• Civ7 is already available! Happy playing :).

[submod] Cross' Overhaul: 17 New Civs, Shia Religion, Civics Rework, Crusades and Much More!

OMG guys, just look at this most accurate AI Abbasid Caliphate I have ever seen around this date :love:! (why does the name say "sultanate" though? )
Nice map!
Caliphal title chosen if government has the bTheocracy flag which is set thusly:

Python:
bTheocracy = civic.iLegitimacy == iTheocracy or (civic.iGovernment in [iRepublic, iElective] and civic.iReligion == iFanaticism)

The leaderhead of Arabia had Citizenship rather than Theocracy as a preferred civic. I have just changed it in a patch.

New Patch
  • Harun al-Rashid prefers Theocracy to Citizenship.
 
For those of you who enjoy DoC detective work here is an another mystery: some of the unique Polynesian monuments provide double the culture specified in Pedia (8:culture: instead of 4:culture:). Why? Not that I am complaining but still... Is there any rule that multiplies monument's culture with each passing era?
 

Attachments

  • 8800_20250115182028_1.png
    8800_20250115182028_1.png
    2.1 MB · Views: 56
  • 8800_20250115182044_1.png
    8800_20250115182044_1.png
    2.3 MB · Views: 27
For those of you who enjoy DoC detective work here is an another mystery: some of the unique Polynesian monuments provide double the culture specified in Pedia (8:culture: instead of 4:culture:). Why? Not that I am complaining but still... Is there any rule that multiplies monument's culture with each passing era?
It is the tag CommerceChangeDoubleTimes which doubles the commerce (usually culture) after X years (usually 1000). This is a thing in base DoC for buildings like monuments and several others.
 
New Patch

Merge Leoreth's latest change. The Persian UHV stuff doesn't apply due to my reworking of Persia and inclusion of Parthia/Sassanids.

New update:
- third American UHV goal: clarified allies requirement
- combined second and third Persian UHV goal into a new second goal
- new third Persian UHV goal: build two Zoroastrian Royal Fires and have eight cities with Refined culture by 600 AD
 
Speaking of your civs, Khazars need some love. They always struggle to expand, because all the mounted barbarians, designed to harras Slavs, are instead diverted to Khazar cities. They need at least one more Settler and a dedicated early UU. Hidden nationality Oghuz just don't work for them. Perhaps a horse archer with a bonus against other horse archers can be a good solution and will help with generating some slaves.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of your civs, Khazars need some love. They always struggle to expand, because all the mounted barbarians, designed to harras Slavs, are instead diverted to Khazar cities. They need at least one more Settler and a dedicated early UU. Hidden nationality Oghuz just don't work for them. Perhaps a horse archer with a bonus against other horse archers can be a good solution and will help with generating some slaves.
The Khazar state was historically wiped out by other steppe tripes (in addition to Rus). I had already tuned the barbarians of the Pontic steppe to account for this new civ. It is normal to have to fight other barbarian horse archers.

However, I'll see if adding another settler is the right solution. When it comes to UU, Oghuz is temporary while I add something else.
 
New Patch
  • Add "Tarkhan" Lancer UU for Khazars
    • Steppe adaptation, no penalty for city attack/defense, requires Copper or Iron rather than just Iron, available with Nobility tech. 9 strength instead of 10.
    • Remove Oghuz horse archer as a UU for Khazars
  • Move horse resource closer to Khazar capital
  • Add copper near Azov, extra sheep near Sarkel-Stalingrad area.
  • Give Khazars 1 addiitonal settler, and some of their lancer UU. Reduce amounts for other types of starting units.
  • Make Crossbowman depend on Machinery AND Guilds. Cho ko nu only depends on Machinery still.
    • Crossbowmen no longer have 25% against melee units (melee units have it hard enough as is compared to Lancers or Horse Archers). UUs retain that 25% bonus, if they had it.
    • This will make most cities easier to conquer until the 11th or 12th centuries.
  • Add Bern to a priority city founding location for HRE. Diversify options for Prussia (region) city founding location for HRE.
  • Give Rus one extra starting Huscarl and one extra Druzhina.
  • Buff Pecheneg and Magyar barbarian spawns slightly. Tweak their target areas.
 
New Khazar UU is not available, even though I have resources and the tech :dunno:
 

Attachments

  • 20250116232938_1.jpg
    20250116232938_1.jpg
    480.9 KB · Views: 44
New Patch
  • Add Shu and Xia to possible targets for Pleased relations for Khazar UHV1
  • Move Byzantium to be part of European civ group.
  • AI-only extra defender and worker for European colonies only applies in the Renaissance Era and beyond (no freebies for Medieval and before).
 
  • Add "Tarkhan" Lancer UU for Khazars

I haven't played this submod yet, but here's a small suggestion for the Khazar UU: the Arsiyah/Ursiyya/Al-Larisiya. This was the name of Muslim mercenaries employed by the Khazars as an elite corps, according to Muslim sources. In the Khazar language, this name has been reconstructed as lariçiyeh, which means "guards". Since they are described as a type of heavy cavalry, this could be the perfect name for the UU.
 
Is there any deep rooted reason for Khazars to start being so far behind in techs compared to the mid 600s AD world in general, and especially compared to Turkic civ, in particular? I mean Khazaria literally starts as "Western Turkic Tribes" ! Meaning, it is logical to assume they must start with the exact same techs Turkic civ starts with. If not more (extra Medicine) because Turks predate Khazars...
 

Attachments

  • 8800_20250117095417_1.png
    8800_20250117095417_1.png
    2.3 MB · Views: 37
Is there any deep rooted reason for Khazars to start being so far behind in techs compared to the mid 600s AD world in general, and especially compared to Turkic civ, in particular? I mean Khazaria literally starts as "Western Turkic Tribes" ! Meaning, it is logical to assume they must start with the exact same techs Turkic civ starts with. If not more (extra Medicine) because Turks predate Khazars...
Good point, Turks should probably not have the naval techs, Khazars should probably have a few extra techs. It'll come in next patch.
 
New Patch
  • Further subdivide Armenian revival periods
  • It is now [(50, 500), (800, 970), (1090, 1190), (1870, 2020)]. This includes the medieval Kingdom of Georgia.
    • Dynamic name, adjective and leader name for Georgia. Requires Armenia to be resurrected and in the Medieval era, so doesn't normally occur for player.
  • Reduce stability requirement of Mongol human player to avoid Timurid spawn to Stable (from Solid).
  • Do not remove resources that are added alongside certain civ births (Hittites, Turks, Tibet, Portugal, Netherlands) when those civs collapse.
  • Slight nerf to Turkic starting techs, buff to Khazar starting techs, Bulgarians start with Shipbuilding.
  • Buff Cumans and Pechenegs by adding more Ghulam cav (horse archer/lancer hybrid)
 
What is the first history map they show you when you are in school? Most likely all of us has been shown this map: four cradles of civilization.
Cradles1.jpg

Now, of course, in reality, the iconic number is six, but is a talk for another day:

Cradles2.jpg

Today I want to make a case for a very minor request. Our mod is called Dawn of Civilization, so it always bothered me that 3000 BC start would only feature the first three civs from the first map. I understand that, it has to do with the dates for the Xia dynasty. Even the dates found in traditional Chinese historiography on mythical Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors are always after 3000 BC (circa 2800ish BC) . But honestly, when the 3000 BC dawned there were some settled communities in all 4 agricultural cradles. It simply looks nice when you see that game starts with those 4 iconic civs, and the rest of the world follows. I simply suggest pushing Minoans to 2650 BC and pre-Xia to 3000 BC, just to make a point. When Chinese talk about 5000 years of written history -- they have a point.

Establishing an absolute chronology has proved difficult for Minoans anyway, since different methodologies provide different results. But generally we have EM I period (c. 3100-2650 BC), which is marked by the appearance of the first painted ceramics. Continuing a trend that began during the Neolithic, settlements grew in size and complexity, and spread from fertile plains towards highland sites and islands as the Minoans learned to exploit less hospitable terrain. This was followed by EM II (c. 2650-2200 BC), which has been termed an international era. Trade intensified and Minoan ships began sailing beyond the Aegean to Egypt and Syria, possibly enabled by the invention of masted ships. Minoan material culture shows increased international influence, for instance in the adoption of Minoan seals based on the older Near Eastern seal. Minoan settlements grew, some doubling in size, and monumental buildings were constructed at sites that would later become palaces. It is not a huge stretch to imagine that Minoans in gave correspond to EM II era.

Game- vise, Minoan and Xia UHVs will not be hugely affected by this largely cosmetic change, proposed just to pay homage to the iconic first cradles map!
 

Attachments

  • 8800_20250117173446_1.png
    8800_20250117173446_1.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 33
What is the first history map they show you when you are in school? Most likely all of us has been shown this map: four cradles of civilization.
View attachment 715503

Now, of course, in reality, the iconic number is six, but is a talk for another day:

View attachment 715504

Today I want to make a case for a very minor request. Our mod is called Dawn of Civilization, so it always bothered me that 3000 BC start would only feature the first three civs from the first map. I understand that, it has to do with the dates for the Xia dynasty. Even the dates found in traditional Chinese historiography on mythical Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors are always after 3000 BC (circa 2800ish BC) . But honestly, when the 3000 BC dawned there were some settled communities in all 4 agricultural cradles. It simply looks nice when you see that game starts with those 4 iconic civs, and the rest of the world follows. I simply suggest pushing Minoans to 2650 BC and pre-Xia to 3000 BC, just to make a point. When Chinese talk about 5000 years of written history -- they have a point.

Establishing an absolute chronology has proved difficult for Minoans anyway, since different methodologies provide different results. But generally we have EM I period (c. 3100-2650 BC), which is marked by the appearance of the first painted ceramics. Continuing a trend that began during the Neolithic, settlements grew in size and complexity, and spread from fertile plains towards highland sites and islands as the Minoans learned to exploit less hospitable terrain. This was followed by EM II (c. 2650-2200 BC), which has been termed an international era. Trade intensified and Minoan ships began sailing beyond the Aegean to Egypt and Syria, possibly enabled by the invention of masted ships. Minoan material culture shows increased international influence, for instance in the adoption of Minoan seals based on the older Near Eastern seal. Minoan settlements grew, some doubling in size, and monumental buildings were constructed at sites that would later become palaces. It is not a huge stretch to imagine that Minoans in gave correspond to EM II era.

Game- vise, Minoan and Xia UHVs will not be hugely affected by this largely cosmetic change, proposed just to pay homage to the iconic first cradles map!
I don't see a reason to push Xia back to 3000 BC. Minoans being pushed forward requires work to figure out the right starting techs and advance start points. Minoans are very limited in their number of turns due to Sea Peoples and Greek spawn in 900 BC. It is not a "cosmetic" change either way.
 
Another China idea, just because you did such a great job adding civs and layers to incredibly complex East Asia history: what are your thoughts on Qing-Ming transition? It sadly gets in the top 5 deadliest war events in human history, alongside with WW1 and WW2. Currently Xia civ does not have large re-birth event and I suggest rebranding them as Qinq, giving them new core in Manchuria in 1620s, starting at war with Ming (yellow China civ). Units can be combination of firearms and some Mongolian UUs. China proper gets simultaneously hit by plague and some of the worst rebels in human history. I am currently listening Fall and Rise of China by Kings and Generals, and episodes on Zhang Xianzhong must be NC-17 rated, at the very least. Obviously, later it can be the reverse "Xia"-->"Qinq" Nationalist/Communist China transition event, with Taiping rebellions and other terrible stuff.
 
Another China idea, just because you did such a great job adding civs and layers to incredibly complex East Asia history: what are your thoughts on Qing-Ming transition? It sadly gets in the top 5 deadliest war events in human history, alongside with WW1 and WW2. Currently Xia civ does not have large re-birth event and I suggest rebranding them as Qinq, giving them new core in Manchuria in 1620s, starting at war with Ming (yellow China civ). Units can be combination of firearms and some Mongolian UUs. China proper gets simultaneously hit by plague and some of the worst rebels in human history. I am currently listening Fall and Rise of China by Kings and Generals, and episodes on Zhang Xianzhong must be NC-17 rated, at the very least. Obviously, later it can be the reverse "Xia"-->"Qinq" Nationalist/Communist China transition event, with Taiping rebellions and other terrible stuff.
I might create a new civ for Qing, because the current Qin respawn is okay but often has some trouble expanding to its full borders.
 
I might create a new civ for Qing, because the current Qin respawn is okay but often has some trouble expanding to its full borders.
Feels like it will be too many Chinese civs and then Qinq would require earlier Jin. Manchus are ancestors of Jurchens. Is it much more work to reuse an earlier China civ, like Xia?
 
Feels like it will be too many Chinese civs and then Qinq would require earlier Jin. Manchus are ancestors of Jurchens. Is it much more work to reuse an earlier China civ, like Xia?
Right now, it is Wu, the Green civ, that represents Ming, and the Qin civ respawns as Qing. This works well enough. There is no point repurposing Xia as a respawn in its place. The only thing that would ameliorate the situation would be to create a new civ, if that level of detail was interesting. I'm not in a rush to do this.

I'm currently working on the Minoans again, which is requiring a lot of playtesting and balancing.
 
Top Bottom