Suggestions and requests

[Leoreth]

Hello Leoreth,
First of all, thanks for your great mod, and congrats for your own forum!
Here is my suggestions: change the Spanish UP to the conquerors event. I know it's a big change, but I think it's more realistic to allow Spain to conquer the native american civs. Spain achieved this because of the Reconquista: they had lots of troops armed and ready for battle and their land is very poor.

That makes sense, but in my opinion it takes away all the fun and challenge out of the conquerors when you're guaranteed to get them as Spain.

Hi Leoreth,

I love this mod and I am completely stoked to see a new complete version that includes all of these new drastic changes! That being said...

I'd like to second the idea of an independent catholic Dublin... this would certainly be historically accurate. It would also provide England with a chance to get religion a bit earlier as they still start with no Catholic missionaries and sometimes end up Islamic as a result (Islamic Portugal I can handle, but England?)

True.

Is it too soon to suggest a strategy thread? I know there have been a lot of changes lately, and will be more to come, but I still have a lot of trouble pulling off Greece's UHV. If anyone has any suggestions, please let me know.

I'm thinking about opening one already. The problem is just that I'd like to have it for a certain version and seeing how most people play the SVN already ...

Speaking of Greece, In my last Roman game, it seems they had founded Confucianism!

Yeah, that's a bug. I have an idea what caused this, but didn't have the time to test it yet.

add canada to challenge usa

Easier said than done At some point in the future.

I think Brazil would be cool to have as a playable civ

I agree.

how about resetting relationships parameters when leaders change?

Might be worth a test, but maybe it's too exploitable ...

 

[J. pride]

That makes sense, but in my opinion it takes away all the fun and challenge out of the conquerors when you're guaranteed to get them as Spain.

I don't think humans have any problem with it anyways; what im trying to say is that its not that much of a challenge to begin with. Now as far as the AI is concerned, this would be rather helpful and fair since other civs get conquerors event in Asia.

Might be worth a test, but maybe it's too exploitable ...

I don't like the sound of that but maybe he's going somewhere with this

 

[Gruekiller]

I suggested Brazil could be a Portugal respawn a while back, much like Rome and Italy, and Persia and Safavid Persia. Portugal isn't that important in the modern world, while Spain is, to a degree. Brazil, though, is a rising power in the 21st century, it'd be nice to portray that.

Or alternatively, script a name change and capital movement to Rio some time in the early 20th Century.

 

[Qalled]

Hi, I made a suggestion on alterations for Australia and made a SS with some minor adjustments just to make the continent a little more competitive when the other eastern parts are getting buffed. Added a river here and there and made it possible to have more or bigger cities. Made some research on where to add things like the wheat and the copper in Queensland and so on. Hope it will get good support

 

[civ_king]

I'd like to point out that Australia gets two sheep in 1850

It would be nice if civs like India didn't pack cities very tightly (does India really need nine cities in India proper?)

 

[Qalled]

I'd like to point out that Australia gets two sheep in 1850)

yeah, it is a sign between the sign for the wheat and the removed peak, but what do you think about the buffs ? Any remarks ?

 

[Leoreth]

Hi, I made a suggestion on alterations for Australia and made a SS with some minor adjustments just to make the continent a little more competitive when the other eastern parts are getting buffed. Added a river here and there and made it possible to have more or bigger cities. Made some research on where to add things like the wheat and the copper in Queensland and so on. Hope it will get good support

Thanks, looks reasonable (except that I don't like the one tile rivers). I don't think I'll get there soon so be patient.

It would be nice if civs like India didn't pack cities very tightly (does India really need nine cities in India proper?)

I decreased the city distance so they found a city between Varanasi and Lahore (preferably Delhi), but all that happens is this multiple city weirdness in Southern India. I'd also like to have India settle the subcontinent slower.

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

Similarly to India, China also has incorrect city names for odd places.

Here are some names for North American cities with sizable/influential populations of Chinese descent.
(I'm not asking for a settler/stability map change, just name changes so Tianjin doesn't get popped where San Francisco/Los Angeles is)

Vancouver: Wen Gehua (溫哥&#33775
San Francisco: Jiu Jinshan (舊金&#23665
Los Angeles: Luo Shanji (洛杉&#30959

 

[BenZL43]

But Portugal rarely died before 1822..
You need to have a civs died before you can respawn them

 

[civ_king]

How about Marshes not counting towards stability-land penalties?

Dawn, how about Seattle, between those four I think that covers the West Coast.

I think it might be good to put floodplains on the Rio de la Plata and Orinoco deltas, also a few flood plains in California would be good. Speaking of food, I noticed in the resources py that you can add food to a tile, this would be good to do to the Ganges–Brahmaputra Delta considering it's home to 200 million people

 

[JiimBV]

I would like the return of Carthage. Phoenicia is too insignificant and too boring, both when played and when opposed. Most of my games has Phoenicia proper being conquered by Persia or Babylon and Carthage proper ravaged by barbarians without a single mark being made on the world. They're unable to challenge Rome in the western Med and unable to challenge the Zoroastrians in the Middle East. They never found religions, build wonders or play any considerable role in wars. Carthage, at least, could build a wonder or two from time to time and face off against Rome with some vigour. And when played, Carthage was one of my favourite civs, with a huge amount of options and challenges. Phoenicia is, in all honesty, my least favourite civ now.

To be fair to you Leoreth, Phoenicia is the only change/addition in DoC that I don't like... the rest I love and thank you for.

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

How about Marshes not counting towards stability-land penalties?

Agreed. The Marshes in SE Asia especially are problematic for the Khmer.

Dawn, how about Seattle, between those four I think that covers the West Coast.

Seattle: Xi Yatu (西雅&#22294

I can help out with a few other names as well; not just city names but ideas for vassal states' names as well.

EDIT: About flood plains in California. California historically wasn't very fertile. It was only after mass irrigation/dam and water diversion projects began in the early 1920's that California steadily became the top food producer here in the US. This isn't for or against flood plains. Just stating the fact for consideration. Also, now that I realize it, and have looked over North America, it needs A LOT more rivers.

http://www.desertusa.com/Cities/ca/imperial-valley-irrigation.html

 

[Linkman226]

With respect to Chinese names for North America, I think they should only be those names if the Chinese conquer those cities, not if they settle them first. In the latter case they should just come from the regular settler list.

JiimBV- Get a settler out to Carthage and settle it, as happened in real life.

 

[BenZL43]

Oh, and btw.. Lahore should be named Lavapuri and changed to Lahore when Islam came or Mughal flip

 

[JiimBV]

JiimBV- Get a settler out to Carthage and settle it, as happened in real life.

Though I can obviously move to Carthage, which I do without fail when I play as Phoenicia, the play-through is completely different. Different isn't always bad, I admit, and while this difference is less fun for me, perhaps for others it's fine. However, the difference hurts the AI adversely.

The AI handles your mentioned move to Carthage terribly, failing to do anything at all with either Sur or Carthage. Most games I see Phoenicia settling Sur and Carthage, and about half the time it settles an extra African town. Never settling Iberia, never fighting Rome, never doing anything with Sur or Carthage other than being attacked. The ancient Mediterranean just seems less lively than it used to.

 

[Linkman226]

1) The Phoenicians don't settle Carthage purposefully, they get a free settler there as the AI.

2} Did Carthage EVER settle Spain, etc., even in regular RFC?

 

[JiimBV]

1) The Phoenicians don't settle Carthage purposefully, they get a free settler there as the AI.

This isn't the point. The point is they never do anything with it.

2} Did Carthage EVER settle Spain, etc., even in regular RFC?

In my games they often settled a colony in Iberia, fought at least one, if not two, Punic Wars per game, and could build some wonders too. In the Punic Wars, they would blockade ports, fight for Iberia and I actually saw them conquer Rome a couple times. While this was a rarity, it was still pretty cool. As far as wonders and religions, I've seen them found both Christianity and Taoism, and seen them build a variety of Classical wonders. All are somewhat rare, but a hell of a lot more likely than with Phoenicia. Phoenicia just seems to take up room.

And if, in general opinion, both Carthage and Phoenicia don't manage to do much anything, then I believe a rework of one or the other is in order. I personally thought old Carthage was wonderful.

 

[BenZL43]

Yes.
Obviously, they are almost always founded Qart Hadasht, Qart Gadir in Spain if I am playing as Rome.. And they do settle some more cities in Spain..

To be honest, I found the new Phoenician is quite boring too..
I think it's better when Phoenicia = Regular RFC Carthage + Earlier Spawn date,
so when 820AD (IIRC), Sur automatically become Independent and you control Carthage like the Regular RFC did.. The one when you annoy Rome so much..

Because in the current mechanism, even when the capital has moved to Carthage,
Sur seems to still a prominent super important place for them that they center production etc at.. And cost turns to bring them from Sur to Carthage before being used there~

 

[AOS9001]

Regarding the Chinese names for cities in North America, am I the only West Coaster who is dismayed that the tile Portland ought to be on is just another San Francisco? Maybe it's regional pride speaking here, but that's something that's always bugged me.

 

[Aharon]

I would like the return of Carthage. Phoenicia is too insignificant and too boring, both when played and when opposed. Most of my games has Phoenicia proper being conquered by Persia or Babylon and Carthage proper ravaged by barbarians without a single mark being made on the world. They're unable to challenge Rome in the western Med and unable to challenge the Zoroastrians in the Middle East. They never found religions, build wonders or play any considerable role in wars. Carthage, at least, could build a wonder or two from time to time and face off against Rome with some vigour. And when played, Carthage was one of my favourite civs, with a huge amount of options and challenges. Phoenicia is, in all honesty, my least favourite civ now.

To be fair to you Leoreth, Phoenicia is the only change/addition in DoC that I don't like... the rest I love and thank you for.

I had the same problem, and tried to make them stronger with no coding => I moved their starting city from Sur to Gebal, 1 tile north, and moved the copper from Cyprus to Gebal. This has led to two problems:
1) It's historically incorrect.
2) It makes Carthage too stable. I frequently saw them as arabian vassals, still around in the 900s, with just one city - Gebal.