Walter Hawkwood
RI Curator
And would you consider adding breakaway civs like that in your mod? Not just colonial civs?.
After Revolution modcomp is implemented, why not?
And would you consider adding breakaway civs like that in your mod? Not just colonial civs?.
THANK you for this ûber fantastich mod!! I been playing TR/ RI since 2006, and nothing else!!
Just plaeyed around 60% of the crusader scenario with india on emperor. I've taken khmer, and doing fine.
BUT the feared mongols,,, they're not fearsome at all... When I met them I got "past events brought us closer togehter + 5", they are my best friends... and the have hardly done anything, having 15 cities, and est 300 points by 60% of turns finnished...
So,,, is this a possible outcome, or is something wrong??
no force of nature in my scenario...
Anyhow, I got 2-3 ctd's on my 64bit syst., but just load game and everything progresses fine.
anyone else ecperience mongols this way in " crusades" scenario?
THANKS for RI,, LOVE it!!
Little tiny observation: aztecs as montezuma do not receive bonus for being aggressive, so we can't upgrade units to combat2, for example, before feudalism.
I don't really understand how being aggressive, upgrading to combat2 and feudalism are tied together. Do you mean having enough XP? Well, 2 from aggessive and 2 from barracks don't make 5 needed to upgrade to level 2.
How does The Apostelic Palace works now. I'm playing custom game and i never get any chance to build it. Nobody built it eider. I have required technology, i have state religion, in fact my religion is largest in the world. There is no apostolic palace in the top 5 cities/wonders tab. There was no information about somebody to build it, etc.
On the Mongols: Yes, with me they have also been quite friendly (I played as the Byzantines). My guess: My enemy's enemy is my friend rule is valid here. Both Mongols and Byzantines had a war going on with the Ghaznawids and the Seljuqs. Might be similar with the Indian civ.
Further observations: Almoravids (or: al-murábitun) are near the top of score board even though they lost Andalus. Must be because of their technological advancement. Also, the Papal states are doing really good.
Hm... On this topic, I think it would be a good idea to maybe change city garrison promotions to be orientated towards walls. Perhaps changing the promotion to give the bonuses only towards walled cities, or maybe changing it to give just a fraction of the bonus to cities without walls. Urban combat, on the other hand, should remain as is, considering its nature.
As long as you were allies in a war once the bonus remains. If you are allies in a second war the bonus becomes +4 etc...
Its the way the diplomacy in Civ 4 works. The bonus/penalties are calculated since the start of the game.
Totally agree, except I think it should only apply to ranged combat units. Melee units can still adequately defend an un-walled city, in a non-guerrilla style akin to the urban combat. Archers though, in an un-walled city with city garrison are really no different than being out in the open. Even a pallisade is better than nothing, because they can bunch up unmolested and rain down death outside the city. So I propose:
Ranged combat in city w/o any fortification: no bonus from city garrison
Ranged combat in city w/ Pallisade: 50% of the city garrison bonus
Ranged combat in city w/ Walls: 100% of the city garrison bonus
Melee units continue to get full City Garrison bonus. (maybe 50% w/o anything; 100% w/ Pallisade or Walls)
edit: This also might help provide more balance on the offense/defense side of things in the early game, and promote the use of fortifications, especially for cities on non-hill tiles.