Suggestions and requests

[civ_king]

I think a Fur Industry/Company would be cool especially if we have maritime fur


PS Since Europe starts as Catholic I think it would be reasonable if they also got a Catholic Missionary

 

[AOS9001]

PS Since Europe starts as Catholic I think it would be reasonable if they also got a Catholic Missionary

Seconded. Except for Vikings and Russia, which had to be converted later in Europe's history.

 

[BenZL43]

About the Phoenician/Carthage

Why don't you make when 840BC fired:
1) Carthage is built, become Phoenician capital
2) Sur flipped to Independent but with NO Stabilize penalty at all..

Therefore, IMO, they could starts as Phoenicia, but ended up as the Vanilla RFC Carthage~

 

[AdrienIer]

Everywhere? Pretty powerful if you ask me. Also, the Turks basically have this already.

That's why I made a second proposition where it would only be for the capital, but then it's a little weak so maybe a little bonus (like the merchants I suggested). It's quite different from the Turks in the way that the Turks have it for all cities and they can culture-push beyond their BFC. There, it would not alter culture, only who controls the tile in the BFC. It's like the old vassal-master mechanics.

 

[Leoreth]

I think the current Dutch UP (increased Trading Company spread and yield) is already pretty useful and historical, and usually Amsterdam can stand on its own feet, culturally.

 

[xcrissxcrossx]

I think the Turkish UP might be a little overpowered. The campaign is a lot easier than it should be when taking a single city automatically gives you about 15 tiles.

Also I have noticed Buddhism often expands into Europe and often I see a Buddhist Spain or Rome. They always convert as soon as they get a single Christian city, but I feel like maybe Buddhism shouldn't expand into Europe.

 

[great.taurus]

Sorry about the length of the incoming post.

While DoC does hugely improve the quality of gameplay in Classical Era Mediterranean over regular RFC, the quality of improvements in other era's and areas have left the gameplay in this time period feeling, in my opinion, the weakest in the game. This is a shame, as re-enacting the rise and fall of civilizations like Rome and Carthage should be one of the best challenges available to us.

The problems, as I see them:

• I have NEVER seen AI Rome come close to re-creating the eize of their empire. Ever.
• Phoenecia (Carthage), is always too weak, and all too often dies to Barbarians.
• Neither Rome nor Carthage seem to have any intention of actually invading one another. This problem has been somewhat alleviated by the Mandate Armies UP, but not to the extent that it is reliable. (Additionally, conquests from Mandate Armies tend to be wildly anachronistic, for those who care about such things).

Here are the solutions I would propose:

Map Changes

• Change the water tile between Spain and North Africa into a “Rock of Gibraltar” tile, accessible by both land and water.
  • This more easily allows for Carthaginian settlement of Spain, Punic Wars between Carthage and Rome, as well as Arabic Invasions of Spain.

Carthage:

• Revert Starting Location to Qart-Hadasht
• New Unique Power: Power of Mercenaries
  • Barbarian units which finish their turn in Carthaginian borders change ownership to Carthage.
  • This stops Carthage being destroyed by Barbarians in every game (without nerfing the Barbarian spawns themselves), as well as giving them an eclectic selection of units, including plenty of Elephants and Triremes - They may even have enough to try crossing the Alps .
  • It would also have the benefit of giving Carthage the chops to stand up to a massively powerful Rome (see below), unlike every other civ of the time.

Rome:

• New Unique Power: Power of Triumvirate
  • Rome controls a number of minor civ “Romes” (What is the plural for Rome, anyway?), which spawn at semi-random dates.
  • Each minor civ represents the army of well known Roman Generals and their wars of conquest.
  • The minor civs control no cities of their own, and when they conquer a city, they immediately liberate it to the Roman player.
  • On spawn, the minor civ will control a great general, as well as a number of troops - legions, horse archers, catapults, axemen & spearmen.
  • The minor civs are:
    • Scipio Africanus spawns in Hispania in ~200 BC, with war maps attacking Carthage.
    • Lucius Achaicus spawns in Greece in ~150 BC, with war maps attacking Greece.
    • Pompey spawns in Syria in ~60 BC, with war maps attacking the levant.
    • Augustus spawns in Egypt in ~30 BC, with war maps attacking Egypt.
    • Each minor civ will de-spawn when the Great General dies, at which time all of their units will revert to Roman control.
  • Optional:
    • Over the course of the game, the minor civ will steal units from the Roman player, so they can continue conquest. This will not occur if the Minor Civ is at war with Rome.
      • The “stolen” unit will appear on the same tile as the Great General next turn.
      • Having it's units stolen will stop Rome being too powerful in its core territories, and give Roman players reasons to go to war with their vassals - to stem the loss of units.
      • This would bring some element of skill into the conquests. How long do you allow each general to bleed you of troops? Too long and you will not have any troops in position to defend against the incoming barbarians, too short and you will not be able to conquer your required territories. When a general has outlived his usefulness, you can kill him off, and feel like a magnificent bastard.
      • I suspect this would work best if each minor civ is permanently at war with all factions, except for Rome, each other, and Byzantium, with whom they have full diplomatic options.
  • This Unique power would make Rome strong enough to conquer its neighbours in a reasonably historical manner. Rome would be the superpower of it's day - as it always should have been.

 

[Leoreth]

Thanks for the feedback, I agree with what you say about Carthage.

What's the point in making extra civs for the Roman generals, though, compared to simply giving them to Rome directly?

 

[J. pride]

What's the point in making extra civs for the Roman generals, though, compared to simply giving them to Rome directly?

I like the idea too but I think giving the general and the armies to Rome would suffice; although you would have to give the units the attack city command.

Now as far as the rest of the conquest goes, I think it would help if you added a bit more independent cities:

Epidamnos (Dyracchium): To represent the ancient Illyrian Kingdom

The cities below can be represented by the Greeks and the Phoenicians but I reccomend you spawn them anyways if they are already not founded because really they are independent city states with minimum Greek/Pheonician control.

-2 Cities in Anatolia (could be Trapezues, Sivas, Ikonium or something else)
-A city in Hispania (Gadir (modern day Cadiz) or Nova Carthago)
-A city in Libya (Barca)
-A city in Central Eastern Europe- Aquincum or Vindobona which is modern day Budapest or Vienna; these cities should be Celtic cities

 

[great.taurus]

Thanks for the feedback, I agree with what you say about Carthage.

What's the point in making extra civs for the Roman generals, though, compared to simply giving them to Rome directly?

1. It's not an economic drain on Rome.
2. It allows for Roman civil wars.
3. It means you can tailor war maps to individual generals (Maybe? Im not too sure about how that works).
4. Having the fate of Rome torn between the machinations of multiple factions is historical.
5. AI Rome won't be appear timid about trying to defend all of its holdings if its relying on vassals to conquer - the vassals themselves have no such qualms about defence, as they having nothing to hold on to.
6. Most importantly, its about how it feels to the player. By giving the player a huge army for no reason, it wouldn't feel... organic? They will wonder what they did to make all these units appear out of nowhere. It will feel like the game is helping too much, rather than allowing them to play their own game. On the other hand, the Minor civs are another event to be managed. Rather than a big fat bonus for no apparent reason - there will come a time when they stop being helpful and become a hindrance.

EDIT: Also, being arbitrarily given units just doesn't feel like a power in line with the others.

 

[Leoreth]

(5) is a particularly good reason, didn't think about that. Unfortunately, though, war maps don't control where a civ goes to conquer, only on which civs it likes to declare war (and I suppose these events will already include a declaration of war).

 

[great.taurus]

(5) is a particularly good reason, didn't think about that. Unfortunately, though, war maps don't control where a civ goes to conquer, only on which civs it likes to declare war (and I suppose these events will already include a declaration of war).

Ah, ok. Well, the rest are still applicable. Obviously any decisions regarding implementation rest on your shoulders, but I stand by my recommendations.

 

[IrishDragon]

Would the AI Rome know how to stop bleeding its troops to a vassal army? Also, would Roman civil wars not distract them from building an empire?
I think it would be better to increase the Mandate armies to all Med civs instead of just the first one, or every time a great general is born, spawn him with an army and maybe a fleet, and if possible direct them towards historical areas that need to be conquered

 

[great.taurus]

Would the AI Rome know how to stop bleeding its troops to a vassal army?

I imagine not. This would mean AI Rome expands quickly, and collapses quickly when attacked by barbarians.

Also, would Roman civil wars not distract them from building an empire?

I don't see any reason the AI Rome would attack it's own Generals. Preferably, they will expand until they bleed, then bleed until they collapse.

 

[Leoreth]

Yeah, I'd definitely take this into consideration, but it's something that won't feature in the current version because it sounds more like a Europe-related feature to me

 

[great.taurus]

Yeah, I'd definitely take this into consideration, but it's something that won't feature in the current version because it sounds more like a Europe-related feature to me

Good to hear

 

[JiimBV]

Thank you Great Taurus, for finding a way to think out and solve the only real problems I have with DoC. Here's hoping your ideas are as good in practice as in theory!

 

[great.taurus]

Thank you Great Taurus, for finding a way to think out and solve the only real problems I have with DoC. Here's hoping your ideas are as good in practice as in theory!

Here's hoping!

As near as I can see, the most consistent remaining problem with RFC is that Greece never conquers, well, anything. Hopefully someone will come up with a clever solution for that, as well.

 

[AOS9001]

Wow, those ideas might actually make the classical era enjoyable. A Carthage that isn't about hanging on for dear life against hordes of impis, elephants, and camel archers? A Rome that isn't a race against time to complete the empire? I like where this is going.

 

[BenZL43]

Okay, sorry for changing the topics a bit..

Leoreth,
could something be added to your CNM to make it use only 1 tCityName Map that gradually changed by era?

Reason : I often seen Mediolanum etc in Industrial Era (There's no Italy so Milan still sit there)
IMO, rather than adding each city name to change with onTechAcquired.. There could be a more effective method

PS : I like the Carthage and Rome idea!