Goncyn
Chieftain
I have to echo the sentiment that the features of the mod should really be posted on the forums... I don't want to download to just to read the readme.
Questions & Answers
- Thread starter Rhye
- Start date
Head Serf
Emperor
What turn is the year 1836? Or if 1836 isn't in the game, the next earliest year?
McA123
Prince
I don't know for sure, but I would assume it would be 1835. By that time the years are going 5 at a time (at least).
McA123
Prince
No, no Warlords version yet. The Warlords version will be posted after the normal Civ 4 version is done, which will be a few builds in the future.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Rhye said:
You know, if India gets to start at the first sign of advanced civilization in the Indus valley, and China gets to start out before it's unified... I feel as though Persia should appear closer to that of Greece, maybe even before. The Elamite dynasties were, for all intents and purposes, Persian.
McA123
Prince
It doesn't really matter to me, but the Persians spawn well after the Death of Alexander, and the Persians and King Darius III were who he fought to obtain most of the land which he did (excluding Egypt).
Rhye
's and Fall creator
There's a 844BC as earliest date, but:
- They were still migrating at that time
- This has to be tested: they might break the balancement of religions and found Taoism or Confucianism before China...
However I agree that an earlier date makes sense, especially looking forward to Babylonians in the area. Still, has to be tested...
not really
- They were still migrating at that time
- This has to be tested: they might break the balancement of religions and found Taoism or Confucianism before China...
However I agree that an earlier date makes sense, especially looking forward to Babylonians in the area. Still, has to be tested...
McA123 said:
not really
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
If you take a little tech away from them and bring em back to around 1000 BC, they probably wouldn't hit Taoism or Confucianism before China. Also, I know there was still a lot of changes going on before the Achaemenids, but then there were also huge changes going on in the Indus valley before the Vedic Civilization. Still, we introduce India around 3000 BC, not 2000 BC. And we introduce Japan in 600 BC, rather than 300 AD when it shows any real sign of unity.
Moving Persia back to 1000 BC or sooner would add to consistency, and make for a more fun ancient/classical era, IMO. It's more fun for Rome to step on the scene after Greece and Persia have developed some kind of rivalry.
Moving Persia back to 1000 BC or sooner would add to consistency, and make for a more fun ancient/classical era, IMO. It's more fun for Rome to step on the scene after Greece and Persia have developed some kind of rivalry.
Rhye
's and Fall creator
do you have evidence (with dates) of their existance before 844BC?
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
I'm saying that Persia before 844 BC is a lot like Japan before 300 AD, or India and China before 2000 BC, or even America before 1776. Each of these civilizations definitely existed before these dates, but they were still trying to find their identity.
There were really two main groups in the area. The Babylonians and the Persians.
Babylon can be thought of as a combination of the Sumerians and the Akkadians. Like brothers fighting for supremacy in a single family.
The Persians can be thought of as including both the Medians and the Elamites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elamite_Empire#The_Elamite_legacy
Around 2200 BC, the Babylonian power started to fall off, making room for the Elamites to make gains in the region. In this sense, you can say that the ancestors of the Persians existed since about 2000 BC... fighting with the Babylonian-groups.
It then becomes a question of where, in between 2000 BC and 600 BC, did the Persians finally develop their own identity. I would prefer slightly earlier, but game balance should probably guide us to the real answer.
There were really two main groups in the area. The Babylonians and the Persians.
Babylon can be thought of as a combination of the Sumerians and the Akkadians. Like brothers fighting for supremacy in a single family.
The Persians can be thought of as including both the Medians and the Elamites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elamite_Empire#The_Elamite_legacy
Around 2200 BC, the Babylonian power started to fall off, making room for the Elamites to make gains in the region. In this sense, you can say that the ancestors of the Persians existed since about 2000 BC... fighting with the Babylonian-groups.
It then becomes a question of where, in between 2000 BC and 600 BC, did the Persians finally develop their own identity. I would prefer slightly earlier, but game balance should probably guide us to the real answer.
McA123
Prince
Whoops. I got a little mixed up there with the BC's and dates and such. I forgot that BC's go backwards. Man, I'm so stupid sometimes.
Prestidigitator
Prince
Ah, that is true, but the Assyrians, Babylonias, Sumerians and Akkadians were all of the same descent, some wars were fought between the Assyrians and the Babylonians near the end of their empires, but they were as you said, "Brothers fighting for supremacy", they were the 'Mesopotamians'.dh_epic said:
As for the Persians, they were known as the 'Persian Peoples', they weren't one group, they were several groups of people, even of different descent, the Elamites are thought of be of Semetic descent, while the Medes and the Persians are thought to be of Indo/European descent.
Babylon in the mod will represent Mesopotamia as a whole, just like Egypt would represent 'united' Egypt. Persia, err, I'm not so sure, we can make it so that the Elamites and the Medes are minor nations that flip to Persia when it starts. This way it would turn history for Babylon, which will be included in the Warlords version of the mod.
The persians weren't homogeneous before Cyrus. This is why they should be minor nations, that flip upon Persia spawning. I say that because unlike the Mesopotamians, they were of different descent.
The part in bold is what I think would play out nicely
.dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
I definitely won't try to compete on your knowledge of history. A lot of the stuff I've read seems to confirm more about what you're saying. Some minor civs / barbarians could help smooth things out a bit, for sure.
But the main problem, IMO, is that if you get too caught up in the actual dates, you might end up ignoring how a game of C4:ROC game actually plays out. Right now, the gap between Greece and Persia is too big, and the gap between Persia and Rome is too small (in fact, Persia should hit the scene before Rome). Persia doesn't have much of a chance to become Greece's greatest rival. That's much more important than looking at the actual years.
But the main problem, IMO, is that if you get too caught up in the actual dates, you might end up ignoring how a game of C4:ROC game actually plays out. Right now, the gap between Greece and Persia is too big, and the gap between Persia and Rome is too small (in fact, Persia should hit the scene before Rome). Persia doesn't have much of a chance to become Greece's greatest rival. That's much more important than looking at the actual years.
Prestidigitator
Prince
That's right, I agree on what you're saying, remember that Babylon will be another first civilization to start, starting 3'000 BCE in the mod, along with Egypt, India and China. Babylon shouldn't expand into Persia since the beginning, it didn't work out like that in actual history, that is why we might need minor nations in the area. It'd be nice to see that tweaked for the mod. In the beginning, they were all Barbarian, but now that Babylon will be in, it will need fixing.
Anyway, this will be tweaked when we all witness the addition of Babylon in the Warlords version of the mod. I can't wait for it to come...
Persia should be a big rival for Greece, and I agree too, there is a big gap that should get fixed.
As for my obsession with dates
, I must agree, but when I set historical dates I don't mean they have to be EXACT in the mod, meaning that they could be a couple of turns plus minus. Because like you said, it would take away the lasting appeal and the replayability of the mod.
Anyway, this will be tweaked when we all witness the addition of Babylon in the Warlords version of the mod. I can't wait for it to come...
Persia should be a big rival for Greece, and I agree too, there is a big gap that should get fixed.
As for my obsession with dates
, I must agree, but when I set historical dates I don't mean they have to be EXACT in the mod, meaning that they could be a couple of turns plus minus. Because like you said, it would take away the lasting appeal and the replayability of the mod.dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Glad we're basically on the same page.
Therein lies the problem. I can't argue against the dates, obviously. But I can argue against the overall timing and how it plays out in the game. We ought to shift Greece forward and/or push Persia back... whether that means we have to pick new events (not the palace of knosses, not the Archaemenids empire) or go to an arbitrary date altogether, I don't care either way. But the gap between Persia and Greece ought to be smaller than the gap between Persia and Rome.
Therein lies the problem. I can't argue against the dates, obviously. But I can argue against the overall timing and how it plays out in the game. We ought to shift Greece forward and/or push Persia back... whether that means we have to pick new events (not the palace of knosses, not the Archaemenids empire) or go to an arbitrary date altogether, I don't care either way. But the gap between Persia and Greece ought to be smaller than the gap between Persia and Rome.
Gunner
Emperor
I agree that the order of birthing should go Greece -> Persia -> Rome.
Rod
King
Hello,
it is not fitting to the discussion we had before in this topic but I think it is a genuine FAQ (at least for me )
I noticed that the experience gain of unit is modified (or lets say limited), too. After some displeasure I understood the underlying logic .. yes it makes sense
But I would like to understand which rules are applied to this, because it happens that I have some Horse Archers with 13 XP and some with 10 XP and both are not rising. Also I upgraded some units to Longbowman and they had fights, but kept on 1 XP, but new Longbowman get the full boni (barracks and Vassalage) of 6 XP ...
Besides Rhyes 4 is as good (or even better) as Rhye 3. I played Total Realism before and never came over the year 80 AD.
Now I started and it is fantastic. My funniest moment was when I finally got Calendar from the Chinese and suddenly saw .. oh **** it is 570 AD !! The Arabs are coming ... and they came .. but nobody challenges Persia on the height of its power and now after 200 years of numerous fanatics running against the wall of Jerusalem and Ur (later Kuwait) I am taken back the offence .. Makkah I am coming for you
best wishes
Rudi
it is not fitting to the discussion we had before in this topic but I think it is a genuine FAQ (at least for me
)I noticed that the experience gain of unit is modified (or lets say limited), too. After some displeasure I understood the underlying logic .. yes it makes sense
But I would like to understand which rules are applied to this, because it happens that I have some Horse Archers with 13 XP and some with 10 XP and both are not rising. Also I upgraded some units to Longbowman and they had fights, but kept on 1 XP, but new Longbowman get the full boni (barracks and Vassalage) of 6 XP ...
Besides Rhyes 4 is as good (or even better) as Rhye 3. I played Total Realism before and never came over the year 80 AD.
Now I started and it is fantastic. My funniest moment was when I finally got Calendar from the Chinese and suddenly saw .. oh **** it is 570 AD !! The Arabs are coming ... and they came .. but nobody challenges Persia on the height of its power and now after 200 years of numerous fanatics running against the wall of Jerusalem and Ur (later Kuwait) I am taken back the offence .. Makkah I am coming for you
best wishes
Rudi
Rod
King
Question 2 :
The Arabs had only 3 cities, as they could not get ground against me before.
So I went for Makkah and after the fall , one of the remaining 2 cities in 3x3 Range joined me.
So the Arabs lost over 50 % of territory in a short span of time (one round).
Shouldn't they collapse now ?
Question 3 :
Besides if I now leave the Arabs with one city am I then immune against any National Reborn (Independence Movement) from their side ? Or will it happen that somewhen in future the people of Makkah suddenly want to flip over to this last city ?
The Arabs had only 3 cities, as they could not get ground against me before.
So I went for Makkah and after the fall , one of the remaining 2 cities in 3x3 Range joined me.
So the Arabs lost over 50 % of territory in a short span of time (one round).
Shouldn't they collapse now ?
Question 3 :
Besides if I now leave the Arabs with one city am I then immune against any National Reborn (Independence Movement) from their side ? Or will it happen that somewhen in future the people of Makkah suddenly want to flip over to this last city ?
Gunner
Emperor
I haven't noticed anything about xp being changed ...
Similar threads
