• We created a new subforum for the Civ7 reviews, please check them here!

Rise and Stagnation of Civilization (Earth18Civs BtS, not RFC)

Its a .py file so I can't post it up here. I have compressed it to a rar. It needs to go in the place that they said. In the Beyond the sword/public maps folder, but not the one in my documents.

Hope people can use it!
 

Attachments

Ok so as I said, when we play online we generally do no huts no TT and normal barbs.

Generally it is played with AI at emperor or immortal.

Usually the civs used are a mixture of the following: (18 always)

Africa:
Egypt
Eithiopia
Mali
Carthage

Europe:
England
Rome
Portugal
France or Germany
Russia
Vikings

Middle east:
Ottomans
Arabia
Persia

Asia:
India
Khmer
China
Mongolia
Japan

Obviously these aren't set in stone, but generally provide good gameplay and balance. If new world civs are used they generally get left behind... But they are still programmed in and we can use them if people wish.

Like if nighthawk wants Greece then we can swap around a few of the other civs etc
 
Hmmmm, after taking a look at the mapscript I'm on the fence. What irks me is that not all starting positions are where they should be from a historic standpoint, e.g. Babylon starts two tiles north of where it should be, Ethiopia is way too far south, China also isn't where it should be... Sure I can understand these relocations from a gameplay and balance point of view, and it's not as if I didn't smudge starting locations a bit, but I think some of those changes go a little too far.

Thoughts from the rest of the players?
 
Babylon is moved to allow room to play with sumeria.

China depends on what you are thinking of - if you are looking for modern day Beijing or the core of the old kingdom.

But yes they are mainly done for balance and the ability to have any civs on the game together. I actually don't know where celtica spawns thinking about it...

But the actual map is far better than the earth 18 map. Mali are viable. There is a lot more useful land all over the place which makes for a more interesting game. Besides we can move a few civs if you are desperately keen :p or use the ones that are more historical [emoji6]
 
ReallyEvilMuff said:
Babylon is moved to allow room to play with sumeria.

China depends on what you are thinking of - if you are looking for modern day Beijing or the core of the old kingdom.

But yes they are mainly done for balance and the ability to have any civs on the game together. I actually don't know where celtica spawns thinking about it...

But the actual map is far better than the earth 18 map. Mali are viable. There is a lot more useful land all over the place which makes for a more interesting game. Besides we can move a few civs if you are desperately keen :p or use the ones that are more historical [emoji6]
Click to expand...

China's location is wrong for both, it's right in the middle between Beijing and ancient China.

That was my second problem, the map is actually too good. Way too much useful land, too few jungles, that stuff. Totally unrealistic.
 
I wanted Greece based on the original map (E 18 civs). Yes, obviously I'm wanting a philosophical leader and consider myself good enough to stagnate fairly early, although not too early. If we were to change maps I would want to reconsider my leader. I don't have any opinion either way on which map we use, that's Knoedel's decision as our admin. I just want the ability to take a look at the final map and consider all my options.

Also, I will state that I realize the options you choose and why are meant for fairly competitive online multiplayer civving... but this PBEM community, at least, tends to be more laid back. Our goals are not to make the AI such a challenge that people could possibly lose to them - AI in our games are meant more to be for flavor, just good enough to exist and not completely roll over... but still can get killed if someone really wants to focus on them. We have a wide variety of skill levels of players around here. I consider myself probably a slightly above average player around here, and I am probably 50/50 on Prince. You stick me in a game with a bunch of immortal or emperor level AI's, especially when I will be forced to stop teching early, and I can guarantee I will die.

You have to remember - while we, the humans, are dropping our tech sliders to 0%, the AI will NOT be doing that! I don't care how good you are, you can't beat many AI's with spears against rifles!
 
I just pointed out the general settings, it's not what we have to play on. I'm happy with different things if that is the consensus. That's just a good thinking point in my mind. I'm fine with dropping the AI difficulty, although I would want to give them all archery and an archer or 2 with defend city AI otherwise a warrior rush in Europe is really powerful. (And you intend to let AI get to rifles? Or past longbows? ;))

Although the map is a little unrealistic, it's goal is to bring Africa and fringe nations into play. Mali and zuluand and Khmer can compete with the lushness of Europe. That is the point of the map. Let's be honest on regular earth 18 Mali is hopeless, so is the new world and Mongolia. It opens up all civs to be potentially winners rather than the regular few. Some jungles have to go to make other choices viable.

Greece itself is fairly unchanged. Asia Minor is buffed a fair bit. Download the file and have a look and see what you think!
 
See you are focused so much on balance, while I'm more the type to want realism. Yes, the Mali are relatively hopeless... but if you want a challenge, thats what they are there for!

And if we have something like 12 AI and 6 humans... its inevitable that a few of them will be around with rifling. I am not a warrior-rush kind of guy, and I don't see a lot of that around these here parts. It's cheesy and cheap ;) And go ahead and rush the AI - the humans will see you focused on a foreign border and will gladly walk in your back door to kill you... ;)

I did download the original map, just havent had a chance to look at it yet.
 
I'm pretty much in the same boat as Nighthawk. The original E18 was pretty good for me, the Knödelified edition was harmful :lol:, and this EE2 mapscript is a mixed bag. The best part in EE2 is that players can choose leaders/civs freely and their start locations seem okay for the most part, but the map isn't necessarily better otherwise.

If AIs are too weak with warriors, I'm OK with boosting them with an archer or archery, but I'm fine either way. Difficulty levels are a too crude tool for that though, they change a lot of other stuff, mainly the AI tech rate bonus, but also maintenance costs, barbarians and other bonuses.
 
Yeah it's all about the balance - I feel that is what gives a better game. I like to think that any civ could have a fighting chance on a map. But I do like its variability much more than earth 18, we can put any civ with any leader down without xml editing which is a pain.

Also there are features like Spain being moved to the east coast to not give a city that blocks the rest of Iberia and to allow them to exist with Portugal if needed.

But it is a suggestion. Play a quick game on the map and see what you think. I'd be surprised if you didn't enjoy it.
 
I for one am in favor of using this new mapscript and giving all AIs an additional archer, but otherwise leaving it on Noble.
 
Awesome :) we just need to work out what civs people want and then choose ais accordingly. Are we gonna allow new world civs? I just can't see them being able to keep up, but if people are super keen then we can put them in. I think zacar wanted Aztec?
 
I checked the new map, it seems fine, although it was a fast check. I'm still willing to play as Ramses of Egypt.

Before we start I want to see where exactly each civ we choose to include in this game starts, since others more experienced with this map will know that already.
 
Civs appear pretty much where you would expect them to or within a few tiles - we just need to work out which civs we want on the map, after everyone has picked. For Egypt the map is better as the whole of Africa can be settled with decent cities rather than a small part. However there will be eithiopia or zululand to contend with...

Imp could you edit the OP with choices as they come in?
 
I do like the map - its not quite as insanely good as Knoedel makes it out to be. I see a lot more flood plains in places I wouldn't expect, thats the biggest boost I can. plus some random early metal around in unexpected places.

I'll still take Greece. Pericles! I considered India but the Madrassa is a really late UB. If I'm going to go that road I might as well be America or England ;)
 
It should be a python file, and you put it where the EE2 post tells you - your bts/public maps folder. But not the BTS folder that is in my documents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Nizef
Quest for Glory - Deity Challenge #11
2
Replies
22
Views
1K
fimbul
F
evonannoredars
3.5th Apocalypse Era and associated Diplomatic Victory
Replies
2
Views
146
evonannoredars
evonannoredars
A
Fourth Age musings....
2
Replies
23
Views
774
sTAPler27
sTAPler27
A
[submod] RFC Dawn of Civilization - Aeons - Version 1.1
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
IrishDragon
I
Q
AI not expanding very well
Replies
3
Views
654
Bysonte
Bysonte
Top Bottom