Discussion in 'Rhye's and Fall - Dawn of Civilization' started by Leoreth, Sep 11, 2014.
Should a lighthouse require a coast, then?
Nothing should require anything! Solar Plants in the Arctic! Hydroplants in Tibet! Ships on land! The possibilities are endless!
Definitely, coastal and non-coastal cities are different.
And we are going to have cities in water so it's fine.
Armies on water!
The venetian Arsenal should require a city on a lagoon too.
How is latitude actually calculated for solar? Because actual latitude isn't really accurately repsresented, especially in the Southern Hemisphere. If it's just based on distance in tiles to the centre or edges of the map I'd predict regions productive for solar such as southern Australia, and Argentina, would be considered "at an angle greater than 45"
Yeah, the game basically just divides the map equally with the northern and southern edges being 90 degrees and the middle as the equator. The issue with the DoC map is that most of the southern hemisphere is cut off because it does not contain any landmasses, so the game considers the equator to run somewhere through the Sahara. When editing the new map I realised that it's possible to set the latitude for the edges to something else than 90 degrees, so I'm going to fix that there.
Levee should give .
Amphitheatre could give experience to melee units.
Star fort is quite boring so maybe it could give experience to siege units.
And the Castles should instead give experience to archery units.
Today I read a quote by Stalin: "Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach."
I think it's a better candidate for the "power projection" technology than the current one, maybe we can switch to this. It also correlates with the technology's approximate era/date.
Actually it could be even better with the prior sentence: "This war is not as in the past; whoever occupies a territory also imposes on it his own social system. Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach."
What would be now called PTSD has been reported as far back as the Ancient Greeks. You might not fear being attacked at night, but based on your position on the battlefield, you knew that if you lost you were at best going to get executed after, and if you won you were still likely to be killed.
PTSD has always existed, it's just being acknowledged now.
Actually, there's good reason to believe that PTSD was nowhere near as widespread prior to WW1. The advent of things such as lighting, automated guns, chemical weapons, planes, etc made warfare far more stressful than previously. Before you'd be able to get a good night sleep in the peaceful dark, but now there's explosions going off 24/7 in brightly lit battlefields while you hide a way in a little pit. When your friends die, you don't even know who killed them.
There's a reason the Greeks thought of Hero's Heart as a gift from the gods: it wasn't very prevalent and was most likely in those who frequently engaged in warfare.
No. Despite the common association of PTSD with modern warfare, it is not even a phenomenon inherently tied to military action. PTSD can be caused by traumatic events in everyday life, for example accidents or abusive relationships. Therefore it is of course something that has existed throughout all of human history.
Of course military mass mobilisation and the introduction of military technology with the potential of traumatising soldiers has likely increased the incidence of PTSD in the military, but that is really beside the point.
Also I wouldn't take the point of view described in Greek literature at face value. This is the perspective of a certain small class within classical Greek society deliberately addressing an equally small audience with a deliberate agenda.
I was referring to warfare induced PTSD so yes, that's exactly the point
No. Given that PTSD can even occur in civilian life it is wrong to conclude it did not occur before modern warfare just because modern warfare increased its incidence.
Will the new map utilize Baldyr's Sahara desertification mod?
What does it do?
Please don't put words in my mouth.
Isn't that more of an alternate history scenario? As far as I know, the Sahara was mostly dry again at 3000 BC.
The ever reliable Wikipedia seems to mostly agree with you.
"It is also proposed that humans accelerated the drying out period from 6,000–2,500 BC by pastoralists overgrazing available grassland."
Separate names with a comma.