Version 1.95 posted (comments thread)
- Thread starter thamis
- Start date
thamis said:That's on purpose. I don't want fishing boats being mis-used for exploration... I knew that's what you wanted to do, cheater!
Thamis,
Good point. Is it possible to allow fishing boats to ignore cultural boundaries once the tech for bireme is discovered?
Regards
Seidrik_The_Gray
Seidrik The Gray
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2006
- Messages
- 1,160
Hehe...I can almost see the huge map and the normal map with my eyes shut now...don't need no stinkin' exploration! But, yes, I send out my Carthaginian galleys ASAP 
I echo comments concerning the civics, they do seem to come rather late, but there do seem to be plenty of buildings to ease the pain.
I echo comments concerning the civics, they do seem to come rather late, but there do seem to be plenty of buildings to ease the pain.
Ankenaton
"The Heretic"
Too bad this game does not really lend itself to multi-player because I would love play against you guys. It was tried in CIV III; but the results were less than satisfying. Would it not be great to exploit the tendencies of a human opponent like sticking a couple of fleets of triremes and transports loaded to bear up Carthages aft end as the focus is upon exploration to the north and west...."Pharoah rejoiced at the destruction of his hated rival to the west". All in the spirit of good fun.kwarriorpoet said:Hehe...I can almost see the huge map and the normal map with my eyes shut now...don't need no stinkin' exploration! But, yes, I send out my Carthaginian galleys ASAP
I echo comments concerning the civics, they do seem to come rather late, but there do seem to be plenty of buildings to ease the pain.
Thamis, since you mentioned reworking the civics... here are some of my thoughts. Does slavery really need to be a civic? Slavery was a pretty much universally accepted practive by most all of the major ancient civ's represented in the game. Maybe it should be an early tech that allows production to be rushed using population and one of the civics could remove the unhappiness penalty like a reworked "Representation".
I think there should be some distinction between representation and city states. My understanding was that while the Greeks developed the idea of the "Polis", city states were also a feature of the Phoenecians only without representation. Perhaps "Confederation" would be a better civic description. The Romans had representation through the senate (as corupt as it might have been) even after the fall of the Republic. Maybe a civic called "Citizenship" could be used to reflect both Greek and Roman politics and allow for drafting units or remove limits on drafting.
I think there should be some distinction between representation and city states. My understanding was that while the Greeks developed the idea of the "Polis", city states were also a feature of the Phoenecians only without representation. Perhaps "Confederation" would be a better civic description. The Romans had representation through the senate (as corupt as it might have been) even after the fall of the Republic. Maybe a civic called "Citizenship" could be used to reflect both Greek and Roman politics and allow for drafting units or remove limits on drafting.
Now my breif thoughts on how religious civics should work.
Paganism- no upkeep and no benifts from buildings.
Organized Religion- medium upkeep and building benfits, no spread of non-state religions.
Theocracy- high upkeep (to maintain preistly class) and unit experience (holy warrior effect) as well as building benifits, no spread of non-state religions.
Free Religion- (really religious tollerance) low upkeep and building benfits, other religions allowed to spread.
Paganism- no upkeep and no benifts from buildings.
Organized Religion- medium upkeep and building benfits, no spread of non-state religions.
Theocracy- high upkeep (to maintain preistly class) and unit experience (holy warrior effect) as well as building benifits, no spread of non-state religions.
Free Religion- (really religious tollerance) low upkeep and building benfits, other religions allowed to spread.
Just wanted to add my two cents here I find that TAM very playable multiplayer and have been playing this mod exclusively with 2 friends for some months now we simply cannot go back to the original game. We are playing a huge map now in version 1.94 (still haven’t finished it yet) and all the modes of multi work no problem. The only issue that this mod has with multi player is some Civ are inherently stronger then others, Rome for example, as long as everyone playing is aware of it no problem.
But with version 1.94 anyways the multi player game improved dramatically. Because of the challenge people have trading with the AI and lower cost for city maintance. We are looking forward to finishing this version 1.94 so we can finally move on to 1.95. Hopefully tonight they will capitulate to Carthage .
On a side note does anyone know if you can continue a game from a prior version with a new version? 1.94 to 1.95 in this case?
Edited for massive and glaring spelling errors
But with version 1.94 anyways the multi player game improved dramatically. Because of the challenge people have trading with the AI and lower cost for city maintance. We are looking forward to finishing this version 1.94 so we can finally move on to 1.95. Hopefully tonight they will capitulate to Carthage
.On a side note does anyone know if you can continue a game from a prior version with a new version? 1.94 to 1.95 in this case?
Edited for massive and glaring spelling errors
Seidrik_The_Gray
Seidrik The Gray
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2006
- Messages
- 1,160
Perdant said:I just wanted to add my two cents here i find that TAM very playable multiplayer and have been playing this mod excluslvly with 2 friends for some months now we simply cannot go back to the original game. We are playing a huge map now in version 1.94 (still havent finished it yet) and all the modes of multi work no problem. The only issue that this mod has with multi player is some Civ are inhernatly stronger then others, Rome for example, as long as everyone playing is aware of it no problem.
But with version 1.94 anyways the multi player game improved dramitacly. because of the challange people have trading with the AI and lower cost for citie maintance. We are looking forward to finnishing this version 1.94 so we can finally move on to 1.95. Hopefully tonight they will capilulate to Carthage
on a side note does anyone know if you can continue a game from a prior version with a new version. 1.94 to 1.95 in this case?
First off, LONG LIVE CARTHAGE (albeit none of that nasty child sacrifice, ok?) Glad to see someone else gutting Rome
Secondly, 1.95 is not compatible with 1.94, so I'd suggest finishing your game first.
Seidrik_The_Gray
Seidrik The Gray
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2006
- Messages
- 1,160
Ankenaton said:Too bad this game does not really lend itself to multi-player because I would love play against you guys. It was tried in CIV III; but the results were less than satisfying. Would it not be great to exploit the tendencies of a human opponent like sticking a couple of fleets of triremes and transports loaded to bear up Carthages aft end as the focus is upon exploration to the north and west...."Pharoah rejoiced at the destruction of his hated rival to the west". All in the spirit of good fun.
Sir, I'm sure you'd be as rutheless with Egypt as I am with the Hittites...who I would play by the way
Carthage is just more challenging than Greece, Rome, the Hittites or Egypt, but you still have a chance I even conquered the world once with Phoenecia, lol, albeit on the normal map.Carthage has allot to defend, many vulnerabilities, but thankfully, the AI doesn't know that yet
Oh, and on the huge map, Tartessos doesn't exist.I'd love to get into an MP game
But Ank...if you're playing Egypt, then I can't let you live unless someone of similar capability and knowledge is playing...say Persia? Let Shqype play his blessed Illyrians, lol Humans are so dastardly on this game.
Seidrik_The_Gray
Seidrik The Gray
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2006
- Messages
- 1,160
Babylon on huge I have yet to try. Carthage is easy if you just want to sit there. Expanding out becomes a challenge, considering the exhorbitant maintenance costs, and Rome and Greece and Egypt. Heck, huge is easier than the normal map by far.
Some specific feedbacks :
- french translation : "entairement ceremonial" should be written "Enterrement Cérémonial", "Scépultures" should be written "Sépultures", the carthage lancer uu does not have any name (blank name). If there is an easy way to have an eye on all the french translations, i'm ok to do it.
The following about huge med map :
- northern "barbarian" civs : decebal, parpatua and budica seems ok to me. But Vercingetorix and Arminius and totally surrounded by dense forrest, not allowing any development, even slow, they are always ways behind. More normal forest in these lands could help in having a little more challenging ennemies. I know it is intended, but this is imo exagerated.
- horses : many in scythia and iberia, none in france/italy/africa. Several civs have saddleback or special horse-using uu without any horses in the land they can grab.
- Viriato : agricultural civ with so few 5 food tiles seems strange to me. Either it would seem more appropriated to allow them more 5 food tiles, or changing agricultural for something else should help them, his civ trait is nearly useless.
- - - (current discussion, not global feedback)
About Carthage strenght and weakness : in my point of view Carthage is very strong, but you have to build a real army as moving troops is costly, the "guerilla style" is not adapted for Carthage. I love playing Carthage, but just consider that when you go at war, it's for crushing a civ, with a whole army. Not just plundering or taking just 1/2 cities, it's really costly. Egypt and Nubia a not pro-military civs, so it's easy conquest. Rome is pretty nice since close to the capitol, but you need sea domination for that. Iberia depends a lot upon Viriato's developement. For me, Carthage is the easiest after Rome. Nubia is quite strong also, because they got pretty uu, nice civ traits and an easy conquest with terrific lands with Egypt. The only bad thing is not having horses (sounds strange since white horses are known from north african lands) while being saddleback.
And last, but not least : elephant rocks
- french translation : "entairement ceremonial" should be written "Enterrement Cérémonial", "Scépultures" should be written "Sépultures", the carthage lancer uu does not have any name (blank name). If there is an easy way to have an eye on all the french translations, i'm ok to do it.
The following about huge med map :
- northern "barbarian" civs : decebal, parpatua and budica seems ok to me. But Vercingetorix and Arminius and totally surrounded by dense forrest, not allowing any development, even slow, they are always ways behind. More normal forest in these lands could help in having a little more challenging ennemies. I know it is intended, but this is imo exagerated.
- horses : many in scythia and iberia, none in france/italy/africa. Several civs have saddleback or special horse-using uu without any horses in the land they can grab.
- Viriato : agricultural civ with so few 5 food tiles seems strange to me. Either it would seem more appropriated to allow them more 5 food tiles, or changing agricultural for something else should help them, his civ trait is nearly useless.
- - - (current discussion, not global feedback)
About Carthage strenght and weakness : in my point of view Carthage is very strong, but you have to build a real army as moving troops is costly, the "guerilla style" is not adapted for Carthage. I love playing Carthage, but just consider that when you go at war, it's for crushing a civ, with a whole army. Not just plundering or taking just 1/2 cities, it's really costly. Egypt and Nubia a not pro-military civs, so it's easy conquest. Rome is pretty nice since close to the capitol, but you need sea domination for that. Iberia depends a lot upon Viriato's developement. For me, Carthage is the easiest after Rome. Nubia is quite strong also, because they got pretty uu, nice civ traits and an easy conquest with terrific lands with Egypt. The only bad thing is not having horses (sounds strange since white horses are known from north african lands) while being saddleback.
And last, but not least : elephant rocks
Ankenaton
"The Heretic"
You may survive as my vassal...only if you give up all of that nasty child sacrifice thing of yours and come to pay homage to Pharoah so that he can enlighten you onto the worship of the one god...the Aten. With you and your Libyan barbarians...my Nubian vassals to the south...the worship of the Aten will spread to the frozen lands of the barbarians to the north. As for the Asiatics -Hittites, Persians, Babylonians etc...you know who you are...woe and destruction upon thee. No quarter shall be asked...and none shall be given. MUHAHAHA....MUHAHAHA....there stands Pharoah triumphant over his enemies.kwarriorpoet said:Sir, I'm sure you'd be as rutheless with Egypt as I am with the Hittites...who I would play by the way
Carthage has allot to defend, many vulnerabilities, but thankfully, the AI doesn't know that yet
I'd love to get into an MP game
Humans are so dastardly on this game.
Similar threads
