One thing I don't really like about this new Bigmap (version 1.18) is that the distance between the cities of São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro is only one tile apart, which made it a bit cramped.
In the old, smaller map (version 1.17), the two cities were two tiles apart. This helped them work on more tiles and grow more.
I think modifying the São Paulo city tile 1W would be good (from a gameplay perspective) and also in terms of the actual geographic location of the two cities on the real world map.
Part of a recent rebalance to increase the chances of the peninsula being partitioned by different European powers and make an early unification a longer-term goal.
During the Ottoman autoplay I noticed that Italy was very successful militarily and often easily expanded into the western Balkans or southern Italy, so I wanted to reduce their ability to do so. I also wanted to enable other AIs to conquer Italy more easily.
There was talk of having conqueror events for Italy in the 1800s. I've just started a run today though, so not sure if/how those have been implemented yet.
Rome starts with 6 legions, but I believe some time ago it started with 4.
6 seem to be too many to be honest. I steamrolled both Carthage and Greece with the starting army.
Rome starts with 6 legions, but I believe some time ago it started with 4.
6 seem to be too many to be honest. I steamrolled both Carthage and Greece with the starting army.
Which turn did you complete the conquest UHV? And what difficulty did you play? Cause steamrolling Carthage and Greece won't grant you the UHV. The timeline to get that goal is very tight in my opinion and if you get bogged down too much with Carthage or Greece you won't make it in time
Which turn did you complete the conquest UHV? And what difficulty did you play? Cause steamrolling Carthage and Greece won't grant you the UHV. The timeline to get that goal is very tight in my opinion and if you get bogged down too much with Carthage or Greece you won't make it in time
There exists a Lombard civ, that could be an unplayable conditional spawn. If Milan exists and is indy, have them spawn there around the same time as the French, maybe a couple of turns after.
There exists a Lombard civ, that could be an unplayable conditional spawn. If Milan exists and is indy, have them spawn there around the same time as the French, maybe a couple of turns after.
or, hear me out: make Milan difficult to siege. (shout out Roma and their 5 heavily guarded city defenders and walls+castle, making it a slog to take it)
Speaking of a slog, has anyone managed to beat a Byz UHV on the 600AD start since the nerfs to their starting techs and to the Great Merchant trade mission gold? On the old map, I was getting ~1,400 to 2,100 gold from trade missions to a Chinese holy city or capital (and even Rome or Makkah sometimes), but now I'm lucky to see 900 per mission. Hyperpriotizing GMs, you can really only push out 3 GMs making it to Asia, or 4 GMs total, which just isn't enough. I haven't tried zeroing the slider to gold on turn 1 along with GMs, but the start is weak now so I don't see if the math maths.
In contrast, the 3000BC start is almost too easy. The starting military for 3000BC is probably better than 600AD's even without flip variability, and you get much better cities and land. Furthermore, when Rome collapses the new Italian Indies/barbs are REALLY weak and easy to conquer. Most of the time, I have Justinian's empire by Arab spawn, but stable and in good condition to accelerate. The cities are also developed enough that you just hit UHV1 by existing with some gold slider use and I didn't need to concertedly plan for achieving the goal in 3000BC.
Going to further add on that there's no reason for a player to build Theodosian Walls, and that the Byz UB is pretty underwhelming too.
or, hear me out: make Milan difficult to siege. (shout out Roma and their 5 heavily guarded city defenders and walls+castle, making it a slog to take it)
Shouting out also that the strength of Rome in 600AD makes HRE UHV1 a complete shitshow. I basically needed to whip catapults from Frankfurt from turn 1 and hope for really solid combat rolls to just barely take the city by 1000AD. The Milanese defenders, who share independent civ with Rome, often saunter over to stab your stack too which doesn't help.
So why is the Ingria region no longer a historical area of Sweden in latest updates? Considering that they controlled the Ingria region for nearly a century until the Great Northern War, it is strange that this area changed from historical area to conquered area.
In addition, I think that Sweden should have the historical area of Norway and the conquered areas of Germany and Poland.(The current conquest areas around the Baltic Sea is also good from UHV perspective, but from historic perspective,Sweden's war against HRE and Commonwealth are not limited to the Baltic coast, the Swedish army also once occupied Bavaria and Krakow)
I don't think this is a big problem, at least in my game, Swedish AI rarely settles in the Ingria region, especially in St. Petersburg (Nyen in Swedish rule), which is only available after 1700. They often stop at Helsinki, but conquered area is too bad for Swedish players. I think if you really want to avoid settling, you can set the AI settlement value to 0,but restored as a historical area of Sweden
In fact, considering that Sweden and Russia were the only two countries with a historical area in St. Petersburg before the update, I think it may be more historical for Sweden to establish Nyen here and then have it taken by Russia
Agreed and granted, but Helsinki easily captures St. P's tile centuries before Russia has a chance to found due to marsh, resulting in a .01% found rate for a city of critical significance. I would submit this is a big enough problem to warrant these measures.
I don't think this is a big problem, at least in my game, Swedish AI rarely settles in the Ingria region, especially in St. Petersburg (Nyen in Swedish rule), which is only available after 1700. They often stop at Helsinki, but conquered area is too bad for Swedish players. I think if you really want to avoid settling, you can set the AI settlement value to 0,but restored as a historical area of Sweden
In fact, considering that Sweden and Russia were the only two countries with a historical area in St. Petersburg before the update, I think it may be more historical for Sweden to establish Nyen here and then have it taken by Russia
From my understanding of things, AI settlement value is what makes an area historical. If it's on the settler map, it's a historic area. If it's only on the war map, it's a conquest area. So any territory that's made historic might get a settler sent to it.
Not sure how feasible this is, but an idea for the late game. Could be possible from around 1950 onwards.
Add a number of conditional supranational civs like the EU that could potentially appear.
Ideas for civs:
Spoiler:
European Union
Arab League
African Union
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
Mercosur
Comintern / Communist Bloc / CIS (or some other global communist org - this one's more difficult because it's not as geographically stable as the others)
Civs such as China or the US would probably be powerful enough to never need to join an org)
The trigger would be a superpower civ snowballing and running away with the game (maybe 500-700 points ahead of #2 or #3, or approaching a domination stats threshold). The smaller civs would join a regional bloc out of fear of the leading superpower.
Regular civs in the core of the supranational orgs would vote on joining (with maybe each one having an ~80% liklihood of saying yes). If the player is in the region, they can vote on whether to say yes and lead the superpower civ, or stay out. This way you get a new superpower to challenge the leader(s), but it's not necessarily the same civ every time and reflects the fact that there's rarely unanimity in the real world (So sometimes you'd get an EU with Britain, sometimes Britain would stay out).
The supranational civ couldn't form if a civ in its core is the leader (If Germany is running away with the game, the EU couldn't spawn).
The trigger could be random, or it could be influenced by having powerful neighbours (ie powerful Russia can trigger EU or Arab League, America could trigger Mercosur, EU or a Communist Bloc)
The supranational civ could build any modern UUs/UBs from it's constituent civs. If there are any viable UUs or UBs (like say Eurofighter) they could be added.
Leaders are more difficult - probably best to take one from the most powerful constituent civ. (EU civ does exist already I think).
If the supranational civ collapsed, the original smaller civs could return
Colony cities could potentially join the supranational civ (eg if you are France and have an Islamic city in the Levant, you might get a popup saying it has voted to join the Arab League - let it go or refuse and risk war?).
There may be some civs that would never vote to join a supranational civ (looking at you, potential future Switzerland).
If there are ways of influencing the AI to vote on whether to join or if the new supranational civ could be formed, then all the better (similar civics, good relations, same enemy etc...)
The new civ retains all current units of the smaller civs that voted to join
The benefits would be a more unique end game. Sometimes you'd get these powerful supranational civs, sometimes you wouldn't get any, you might get the Arab League in one game and the EU in another. It would also speed things up as you'd reduce the number of active civs. It'd put a check on human or AI snowballing and running away with the game, they'd have to fight a powerful rival instead of picking off smaller civs one by one
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
