[submod] RFC Dawn of Civilization: Aeons - Version 1.3! (34 new Civs! New wonders, buildings, units, and an overhaul of various mechanics!)

Here is a screenshot
 

Attachments

  • 1753913578362.png
    1753913578362.png
    38.6 KB · Views: 18
Apple111111 said:
If a German city got captured at even one point, that’s enough for the HRE to spawn. (For example, if they took a city from you and you revonquered it)

If not, I’ll need to have a look, because I don’t believe that should be happening.
Click to expand...
is a true, l reconquer city, thank you!
 
Apple111111 said:
What’s the name of the folder immediately inside RFC Aeons?
Click to expand...
My bad I messed up the extraction, I apologize bothering you for such a small thing. I played with Rome with Heir/Normal and I got the historical victory and prevented byzantium spawn. Here's my feedback on the submod modifications:

UHV3: Very interesting one, I like it because it pushes the player towards preventing Byzantium to spawn. Just an FYI, Rome was controlling just the Italian peninsula by 476. The empire stayed a whole before 410 AD, then hell broke loose.

Vandals and Goths: they migrated from somewhere in ancient germany to within the Roman border, thus giving them fixed home in ancient germany feels historically inaccurate. Especially for the Gothes who were somewhere in Ukraine by the 3rd century AD. I would suggest giving them a start within the roman border, either with or without some cities. Obviously the current solution you designed works well with the 3rd UHV since it is easier to keep the score up for the player without giving up cities by default .

Huns: they were hard to take down, but really rewarding. Same things apply here, they migrated and at some point they ended up in the bosphorus but I would argue it wasn't their fixed headquarter.

Germanic people and Germanic civilizations in general: The urban development in ancient germany was rather poor, hard to tell they had settlements that can be called a city. In general I think Huns and Germans could be just represented as barbarians, with Vandals and Goths getting their civilizations, just my 2 cents.

Overall game: I liked repelling the Huns, Goths and Vandals it was really fun. Moreover not having to search techs any longer as a UHV opened up a new facet of the game: I can postpone searching ethics, thus the foundations of Orthodoxy. I was able to build all the classical wonders and I adopted christianity after the date of Byzantium spawn to avoid any of the manuses related to 'religious disunity'. Then I spread orthodoxy like wildfire and catholicism didn't spawn.
 
manio curio said:
My bad I messed up the extraction, I apologize bothering you for such a small thing. I played with Rome with Heir/Normal and I got the historical victory and prevented byzantium spawn. Here's my feedback on the submod modifications:

UHV3: Very interesting one, I like it because it pushes the player towards preventing Byzantium to spawn. Just an FYI, Rome was controlling just the Italian peninsula by 476. The empire stayed a whole before 410 AD, then hell broke loose.

Vandals and Goths: they migrated from somewhere in ancient germany to within the Roman border, thus giving them fixed home in ancient germany feels historically inaccurate. Especially for the Gothes who were somewhere in Ukraine by the 3rd century AD. I would suggest giving them a start within the roman border, either with or without some cities. Obviously the current solution you designed works well with the 3rd UHV since it is easier to keep the score up for the player without giving up cities by default .

Huns: they were hard to take down, but really rewarding. Same things apply here, they migrated and at some point they ended up in the bosphorus but I would argue it wasn't their fixed headquarter.

Germanic people and Germanic civilizations in general: The urban development in ancient germany was rather poor, hard to tell they had settlements that can be called a city. In general I think Huns and Germans could be just represented as barbarians, with Vandals and Goths getting their civilizations, just my 2 cents.

Overall game: I liked repelling the Huns, Goths and Vandals it was really fun. Moreover not having to search techs any longer as a UHV opened up a new facet of the game: I can postpone searching ethics, thus the foundations of Orthodoxy. I was able to build all the classical wonders and I adopted christianity after the date of Byzantium spawn to avoid any of the manuses related to 'religious disunity'. Then I spread orthodoxy like wildfire and catholicism didn't spawn.
Click to expand...

Not quite, the Romans not only fought with the Germans, they also traded, sometimes were allies. Sometimes Rome even sought to maintain friendly relations with the Germans and for this purpose even made barbicariums, goods for the barbarians. The presentation of the Germans at that time exclusively as aggressive barbarians would be incorrect. The best option would be a better disclosure of the decentralization factor of the Germanic tribes, the banal ban on the production of workers before studying the law is more of a crutch than a final solution. Perhaps, it is possible to depict the decentralization of the Germanic tribes in the form of episodic appearance of barbarian detachments on the border between Gaul and Germany. This will solve 2 problems at once. Firstly, the capture of Germany by Rome will lose its meaning, since the appearance of barbarians on the border will not stop, secondly, it will allow trading with the German Confederation of Tribes. This would be the most historical in my opinion.
I also have suggestions on improving the mechanics of chiefdoms and nomadic peoples. At the moment, they are simply prohibited from making workers until the law is discovered. But this violates historicity, since chiefdoms knew how to process metals, they knew how to graze herds, and therefore build pastures. The Celts, as an example, were actively engaged in agriculture. What if replace the ban on the production of workers with a limit on the size of cities to level 3 or 4? In this way, the Germans and Celts will not have large cities, which historically should not have been, and the balance of power will be preserved, as a bonus, this will allow us to better reveal chiefdoms, the key problem of which was not the inability to build mines or farms, but the impossibility of creating large cities.
 
Last edited:
vovadk said:

Not quite, the Romans not only fought with the Germans, they also traded, sometimes were allies. Sometimes Rome even sought to maintain friendly relations with the Germans and for this purpose even made barbicariums, goods for the barbarians. The presentation of the Germans at that time exclusively as aggressive barbarians would be incorrect. The best option would be a better disclosure of the decentralization factor of the Germanic tribes, the banal ban on the production of workers before studying the law is more of a crutch than a final solution. Perhaps, it is possible to depict the decentralization of the Germanic tribes in the form of episodic appearance of barbarian detachments on the border between Gaul and Germany. This will solve 2 problems at once. Firstly, the capture of Germany by Rome will lose its meaning, since the appearance of barbarians on the border will not stop, secondly, it will allow trading with the German Confederation of Tribes. This would be the most historical in my opinion.
I also have suggestions on improving the mechanics of chiefdoms and nomadic peoples. At the moment, they are simply prohibited from making workers until the law is discovered. But this violates historicity, since chiefdoms knew how to process metals, they knew how to graze herds, and therefore build pastures. The Celts, as an example, were actively engaged in agriculture. What if replace the ban on the production of workers with a limit on the size of cities to level 3 or 4? In this way, the Germans and Celts will not have large cities, which historically should not have been, and the balance of power will be preserved, as a bonus, this will allow us to better reveal chiefdoms, the key problem of which was not the inability to build mines or farms, but the impossibility of creating large cities.
Click to expand...
You are absolutely right, the Romans traded with the Germanic people, but also with celtiberians, berbers, Sarmatians and Picts. I would argue none of them reached a complex enough urban development.

You made a very good point, the Germanic people also lacked a centralized form of government which I think supports the idea of not representing them as civilization and only account for their fighting with the Romans.
 
Ideas as for Countries to add:

Hungary
Bulgaria
Wallachia(Romania)
Assyrians
Scotland
Italy should be Papal States, Venice, Naples/Sicily, and Genoa depending on the city
Bohemia(Czech in later game, and predisposed to being a vassal of Austria until 1212)
Should there be multiple Spanish kingdoms predisposed to integrate?
Maybe Serbia?
 
trosati said:
Ideas as for Countries to add:

Hungary
Bulgaria
Wallachia(Romania)
Assyrians
Scotland
Italy should be Papal States, Venice, Naples/Sicily, and Genoa depending on the city
Bohemia(Czech in later game, and predisposed to being a vassal of Austria until 1212)
Should there be multiple Spanish kingdoms predisposed to integrate?
Maybe Serbia?
Click to expand...
Maybe just play Cross modmod?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
[submod] RFC Dawn of Civilization - Aeons - Version 1.1
2
Replies
26
Views
6K
IrishDragon
I
CrossRFC
[submod] Cross' Overhaul: New Civs, Shia Religion, More Wonders, Civics Rework, Crusades and Much More!
58 59 60
Replies
1K
Views
148K
Triquetra
T
Nikas Kunitz
Russia and Rus civilizations thread: suggestions and discussion.
Replies
7
Views
2K
Apple111111
A
Leoreth
DoC 1.18 Civilizations
2 3 4
Replies
69
Views
21K
banzay13
banzay13
LikeNothing
Absolute vs Relative Spawns - A Step Towards Balance and Realism
Replies
10
Views
3K
SultanRedSnake
SultanRedSnake
Back
Top Bottom