Dracosolon
Emperor
How do you formulate that though?
"The Power of Patronage: Can choose Great People's types, once per type"?
"The Power of Patronage: Can choose Great People's types, once per type"?
Suggestions and Requests
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
Sure, or something like: "Up to one Great Person of each type can be selected to replace a randomly generated one"
BigSchwartzzz
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2019
- Messages
- 116
Playing as HRE right now and got an idea since I founded a colony 1E of the sugar in Guyana and the city was coded from CIV IV generic, so the city was Prague. I was wondering if a civilization founds a city on a specific continent where they don't have a name map is the the name generator possible to be coded to have randomized continent specific ahistorical names? Since Zadar is one of my cities I named this new city Neu Zadar.
Also, wondering if after Poland collapses after 1750 if Lvov could become historical since AH had Galacia for nearly 150 years.
Miscellaneous suggestions to add.
America's Caribbean city East of Hispaniola should be called San Juan, not Puerto Rico. And Texas is kind of a mess, I don't have it in front of me right now but a lot of names seemed... off.
Then I'd say west of lake superior to remove the copper and put an iron on the hill 1S. Historically that's where America got nearly *all* of its iron..
Also, wondering if after Poland collapses after 1750 if Lvov could become historical since AH had Galacia for nearly 150 years.
Miscellaneous suggestions to add.
America's Caribbean city East of Hispaniola should be called San Juan, not Puerto Rico. And Texas is kind of a mess, I don't have it in front of me right now but a lot of names seemed... off.
Then I'd say west of lake superior to remove the copper and put an iron on the hill 1S. Historically that's where America got nearly *all* of its iron..
hnrysml
Warlord
- Joined
- May 18, 2016
- Messages
- 275
How is the development of era music for different regions going? I was listening to this piece by Juan de Araujo recently and I thought about how wonderful it would feel to be a south or central american civ and have it playing as you hit the renaissance, I think the piece fits well bc it's both of the correct time and place yet would also fit the civ mood of complementing the tempo of the big jump from medieval era to renaissance and also is still very much within the constraints of european musical (and christian) tradition while being heavily influenced by west african and andean music. I have included two versions that vary greatly in tempo and intensity.
Los Colfades de la Estleya:
Los Colfades de la Estleya:
Dominus the Mentat
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2018
- Messages
- 301
Persian expansion tiles are marked only to mesopotamia, which is correct, but excludes other regions that have been historically under persian control and was easily conquered by them, like Levant, Anatolia and even Egypt. My suggestion is to expand persian expansion tiles to these regions in order to easy a bit more its UHV and make persian AI war map more conqueror to these regions, since most of the time they only capture Jerusalem and leave Phoenicia, Anatolia and Egypt alone.
Another suggestion is to give Persia the dynamic name "Parthian Empire", which doesn't show up in the game. After researching some techs they change from Achaemenid Empire to Sassanid Empire, ignoring the existence of this empire and only remembering of it by the barbarian parthian horsemans that spawn in Iran (which should have their names changed to the Scythians right after Persia change to Parthian Empire.
The change of the name could be trigged with the fall of the greeks, since the initial civics of the persians are enough to represent their society (the vassalage civic would better represent it, since parthian kings power was not absolute and descentralized and it could enter in conflict with the Sassanid Empire dynamic name trigger)
Another suggestion is to give Persia the dynamic name "Parthian Empire", which doesn't show up in the game. After researching some techs they change from Achaemenid Empire to Sassanid Empire, ignoring the existence of this empire and only remembering of it by the barbarian parthian horsemans that spawn in Iran (which should have their names changed to the Scythians right after Persia change to Parthian Empire.
The change of the name could be trigged with the fall of the greeks, since the initial civics of the persians are enough to represent their society (the vassalage civic would better represent it, since parthian kings power was not absolute and descentralized and it could enter in conflict with the Sassanid Empire dynamic name trigger)
Last edited:
This is a little random and related to relocating cities with WB and avoiding the science/culture/coin bug. I thought I mention it in case people are like me and sometimes move a city, when they stacked together.
Make sure before you move the city to not have any specialists active. As when you move it else you can get a bug notices the science rate/luxury/coin rate is bugged. This is cause the new location might not use the specialist and the bonus of the specialist is remembered (as moving a city is I think just rebuilding it the build age even becomes new). So you get for example +6 research for 2 scientists and on the new spot the scientist are not used maybe cause of better/worse food/hammers, so bug creates +6 science in the city, without the specialists.
I haven't been able to find out how to remove the science/culture bonus in WB in a city (if it is possible). Hammers do not create the bug, as it is science/coin/culture rate related.
Make sure before you move the city to not have any specialists active. As when you move it else you can get a bug notices the science rate/luxury/coin rate is bugged. This is cause the new location might not use the specialist and the bonus of the specialist is remembered (as moving a city is I think just rebuilding it the build age even becomes new). So you get for example +6 research for 2 scientists and on the new spot the scientist are not used maybe cause of better/worse food/hammers, so bug creates +6 science in the city, without the specialists.
I haven't been able to find out how to remove the science/culture bonus in WB in a city (if it is possible). Hammers do not create the bug, as it is science/coin/culture rate related.
BigSchwartzzz
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2019
- Messages
- 116
A few suggestions, as I keep playing the game.
1. Tribal Villages
a) I think tribal villages should have a small chance to grant a great person (including great generals). Most of the times, especially early game, it would be a huge risk to go back to the city to settle so they'd likely be used to bulb, which is slightly better than the already granted free tech. Though it might incentivize sending out a stronger unit to claim tribal villages so they don't get snagged by barbarians on the way back to settle.
b) Hostile tribal villages should also be slightly more dangerous, with the units in the medieval and later eras not being primitive warriors, as well as regional based. Say in the British Isles they'd be Celtic Warriors instead, Strength 4 or 5 instead of 6. This could be enough to keep Ireland and even Scotland (CW takes settler) independent until conquered by Vikings or England.
c) Touching a tribal village has the chance to spawn a barbarian city, with your unit being immediately yeeted out of its borders. You have the chance to conquer it unless its in a core, historic, or contested territory, it immediately gets razed. However if you let it be its either the next guy's problem or it gets flipped on a spawn. This could merely lead to less prominently settled city locations being a pillar in this game.
2. Resources and Stock Exchanges
Resources always annoyed me in Civ in a few ways but so far DoC tackles one of the main issues with the "limited resources effects." Stock Exchanges could be adjusted so when they're built you get a quest like harbor master where you found a Company for a specific resource. This is not an industry, but a task to gain a certain quantity of said resources. Take banana for example, with the quest "United Fruit Co", X banana resources within a certain amount of turns grants you a great merchant, and every city with banana in its BFC gets a free merchant. This will incentivize expansion wars with a deadline for a huge reward.
3. Running Slavery with Free enterprise should add an extra +1 gold for Farms, Mines, Orchards, Paddy Fields, Plantations, Slave Plantations, Quarries, and Workshops while also giving a +1 trade route per coastal city. However, it should also have more diplomatic and stability penalties, as well as common negative random events.
The purpose would be to give players the choice to risk collapse but make a lot of extra money in the meantime before entirely toggling off slavery... or collapsing.
4. Disappearing beaver
Beaver should disappear in this game just as how many resources appear. For one, there could be more beaver in the New World between 1600 and 1800 before disappearing, demanding the land be repurposed and of course less profitable afterwards. This will make British, French, and Dutch colonies that will be lost to the US and and Canadian regardless more worth the colonization efforts beyond just completing a UHV while not over powering the land by modern day.
5. Iron Overhaul
Iron is weird. Most armies had as much as they really needed in medieval times but by the industrial age there were only a few places world wide that had sufficient iron deposits. In one case it was right on the border of the biggest rivals in history, Northwest Alsace Lorraine and Longwy Brie between Germany and a France.
In this game we give everybody that historically had an armor suited army an iron ore deposit. Instead I think we should take most iron ores away, but not taking away the ability to produce units. Instead controlling an ore deposit gives certain bonuses. Say a swordsman or other iron necessary unit has a +2 coin cost per turn that gets neutralized by access to iron. This will allow countries with access to iron ore be able to field bigger armies, while still allowing countries without it the ability to defend themselves, but maybe not go on the offensive exactly.
Access to iron would also make constructing railways take 25% shorter and adds 25% production bonus to tanks and artillery.
With this improvement in mind we would drastically scale back the iron resources in game and put most of them in contested territory, or at the very least code many to disappear either based on era or triggered by a collapse. The Byzantines collapsing for example would remove the iron in Georgia, whereas the iron in Persia would disappear after the collapse of the Seljuks.
All iron removed from Europe except in Spain, England, Ukraine, and Sweden. That means Portugal, Italy, and Greece would lose their iron. There is one iron in eastern France and one in Western Germany that would be combined into one ore and moved 1N from the hill iron is currently on NW of the Alps. Poland would swap just the iron and the coal. There would be an additional iron added 1W of Stockholm or replacing the uranium to give the Swedes an additional iron to trade away. The Spanish iron would disappear with Firearms or if they collapse in the case the Moors take them out. Austria's coal 1E of the mountains would be an iron that would flip to coal with the discover of geology or collapse.
These changes would encourage war between France and Germany and Germany and whoever controls Krakow. It would also make powers vie to trade with Sweden for their second iron.
In North America there'd be three iron resources. The one in the Appalachians would be removed and replaced with stone, with the stone there replaced with another coal. The Quebec one and the one in Mexico also removed. Instead the iron would be 1. On the grassy hill north of lake Superior, the hill two South of the in Minnesota/Michigan's UP, and one right between the three cotton resources, which is an area missing production resources anyway.
This gives America two iron resources with incentive to conquer the third in Canada. Mexico, again, can still train a medieval army but it's costlier and they tend to skip that phase anyway.
6. Borders
a) On the continent of Europe the discovery of Statecraft allows tiles not to change hands with a civilization you are at peace with regardless of culture.
b) I have no idea how difficult this would be but tile negotiation. When making peace you can request specific tiles with the BFC of any of your cities. There's two ways I'm thinking this could work. One is triggering the advanced start function and having peace treaties go through an interface like that. Or a function of diplomacy where you contact a civilization and instead of peace treaty 10 turns and cease fire you also get an option for an Arbitrator.
When you do that a unit called Arbitrator 1 spawns in your capital and you can move it like you do a plane to a *visible* enemy tile in your BFC and send them there. It cannot attack, can't go to a city, can go on water, and only has the visibility of the tile that they are on. Once they do go to that tile they disappear and Arbitrator 2 spawns in your capital and you send them to a different tile, with the previous tile being inaccessible. So then once you do make peace one of the terms is land area and it's numbered. So say you sent 6 arbitrators in and 2,4, and 6 are redded out but 1,3, and 5 and white, you are allowed to negotiate on those three. Again, I'm sure this is probably difficult AF, though would be very nice.
c) City Occupation. In warfare I like stomping out the enemy but I don't like being left with their cities if they collapse or capitulate. Could an option be merely be "Temporary Military Occupation" where the city is under riot but cannot produce anything and inflicts the same amount of war weariness. When peace happens the city automatically reverts to the other party or in the event of collapse besieging forces are sent on the outskirts of the city.
7. Minor stuff.
Before America founds its first city the name should be "American Colonists" instead of "American Peoples."
The Lake representing the Great Salt Lake should be moved up one, the Vegas tile should be moved one south, that city should be named St George and settler score negligible. The Lake would be SLC and a plains tile, with 1E also a plains tile with stones on it. That way we can actually get a decent city there.
Oil should be removed from the Denver region and instead places 2N of Washington.
So far that's all.
1. Tribal Villages
a) I think tribal villages should have a small chance to grant a great person (including great generals). Most of the times, especially early game, it would be a huge risk to go back to the city to settle so they'd likely be used to bulb, which is slightly better than the already granted free tech. Though it might incentivize sending out a stronger unit to claim tribal villages so they don't get snagged by barbarians on the way back to settle.
b) Hostile tribal villages should also be slightly more dangerous, with the units in the medieval and later eras not being primitive warriors, as well as regional based. Say in the British Isles they'd be Celtic Warriors instead, Strength 4 or 5 instead of 6. This could be enough to keep Ireland and even Scotland (CW takes settler) independent until conquered by Vikings or England.
c) Touching a tribal village has the chance to spawn a barbarian city, with your unit being immediately yeeted out of its borders. You have the chance to conquer it unless its in a core, historic, or contested territory, it immediately gets razed. However if you let it be its either the next guy's problem or it gets flipped on a spawn. This could merely lead to less prominently settled city locations being a pillar in this game.
2. Resources and Stock Exchanges
Resources always annoyed me in Civ in a few ways but so far DoC tackles one of the main issues with the "limited resources effects." Stock Exchanges could be adjusted so when they're built you get a quest like harbor master where you found a Company for a specific resource. This is not an industry, but a task to gain a certain quantity of said resources. Take banana for example, with the quest "United Fruit Co", X banana resources within a certain amount of turns grants you a great merchant, and every city with banana in its BFC gets a free merchant. This will incentivize expansion wars with a deadline for a huge reward.
3. Running Slavery with Free enterprise should add an extra +1 gold for Farms, Mines, Orchards, Paddy Fields, Plantations, Slave Plantations, Quarries, and Workshops while also giving a +1 trade route per coastal city. However, it should also have more diplomatic and stability penalties, as well as common negative random events.
The purpose would be to give players the choice to risk collapse but make a lot of extra money in the meantime before entirely toggling off slavery... or collapsing.
4. Disappearing beaver
Beaver should disappear in this game just as how many resources appear. For one, there could be more beaver in the New World between 1600 and 1800 before disappearing, demanding the land be repurposed and of course less profitable afterwards. This will make British, French, and Dutch colonies that will be lost to the US and and Canadian regardless more worth the colonization efforts beyond just completing a UHV while not over powering the land by modern day.
5. Iron Overhaul
Iron is weird. Most armies had as much as they really needed in medieval times but by the industrial age there were only a few places world wide that had sufficient iron deposits. In one case it was right on the border of the biggest rivals in history, Northwest Alsace Lorraine and Longwy Brie between Germany and a France.
In this game we give everybody that historically had an armor suited army an iron ore deposit. Instead I think we should take most iron ores away, but not taking away the ability to produce units. Instead controlling an ore deposit gives certain bonuses. Say a swordsman or other iron necessary unit has a +2 coin cost per turn that gets neutralized by access to iron. This will allow countries with access to iron ore be able to field bigger armies, while still allowing countries without it the ability to defend themselves, but maybe not go on the offensive exactly.
Access to iron would also make constructing railways take 25% shorter and adds 25% production bonus to tanks and artillery.
With this improvement in mind we would drastically scale back the iron resources in game and put most of them in contested territory, or at the very least code many to disappear either based on era or triggered by a collapse. The Byzantines collapsing for example would remove the iron in Georgia, whereas the iron in Persia would disappear after the collapse of the Seljuks.
All iron removed from Europe except in Spain, England, Ukraine, and Sweden. That means Portugal, Italy, and Greece would lose their iron. There is one iron in eastern France and one in Western Germany that would be combined into one ore and moved 1N from the hill iron is currently on NW of the Alps. Poland would swap just the iron and the coal. There would be an additional iron added 1W of Stockholm or replacing the uranium to give the Swedes an additional iron to trade away. The Spanish iron would disappear with Firearms or if they collapse in the case the Moors take them out. Austria's coal 1E of the mountains would be an iron that would flip to coal with the discover of geology or collapse.
These changes would encourage war between France and Germany and Germany and whoever controls Krakow. It would also make powers vie to trade with Sweden for their second iron.
In North America there'd be three iron resources. The one in the Appalachians would be removed and replaced with stone, with the stone there replaced with another coal. The Quebec one and the one in Mexico also removed. Instead the iron would be 1. On the grassy hill north of lake Superior, the hill two South of the in Minnesota/Michigan's UP, and one right between the three cotton resources, which is an area missing production resources anyway.
This gives America two iron resources with incentive to conquer the third in Canada. Mexico, again, can still train a medieval army but it's costlier and they tend to skip that phase anyway.
6. Borders
a) On the continent of Europe the discovery of Statecraft allows tiles not to change hands with a civilization you are at peace with regardless of culture.
b) I have no idea how difficult this would be but tile negotiation. When making peace you can request specific tiles with the BFC of any of your cities. There's two ways I'm thinking this could work. One is triggering the advanced start function and having peace treaties go through an interface like that. Or a function of diplomacy where you contact a civilization and instead of peace treaty 10 turns and cease fire you also get an option for an Arbitrator.
When you do that a unit called Arbitrator 1 spawns in your capital and you can move it like you do a plane to a *visible* enemy tile in your BFC and send them there. It cannot attack, can't go to a city, can go on water, and only has the visibility of the tile that they are on. Once they do go to that tile they disappear and Arbitrator 2 spawns in your capital and you send them to a different tile, with the previous tile being inaccessible. So then once you do make peace one of the terms is land area and it's numbered. So say you sent 6 arbitrators in and 2,4, and 6 are redded out but 1,3, and 5 and white, you are allowed to negotiate on those three. Again, I'm sure this is probably difficult AF, though would be very nice.
c) City Occupation. In warfare I like stomping out the enemy but I don't like being left with their cities if they collapse or capitulate. Could an option be merely be "Temporary Military Occupation" where the city is under riot but cannot produce anything and inflicts the same amount of war weariness. When peace happens the city automatically reverts to the other party or in the event of collapse besieging forces are sent on the outskirts of the city.
7. Minor stuff.
Before America founds its first city the name should be "American Colonists" instead of "American Peoples."
The Lake representing the Great Salt Lake should be moved up one, the Vegas tile should be moved one south, that city should be named St George and settler score negligible. The Lake would be SLC and a plains tile, with 1E also a plains tile with stones on it. That way we can actually get a decent city there.
Oil should be removed from the Denver region and instead places 2N of Washington.
So far that's all.
RustyBrick
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2020
- Messages
- 70
I also think tribal villages could be a bit cooler.
I think the barbarian cities spawning from them could add a cool degree of randomness, especially with how empty the early game can feel. Late-game villages are also lacking IMO. Running civics like slavery or colonialism could give a 50% chance of a few slaves or workers, but have an equal chance at spawning region-specific barbarian/native units which can be captured.
I think the barbarian cities spawning from them could add a cool degree of randomness, especially with how empty the early game can feel. Late-game villages are also lacking IMO. Running civics like slavery or colonialism could give a 50% chance of a few slaves or workers, but have an equal chance at spawning region-specific barbarian/native units which can be captured.
Publicola
King
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2014
- Messages
- 759
If I understand correctly, once Leoreth wraps up 1.17, the next version (1.18) will be primarily about finalizing the Big Map. At that point (1.19?) we can start making some serious changes to the landscape of the world map -- things like natural wonders and holy mountains, prehistoric sites and settlements, fossil beds and tar pits, etc.
I imagine that an overhaul of tribal villages could be in the same category. I definitely don't want to get rid of them, but I'd love to make them more integrated into the game and more reflective of real-world history than the 'goody huts' and loot boxes they are currently. Allowing them to grow into barbarian cities sounds like a really interesting idea, especially for ancient cities that faded from history before game-legible 'civilization' arose in their region -- things like Knossos on Crete, or Tartessos in southern Spain. There's a world of inspiration to be found from other mods (Barbarian Civs is a component in Cavemen2Cosmos) or other games (such as city-states in Civ 6) as well.
I imagine that an overhaul of tribal villages could be in the same category. I definitely don't want to get rid of them, but I'd love to make them more integrated into the game and more reflective of real-world history than the 'goody huts' and loot boxes they are currently. Allowing them to grow into barbarian cities sounds like a really interesting idea, especially for ancient cities that faded from history before game-legible 'civilization' arose in their region -- things like Knossos on Crete, or Tartessos in southern Spain. There's a world of inspiration to be found from other mods (Barbarian Civs is a component in Cavemen2Cosmos) or other games (such as city-states in Civ 6) as well.
BigSchwartzzz
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2019
- Messages
- 116
I actually just looked up the code and the outcomes are directly attributed to difficulty. While in retrospect obvious I admit I don't know much about the game. How people play paragon is beyond me. Only heir and regent grant techs. Heir has 4 rolls whereas regent has 1. The best paragon has to hope for is coins, but most of the time its strong barbarians. I was wondering why I wasn't getting settlers or workers but it's because I've been playing regent and those only come from heir. I figured leoreth just took them out of the game completely so civs wouldn't found random ass cities. So I'd imagine the great person idea is a non starter, maybe I just want to be spooned. But spawning a barbarian village is still a neat idea imo.
Once we get to the big map I think Pacific islands should be more important. In real life they were absolutely necessary for refueling and maintenance stations, so maybe there could be a national wonder that requires 18 water tiles in the city radius could have a Coaling Station requiring Engine. This would be built with food like a settler, add 10 Hammers, airports cost 50% less in that city, and heal units an extra 25% per turn. Otherwise those islands are worthless.
Otherwise explorers could be upgraded to have the ability to found an Outpost. It would work sort of like a regular city but it wouldn't be able to work or claim any other tile, wouldn't be able to build anything, have one trade route, and cost maintenance. It grant the resource it is built on. It would require a settler to turn it into a city, but a settler could found a city on an adjacent tile, turning the outpost into a fort. This could also be helpful for North and South American and Russian colonization since those land masses will be absolutely huge and being able to fortify units and claim territory will be hugely strategic.
Once we get to the big map I think Pacific islands should be more important. In real life they were absolutely necessary for refueling and maintenance stations, so maybe there could be a national wonder that requires 18 water tiles in the city radius could have a Coaling Station requiring Engine. This would be built with food like a settler, add 10 Hammers, airports cost 50% less in that city, and heal units an extra 25% per turn. Otherwise those islands are worthless.
Otherwise explorers could be upgraded to have the ability to found an Outpost. It would work sort of like a regular city but it wouldn't be able to work or claim any other tile, wouldn't be able to build anything, have one trade route, and cost maintenance. It grant the resource it is built on. It would require a settler to turn it into a city, but a settler could found a city on an adjacent tile, turning the outpost into a fort. This could also be helpful for North and South American and Russian colonization since those land masses will be absolutely huge and being able to fortify units and claim territory will be hugely strategic.
Last edited:
Zaddy
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2018
- Messages
- 364
To be honest I think the huts in the 3000 BC scenario should just be removed... While it's definitely nice to go hut hunting as China or Babylon and nab some gold, it introduces a lot of variance in the opening of the game and I'm not really sure that it adds anything positive.
Cacaso
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2020
- Messages
- 231
some mechanic similar to this concept of "City Occupation" would be very interesting, and I think it may be feasible to implement, as there are several situations in the game where I would like to occupy (albeit temporarily) 1 or 2 cities of some more CIV strong (like USA/England/European Civ) to be able to weaken them a little, and delay them a little, since these civs tend to shoot up in the technological race. I think it would be interesting, but it would have to be limited to just a few cities occupied simultaneously otherwise it would be too overpowered. I think the ability to be able to use your troops as a way to generate a form of distraction/delay in these stronger civs would be an interesting feature. would offer a wider range of possibilities for dealing with civs that get too "snowballed"
It might be better the huts develop over time from lets say 2000BC to the pre-modern area, ending in let's say the 1900. Also maybe they would give practical things like a worker, settler, slave, a skirmisher, archer or other such. and more gold as the ages go on and wealth becomes more logical, so only a meager 10 gold early on and several 100 later in the colonization times.
BigSchwartzzz
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2019
- Messages
- 116
So currently it's based on difficulty. For Heir:
CIV4HandicapInfo said:
For regent:
CIV4HandicapInfo said:
So on regent you lose the option for settlers and workers from heir. You also have 1 in 20 chance for a tech as opposed to 1 in 5 in heir. Once you get to higher difficulties techs are no longer options either.
Unlike Zaddy that prefers less variations I'm vey much in favor of it. And I'm sure Zaddy is not alone. So it's 100% a preference thing and thus ultimately up to Leoreth as opposed to a change that would positively affect everybody's experience with the mod.
Should York/Toronto or the area around it be controlled by the French instead of the English in the 1700ad scenario? Correct me if I'm wrong or missing something but I'm quite sure France still had control over the New France area at that time while the British were limited to the East Coast.
In all honesty the French did very little with Canada, more interested in trading post then much colonization back then. The area around the Hudson Bay was considered English on maps I see of the first half of the 1700's the south and East French, (Quebec). so Toronto being English is not odd, it was disputed for decades, till the British just fought a war over it.
Though Leoroth has a better point I just see haha.
Though Leoroth has a better point I just see haha.
The French even had an East India company and a lot of early gains in India, but also that got overshadowed by Britain, though in 1947-1950 they ceceded some areas to India. France has a long reputation of dwindling down in colonial power, outside Africa. They did once control the most colonial desert sands suppose.
Similar threads
