oh, will they refuse to vassilise to their worst enemy? and does this mean they wont vassilise to the first person to contact them? Is the any way to allow them to vassilise to their worst enemy if they have positive relations with them?
Questions & Answers
- Thread starter Rhye
- Start date
blizzrd
Micromanager
I think the answers here are yes, then no, then yes - via capitulation certainly.
onedreamer
Dragon
well, a civ doesn't necessarily have a worse enemy. I doubt a civ will be the worse enemy of another civ just because these met none else.
AlexanderGreat4
Chieftain
There should really be an ancient map with all of rhye's features, that would be the best.
Besides, modern is boring isnt it, who would want to play as civs that are alive right now (exept China, ancient is fun too)?
Besides, modern is boring isnt it, who would want to play as civs that are alive right now (exept China, ancient is fun too)?
AnotherPacifist
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Messages
- 4,878
Simplistically, economic stability is defined as positive if there is a positive change from the move before. So for example, simply founding a city will most likely drive your economy down transiently, unless that city pays for itself with state property (same maintenance regardless of distance from palace)/corporation (extra trade route) and other buildings premade. On the other hand, plague is devastating simply because your population (and hence your gold per turn) dies.
I find that instead of building economic buildings all at once, staggering them may be more beneficial (so that there is growth at all times). In a golden age, when you have an automatic boost in your economy, it's better to delay building economic buildings until the very end, so that after the boom is over, you'll still have a little carry-over effect.
If you don't adopt free economy, as soon as you discover economics, you should research corporation (usually takes another 3-4 turns at most), because you need those extra trade routes that were lost from obsoleting castles. (plus it's a requirement for assembly line)
If nothing else works, devote some turns to produce gold from hammers, which counts as an relative increase in your economy. That is what I have to do in late games when my economy and cities can't grow any more (size 20+ cities). In fact, I can produce a 100% science/culture rate with positive gold that way.
I find that instead of building economic buildings all at once, staggering them may be more beneficial (so that there is growth at all times). In a golden age, when you have an automatic boost in your economy, it's better to delay building economic buildings until the very end, so that after the boom is over, you'll still have a little carry-over effect.
If you don't adopt free economy, as soon as you discover economics, you should research corporation (usually takes another 3-4 turns at most), because you need those extra trade routes that were lost from obsoleting castles. (plus it's a requirement for assembly line)
If nothing else works, devote some turns to produce gold from hammers, which counts as an relative increase in your economy. That is what I have to do in late games when my economy and cities can't grow any more (size 20+ cities). In fact, I can produce a 100% science/culture rate with positive gold that way.
zaxtorrent
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2008
- Messages
- 1
hey im a total newb who have been hooked on RFC for a few days now!
the civ4 game is great and this mod elevates it even more up to incredible heights so thx for your work Rhye + regulars and testers
my newb q:
What should be the huge difference between starting up the 3000 BC or 600 AD map?
I mean besides the former starting earlier from a gameplay point of view?
does the 3000 BC one generate a more different stage of the world each time i fire that up because it has more time to evolve and more volatility this way?
im also trying to decide which map do you think is better or more interesting for the late starting civs to start from?
the civ4 game is great and this mod elevates it even more up to incredible heights so thx for your work Rhye + regulars and testers
my newb q:
What should be the huge difference between starting up the 3000 BC or 600 AD map?
I mean besides the former starting earlier from a gameplay point of view?
does the 3000 BC one generate a more different stage of the world each time i fire that up because it has more time to evolve and more volatility this way?
im also trying to decide which map do you think is better or more interesting for the late starting civs to start from?
JujuLautre
Deity
in which version of CFC do you have the numbers next to stability like in this screen? I got the latest one but the numbers don't show up
Opferlamm
Prince
you can only get it if you copy the financeadvisor-screen from RFC:Rand into your normal RFC
Wessel V1
Emperor
Or download the file in post 32: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=276467&page=2
JujuLautre
Deity
Thanks a lot to the both of you 
LukeUeda-Sarson
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2007
- Messages
- 341
Yes, using the 3000 BC version means that as 600 AD rolls around, your world will look quite different from the one that exists if you start at 600 AD. I prefer to use the 600 AD start therfore for civs that spawn post 600 AD as a consequence - there are enough random factors influenecing the game play as it is without these being added in on top, IMO (at least, if you are chasing UHVs, anyway. If you are aiming for non historical victories, sure, why not have the romans running around in 1500...)
Cheers, Luke
