Road to Napoleonic Wars

[kiwitt]

I was disappointed that the game ended at 1800, as you were not really able to relive the Napoleonic Wars.

So I made some changes to the initial games settings;

Original was as follows;

Spoiler :

BeginGame
	Tutorial=0
	Era=ERA_ANCIENT
	Speed=GAMESPEED_NORMAL
	Calendar=CALENDAR_DEFAULT
	Option=GAMEOPTION_AGGRESSIVE_AI
	Option=GAMEOPTION_NO_TECH_BROKERING
	Victory=VICTORY_TIME
	Victory=VICTORY_DOMINATION
	Victory=VICTORY_CULTURAL
	Victory=VICTORY_DIPLOMATIC
	Victory=VICTORY_HISTORICAL
	GameTurn=0
	MaxTurns=500
	MaxCityElimination=0
	NumAdvancedStartPoints=720
	TargetScore=0
	StartYear=500
	Description=TXT_KEY_WB_DESC
	ModPath=Mods\RFCEurope
EndGame

and changed to

Spoiler :

BeginGame
	Tutorial=0
	Era=ERA_ANCIENT
	Speed=GAMESPEED_NORMAL
	Calendar=CALENDAR_DEFAULT
	Option=GAMEOPTION_AGGRESSIVE_AI
	Option=GAMEOPTION_NO_TECH_BROKERING
	Option=GAMEOPTION_NO_CITY_RAZING
	Option=GAMEOPTION_NEW_RANDOM_SEED
	Victory=VICTORY_TIME
        Victory=VICTORY_CONQUEST
	Victory=VICTORY_HISTORICAL
	GameTurn=0
	MaxTurns=750
	MaxCityElimination=0
	NumAdvancedStartPoints=720
	TargetScore=0
	StartYear=500
	Description=TXT_KEY_WB_DESC
	ModPath=Mods\RFCEurope
EndGame

The main changes is removing some victory conditions, adding "No city razing" and maximum turns from 500 to 750.

Should make having survived to 1800 all the more interesting.

Feel free to try it out and let me know what you think. Extract and save attached file into the Private Maps folder of RFCEurope.

 

[Mekajiki]

Well first of all, I don't like the idea of banning city razing. But beyond that, if you want to make the game longer, you need to implement more technology. The tech tree is over in 1800. So you need to add more tech, units, buildings, etc to make a game that's longer also interesting.

 

[kiwitt]

Not many cities were totally razed in history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Razed_cities

 

[Askiya]

True, but that's historically. In the real world, if a leader was determined to burn down a city entirely they would probably do so. But most of the time they did not want to, as why waste a perfectly good city? So it is my opinion what we should keep city razing and not use history as an example.

 

[Wessel V1]

I burn down a countless amount of cities, it's rare that the AI chooses an optimal placement of cities within a region. Cities not next to a river, one tile away from the coast, on resources, meh.

 

[Swarbs]

True, but that's historically. In the real world, if a leader was determined to burn down a city entirely they would probably do so. But most of the time they did not want to, as why waste a perfectly good city? So it is my opinion what we should keep city razing and not use history as an example.

Remember than the cities in Civ don't represent the only cities in the world, but rather the major cities in a given area. So even if cities weren't razed the act of severe sacking often caused them to shrink in size and importance and be replaced with nearby cities which came to dominate the region. Such as Babylon, which was followed by Seleucia, Ctesiphon, and finally Baghdad. All were the dominant cities in Mesopotamia after their predecessor was captured and burned / abandoned / superseded.

Or the various Nile cities of Thebes, Memphis, Diospolis, Heliopolis, Avaris, Alexandria, Cairo etc. All existed in various names and various sizes throughout most of Egypt's history, but all had periods where they grew much bigger and more important or shrank due to conquests and changes in rulers.

Razing in Civ simply represents a speeded up version of this process, where cities become less important due to the decisions of new masters and are replaced by more favoured ones.

 

[kiwitt]

However razing cities does not seem appropriate for a "semi-historical" Medieval-Renaissance scenario.

 

[Swarbs]

However razing cities does not seem appropriate for a "semi-historical" Medieval-Renaissance scenario.

Perhaps, although there are some notable examples from the period such as Chersonesos which was permanently destroyed by the Mongols, Lubice which was abandoned and replaced with Lubeck and various other cities which were at one time major but fell away as other ones grew around them and new nations emerged. It's not something that should be widespread, but it did happen on occasion.

 

[PinkPallin]

However razing cities does not seem appropriate for a "semi-historical" Medieval-Renaissance scenario.

Nowadays Milan is the most important city in Northern Italy. But in 1162 Frederick I Barbarossa razed it and scattered the population in order to crush the Lombard League.
In history city razing wasn't common, but happened.

 

[srpt]

I imagine it would be possible to code the AI to only raze in certain terrible spots, with a map like the settler maps.

 

[Mekajiki]

A terrible city spot is very largely determined by cities around it. You can't really code the intelligence required to build optimal cities(it's extremely challenging to do even with human intelligence). Not being able to raze cities is not a question of history(it happened, though very rarely), but of gameplay. Good gameplay should almost always trump historical accuracy.

More importantly, you need to do something about tech/units/buildings. The tech tree is completely over at 1800. You need to fix that for a scenario allowing you to go past 1800.

 

[kiwitt]

I wanted it to stay a RFCE map only.