caketastydelish
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2008
- Messages
- 9,570
I don’t know/trust Imp Knodel like I do Leoreth, so paying it advance wouldn’t be a possibility.
Suggestions and Requests
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
HighFunctioningAlcoholic
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2018
- Messages
- 192
Super minor, but could I suggest abbreviating "Republic of the Seven United Netherlands?" I know you can minimize the scoreboard, but with it up it makes the scoreboard take up an unnecessarily large part of the screen, and they appear in every game.
Or don't. You're providing a free service; I can't b*tch about it.
Or don't. You're providing a free service; I can't b*tch about it.
I support "cool" official names even if they are very long, but you can easily change this yourself. You just need to edit ...\RFC Dawn of Civilization\Assets\XML\Text\DynamicNames\DynamicNames_Netherlands.xml and replace "Republic of the Seven United %s1" with something shorter like "United Provinces" or "Dutch Republic".
Cole98
AKA CerebralPolicy
If I understand Leoreth properly there are limitations to what can be implemented. RFC and DOC are designed to produce games that unfold in manner similar (as much as is possible) to world history. Civilizations rise and fall as they did irl. So changes that give arbitrary buffs (like boosting Prussian unit production - nevermind it being ahistorical) can upset that to the point where it can disrupt the core of the mod.
caketastydelish
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2008
- Messages
- 9,570
I'd like the Huns to be playable. I'm thinking they don't start off with settlers but the Huns historically did actually capture and hold cities didn't they?
DC123456789
Deity
Among a number of other problems, wouldn't the Huns only exist for like 10 turns or something like that...?
HighFunctioningAlcoholic
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2018
- Messages
- 192
~370 AD - 469 AD. I don't play Marathon, but that still seems like a tight fit for UHVs.
Cole98
AKA CerebralPolicy
Yeah there's not really much room timewise, plus their origins as a culture are not well documented.
1SDANi
Sister Lady
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2014
- Messages
- 2,932
I mean, they can kind of be included if we were to go with the "Huns and Xiongnu" theory by including the Xiongnu with a Hun dynamic name or UHV goal, but that just extends it from 10 turns to 40 turns, 70 turns if we interpret the later Xiongnu states as a collapse to core.
freethink
Prince
From what I understand is that Huns mostly were Turks with influences from Mongols and Finnish cultures or something. I dont think the situation should be changed but if it was, it would go to change the Turkic civilization.
ShinobiHus92
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2019
- Messages
- 84
I think this has been mentioned in the past, but perhaps in the future their can be a second 'Turkic' Civilization added which will represent the Xiongnu, Hephthalites, Huns, Bulgars etc.
Enyavar
Prince
- Joined
- May 16, 2015
- Messages
- 510
The Huns: (starting position with a horse army, broadly in the area of the Mongols although that is not fully historically acurate).
The Power of Plunder: In a city that gets currently razed, 1 Unit per turn gets fully healed. Pillaging improvements restores health partially. Pillaging a road earns gold.
Unique Unit... based on AoE2, I suggest a Tarkhan (nobility/commander title), rolling together the Turk Oghuz and the Sipahi. Make it 1 health weaker than Horse Archer, but converting Barbarians upon attack.
UHV:
* Steppe raiders: Cross Eurasia and raze a city each in China, Persia, Near East and Europe
* Restless: Never have more than 1 city at the same time
* Scourge of God: Kill 25 Roman or Byzantine Units (Independent's troops in formerly Roman cities count)
----
On a more serious note, @Leoreth did you see my posts on Benghal Kampuchea, and the naval retreats (has that boots/marching sound) on the previous page?
I just think those comments got inundated in a **storm.
The Power of Plunder: In a city that gets currently razed, 1 Unit per turn gets fully healed. Pillaging improvements restores health partially. Pillaging a road earns gold.
Unique Unit... based on AoE2, I suggest a Tarkhan (nobility/commander title), rolling together the Turk Oghuz and the Sipahi. Make it 1 health weaker than Horse Archer, but converting Barbarians upon attack.
UHV:
* Steppe raiders: Cross Eurasia and raze a city each in China, Persia, Near East and Europe
* Restless: Never have more than 1 city at the same time
* Scourge of God: Kill 25 Roman or Byzantine Units (Independent's troops in formerly Roman cities count)
----
On a more serious note, @Leoreth did you see my posts on Benghal Kampuchea, and the naval retreats (has that boots/marching sound) on the previous page?
I just think those comments got inundated in a **storm.
Last edited:
Enyavar
Prince
- Joined
- May 16, 2015
- Messages
- 510
Well, maybe the sound could be one of those standard woosh sounds of ships. I could also imagine a ringing ship bell with a faint unintelligible (retreat) command.
Or even the lighthouse sound... if there is no good alternative.
On the topic of naval stuff, another suggestion: allow privateers to enter barbarian ports. (Includes regular healing in port just as if you're a barbarian; and also includes destruction if someone conquers the city.)
Hello everyone. Perhaps when you all played as Japan, you noticed that this civilization practically does not use samurai, since after completing 1UHV you will most likely have a firearm. (Personally, I used several samurai pumped to attack the city and as a treatment)
So, perhaps it would be worth adjusting the UHV, for example, the unification of Japan, from independent cities into a single whole. Tell me what? What are the considerations?
P.S. Although I like UHVs themselves, Japan is one of my favorite civilizations. Can be played from antiquity to the 20th century. True, since antiquity, sometimes it turns out imba.
So, perhaps it would be worth adjusting the UHV, for example, the unification of Japan, from independent cities into a single whole. Tell me what? What are the considerations?
P.S. Although I like UHVs themselves, Japan is one of my favorite civilizations. Can be played from antiquity to the 20th century. True, since antiquity, sometimes it turns out imba.
On the current git version, national monument was moved to nationalism for balance reasons, but I'm pretty sure the construction cost hasn't increased. Feels a bit cheap for a post 1700 national wonder - I think might need a slight cost increase (+20%). Then again monuments are quite cheap. Anyone have thoughts on the construction cost?
Re Samurai :I typically use to conquer most of mainland Asia. City raider Samurai are superior to arquebusiers when attacking. With city raider 3 they have a (base strength 8) +95% attack vs city gunpowder defenders.
A hypothetical city raider 3 samurai (8x1.95= 15.6 strength) vs city garrison 1 arquebusier (+20% city defense, +25% defence from fortification) (10x1.45=14.5 strength). With a bombardment, the samurai wins. Chinese firelancers are also weaker than arquebusiers & many won't have city garrison. Against muskets it's a bit different.
If you invade the mainland early enough, you'll get plenty of samurai action.
I wrote something up in the guide sub-forum https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/1-16-japan-600ad-uhv-4-city-start.668103/
Cheers.
Re Samurai :I typically use to conquer most of mainland Asia. City raider Samurai are superior to arquebusiers when attacking. With city raider 3 they have a (base strength 8) +95% attack vs city gunpowder defenders.
A hypothetical city raider 3 samurai (8x1.95= 15.6 strength) vs city garrison 1 arquebusier (+20% city defense, +25% defence from fortification) (10x1.45=14.5 strength). With a bombardment, the samurai wins. Chinese firelancers are also weaker than arquebusiers & many won't have city garrison. Against muskets it's a bit different.
If you invade the mainland early enough, you'll get plenty of samurai action.
I wrote something up in the guide sub-forum https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/1-16-japan-600ad-uhv-4-city-start.668103/
Cheers.
After several years away, I’ve been playing 1.16 a few months now (probably too much), and I have a few possible suggestions. But one thing especially comes to mind (my apologies if this has been brought up before).
I feel like the Greek and Roman civilizations by nature operate quite ahistorical. I’m sure a number of things can be done, and I don’t know if this is a priority. However, the biggest issue with the Romans is that their state date is too early. 753 BC was a mythical founding date, and even if accurate, Rome started out as a small village and subject to Etruscan rule. It is definitely ahistorical for the Romans to show up in Italy in 753 BC with two legions and fleet, which leads to the player embarking on a Roman conquest of the Mediterranean in a time when Rome was a tiny village. For much the same reason the Dutch starting date was moved to the 1580s, I think the Roman start date should be later. I would suggest c. 509 BC, when the Roman Republic was created. That would be a more accurate time for Rome to emerge on the scene and begin conquests.
Of course, the problem with this is that it’s already a major crunch accomplishing Rome’s UHV. Perhaps the UHV could be changed, but I have another idea that could contribute to this (and the idea I really wanted to bring up).
It occurred to me that there are too few cities in the ancient period. And that makes sense: settlers take time to build. However, if you think about it, many of the cities built by Alexander the Great, the Romans, and the Arabs were founded by decommissioned soldiers. Alexander seeded his empire with Macedonian military colonists, founding the many Alexandrias. The Romans, after the chaotic political upheavals around the land reform attempts of the Gracchi, mostly gave lands to decommissioned veterans, who were settled as colonists in the provinces, especially in strategically useful sites (rebuilding Carthage and Corinth, and founding important cities like Trier, Cologne, and London). Likewise, the Arabs planted military colonists in garrison cities (amsar), founding Cairo, Mosul, Kufa, and Kairouan, among others, this way.
My question is, would it be possible, both within the game engine and within your vision for the mod, to allow for military units to found cities? Perhaps when running the conquest civic, since the planting of veteran colonies is a strategy used by expanding empires to quickly assert control over conquered territories? This would potentially speed up the Roman UHV, since the Roman player can concentrate on military production (with the help of the Coliseum), and use those soldiers both for conquest and quickly settling cities (like the Roman really did). It would also help represent expansion of other great pre-modern empires.
I feel like the Greek and Roman civilizations by nature operate quite ahistorical. I’m sure a number of things can be done, and I don’t know if this is a priority. However, the biggest issue with the Romans is that their state date is too early. 753 BC was a mythical founding date, and even if accurate, Rome started out as a small village and subject to Etruscan rule. It is definitely ahistorical for the Romans to show up in Italy in 753 BC with two legions and fleet, which leads to the player embarking on a Roman conquest of the Mediterranean in a time when Rome was a tiny village. For much the same reason the Dutch starting date was moved to the 1580s, I think the Roman start date should be later. I would suggest c. 509 BC, when the Roman Republic was created. That would be a more accurate time for Rome to emerge on the scene and begin conquests.
Of course, the problem with this is that it’s already a major crunch accomplishing Rome’s UHV. Perhaps the UHV could be changed, but I have another idea that could contribute to this (and the idea I really wanted to bring up).
It occurred to me that there are too few cities in the ancient period. And that makes sense: settlers take time to build. However, if you think about it, many of the cities built by Alexander the Great, the Romans, and the Arabs were founded by decommissioned soldiers. Alexander seeded his empire with Macedonian military colonists, founding the many Alexandrias. The Romans, after the chaotic political upheavals around the land reform attempts of the Gracchi, mostly gave lands to decommissioned veterans, who were settled as colonists in the provinces, especially in strategically useful sites (rebuilding Carthage and Corinth, and founding important cities like Trier, Cologne, and London). Likewise, the Arabs planted military colonists in garrison cities (amsar), founding Cairo, Mosul, Kufa, and Kairouan, among others, this way.
My question is, would it be possible, both within the game engine and within your vision for the mod, to allow for military units to found cities? Perhaps when running the conquest civic, since the planting of veteran colonies is a strategy used by expanding empires to quickly assert control over conquered territories? This would potentially speed up the Roman UHV, since the Roman player can concentrate on military production (with the help of the Coliseum), and use those soldiers both for conquest and quickly settling cities (like the Roman really did). It would also help represent expansion of other great pre-modern empires.
Genghis Khaiser
King
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2012
- Messages
- 699
I think settlers are enough, and even if it could, only certain units should build them at certain areas. For example, Rome's UU already builds special roads so adding that ability would make it OP. As Leoreth said, we are not aware of its side effects, doubt the AI would use that ability since they don't even use settlers to update their old cities.
Similar threads
