[submod] Cross' Overhaul (Wu, Bulgaria, Muslim-Egypt, Macedon, Iroquois, Armenia, Parthia, Minoans, Ghurids, Timurids)

[Maggy_domain]

|
Who did have this problem with the filenames too long? I have Civ on steam, and it adds another long sequence of folders. What's the fix?

 

[Crossphazer]

View attachment 707588|
Who did have this problem with the filenames too long? I have Civ on steam, and it adds another long sequence of folders. What's the fix?

Are you trying to compile it? Unless you plan to make some of your own modifications, it's not necessary to do so.

 

[Tigranes]

I know you have a lot on your plate, but could you please reevaluate Roman Eastern border situation, more specifically current Parthian mechanics.

After Macedonia collapses Persia, there is a very short period of Hellenic Middle East, with Macedonia collapsing upon war with Rome coupled with Barbarian Parthian invasion. This results in Rome not having an archenemy for some 4 centuries in the East until Sassanid spawn.

For all intents and purposes we can treat Parthians as Persian respawn, smoothly transitioning to Sassanids with leader change. Therefore I suggest to replace Barbarian Parthian units with resurrected post-Macedon Persia, which will be now called Parthia from -200 to +200. They only flip Iran and Iraq, no Syria or even Assyria. Armenia will be able to ally with strong Eastern civilization and actually get opportunity to win 1st UHV. Currently Rome gets too many troops for each city in Asia Minor/ Middle East....

 

[CivEnthusiast]

Well, if they are "real" (non-indy) player slots, they might as well be made playable since it's not really any extra effort other than defining a UHV. These suggestions are in the right ballpark, but I would need to evaluate case by case if the entity is long lived enough (in terms of game turns; each turn is many years in the ancient era) and what kind of effect it would have on neighbouring civs, any balance changes that it requires etc.

You are correct to say that in the classical/ancient era there are a lot of free slots, so there's no technical reason this isn't possible.

"Unplayable" civs are easily just the independents, since they exactly serve that role

 

[Crossphazer]

I know you have a lot on your plate, but could you please reevaluate Roman Eastern border situation, more specifically current Parthian mechanics.

After Macedonia collapses Persia, there is a very short period of Hellenic Middle East, with Macedonia collapsing upon war with Rome coupled with Barbarian Parthian invasion. This results in Rome not having an archenemy for some 4 centuries in the East until Sassanid spawn.

For all intents and purposes we can treat Parthians as Persian respawn, smoothly transitioning to Sassanids with leader change. Therefore I suggest to replace Barbarian Parthian units with resurrected post-Macedon Persia, which will be now called Parthia from -200 to +200. They only flip Iran and Iraq, no Syria or even Assyria. Armenia will be able to ally with strong Eastern civilization and actually get opportunity to win 1st UHV. Currently Rome gets too many troops for each city in Asia Minor/ Middle East....

I will probably tune the amount of conquest stacks the Romans get in the east as well as tweak the conquest rectangle in Anatolia, but Rome should be a big threat and is expected to be top dog from around 200 BC to 200 AD.

I will look into the Parthia issue. A respawn of Persia has issues due to the proximity to the previous collapse and the fact that Persia might not actually be fully dead (surviving in Persepolis or other cities in Iran). I might turn Parthia-Sasssanids into another civ as it was one contiguous entity with a dynasty change.

 

[Crossphazer]

Hello!

Is anybody getting Python errors when the Crusade event fires? I keep getting them, lines 2932, 2949, and (I think) 2942.

Thanks!

It was an error related to the functions that returned the help text for the 3 choices in the crusade event. Also the code that was supposed to auto-select a unit in the stack to focus the camera. It's fixed now, thanks again for the report.

Also, Roman conquest of Anatolia has 1 less army, and it constrained to the western 2/3rds (ignores Tarsus, Trebizond).

 

[IrishDragon]

"Unplayable" civs are easily just the independents, since they exactly serve that role

A contactable civ is more immersive though, and opens up more fun gameplay options. Say you play Greece, Carthage or the Celts. You could have an indy/barb city in the Balkans that you can't interact with other than kill some units or eventually invade the city. Or you could interact with Queen Tueta of the Illyrians, trade, bring her into war to open up another front against the Romans or declare against her yourself. Give her an early version of the privateer as a UU to represent piracy (or their designation as uncivilized/barbarian) and give others reasons to intervene. They probably wouldn't be much fun to play as they'd never be strong enough to stand up to the Romans or Greeks/Macedonians, but when there are free slots available and they're not taking the place of a more deserving civ, it would add something to the game.

 

[Crossphazer]

I have locally added the Minoans (also encapsulating Mycenaeans) and the Parthians (also encapsulating Sassanids). I am doing some test games, bug hunting and seeing how I need to tune the UHVs. Those new civs will be accessible for all when I am done with these playtests.

 

[Crossphazer]

Big update.

• Added Minoans (also covers for Myceneans)
  • Myrmidon UU, light swordsman that is available earlier in the tech tree. Less base attack. City raider and amphibious
  • Anaktora UB, a granary replacement. Intended to represent the palace economies of the Minoans and Myceneans.
    • +1 trade route
    • Bonus production and commerce for many of the resources common to the Crete & Greece
    • +1 unhappiness (discontent at the centralized nature of palace economies that can come at the cost of the periphery)
  • They have the Greek UP of + 150% to great people rate
  • UHVs centered around trade, naval power, exploration, and razing a city (e.g. Troy)
  • Leaders: Ariadne (female, Minoan), Agamemnon (Mycenean)
• Added Parthians
  • They take the aqueduct UB that the Persians had
  • They take the lancer UU that the Persians had
  • They take the +1 stability on conquest UP that the Persians had
  • UHVs centered around land area, having the largest city, and defeating Roman/Byzantine units
  • Leaders: Mithridates I (Parthia) and Khosrow (taken from Persia civ)
  • 220 AD conquerors event for the Levant and Mesopotamia. The max number of conqueror stacks is 3. Seemed reasonable in autoplay. I may tune it down by 1 after additional testing and feedback.
• Greeks have a new UP: free settler when you finish building a settler
  • I actually haven't tested this one out yet, but I figure the changes are stable enough to share
  • Validated to work correctly
• Greek spawn moved to to 900BC
  • It no longer has colonist events; instead it spawns with a large number of settlers in boats
  • Tech buff since the spawn is later
  • Tech UHV simplified to only Ethics at the moment, so it's a beeline target. Otherwise, there are a lot of techs that any number of civs could grab
• Persians have a new UP: other civs are more likely to capitulate
  • I'm pretty sure I need to tune the amount
• Persians retain their Immortal UU
• Persians have a new UB: Polo Field, a stable that gives happiness with horses and a bit of culture
• New wonder: Palace of Minos
  • Generates Great Engineer points
  • Some culture
  • Engineer and merchant slots (1 each)
  • 50% to unhappiness time from whipping in that city
• Yellow River China renamed Han China, Yangtze River China renamed Wu
  • This makes the names a lot shorter in many UI elements
• Judaism founding date moved forward in time
  • It was spreading to Greece way too early
• Fixed default names for 3000 BC capitals being wrong
• Roskilde should now be be Copenhagen in the name lists when Norse enters its Denmark period
  • I haven't validated whether the period change forces the rename, if not I will add that fix

 

[Tigranes]

I think I can say on behalf of the community, that we really appreciate how much work do you put into this project and early game has transformed significantly. But would you give any thought to the late game as well, please? I really love late game because in Civ this is where you get to use all the units with cool abilities -- like aviation, paratrooper, helicopter, drone and IBCM. I spilled gallons of ink with @Leoreth advocating for nuclear triad: humanity did not develop nuclear submarines to carry spies and great people in it. Also, cough cough, Australia (starting as a British/Dutch vassal), at the very least. With all the glory DoC deserves for being Global History simulator -- late game always has been the weakest link. Neglect feel present even in the end date: game ends with Mars Colony built by 2020 and we live in 2024. Elon Musk might help AMerica to celebrate science victory by 2040 I hope: good year to end the game!

 

[Tigranes]

Pashto Parni were an East Iranian people who lived around the Ochus River, southeast of the Caspian Sea. In the middle of the 3rd century BCE, the Parni have invaded Parthia, drove away the Greek satraps and founded a new empire which adopted elements of Greek culture, though it eventually saw a gradual revival of glorious Iranian traditions.

(suggested Dawn of Men text for Parthia).

May I also humbly suggest to energize the arrival of Parthians by the following steps: (1) start at war with Macedon, (2) replace 2 initial Horsemen with a little bit anachronistic UU, (3) flip Bactria and Sogdiana cities. (4) Increase starting gold to 100 (Armenia starts with 60 and Parthia was much stronger)

 

[Landyn Linhares]

Maybe a civ for the holy land would make the middle east more interesting in the later eras too, starting off as Judea, then dying for a millennium until the middle ages. If a Christian civ succeeds in the crusade for Jerusalem it can be released as a vassal Kingdom of Jerusalem. Later it can respawn in the global age as either Israel if it's Jewish or Palestine if it's Muslim

also maybe an uprising of independent cities in the southern United States in 1860?

 

[Crossphazer]

(suggested Dawn of Men text for Parthia).

May I also humbly suggest to energize the arrival of Parthians by the following steps: (1) start at war with Macedon, (2) replace 2 initial Horsemen with a little bit anachronistic UU, (3) flip Bactria and Sogdiana cities. (4) Increase starting gold to 100 (Armenia starts with 60 and Parthia was much stronger)

1. No, it is possible that in 240 Macedon is still strong and has a huge army; better for the AI if it can stay at peace and then auto-flip some of those cities when Macedon inevitably collapses / collapses to core
2. No, Parthia gets plenty of horse archers which are quite powerful units for 240 BC
3. No, Bactria and Sogdiana remained strong and independent until the Kushans spawn
4. Yeah, I will probably increase starting gold.

I think I can say on behalf of the community, that we really appreciate how much work do you put into this project and early game has transformed significantly. But would you give any thought to the late game as well, please? I really love late game because in Civ this is where you get to use all the units with cool abilities -- like aviation, paratrooper, helicopter, drone and IBCM. I spilled gallons of ink with @Leoreth advocating for nuclear triad: humanity did not develop nuclear submarines to carry spies and great people in it. Also, cough cough, Australia (starting as a British/Dutch vassal), at the very least. With all the glory DoC deserves for being Global History simulator -- late game always has been the weakest link. Neglect feel present even in the end date: game ends with Mars Colony built by 2020 and we live in 2024. Elon Musk might help AMerica to celebrate science victory by 2040 I hope: good year to end the game!

There is a lot of balancing and playtesting to be done for the earlier eras before I get to modifying the mid-20th century onwards. I have changed a lot of things and need to review most UHVs and review balance, tech progression and so on for both the new civs and the civs that are affected by having new neighbours.

Maybe a civ for the holy land would make the middle east more interesting in the later eras too, starting off as Judea, then dying for a millennium until the middle ages. If a Christian civ succeeds in the crusade for Jerusalem it can be released as a vassal Kingdom of Jerusalem. Later it can respawn in the global age as either Israel if it's Jewish or Palestine if it's Muslim

also maybe an uprising of independent cities in the southern United States in 1860?

Unless a civil war lasts several decades or more (like the Three Kingdoms period), it's not practical to model civil wars in RFC. There are thousands of civil wars in history but they are on too much of a fine-grain level of model in the timescale of civ 4.

The Middle East is already pretty crowded and I've added quite a lot of civs recently, so for the moment I want to review the content that I have rather than constantly adding more.

I might review the need for 1 or 2 African civs, since the continent is very empty at the moment, but that's the extent of planned new civs at the moment.

 

[Landyn Linhares]

Unless a civil war lasts several decades or more (like the Three Kingdoms period), it's not practical to model civil wars in RFC. There are thousands of civil wars in history but they are on too much of a fine-grain level of model in the timescale of civ 4.

The Middle East is already pretty crowded and I've added quite a lot of civs recently, so for the moment I want to review the content that I have rather than constantly adding more.

Good and fair points

 

[Tigranes]

Well, ok , I can attest that Parthia does get big eventually with aforementioned flips but it triggers the name change to Sassanids way too soon (sometimes in BC). Can we please ensure it stays as Parthia at least until 200 AD? And once the name changes -- the capital can relocate to Mesopotamia.

 

[FishFishFish]

I might review the need for 1 or 2 African civs, since the continent is very empty at the moment, but that's the extent of planned new civs at the moment.

What African Civs do you have in mind? Kanem–Bornu would fit nicely into the map and lasted for quite a long time.

I think a potential Nigerian civ runs into the problem of the region being divided amongst many different kingdoms for most of its history until the Sokoto Caliphate (which is pretty late into the game).

I could see a Zimbabwe Civ representing Great ZImbabwe, Mutapa and the Rozvi Empire. I could also maybe see a Madagascar/Merina Civ too.

 

[Tigranes]

May I ask, why would Parthia flip Trapezous on Macedonia collapse? It looks isolated, with Armenia present and not particularly historical. If Greece is still alive it could pass to her to mimic Mithridatic Empire holding. Or go Indy.

 

[Crossphazer]

Well, ok , I can attest that Parthia does get big eventually with aforementioned flips but it triggers the name change to Sassanids way too soon (sometimes in BC). Can we please ensure it stays as Parthia at least until 200 AD? And once the name changes -- the capital can relocate to Mesopotamia.

It not should be that early; that is a bug. There was a typo in a condition that checks for the name change. It will be fixed with the next patch. I will add a capital change for Babylon area in the future as well.

May I ask, why would Parthia flip Trapezoid on Macedonia collapse? It looks isolated, with Armenia present and not particularly historical. If Greece is still alive it could pass to her to mimic Mithridatic Empire holding. Or go Indy.

That isn't hardcoded. Secession code is complex and flips a city to another civ based on a number of factors. Trapezous is not in the Core or Historical area of the Parthians, and so it probably flipped for other reasons like proximity. I'm not super bothered by this because Byzantium would flip it back anyway if Parthia doesn't lose it to Rome or Armenia. Think of it as the anti-Roman Pontic dynasty.

What African Civs do you have in mind? Kanem–Bornu would fit nicely into the map and lasted for quite a long time.

I think a potential Nigerian civ runs into the problem of the region being divided amongst many different kingdoms for most of its history until the Sokoto Caliphate (which is pretty late into the game).

I could see a Zimbabwe Civ representing Great ZImbabwe, Mutapa and the Rozvi Empire. I could also maybe see a Madagascar/Merina Civ too.

Yes, the Nigerian region. Probably a catch-all civ that represents several different states, as is the case with other civs that encompass several periods of the same region. The Zimbabwe region is the second pick; it should be easy since Zulu is already a Civ4 civ, so it doesn't require many custom assets or XMLs.

 

[Triquetra]

It not should be that early; that is a bug. There was a typo in a condition that checks for the name change. It will be fixed with the next patch. I will add a capital change for Babylon area in the future as well.



That isn't hardcoded. Secession code is complex and flips a city to another civ based on a number of factors. Trapezous is not in the Core or Historical area of the Parthians, and so it probably flipped for other reasons like proximity. I'm not super bothered by this because Byzantium would flip it back anyway if Parthia doesn't lose it to Rome or Armenia. Think of it as the anti-Roman Pontic dynasty.


Yes, the Nigerian region. Probably a catch-all civ that represents several different states, as is the case with other civs that encompass several periods of the same region. The Zimbabwe region is the second pick; it should be easy since Zulu is already a Civ4 civ, so it doesn't require many custom assets or XMLs.

Do you think that you could include the Parthians/Sassanids in the 600 AD scenario? In real life they collapsed in 651 AD.

 

[Crossphazer]

Do you think that you could include the Parthians/Sassanids in the 600 AD scenario? In real life they collapsed in 651 AD.

I understand the reasoning behind them not existing in the first place, since a few turns into the game they will be essentially wiped out by the Arabs, but it's something for me to consider when I next make adjustments to the 600 AD scenario.