreboard for a long time. I could easily loose to her via her UHV, but they lost a city to Mongols. If only Japan would stick with her islands I would loose the game. Buddism is darn hard to spread when those euro colonies multiply like bees.

 

[LukeUeda-Sarson]

I know nothing of the encoding in Civ, but surely a Leader's attributes are not cast in stone by bein tied to a particular leaderhead. If Tokugawa is an isolationist, that is because somewhere he is coded to be that way. You surely don't need a new Leader *head" (aka animation) to change his behaviour, you just need new leader attributes. So you could just have 3 different version of Tokugawa if you want. The first, prior to 1600, is welcoming of foreign influences. The second isn't, and the third, from 1850, is. Just create a new leader with the same leaderhead. What's the problem? Hell, even give them different names to alert the player to exactly which incarnation they are dealing with. I'd go with (Prince) Shohtoku Taishi (reponsible for introducing Buddhism and Confucianism as Japan's twin state religions, along with the country's first written "constitution", 604 AD); Tokugawa Ieyasu, and probably Emperor Meiji himself for the 3rd period.

Cheers, Luke

 

[Lone Wolf]

It's called whipping an aqueduct and a grocer.

Sometimes, when you lack 1 or 2 points, whipping anything is enough. (Sometimes you can have an aqueduct, but still lack them).

When it's already spread to faraway to countries, is it already too late?

No. If, however, it did spread to one of your cities, it is too late.

So do you think that Japan is so unsuccessful even though the AI can win the UHV under patch 1.181

Still, I did change Toku's attributes, and he does colonize and fights more.

So you could just have 3 different version of Tokugawa if you want.

Sure, but if we do that, why not include different animations as well?

 

[Rhye]

Currently, England's dynamic name under Representation, Universal Suffrage and State Property is 'Commonwealth of England'. But, historically, this term is used to refer only to the republican government that ruled during the period that followed the Civil War and the death of Charles I (from 1649 to 1660). Clearly, this is NOT be confused with the 'British Commonwealth' (indeed, the terms 'Old Commonwealth' and 'New Commonwealth' are sometimes used to distinguish the two). Rhye has probably chosen 'Commonwealth of England' over 'British commonwealth' in order to keep the dynamic name as close a possible to the short description, but the result is an historical oddity (e.g. contemporary England being misnamed after Cromwell's Commonwealth). So I suggest to adopt the more modern title 'British Commonwealth', and change the text as follows:

I actually was refering to the Cromwell period, since that's the name for the republic civics

 

[onedreamer]

is the patch correct the conquistadores? because historians proved that it was not because of their technology advance that spanish won the war but because they allied to the peasants and aztecs ennemy's cities.
So i think that replace conquistadores by indian army and maybe just one or two eruropeean unit can be a better and a more realistic choice.

wow we are really grossly generalizing here. First you should speak civ by civ (conquests of Aztecs and Incas aren't the exact same thing), second historians mostly throw in theories and suppositions -on which they hardly all agree- and don't prove anything, third in general we can say the Spanish exploited more or less internal strifes among the mesoamerican populations, which is well simulated by the collapse/civil wars in which these civs fall in RFC, "peasants" and undefined "indian" armies don't really sound more realistic to me. But I agree with scu98rkr that the conquistadores numbers could be toned down a bit.

 

[kairob]

I actually was refering to the Cromwell period, since that's the name for the republic civics

But Cromwell lasted 2 years, Britain did achieve a democracy but unlike france a revolution wasn't the way we did it, the slow limitations of the power of the monarchy by parliment is far more important to British history that Cromwells short lived and unpopular experament (the guy even tried to ban christmas). I think the British Commonwealth would work much better.

 

[onedreamer]

too bad that Cromwell lasts more than 2 years in RFC...

 

[Charles Martel]

I actually was refering to the Cromwell period, since that's the name for the republic civics

Fair enough, I see your point. However, 'Representation' and 'Universal suffrage' need not be thought of as republican civics. If there were a civic called 'Republic' or 'Republican government' then I'd agree with you: Cromwell's period is indeed an instance of that. But constitutional monarchies can be representative and allow for universal suffrage (the UK being an example). Therefore, associating the name 'British commonwealth' to both representation and universal suffrage is entirely appropriate. The decision is yours, of course: both names are apt for England under representation, with a XX century 'Commonwealth of England' stressing the counter-factual nature of RFC.

(By the way, Cromwell's rule was based on a comparatively wide, but not universal, suffrage. Cromwell himself condemned universal suffrage: where would it end, he said, if men ‘who have no interest but the interest of breathing’ were given the vote?)

 

[Lone Wolf]

But I agree with scu98rkr that the conquistadores numbers could be toned down a bit.

Oh no, the AI's have some problems conquering the Americas as it is.

 

[Aeon221]

is the patch correct the conquistadores? because historians proved that it was not because of their technology advance that spanish won the war but because they allied to the peasants and aztecs ennemy's cities.
So i think that replace conquistadores by indian army and maybe just one or two eruropeean unit can be a better and a more realistic choice.

Historians can't prove anything. No social scientist can. Proofs require data collected through experimentation in a controlled environment -- and I can guarantee we won't be letting historians invade Guatemala to test out their theories any time soon.

Furthermore, you've taken a necessary element of the Spanish conquest of the new world (native support) and turned it into a sufficient one. Think about it like this: had the Tlaxcalans, along with other native peoples, been capable of defeating the Aztecs without Spanish support they would have done so long before Cortez landed.

 

[jessiecat]

Historians can't prove anything. No social scientist can. Proofs require data collected through experimentation in a controlled environment -- and I can guarantee we won't be letting historians invade Guatemala to test out their theories any time soon.

Furthermore, you've taken a necessary element of the Spanish conquest of the new world (native support) and turned it into a sufficient one. Think about it like this: had the Tlaxcalans, along with other native peoples, been capable of defeating the Aztecs without Spanish support they would have done so long before Cortez landed.

I agree. As a historian myself, I'm the first to admit that no single interpretation of an event or phenomena can ever be the final word. All we can do through research is to add to our knowledge base in order to gain a more comprehensive snapshot of what took place. The "what if" school of alt-history, which is what RFC essentially is just aids our enjoyment as game players but has nothing to do with a greater understanding of history itself.
The conquistador event in RFC should not be expected to replicate history any more than the unlikely spawning and respawning of civs that take place throughout this game.

 

[Charles Martel]

Historians can't prove anything. No social scientist can. Proofs require data collected through experimentation in a controlled environment -- and I can guarantee we won't be letting historians invade Guatemala to test out their theories any time soon.

Historians can certainly prove things, just as any reasoner does. Strictly (e.g. logically) speaking, a proof is a finite sequence of statements each of which is either a premise or else follows from the preceding statements by the application of an inference rule. There is nothing peculiar about historians or social scientists which prevents them from employing logical reasoning in such a way. (Besides, no empirical notion such as ‘experimentation in a controlled environment’ enters in the standard definition of ‘proof&#8217. Perhaps, unlike, say, physical scientists, historians are much less likely to produce anything resembling a mathematical proof, but not all valid proofs (even strictly formal ones) need to be based on a mathematical model of the empirical data.

Furthermore, you've taken a necessary element of the Spanish conquest of the new world (native support) and turned it into a sufficient one. Think about it like this: had the Tlaxcalans, along with other native peoples, been capable of defeating the Aztecs without Spanish support they would have done so long before Cortez landed.

In fact, the condition stated by Perceval may be fairly plausibly taken to be a sufficient one, as follows:

(1) If (A) the attackers are supported by the natives , then (B) they will defeat the Aztecs.

Thus stated, (A) is indeed a sufficient condition for (B). In order to deny that, one has to show that (A) doesn’t imply (B)—which, I think, is what you have tried to do with your Tlaxcalans counter-example: if the native attackers had been supported by none but themselves, and not by outsiders, then the Aztecs wouldn’t have been defeated. However, even if we concede this point (but let me notice in passing that your example seems off the mark in our context, for the supported attackers are supposed to be outsiders, and not themselves natives) it is not at all clear that Perceval has committed the fallacy of mistaking a necessary condition for a sufficient one. To claim that (A) is a necessary condition for (B) – which is what you appear to be saying – is to claim that (B) implies (A), e.g.:

(2) If (B) the Aztecs have been defeated, then (A) the attackers were supported by the natives.

But, of course, to show that (2) is the case is by no means a refutation of (1), for (1) and (2) may be simultaneously true. In other words, taking a necessary condition to be a sufficient one need not be a fallacy, for a condition may be at the same time both necessary a sufficient, in which case we have an equivalence.

 

[Aeon221]

Historians can certainly prove things, just as any reasoner does. Strictly (e.g. logically) speaking, a proof is a finite sequence of statements each of which is either a premise or else follows from the preceding statements by the application of an inference rule. There is nothing peculiar about historians or social scientists which prevents them from employing logical reasoning in such a way. (Besides, no empirical notion such as ‘experimentation in a controlled environment’ enters in the standard definition of ‘proof&#8217. Perhaps, unlike, say, physical scientists, historians are much less likely to produce anything resembling a mathematical proof, but not all valid proofs (even strictly formal ones) need to be based on a mathematical model of the empirical data.

You're confusing logic with science. I can logically prove that it is impossible to fall off a log or, infamously, for an arrow to ever reach its destination. I cannot test, in a laboratory environment, whether or not it is possible for the Spanish to have defeated the Aztecs without the support of native infantry. More importantly, if two historians disagree about the impact of a given element of a theory, such as the importance of Tlaxcalan troops, neither side is capable of disproving the other unless there are factual errors -- which usually there aren't. There is nothing wrong with the social sciences, and it is no insult to them that they cannot test theories -- that's just the way things are.

In fact, the condition stated by Perceval may be fairly plausibly taken to be a sufficient one, as follows:

(1) If (A) the attackers are supported by the natives , then (B) they will defeat the Aztecs.

Thus stated, (A) is indeed a sufficient condition for (B). In order to deny that, one has to show that (A) doesn’t imply (B)—which, I think, is what you have tried to do with your Tlaxcalans counter-example: if the native attackers had been supported by none but themselves, and not by outsiders, then the Aztecs wouldn’t have been defeated. However, even if we concede this point (but let me notice in passing that your example seems off the mark in our context, for the supported attackers are supposed to be outsiders, and not themselves natives) it is not at all clear that Perceval has committed the fallacy of mistaking a necessary condition for a sufficient one. To claim that (A) is a necessary condition for (B) – which is what you appear to be saying – is to claim that (B) implies (A), e.g.:

(2) If (B) the Aztecs have been defeated, then (A) the attackers were supported by the natives.

But, of course, to show that (2) is the case is by no means a refutation of (1), for (1) and (2) may be simultaneously true. In other words, taking a necessary condition to be a sufficient one need not be a fallacy, for a condition may be at the same time both necessary a sufficient, in which case we have an equivalence.

You're babbling, reread what he actually said:

is the patch correct the conquistadores? because historians proved that it was not because of their technology advance that spanish won the war but because they allied to the peasants and aztecs ennemy's cities.
So i think that replace conquistadores by indian army and maybe just one or two eruropeean unit can be a better and a more realistic choice.

Leadership, equipment, disease, technology, native support, and plain old Spanish craziness all played a part. How much? No real way to know. Historians believe that native troops played a large part in the eventual Spanish victory, but that's not the same thing as them having proved it. Nor is it the same thing as saying that native troops were the sole cause of Spanish victory.

 

[Aeon221]

I agree. As a historian myself, I'm the first to admit that no single interpretation of an event or phenomena can ever be the final word. All we can do through research is to add to our knowledge base in order to gain a more comprehensive snapshot of what took place. The "what if" school of alt-history, which is what RFC essentially is just aids our enjoyment as game players but has nothing to do with a greater understanding of history itself.
The conquistador event in RFC should not be expected to replicate history any more than the unlikely spawning and respawning of civs that take place throughout this game.

Pretty much exactly what I was thinking. We run into similar difficulties with economics -- but at least in economics you have lots of different examples, so you can develop models with a certain degree of effectiveness.

But if someone wants to argue about the specifics of an event like the Great Depression, well, a lot of the time it ends up with people just disagreeing. Unlike in, say, math, where a proof is a proof. Which is all part of the fun, eh?

 

[jessiecat]

Coincidently, I've just finished a Spanish UHV win on Monarch (over 7000 pts). The conquistador event was crucial in allowing me to get the 3rd. condition before 1550. I had the first condition in about 1450 as I was lucky in popping Astronomy from the hut near Havana. One funny thing happened though, which I've seen a couple of times before. At one point the Dutch offered to be my vassal. I accepted. I moused over Amsterdam and was amazed to discovered that the AI had turtled 8 East Indiamen, 7 settlers and loads of troops without even trying to found a city anywhere. Why does the AI do this sometimes? As it it happened, I only had to raze one French city in the Americas before 1760 and the game was won. Must be the easiest UHV victory I've ever had.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I moused over Amsterdam and was amazed to discovered that the AI had turtled 8 East Indiamen, 7 settlers and loads of troops without even trying to found a city anywhere. Why does the AI do this sometimes?

I moan and whine about that in every second post I make. And it does it nearly always, not sometimes.

Why does the AI do this?

Some dumb petty reason that needs fixing.

 

[Charles Martel]

You're confusing logic with science. I can logically prove that it is impossible to fall off a log or, infamously, for an arrow to ever reach its destination. I cannot test, in a laboratory environment, whether or not it is possible for the Spanish to have defeated the Aztecs without the support of native infantry.

I am not at all ‘confusing logic with science’. Rather, you are confusing ‘proving’ with ‘testing’. The notion of proof belongs to logic, and it need not have anything to do with the empirical testing of scientific theories. You said that historians ‘can't prove anything’. Taken literally, this is glaringly false. Even if we grant that no historical claim can be empirically tested in the way in which scientists test their theories (which is itself debatable, but let it pass) it does not at all follow that historians cannot produce proofs. They certainly can. In denying that, you either made a false overstatement or else were using the word ‘proof’ in a loose and informal—but, strictly speaking, incorrect—way.

More importantly, if two historians disagree about the impact of a given element of a theory, such as the importance of Tlaxcalan troops, neither side is capable of disproving the other unless there are factual errors -- which usually there aren't. There is nothing wrong with the social sciences, and it is no insult to them that they cannot test theories -- that's just the way things are.

Once again, ‘proving’ is not the same as ‘testing’. Nor is it the same as being always able to establish a conclusion beyond any conceivable disagreement. It may be that some historical claims cannot be ‘tested’ conclusively, in the sense that disagreement over certain competing historical theories cannot be rationally resolved—not even in the ideal situation in which neither side has made any factual mistake (I don't believe that this situation often arises, but let it pass). Even so, it certainly wouldn't follow that the disagreeing historians are incapable of proving at least some of their claims.

(An aside: here you seem to imply that that, by contrast, disagreement between physical scientists must be resolvable whenever there is agreement over the physical facts. But is this so? There may be no way of settling a dispute over, say, competing interpretations of Quantum Mechanics which yield the same empirical predictions. Yet, in such a case, we certainly wouldn’t say that physicists can’t ‘prove’ anything at all.)

You are babbling

Well, I was only trying to clarify the notions of ‘necessary’ and ‘sufficient’ condition, on which you appeared to be a little confused

Leadership, equipment, disease, technology, native support, and plain old Spanish craziness all played a part. How much? No real way to know. Historians believe that native troops played a large part in the eventual Spanish victory, but that's not the same thing as them having proved it. Nor is it the same thing as saying that native troops were the sole cause of Spanish victory.

You have argued that historians can’t prove that native support was the sole cause of Spanish victory, on the grounds that historians cannot prove anything at all. I don’t know whether the conclusion of your argument is true (it may well be, in some loose sense of ‘proving&#8217. What I do know is that the argument itself is naïve, because it is premised on an obviously false generalization.

 

[Cethegus]

One question regarding the actual patch, are USA's starting techs altered? I found constructing the Statue of Liberty in time more frustrating than anything when playing as the Americans because of having to beeline for Democracy with an unimproved society. Other civs usually got to it first and sometimes even constructed SoL before I even had researched the prerequisite technology. Especially now that America starts later than it did earlier, will it have pre-researched Democracy? Are there other changes in their starting techs?

 

[Tigranes]

Is there any chanse to officially include some visible numerical index for stability . I read people talking about "our Stability is +5" and so on, but they use some mod of mod to see that and I am not sure if Rhye himself like that alteration (otherwise he would do it himself in a first place). When you have complete breakdown for beakers and hummers its kinda sad you can't see if (for example) rushing a courthouse would take you from the Collapsing to the Unstable or can you afford one more turn of Anarchy for the sake of more stable civic...