v1.982 – v1.482 – v1.182

[Tigranes]

I can see why the people who played that Mayan/Japanese SG were so disgusted with RFC after all.

With all due respect, those people never got really deep into the soul of this mod. For me, historical developement of the Civ4 world is much more exciting than ability to conquer the Earth with or without exploits. I mean -- on personal level one is free to undo any change in the patch and contunue to please himself. But when it gets to overall phylosophy of this mod -- "Earth simulator" must behave as Earth simulator. No nation should be able to conquer the world. Because no nation did.

 

[Cethegus]

Can anyone pinpoint which file(s) include the changed research rates and increased barb spawns? I probably can figure these out by myself, just wanted to ask here first hoping for a quick reply. Possibly the one which effects the golden age anarchies, also.

I'm toying with the idea of trying to bring back some RFC features the way they were before, so ancient/classical civs aren't doomed with the barbarians and low research rates. I'm currently playing a game with Greece (Monarch) and from what I saw, Babylon and Rome can never become the culturally rich societies they were in real life with the new changes. I'm having a little trouble expanding because of all the barbarians. I just don't feel safe expanding beyond Korinthos and Halikarnassos because of all the Horse Archers. Maybe there are too many of them?

The way things are now, classical civs have hard time doing anything but building spear/axemen to defend themselves. And what are Barbarian Camel Archers doing in the Middle-East around the time Ethiopia spawns?

 

[-Perceval-]

shoul i delete my old rhyes and fall version before installe the new version?

 

[Cethegus]

shoul i delete my old rhyes and fall version before installe the new version?

Short answer: Yes.

 

[Lone Wolf]

And if the Romans built a Great Wall in the east and was able to man it effectively (not in real life obviously unlike Hadrian's wall), the barbarian pressure would build on China rather than the opposite. So yes, things should be more flexible to favor the human player being able to change history.

You can build the Great Walls as Romans already. The new patch doesn't forbid that. What do you mean?

The thing is, the Romans succeeding in building and mantaining a Great Wall, and that keeping the barbarians out makes sense. Romans moving the capital to Paris, and not losing Gaul as a result, does not. Besides being unbalanced.

Can anyone pinpoint which file(s) include the changed research rates and increased barb spawns?

Barb spawns - Barbs.py. Civ4HandicapInfo.xml deals with AI bonus against barbarians. <iAIBarbarianBonus> tags, specifically. Notice that negative values are good for the AI, so current positive 10 at Monarch means that barbies receive a 10% strength increase when fighting the AI. (No wonder the AI's are being decimated! They are already bad at warfare, and with a hard scripted disadvantage...) The number used in classical BTS in all levels is -25. The numbers used in previous RFC versions are -25 for Settler, -10 for Monarch, 0 for Emperor.
Researh rates - Civ4HandicapInfo.xml and, mainly, SDK.

To tweak barbies back, you can just copy the file from the previous version. Yeah, and add the cPickle stuff for speed.

Possibly the one which effects the golden age anarchies, also.

SDK, sadly. (I think).

 

[Cethegus]

Barb spawns - Barbs.py. Civ4HandicapInfo.xml deals with AI bonus against barbarians. <iAIBarbarianBonus> tags, specifically. Notice that negative values are good for the AI, so current positive 10 at Monarch means that barbies receive a 10% strength increase when fighting the AI. (No wonder the AI's are being decimated! They are already bad at warfare, and with a hard scripted disadvantage...) The number used in classical BTS in all levels is -25. The numbers used in previous RFC versions are -25 for Settler, -10 for Monarch, 0 for Emperor.
Researh rates - Civ4HandicapInfo.xml and, mainly, SDK.

To tweak barbies back, you can just copy the file from the previous version. Yeah, and add the cPickle stuff for speed.

Alright, I'll look into them. Thanks for the reply.

SDK, sadly. (I think).

Ah, shame. I'll see what effects re-enabling the tech brokering will have. Don't know yet whether it's a good improvement or not, at least it was annoying when playing as the Greeks - nobody could trade me Meditation except for India, and neither of us had Alphabet.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

Capitals have been moved since the beginning of history to stabilize empires and enable defenses. For Chinese history it's usually the opposite (capitals moved closer to the center for easier defense), but the Roman capital(s) had been at various times, Constantinople, Ravenna, Nicomedia, Milan, and regional centers at Antioch and Trier (in the Rhineland no less), closer to the empire's frontiers.

 

[Lone Wolf]

But moving it to Lutetia Parisorum wouldn't help Rome fight invaders in Gaul. Any historical cases of a capital moved to separatist lands to prevent a secession?

 

[LukeUeda-Sarson]

But moving it to Lutetia Parisorum wouldn't help Rome fight invaders in Gaul. Any historical cases of a capital moved to separatist lands to prevent a secession?

Devil's advocate here, since I think most of AP's moves, clever as they are, are "gamey", but depending on what you define as "separatist lands", then sure, loads. When Alexander the Great moved his capital to Babylon, it was to become King of Asia, along with all the trappings. Sure, it annoyed his own Macedonians, so one could regard them as the new separatists...

Some more modern examples? Well, I like to think of Strasbourg. As in EU parliament location. The French needed to be fobbed off with it otherwise they'd have gotten cold feet about the whole idea and left in a huff, just as they did with NATO.

I must say I don't understand the stiff capital-moving penalties in RFC. In many cultures, moving a capital was expected behavior, not something undesirable.

Cheers, Luke

 

[Lone Wolf]

When Alexander the Great moved his capital to Babylon,

Everyone still declared independence after his death. It's more of a counter-example.

Some more modern examples? Well, I like to think of Strasbourg. As in EU parliament location.

Well, the EU isn't an unified nation with a defined capital, yet.

 

[kairob]

EDIT: Didn't see the new page

 

[AnotherPacifist]

Yes, it would, because the Romans, if they kept control of Gaul, would have viewed the later tribes (the French being an amalgam of them) as invaders, not secessionists.

Constantinople became the Turkish capital more for administrative and military reasons, and provided a base for incursions into "infidel" Europe:

With Constantinople beneath his belt, Mehmed II had acquired a great, rich city albeit one in decline due to years of war. The Capital allowed the Turks to establish a permanent supply base in Christian Europe. Further advances into Hungary and the principalities bordering the two kingdoms would have been difficult, if not impossible, without the harbors of Constantinople bringing in supplies and serving as a fortified center from which to administer the empire and strategy.

Another more obscure example is the yet-undiscovered capital of the Middle Egyptian Kingdom:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itjtawy

It is located in the Faiyum region, and its cemeteries were located at Lisht, el-Lahun and Dahshur. The site of Itjtawy may have been chosen due to its proximity to the source of Asiatic incursions into Egypt to help prevent further attacks.[2]

 

[AnotherPacifist]

--Dadu (Khanbaliq) was built by Kublai Khan probably for this reason, besides being closer to his Chinese subjects

--Shenyang was the original capital of the Later Jin dynasty, but when Beijing was conquered, the capital was moved there:

After capturing Beijing instead of sacking the city as the rebels had done before them, Dorgon insisted over the protests of other Manchu princes on making it Qing’s capital and largely reappointed Ming officials to their posts. Setting the Qing capital in Beijing may seem a straightforward move in hindsight, but it was then an act of innovation because historically no major Chinese dynasty had ever "inherited" its immediate predecessor’s capital. Keeping the Ming capital and bureaucracy intact helped quickly stabilize the country and greatly sped up the Manchu process of conquest.

Although it took almost another 2 decades before the final Ming secessionists were quelled, this move probably saved a lot of time for the Qing dynasty.

My point is that there are many reason for countries to move their capitals, but it should be sacrosanct unless militarily captured by another country.

 

[Lone Wolf]

My point is that there are many reason for countries to move their capitals, but it should be sacrosanct unless militarily captured by another country.

Why? As I see it, flipping does represent an unstoppable militiary action on the part of a flipper.

Yes, it would, because the Romans, if they kept control of Gaul, would have viewed the later tribes (the French being an amalgam of them) as invaders, not secessionists.

Why should the French care?

--Shenyang was the original capital of the Later Jin dynasty, but when Beijing was conquered, the capital was moved there:

Doesn't qualify as "squatting" in Civ terms.

-------------
Stupid Spanish, they don't realize that they will eliminate all the problems with the Catalonians by moving the capital to Barcelona. Stupid Russians, fighting in Chechnya, while they could just made Grozny the capital.

 

[Fanaza]

The thing is, the Romans succeeding in building and mantaining a Great Wall, and that keeping the barbarians out makes sense. Romans moving the capital to Paris, and not losing Gaul as a result, does not. Besides being unbalanced.

As I see it, Rome was doomed to fail eventually no matter what. Unlike China, the span of the Roman empire, from the middle east, to Africa, to Europe, was way too ethnically diverse to ever last longer than a thousand years under the oppression of a single nation. While China was diverse initially, eventually most turned their heads to a single nation due to the fact that China is a 'pocket of civilization' surrounded by mountains, desert, and jungle. The Roman empire was no pocket. The revolts and conquest would have destroyed it eventually, even with a great wall. France and Spain would break off eventually. Rome's biggest fear as time went on, would come from within.

 

[Lone Wolf]

France and Spain would break off eventually.

As they do in RFC even with the Great Wall.

--Shenyang was the original capital of the Later Jin dynasty, but when Beijing was conquered, the capital was moved there:

That can be easily represented by running the Bureaucracy civic, conquering a good city, and deciding to adopt it as a capital for a larger Bureaucracy bonus.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

The thing about not moving capitals late can be captured by a function that calculates stability--the later the capital move, the more penalty. Or it could be proportional to the amount of infrastructure in the city (who would want to move to bombed-out Grozny anyway?) Note that all the examples I've quoted so far have involved pre-industrial age eras. The Republic of China is a good example--it was so unstable that it had more than 10 capitals before it finally ended up on Taiwan.

If the Dorians went west to Italy instead of to Greece, they could have very well founded a city there as their "capital." Of course all those city states cannot be represented by the civ "Greeks" as in RFC, but just like the Germans weren't united in the middle ages (if they can even recognize the difference between Franks and Germans), to play RFC you have them as a unified civ.

 

[sennomulo]

Hmm...if we're going to have "Kyouto" instead of "Kyoto", shouldn't we also have "Keijou" instead of "Keijo"?

 

[Lone Wolf]

(who would want to move to bombed-out Grozny anyway?)

The Russians could move the capital before the bombings, or just quickly rebuild all the stuff.

Note that all the examples I've quoted so far have involved pre-industrial age eras.

And only one or two of them actually has something to do with capital preventing resurrection. And it still can be explained in other civ-terms.

"Kyouto" instead of "Kyoto"

NO. I demand Kyouyouyuto!

The thing about not moving capitals late can be captured by a function that calculates stability-

The logic still remains - it makes no sense for mere capital to prevent spawning/resurrection.

 

[Rhye]

Hmm...if we're going to have "Kyouto" instead of "Kyoto", shouldn't we also have "Keijou" instead of "Keijo"?

you are right, it's Keijou; I'll correct it.

Please note that all the Chinese cities now have a Japanese katakana renaming counterpart. Have fun with the Nihongo-ization