Rhye's Catapult

[Bolleque]

Also my small report.

I played as Egyptians up to 1500AD on Viceroy (I have a problem because Viceroy is very easy while Monarch is too difficult for me - I'd love something between).
China KIA. India KIA. Persia KIA - all by barbs.
Asia remained really empty
All European civs still alive surprisingly. I do not know how Mongols do as well as Aztecs and Incas - I have still not contacted them.

A difficult moment I had only once when camel archers came from Sahara. I quickly trained some elephants that saved my empire. I did not go to Asia at all - only fortified in Sinai to wait for Arabs. Because no Persia and India they did not attack me.
The only war between civs I noted was Greece versus Germany - no big changes on the map.

PS: Forza Italia - you must kick Germans!!!

 

[Eddiit]

Rhye, I'm glad you're looking at adding minor civs, at least when Warlords comes out. I think it would be interesting to get the AI working so that it successfully destroys civs on its own, and new civs are chosen randomly (and get around the cap that way)

You could have three types of Civs - those that spawn no matter what (the big ones, Rome, Arabia, Germany, America, etc), those that spawn if there's room (Assyria, Vikings, Korea, Portugal), and those who spawn from barbarians (the Huns, Celts, Mongols, Turks) if the barbarians successfully capture a city in the right place at the right time.

I'll need to think about this a little further, but it seems like a feasible way to change the mod from being barbarian-centered to Civ-centered.

I like that idea BUT we need to make sure civs like Portugal and Israel (Rhye Mentioned it) are playable. Making the game more civ-centric is a great move.

The game is great so far Rhye. Definetly becoming a masterpiece.

 

[Arkaeyn]

Yeah, I mean, I could make a list of 30-50 civs which could potentially appear in a game. That's the easy bit. It's getting the right ones in the right places at the right times, while not pushing out the big ones, that's the problem.

 

[OzzyKP]

I'm playing as the Romans and the road movement is only doubled, not 4X.

 

[Rhye]

I played as Egyptians up to 1500AD on Viceroy (I have a problem because Viceroy is very easy while Monarch is too difficult for me - I'd love something between).
China KIA. India KIA. Persia KIA - all by barbs.
Asia remained really empty

all those KIA happen in the low level. I'm trying to adjust this.

I'm playing as the Romans and the road movement is only doubled, not 4X.

err... 2X * 2X = 4X

I have a novel idea (I hope): how about have Arabia spawn as Muslim one turn after Islam is founded?
I don't know enough about the matter to say for sure, but I'm inclined to believe the Arabs were truly born as a nation when they were united by Islam. It would make sense to link the two in-game. You could also have the holy city of Islam flip to them no matter what as long as it's in a certain range of plots that makes sense, but perhaps that's too much (and unrealistic).

It would mess up some very fragile things like the order civs are born. And right now one playing as Arabia can choose not to adopt Islam.

You could have three types of Civs - those that spawn no matter what (the big ones, Rome, Arabia, Germany, America, etc), those that spawn if there's room (Assyria, Vikings, Korea, Portugal), and those who spawn from barbarians (the Huns, Celts, Mongols, Turks) if the barbarians successfully capture a city in the right place at the right time.

My 3 types of civs are the playable ones, the minor ones (Korea, Maya,...) and the barbarian ones (Celts, Huns...).
Your 3-parted division would be cool but I don't know if I'm good enough to accomplish that

 

[Blasphemous]

right now one playing as Arabia can choose not to adopt Islam.

Well, then Arabia's UP doesn't make so much sense now. It was based on Islam's fast spread, but if Arabia is not tied in with Islam in-game that doesn't make so much sense any more.
Perhaps there should be traits for the religions now? I think it's a nice bit of bullfeathers to stay neutral by making all religions identical. You can give religions different traits without as much as hinting that religion X is better than religion Y or that god Z beats god J in a fair fight.

My 3 types of civs are the playable ones, the minor ones (Korea, Maya,...) and the barbarian ones (Celts, Huns...).
Your 3-parted division would be cool but I don't know if I'm good enough to accomplish that

Shouldn't Mongols also be a barbarian civ? I don't know much about them, but I do know they are only famous for their hordes (as opposed to say, art and poetry.)

 

[Barak]

The one thing I have found trying Arabia 5 times at start is that Islam does NOT always found in Mecca. In three of the games Sanaa (which is a poor city location IMO) becomes the holy city of Islam. Also, in all 5 games the Egyptian culture is tough to overcome (especially with the bank bug)

One mapping issue in Arabia which I have noticed for some time. If Mecca settles on the incense instead of its spawn location the city does MUCH better! Especially since it could then use the plains in the center of the peninsula.

 

[OzzyKP]

I don't think there is anything wrong with the Arabs not being Islamic. Sure its nice when it happens, but the more we hardwire things the more repetitive the game becomes.

I could be ok with religions having different traits, however if Rhye has adjusted their spread rates I think that's a good tweak already. In general though it could be unbalancing, and players would pick a state religion based on its effects, not on other factors such as historical realism or making nice with your neighbors or something. That could be strange.

 

[dh_epic]

I don't think there is anything wrong with the Arabs not being Islamic. Sure its nice when it happens, but the more we hardwire things the more repetitive the game becomes.

I'm with Ozzy. Obviously, this mod is designed with realism in mind. But there should be enough wiggle room to consider that things could have worked out slightly differently. Hardwire as little as possible.

 

[Karam]

... so are the Babylonians in?

I really think the game would be alot better with them being playable instead of them being Barbs of Minor nations.

In regards to UUs and LHs I don't think we have a problem, and given that some civs will be dropped out (eg: Zulu and Celtic) we should REALLY put them in.

BTW the mod is getting really nice, I wonder what it would be like with the expansion.

Rhye, would you consider putting in White Rabbit's Ethnically Diverse Units?

Thanks!

 

[Blasphemous]

Okay, I guess it shouldn't be hardwired.
But I do think the religions could differentiate in the way they spread, if nothing else. Some religions could spread to conquered cities when they are state religion, some could have a chance to spread to a rival capital whenever you trade technology, some could spread primarily through , some primarily through short distance between cities, some could "kick out" other religions when they enter a city some of the time, some could be more likely to enter a city the more other religions are already there. Some could spread well to tiny towns, some could spread exculsively to large cities, some could have very effective missionaries, others could have very ineffective missionaries. There are many many ways we can differentiate the religions realistically and even invisibly (no interaction required) without directly affecting the choice of religion.
A few examples: Judaism should spread extremely well inside your borders when it's your state religion, it should spread very little into cities where it's not the state religion, it should have a chance to kick out each of the religions in a city when it enters it (with this chance way way higher when it's the state religion), and it should have a good chance in small cities with no religion but practically no chance in small cities with a religion already. Jewish missionaries should either not exist (as in reality) or be expensive and hardly ever work. When they work, they should have a good chance to kick out previous religions in the city.
Christianity should spread very slowly on its own, with an equal chance for all types of cities, but its missionaries should be cheap and 95% effective, and a civ should be able to have more of them at a time than normal (say 5 at a time instead of 3).
Buddhism should spread well in cities with free religion.
Islam should spread with conquest and have a good chance of removing previous religions when it spreads to a city.
I could keep going, but I am also slightly limited by my ignorance.

 

[OzzyKP]

I think those are all reasonable suggestions Blasphemous

 

[dh_epic]

Hey Rhye... just a quick question, this may seem kind of off-topic.

I'm curious how the tech tree compares to ROC for Civ 3. The tech tree is, in a lot of ways, the backbone of the Civilization franchise. Do you have any plans to migrate any of the techs from your Civ 3 work into this Civ 4 mod? (You wouldn't happen to have a list of technologies, would you?)

 

[Rhye]

Rhye, would you consider putting in White Rabbit's Ethnically Diverse Units?

That mod, as far as I know, is incomplete.
The basic idea is what was actually done in Rhye's of Civ Expanded for civ3 - the flavour units.

If I had enough user-made animations to cover all the units I would do that.
But for now, they aren't even enough to add a 2nd UU

Hey Rhye... just a quick question, this may seem kind of off-topic.

I'm curious how the tech tree compares to ROC for Civ 3. The tech tree is, in a lot of ways, the backbone of the Civilization franchise. Do you have any plans to migrate any of the techs from your Civ 3 work into this Civ 4 mod? (You wouldn't happen to have a list of technologies, would you?)

Mmmm, I've thought about it, and this is what i'm convinced:
The civ4 tech tree is very good.
The civ3 one wasn't and I reshaped it completely, but now, in addition to being unnecessary, it could break the balancement (as it contains OR gates too) that has been tested in so many months of civ4 alphas (and you should know )

 

[dh_epic]

Sounds like a smart call.

I'm still curious to compare the ROC Civ 3 tech tree to the Civ 4 tech tree. If you have a screenshot, or even a list available, I'd love to see it. But don't stress yourself out looking for it, if it's buried somewhere.

 

[Rhye]

here it is!

http://rhye.civfanatics.net/civ3/files/rocx_tree.zip

In the 1st and 2nd screen, consider that the techs regarding religions (in the screenshots, Nordic Cults and Christianity) are replaced by other techs depending on the civ you choose (Persia has Zoroastrianism and Islam, for instance)

There's not much of that tree in Civ4. Maybe the only thing in common is that the eras up to 1700 have been expanded, and the modern era shrinked. In fact, while Civ4 features splitted ancient/classical and medieval/renaissance, in RoCX I had shifted some modern techs to right, making the industrial era fit 1700-1920 rather than 1800-1950.


However, there's something else in which RoCX (as well as DyP, actually)influenced civ4.
Such as:
-shorter game (400 turns)
-some units like the Machinegunner or the Camel archer
-defensive archers instead of offensive
-the way small empires can catch up big ones (that wasn't possible in civ3)
-religions and religion-specific buildings
-expensive settlers
-impassable mountains
-impassable ocean for galleys
-non-settleable desert

 

[dh_epic]

Thanks a lot Rhye, this is very exciting. I couldn't help but noticing that the mod community from Civ 3 helped influence the implementation of Civ 4 big time. I'm already imagining Civ 5, but I'm getting ahead of myself

BTW: I'll be rooting for my homeland, Italy, in the game tomorrow. But my girlfriend will be rooting for her homeland, Germany. I already promised her I wouldn't gloat.

 

[Arkaeyn]

My 3 types of civs are the playable ones, the minor ones (Korea, Maya,...) and the barbarian ones (Celts, Huns...).
Your 3-parted division would be cool but I don't know if I'm good enough to accomplish that

Hey, I played ROCX for about 6 months straight, I'm pretty sure you're good enough.

The mechanisms I envision seem to be pretty straightforward. Let's say we're using Warlords, so we have a 24-civ cap (I think?). A mechanism keeps track of how many civs there are. Potentially at the start - 3000 to 500 BCE? there are 8-10 or so: Egypt, China, India, of course, with Sumeria, Tyre, Assyria, Greece, Babylon, Israel, or whatever works best for balance. With 20? turns to go before a new civ is supposed to spawn, for a major Civ, the mod will create a hold on the slot. So if there were 10 slots for civs taken, then the mod would hold 3 of the remaining 14 slots for Rome, Carthage, and Persia.

The remainder of the slots would be filled by minor civs/barbarian civs. For example, if a city in the middle east were captured by barbarians at any point before 1000 AD, the Hittites might spawn from that city.

The key here is that the AI must be aggressive and effective enough to eliminate civs. Otherwise, you end up with the Babylonians, Celts, and Khmer preventing the Germans, Mongols, and Incas from spawning.

 

[Eddiit]

Hey, I played ROCX for about 6 months straight, I'm pretty sure you're good enough.

The mechanisms I envision seem to be pretty straightforward. Let's say we're using Warlords, so we have a 24-civ cap (I think?). A mechanism keeps track of how many civs there are. Potentially at the start - 3000 to 500 BCE? there are 8-10 or so: Egypt, China, India, of course, with Sumeria, Tyre, Assyria, Greece, Babylon, Israel, or whatever works best for balance. With 20? turns to go before a new civ is supposed to spawn, for a major Civ, the mod will create a hold on the slot. So if there were 10 slots for civs taken, then the mod would hold 3 of the remaining 14 slots for Rome, Carthage, and Persia.

The remainder of the slots would be filled by minor civs/barbarian civs. For example, if a city in the middle east were captured by barbarians at any point before 1000 AD, the Hittites might spawn from that city.

The key here is that the AI must be aggressive and effective enough to eliminate civs. Otherwise, you end up with the Babylonians, Celts, and Khmer preventing the Germans, Mongols, and Incas from spawning.

I like that idea except if we do that there does need to be the possibility(even if it is highly unlikeley) that the Babylonians , Celts and Khmer can stop the spawning of civs like the Germans , Mongols and Incas. We need to keep the game Dynamic and avoid absolutism if we can.

It's a game of what-ifs.

 

[Arkaeyn]

True, that possibility should exist, but I think it should be more that the Babylonians and Celts survive and the Persians and Romans fail as an alternative. And depending on who falls, spots would open up. For example, the Aztecs might be more likely to appear if the Olmecs and Toltecs are destroyed.


At any rate, I've been playing the mod a few more times. The Greeks have been whatever the opposite of nerfed is. Every game, they're in the lead or close to. The Romans are the same way. In fact, the middle-ancient civs of Persia, Rome, and Greece always survive and thrive. (the Japanese don't do quite so well)

Every time I switch Civs, the game seems to run much slower. It could be because I move from somewhere quiet (china) to Europe. But that does seem to occur.

A few of the "powers" have awkward titles. China's "Power of Myriads" doesn't entirely make sense in English - we usually use myriads to refer to things or concepts, not always people.

Rome's "Power of the Infrastructure" should drop the "the".

Russia's "Power of Winter" isn't exactly awe-inspiring. "Power of the Motherland" works much better.