Unlike in BtS and RFC, the corporations in DoC aren't meant to represent one mega corporation that has spread around the world, but instead represent a number of possibly national corporations for each of the civilizations where they're present. Hence the more generic names.
Suggestions and requests
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
Sovietof17
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Messages
- 295
can something be done with Korea? You spend the entire game in decline, no matter what your civics, and both China and Mongolia have an economy and an army about 5 times more powerful then anything you can support. by the time you get privateers, you're dieing to 30 stacks of mongolians.
mrrandomplayer
Hopeless Situation Warrior
I have found Korea to be very easy on Monarch. Compared to very behind civilizations like the Tamils or the Khmer, Korea is easy.
Some advice:
Found Seoul on the spot and Cheonjin, then take Shenyang from the barbs. I don't remember if Korea starts with Code of !aws or not, but if they do, your build order in each city should be: Workboats (if needed) Courthouse, Library, Harbor, Forge. As soon as your courthouses are built, turn a citizen into a spy and put all of your EP into China. As soon as you get your first Great Spy, you will be able to start stealing techs from China. Send your Horse Archer west to explore the Ancient World and tech trade with them like crazy; they will all die by 700 AD. If the Colossus and/or Great Library haven't been built yet (they sometimes never get built, allowing you to snatch them up later, as well as the Colosseum), switch to Pantheon and crank them out after your Courthouses are done. The tech path varies depending on what you steal from China and what you trade, but you should generally beeline for Civil Service, as it gives you Heavy Swordsmen and Absolutism. When the Mongols attack, just spam Pikemen and collapse China; the AI hates Indies with a passion. That's all the advice I can give for now!
Some advice:
Found Seoul on the spot and Cheonjin, then take Shenyang from the barbs. I don't remember if Korea starts with Code of !aws or not, but if they do, your build order in each city should be: Workboats (if needed) Courthouse, Library, Harbor, Forge. As soon as your courthouses are built, turn a citizen into a spy and put all of your EP into China. As soon as you get your first Great Spy, you will be able to start stealing techs from China. Send your Horse Archer west to explore the Ancient World and tech trade with them like crazy; they will all die by 700 AD. If the Colossus and/or Great Library haven't been built yet (they sometimes never get built, allowing you to snatch them up later, as well as the Colosseum), switch to Pantheon and crank them out after your Courthouses are done. The tech path varies depending on what you steal from China and what you trade, but you should generally beeline for Civil Service, as it gives you Heavy Swordsmen and Absolutism. When the Mongols attack, just spam Pikemen and collapse China; the AI hates Indies with a passion. That's all the advice I can give for now!
adhiraj.bose
Deity
What about in 600 AD game ? How should we do it there ? in two of my games China beat me to printing press. I got the big temples up in time, but not the tech goal.
Generally speaking you have to destroy mukden/shenyang, make sure that chinese will weaken Mongols and that China will collapse after Mongol invasion. Destroying Sheynag will postpone the mongol wars. Weakening Mongols and Chinese will protect you against them and collapsing China will let you to tech first the Printing Press. You must be the guy to capture most productive chinese cities in the China-Mongol wars, don't let Mongols to take them, else defence against them will be difficult.
It is true that it is a unique difficult military balancing game.
If you are bored to maintain this balance, conquer China early and attack the Mongols with a large stack of spearmen/catapults.
The Diocletian
Fire Fly
Can Damascus get moved 1 west so it's on the Mediterranean Sea? Jerusalem is about the same distance, so why is Damascus 1 east? It's just an annoying city. I'd say move Jerusalem 1 east, but it doesn't need to be weakened any more.
It isn't the same distance. Damascus' distance from the sea is double the distance of Jerusalem.
The Diocletian
Fire Fly
Damascus is 50 miles inland (80 km), while Jerusalem is 34 miles (55 km). That is a total of 16 miles, certainly not enough to warrant a whole tile distance from the sea.
The scale of the region may be about 75km per tile.
The Diocletian
Fire Fly
Since the scale is constantly shifting to suit the needs of gameplay, it's hard to say, but that scale still puts Damascus on the sea, which IMO improves the city greatly.
Of course it improves the city greatly, but the city is placed according to history. That's why babylon isn't placed in Akkad, that's why Lyon isn't placed in Marseilles, that's why Milan isn't placed in Venice in 1700AD and 3000BC scenario, that's why Changan isn't connected to river and so on.
Moreover placing Damasqus in the coast will flip it to Turkey in the Turkish flip which is unintended. It will be better to stay Arab in an arab game. Moreover, Levant needs only one harbor for better and more competitive gameplay. Finally, aesthetically I prefer Damasqus than Tyrus.
The Diocletian
Fire Fly
But, as you (albeit indirectly, if I am putting words in your nmouth, correct me) said, Damascus is well within the confines of the sea tile. Not only does it make the city better, it's also accurate. If the problem is Turkey flipping it, adjust the flip zone appropriately. Jerusalem overall is poor city, only worth keeping for the wonder built there. Arabia could use a decent port, which is what my Damascus would provide.
strijder20
Wallowing in irony
The main problem here is that Jerusalem (an inland city) gets special treatment while Dimashq doesn't.
The Diocletian
Fire Fly
Exactly my problem. Again, I would say just move Jerusalem 1 off the coast, but that would make the spot even more laughable then it already is. IMO Damascus on the coast doesn't make it too powerful, and makes it consistant with Jerusalem.
I'll correct you
. I meant that a coastal Damasqus is unhistorical. Jerusalem's distance 35km is really a minimal number speaking about the maps scale.Note that every polity that controlled Jerusalem had access to see (Kingdom of Israel, Kingdom of Jerusalem (the crusader state), Republic of Israel). On the contrary controlling Damasqus means exactly the opposite. You don't have access to sea, because Libanon separates you form the sea.
So the different approach (coasted Jerusalem, non-coasted Damasqus) actually plays a historical role in the game and in the gameplay.
This tile 1W of Damasqus represents Lebanon, a polity that played significant role in history, it is represented in the game as a distinct civ and separates Syria form Mediterranian Sea. You can't vanish Lebanon.
In final analysis, I don't see any reason to coast Damasqus. It is unhistorical and distorts the gameplay. Build a fort, or conquer Jerusalem (its just two tiles away).
The Diocletian
Fire Fly
I'll correct you
Note that every polity that controlled Jerusalem had access to see (Kingdom of Israel, Kingdom of Jerusalem (the crusader state), Republic of Israel). On the contrary controlling Damasqus means exactly the opposite. You don't have access to sea, because Libanon separates you form the sea.
So the different approach (coasted Jerusalem, non-coasted Damasqus) actually plays a historical role in the game and in the gameplay.
This tile 1W of Damasqus represents Lebanon, a polity that played significant role in history, it is represented in the game as a distinct civ and separates Syria form Mediterranian Sea. You can't vanish Lebanon.
In final analysis, I don't see any reason to coast Damasqus. It is unhistorical and distorts the gameplay. Build a fort, or conquer Jerusalem (its just two tiles away).
A coastal Damascus is just as unhistorical as a coastal Jerusalem; controlling the coast IMO does not warrant Jerusalem being on the coast.
By Lebanon I assume you mean Phonecia, who usually collapses well before they can represent Lebanon; indeed they usually lose Sur anyways. After antiquity you cannot deny that Lebanon had very little impact on the course of history, and therefore I believe that Syria/Damascus can represent the Levantine countries adaquately.
The fort does not fix the fact that Damascus cannot build water dependant buildings like a harbor or a lighthouse. As I said, Jerusalem is a poor port, being that it has little production or commerce in the area.
Cities that represent areas that have access to sea must be coastal cities. For example, Sparta, Rome, Sevilla and London have no access to coast in fact, does that mean that they shouldn't be coastal cities in DoC?
The scaling of DoC is too small. Tiles represent whole areas, if an area has access to coast, then its greatest city must have access to coast.
Lakonia, Lacio, Andalusia and Greater London have access to sea and they are traditional maritime regions. That's why they are represented by coastal cities.
On the contrary Syria isn't a maritime area, it never served as a maritime power, so giving them coastal access its unhistorical and distorts normal gameplay.
Lebanon had no impact in middle and later ages, that's why there is Damasqus and not Tyre in the area.
Thank you for saving me the effort of writing this.
The Diocletian
Fire Fly
Why can't I ever be right? 
Alright, you got me. I concede.
Alright, you got me. I concede.
Similar threads
