strijder20
Wallowing in irony
C2C uses it for culture-unique units.
Suggestions and Requests
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
C2C uses it for culture-unique units.
Imperator Knoedel
Currently obsessed with The Owl House
Eh, in Final Frontier at least where there are such terrains they have no qualms about throwing whole fleets into black holes for the fun of it, so that won't be the problem.
I don't know the exact name of the tag, but it's used in Earth2012 for most if not all military units, and in Magistermodmod for Fall From Heaven for Settlers at least.
If that's not clear enough, let me give you an example: Assuming the base hammer cost of a Rifleman is 100 Hammers and you set the hammer cost increase percentage to 5, then the second Rifleman you train will cost 105 Hammers, the one after that 110 and the one after that one 115. If you lose one Rifleman it will get reduced to 110 again, if you lose another 105, and if you lose all of them it's back to its base cost of 100.
Not that I know of.
I have made my points clear. Watermills take longest of all non-resource specific improvements except for the Fort to build, and yet their yield is only equal if not lower to all alternatives. Something has to be done about their current weakness!
Yeah that's cool. I wasn't even aware that something like this exists.
I'd prefer if you could also define a threshold after which this cost increase applies but that is probably easily modded in.
Sgt. Bears
Warlord
The Thais don't have the Khmer great prophet in their list of Unique units. So, they have no great prophet names.
Does anyone else think that Byzantium without Constantinople should immediately collapse? In the real world they did collapse after loosing Constantinople to the Ottomans so maybe after 1350 if the Byzantines don't have Constantinople and have less than 4 cities they should auto collapse?
And even if it does survive I think it shouldn't be called Empire of Nicaea. Empire of Nicaea was mostly in Anatolia at the time and in the game, the Byzantines are mostly in the Balkans after losing Constantinople. Maybe call them by a generic name like 'Byzantine Resistance' or 'Independent Empire of ____' (that could be Greece if the capital is Athens/Sparta, the Balkans if it's somewhere in the Balkans or even Nicaea if the capital is somewhere else)
Just some ideas. May not be so important but I have this game where a STABLE Byzantium is occupying Jerusalem & Tyre and it seems odd seeing Empire of Nicaea.
And even if it does survive I think it shouldn't be called Empire of Nicaea. Empire of Nicaea was mostly in Anatolia at the time and in the game, the Byzantines are mostly in the Balkans after losing Constantinople. Maybe call them by a generic name like 'Byzantine Resistance' or 'Independent Empire of ____' (that could be Greece if the capital is Athens/Sparta, the Balkans if it's somewhere in the Balkans or even Nicaea if the capital is somewhere else)
Just some ideas. May not be so important but I have this game where a STABLE Byzantium is occupying Jerusalem & Tyre and it seems odd seeing Empire of Nicaea.
Stazro
Prince
When the Ottomans took Constantinople the Empire lost - both literally and in civ terms - their last city and there wasn't anything left to collapse.
Edit: I agree about the Empire of Nicaea, though. It was named after the city the Emperor in exile took residence in. If they don't hold Nicaea, the empire has no business using that name.
Well no. Southern Greece was still under Byzantine control and Empire of Trebizond survived some years more, so in fact Trapezus and Athens were byzantine on fall of Constantinople. However, if you lose a city with 200% defence bonus, then no question why you lose two smaller with 50% defence cities some years later.
Julius Americus
Chieftain
They didn't collapse when the crusaders took Constantinople in the fourth crusade. Or, rather, they became the Latin Kingdoms (or whatever it was called) and then were revived again. Losing Constantinople should not mean an automatic collapse of the empire.
The Latin states were precisely the parts of the Byzantine Empire that were not its successor states, but those territories that were held by Catholic princes. Including the Latin Empire centered in Constantinople.
Julius Americus
Chieftain
Has anyone suggested putting gold mines in Dacia in the ancient era yet? I think that would make sense, as Trajan's conquest of the territory and the capture of those mines for Rome were a significant part of the massive expansion of public works under his and Hadrian's reign and contributed to the Roman Imperial golden age. It could function like the ivory resources in North Africa do currently - depletion at a certain point in history.
ezzlar
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Messages
- 1,846
There is only one trading corp for the first 4500 years of the game. Please add more. Venetians and Genoans. Nerf the mediterranean civs but compensate with those corps. When they are removed it will go hand in hand with their decline.
It feels strange that you get capitalism so early compared to free market. It should be reversed.
It feels strange that you get capitalism so early compared to free market. It should be reversed.
I don't see a point in two Eurocentric corporations.
That would be historically inaccurate.
Wessel V1
Emperor
It has bugged me for a while that there is no way to get experienced siege Units. At whatever odds a siege unit attacks, it gets 1 experience point if it manages to survive. Although it is more a general civ flaw since they changed siege units to not be able to kill other units anymore, I'd like siege units to get experience like normal units. So, if a siege unit has an x% chance to withdraw, it should get the same amount of experience points as a normal unit would get for x% victory odds.
ezzlar
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Messages
- 1,846
Well. Add a few iron age global corps then. But since you bothered to include the Silk road it feels meager with that as the only trading corp for the first few thousand years.
According to this definition free market is one type of prerequisite for capitalism. Not the other way around.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
Panopticon
Utilitarian
There's no single definition of either a free market or of capitalism.
The silk route actually represents something worth representing. There's nothing special about Mediterranean traders.
As Panopticon said, the definitions you use are of course important here, but it's not as if these definitions are arbitrary in the game. Free Market is in the Economy column which describes how governments organize and interfere with their economies. Considering the other choices, it is clear that most countries operated under highly localized and regulated enterprises (the guild civic) before switching to a system where trade was more free, but the state played a large role in controlling it, especially for foreign trade (mercantilism).
Free Market to me implies large scale private enterprise and a certain degree of governmental laissez faire, or at least refraining from direct participation. And that is basically impossible without the Corporation civic.
On the other hand, Capitalism is in the Labour column and is representative of things like mercantile capitalism and the emergence of a social class associated with commerce and business activities. In fact it would be easier to convince me that Economics is too late of a tech as of now.
Spoiler :
As Panopticon said, the definitions you use are of course important here, but it's not as if these definitions are arbitrary in the game. Free Market is in the Economy column which describes how governments organize and interfere with their economies. Considering the other choices, it is clear that most countries operated under highly localized and regulated enterprises (the guild civic) before switching to a system where trade was more free, but the state played a large role in controlling it, especially for foreign trade (mercantilism).
Free Market to me implies large scale private enterprise and a certain degree of governmental laissez faire, or at least refraining from direct participation. And that is basically impossible without the Corporation civic.
On the other hand, Capitalism is in the Labour column and is representative of things like mercantile capitalism and the emergence of a social class associated with commerce and business activities. In fact it would be easier to convince me that Economics is too late of a tech as of now.
Similar threads
