The problem of Ethiopia.

[Mowque]

why slow the game down for a very minor civ?

 

[onedreamer]

Onedreamer, I think you just slapped some tens of millions of African faces in a rather un-PC fashion. Not that I don't agree with you in the general sense, but that was kinda blunt.

Perhaps yes, but what about the millions ethiopians who saw their millenial history put on the same level of zulu's ?

LOL, well, every AI performs best in RFC with Christianity as their state religion. It facilitates trade with all of the European powers, and that's all there is to it. (Sometimes Islam is better if it happens to spread quickly in the 600 CE start, but almost always it's Christianity which is dominant in Europe.)

LOL, well, the point was that Ethiopia isn't christian in every game hence it is rarely powerful, let alone TOO powerful.

 

[onedreamer]

Well, I wasn't going to post in here but, oh well...
First off. Zulus. You are all wrong! (Sorry for being rude)
But don't feel to bad because for the longest time I thought the same thing. The Zulus were NOT barbarians in ANY way aside

4. (in ancient and medieval periods) a. a non-Greek.
b. a person living outside, esp. north of, the Roman Empire.
c. a person not living in a Christian country or within a Christian civilization.

5. (among Italians during the Renaissance) a person of non-Italian origin.

These are just about all definitions of "barbarian". Besides I talked of "Civ terms" and "Roman terms".

 

[kbk]

Well, there are constant arguments to add different, from Italy, to Korea, to Canada and Australia, but I honestly think we have a good balance without adding or removing any.

If you don't like Ethiopia, play from the 600 start where they are represented by a single independent city. Otherwise, quit complaining. There are a number of other 'minor' civs that historically didn't dominate the world, and 9 times out of 10 end up being vassal fodder in RFC (Khmer, Inca, Aztecs, Mali, etc) and we don't clamor for their removal. I kind of like the challenge of playing an Ethiopian game.

 

[Cethegus]

Ethiopia's current UHV didn't include "never losing a city", did it? If so, I think it should be there. The heartland of the Ethiopian empire was never succesfully invaded by outside powers in the colonial times or during WW2, so why not throw it in there? At least it's more historical than keeping Europeans out of Central and South Africa twice.

Just like how found three cities on every continent is historical for the Brits. Even if UHV reflected the civ's historical objectives rather than what actually happened, I'd like to see one of Ethiopia's main interests to be defending its land from foreign invaders.

 

[blizzrd]

Other than perhaps Arabia, which civ is historically interested in the Ethiopian land though? Italy isn't in the mix, and they were the only Europeans to seriously try and conquer Ethiopia.

 

[onedreamer]

but only because it was the last piece of Africa not under colonial rule

 

[Grishnash]

The only thing wrong with Ethiopia, is the fact that they too fall into a civil war as well as bring egypt down. The lease that should be done is give them some kind of stable bonus in the start so that they last for more then 10 turns. Since IRL they only fell like after 1940AD... And the whole Camel Archer thing is really dumb, as no matter what, they'll over run eygpt and ethiopia(and sometimes Mali and a lot of the time Carthage) before they could get pikemen to defeat them, and no, spearmen just can not do the same thing (Spearman 4 Camel Archer 10)
So, it's not just civs spawning than attacking the other civs that make them fall, it's the mass amount of very powerful barbarians and then the mass amount of fast Impis that drive the civs down. I think to change Africa from keep falling into Civil-Wars, you'd need to remove some barbariens, it's alright if Arabia takes over Eygpt, but by the time they even spawn, eygpts dead! Whenever I play Ethiopia, if I don't get the Great Wall (Which I do, 9/10) I just stop playing, cuz the only way you'd be able to get by the barbariens and Camels is if you expend like a snail and have a massive army of spearmen and axemen, which I don't like to do... And is VERY hard, and then theres only a 25% chance you'll live...

Ethiopia's current UHV didn't include "never losing a city", did it? If so, I think it should be there. The heartland of the Ethiopian empire was never succesfully invaded by outside powers in the colonial times or during WW2, so why not throw it in there? At least it's more historical than keeping Europeans out of Central and South Africa twice.

Agree. One of Ethiopia's UHVs should be that, 'cuz once you stop europeans from getting to Africa by 1500AD it's REALLY easy to keep them off for another 400 years.

About Eygpt, I REALLY think their UHV should be changed. Right now, it's all about culture and if you do win a UHV, it's before most civs even spawn!
I think that maybe it's UHV of 500Culture(Is that it?) should be changed to never lose a city before 0AD (Although that's alot of 'never lose cities' go around...) Cuz Eygpt did have a crap lot of culture IRL, and I don't think it helped them much... at all.... heck most of it's being said to not even being theirs now...

PS: Do UHV vics give you little point or something?

 

[onedreamer]

Egypt was conquered so many times that such a condition isn't really appropriate IMO. Besides, Babylon's UHV ends the game even before Egypt's, and I don't find anything bad with it. Who said they should have long term UHVs ? These 2 civs reached their top before the Roman Empire was born, let alone J.C. Their UHVs reflect this fact very well, but you can still play them aiming at another victory. Actually, you may find *that* to be the real challenge for these civs.

 

[Cethegus]

Good point... although Ethiopia remained its sovereignity during the colonial times and WW2, hardly any civ would be interested in capturing any of their land. Arabia and Egypt at the most. And maybe those pesky barbarian impis...

How's Ethiopia held its own against real life barbarian hordes? Would that make the UHV too hard and... "varied"?

 

[Grishnash]

Maybe there should be like a modcomp that allows all the civs to be played. Or lets you picked what civs you want to play with. But I think Rhye would have to make it(?) and I don't think it would be at the top of his to do list... or even on the page...

hardly any civ would be interested in capturing any of their land. Arabia and Egypt at the most.

Lol! I find it funny, when I play Ethiopia and Arabia gets "interested" in taking over my land... It goes like this, "The world isn't big enough for the two of us! 'war'" ten turns later of throwing rocks across the red sea hoping to hit someone, we make peace and live happily ever after. Until he decides to do that again, with sticks!!!
And Egypt's interest in my lands last for about ten seconds before I take them over or they fall into a civil-war, and well, I still take them over.