Version 2.6 discussion

Jabarto · Feb 18, 2009

I love that you included the PerfectWorld map script a while back. Cephalo just released a new version of it that you might want to include in the next release.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=7784743#post7784743

Cruel · Feb 18, 2009

DavidB1111 said:
Um, okay. I'll begrungingly accept the military costs then. I'll let you know if I really have any issues with it. Although the logic behind 1 unit a turn makes sense in the earlier years when 20 years a turn is prevalent. I'm guessing it took 270 years to build the sphinx, but a dozen warriors shouldn't take the same amount of time.
Now, Tanks, in real life, we can mass produce them, or at the very least get them built in a 6 month period. Now, why yes, that equals to building it in 1 turn, I may agree that cranking out tanks may be bad. Just don't make their costs greater than the end game world wonders.

I disagree from you. A battalion well trained can take a long time to be formed of zero. You cited a Wonderfull, but what about a statue? Or a granary, or a wall of wood? They can be built quickly, and because for this I think most should focus on gameplay.

I think much better when the game mainly focus on the units than Buildings, in my opinion the game is tiresome when you have to be building a million things rather than attack, defend or kick a strategy. And so I prefer that the building has low value.

Ogaburan · Feb 18, 2009

DavidB1111 said:
Also, if anything, a mine should increase unhealthiness, not unhappiness. I don't know why anyone would be unhappy about a mine, unless it was a Strip Mine.
[threats on zap]
People should be more unhappy with Coal and Gas, and Electric/nuclear Powerplants.

I also think so, if any people in ancient time were happy for mines. Gave them a steady workplace...

Sioux · Feb 18, 2009

zappara, what do you think about adding new types of specialist like doctor or statesman?? Especially doctor would be helpful to fight with unhealthiness.

Few things:

1. Mounted unit system should be simplified - there is too many units. I would remove mounted infantry, heavy cavalry (knights were heavy cavalry) and templar knights.
then we have two paths for mounted units: recon and battle.
a. Chariot->Horseman ->Light Cavalry->Hussars (light cavalry, not Polish Winged Hussars, which were heavy battle mounted units)->Cavalry
b. Chariot->Horse Archer->Knight ->Cuirassier->Cavalry

2. There is a problem with salt. It s spams to rarely. I had games without any on a map or 1-2. Maybe adding building, which provide salt in coastal cities from salted water, will solve the problem. In that case I would increase bonus from salt, beacause its great value in antiquity and middle ages.

DavidB1111 · Feb 18, 2009

Cruel said:
I disagree from you. A battalion well trained can take a long time to be formed of zero. You cited a Wonderfull, but what about a statue? Or a granary, or a wall of wood? They can be built quickly, and because for this I think most should focus on gameplay.

I think much better when the game mainly focus on the units than Buildings, in my opinion the game is tiresome when you have to be building a million things rather than attack, defend or kick a strategy. And so I prefer that the building has low value.

How does a battalion of troops take more time to form than the Great wall?

A granary shouldn't take 20 years to build either, but that's not the point.
Also, a battalion can't be formed out of Zero, nothing can be formed from Zero.

A statue, a wall of wood/stone should both take much more time to build than an army. Like I said, 4x cost might be bad.

This game doesn't focus on miliary units simply because Civ 4 wouldn't stop forcing you to either go crazy ignoring it's suggestions, or keep mass building tanks.

The major problem is that he mentioned something about units costing less per era in base Civ 4, but I've never seen this, ever.

This has never happened to me. Same with Buildings. A tank cost the same in the future era as it does the modern era. Same with Rifleman.

Anyhow, I just don't think the game should be focused on mass producing of buildings, or even an army.

This game has some interesting design concepts, but like Revolutions Mod, if you don't make certain changes optional, you might as well not make it in the first place.

I can understand increasing the cost of military units, but tanks shouldn't cost more hammers than The Great Lighthouse.

Otherwise they might as well be called "End of Game, you win" instead of tanks.

JosEPh_II · Feb 18, 2009

Cruel said:
<snip>
I think much better when the game mainly focus on the units than Buildings, in my opinion the game is tiresome when you have to be building a million things rather than attack, defend or kick a strategy. And so I prefer that the building has low value.

We all have opinions and we all have different ways to play. I'm a "Builder" type player so I Like to build a zillion things. I fight for defence and opportunity, so my unit building isn't the same as the way you play Cruel. We just look at the game differently.

AI Civs like Shaka and others force me to fight in some games. So I must learn to fight to survive. But I've also had games where I used to win thru Culture and Space race, not conquest.

The point being that certain unit upgrades cost too much now in 2.6a for my style of play. 269 gold for taking an axeman to mace is too hard to swallow. So in 1722 AD I still have some cities guarded by the lowly axeman cause I don't have the revenue stream to upgrade. And don't even think I'm gonna take an axeman to a musketman! My treasury would never survive.

I'm spending much more time now trying to keep unhappiness down when in previous versions of RoM unhealthiness was appling the pressure.

Also in this version everthing , for me on Noble level, is taking much longer to accomplish. And not only for me but for the AI as well. I'll soon be getting Navigation in my current game and as I've stated it's already 1722AD. I'm playing on Epic speed. At the current pace I should have Infantry by the late 1800's and Early Destroyers by the early to Mid 1900's. And so far of all the AI Civs I have contact with I lead in the tech race. It's definitely different this go round.

JosEPh

DavidB1111 · Feb 18, 2009

I dare say I'm a builder and a war loving maniac.

I've not noticed too much of a tech loss at the moment, then again I'm playing on the easiest difficulty.

I've noticed that the Hindu Religion promotion, which technically should be given for free, maybe if you built the ultimate religion building, anyway, is really nice. It's like a free amphibious promotion.

Combined with a bunch of others, anyway.

also, yes, Upgrade costs are a little too high.
OH, another thing, what happened to the unit graphic in the bottom corner? Where the level and exp and promotions are displayed? It's now impossible to see what a unit has unless one looks at the tiny icon of the unit.

They used to have a unit-graphic which you could mouse over and it told you the sum of all the promotions, could you please fix that. It doesn't seem right.

Also, I really hate that ranged bombard of all siege weapons being hellishly inaccurate. My catapult and trebushet were not known for missing what's in front of them.

Also, what the heck is going on with Paved road, because I swear it shows up several different times to be built...
Oh, another thing, how come it's really hard to find anything that reduces maintaince costs. I mean, everything increases it, and very few things besides the Forbbiden Palace, courthouses and some civics reduce it.
There needs to be more ways.

Bezhukov · Feb 18, 2009

"Slavery is only rarely an option and definately very situational"

That's what I thought until I tried it. Even with the larger research penalty, I think it will inevitably be the way to go, especially once you can build lumbermills (you'll need to keep your forests for the health), and opening up foreign trade routes negates the research penalty once you hit ports anyway. With the very strong Private civic at Usury, Toll Houses make a much earlier appearance as well. I played a game beelining Banking for Free Markets to open the routes, then went back and tried Slavery from the get go, and the difference was marked.

It's like being in a constant Golden Age, with the extra food from farms just gravy, and even the slave specialist is pretty strong when hitting the happiness limit in a city, since engineers are limited early game. With all the strong buildings in RoM, hammers are usually your limiting factor, especially on higher difficulties.

Bezhukov · Feb 18, 2009

One other request - please remove pillaging from Galleys. I like to play high difficulty Archipelago maps on marathon, and barb galleys regularly destroy my fishing boats before turn 100, when I haven't even discovered Weaving yet, let alone Sailing. Even with Sailing, you've got the old Galley on Galley combat, which is tiresomely RNG-dependant.

Yaotzin · Feb 19, 2009

A few points..

1) Could you remove the - :food:

from International ports and Oil Refineries? They kill the AI (AI seems to love them for some reason I assume, since it's always the recommended building. I guess it doesn't understand the whole upgrading thing, so the building looks awesome), and are kind of rubbish anyway (international ports aren't much of an improvement over commercial, and you only need one oil refinery)

2) Could you include everything a religion offers in the 'pedia? It's a real hassle looking up what buildings each religion offers, and it's even worse now with new promotions and whatnot.

3) The difference between barter and free trade is far too extreme. Going from - :commerce:

with no foreign routes to foreign trade routes + more trade routes + no - :commerce:

is an absolutely huge difference. There's slavery in between, but frankly it makes zero sense for slavery being used to get more commerce!

4) Related, at the point free trade becomes available, everything is incredibly easy to research. 1-3 turns for everything is silly. Ramp up research costs bigtime, please! What schack said, basically. The amount of commerce and gold coming in suddenly ramps up at a ridiculous rate, but tech costs/unit support/maintenance/whatever doesn't, so you have tons of gold and research.

No idea why folks are saying they have trouble getting gold. With the crazy number of trade routes, plus all the numerous :commerce:

,

and

modifiers, it's easy to run 100% science and research everything in 2 turns while racking up gold.

DavidB1111 · Feb 19, 2009

While it is true that money gets flowing rather fast, I'm up to about 300-400 a turn, and also research gets done fast, don't increase the costs any more. By the end of the game, it will be the mid 1900s before you burn through the tech tree. That's fine. It used to be much more unbalanced. Now I have tanks in the 1700s, instead of the 1400s.

Okay, that's rare, but I've done that before. In Vanilla... OKay, maybe 1500s.

I agree with the first three points though.
Also, my capital here has hit at least once 1150+ hammers due to bonuses. Now that is fun.

Cruel · Feb 19, 2009

DavidB1111 said:
How does a battalion of troops take more time to form than the Great wall? A granary shouldn't take 20 years to build either, but that's not the point.
Also, a battalion can't be formed out of Zero, nothing can be formed from Zero.

Of course not, and you understood the point where I want to reach. Clearly, any activity needs resources.

DavidB1111 said:
A statue, a wall of wood/stone should both take much more time to build than an army. Like I said, 4x cost might be bad.

Do you have any idea of how long it takes to acquire training resources to mount a battalion or construct a submarine or a ship or plane? Since starting the project until the end? I'll give you an idea, the Russians who say that fast and built with few resources are spending several billion for its 5 th generation jet on a project that is beginning in the 80s and is not ready yet ...

A statue and wall of wood/stone can be made in weeks.

DavidB1111 said:
This game doesn't focus on miliary units simply because Civ 4 wouldn't stop forcing you to either go crazy ignoring it's suggestions, or keep mass building tanks.

Yes, the game have many options for wins, and some changes simply become too easy or simple to get the victory, as adding building elements that produce such great culture. The point where I want reach is not just a only way to win the game or my personal strategy, but put it on that level all the original forms of victory has fun and closer to "reality".

DavidB1111 said:
The major problem is that he mentioned something about units costing less per era in base Civ 4, but I've never seen this, ever. This has never happened to me. Same with Buildings. A tank cost the same in the future era as it does the modern era. Same with Rifleman.

I believe this should be modified product is not in itself, but the production capacity of this product and it comes down to having more available Hammers.

DavidB1111 said:
Anyhow, I just don't think the game should be focused on mass producing of buildings, or even an army.

Me too, I believe the purpose of this MOD is to provide increased quality of the game, which can and should be the same rules of victory of the original game.

DavidB1111 said:
This game has some interesting design concepts, but like Revolutions Mod, if you don't make certain changes optional, you might as well not make it in the first place.

I can understand increasing the cost of military units, but tanks shouldn't cost more hammers than The Great Lighthouse.
Otherwise they might as well be called "End of Game, you win" instead of tanks.

I don´t agree again: any civilization with infrastructure at the same time could build the great lighthouse, but none could build a tank. We have obviously the technological capacity to do.

The technology capability is the result of many years of development and the game that is as "test tubes" and not Hammers. I believe that this type of comparison you're suggesting needs to be done within the same "era" as starting a presupposed technological, where feasible this comparison. Without this, a comparison suggests that it is easier a civilization to build a tank then a great lighthouse, but is not. A civilization of that time has neither close to capacity we have today. A tank has the most varied technological equipment, since the chemical area, techniques of Steel, even in some cases even nuclear, eletronics, but our current capacity in logistics and training and productivity makes us more able to produce a tank faster than the olders civilizations building a great lighthouse.

Cruel · Feb 19, 2009

JosEPh_II said:
We all have opinions and we all have different ways to play. I'm a "Builder" type player so I Like to build a zillion things. I fight for defence and opportunity, so my unit building isn't the same as the way you play Cruel. We just look at the game differently.

AI Civs like Shaka and others force me to fight in some games. So I must learn to fight to survive. But I've also had games where I used to win thru Culture and Space race, not conquest.

The point being that certain unit upgrades cost too much now in 2.6a for my style of play. 269 gold for taking an axeman to mace is too hard to swallow. So in 1722 AD I still have some cities guarded by the lowly axeman cause I don't have the revenue stream to upgrade. And don't even think I'm gonna take an axeman to a musketman! My treasury would never survive.

I'm spending much more time now trying to keep unhappiness down when in previous versions of RoM unhealthiness was appling the pressure.

Also in this version everthing , for me on Noble level, is taking much longer to accomplish. And not only for me but for the AI as well. I'll soon be getting Navigation in my current game and as I've stated it's already 1722AD. I'm playing on Epic speed. At the current pace I should have Infantry by the late 1800's and Early Destroyers by the early to Mid 1900's. And so far of all the AI Civs I have contact with I lead in the tech race. It's definitely different this go round.

JosEPh

I hope my previously answer has maded clarify better what I want say. I don´t advocating one way to win the game or I would like to more expensive units, I also think they are very expensive to upgrade despite having very much money in my games especially in more modern eras.

I believe the solution is to increase the number of available Hammers and further increase the time to research. As the cost of everything produced, I think that should be examined case by case and not impose a general rule.

Cruel · Feb 19, 2009

Yaotzin said:
A few points..

1) Could you remove the - from International ports and Oil Refineries? They kill the AI (AI seems to love them for some reason I assume, since it's always the recommended building. I guess it doesn't understand the whole upgrading thing, so the building looks awesome), and are kind of rubbish anyway (international ports aren't much of an improvement over commercial, and you only need one oil refinery)

2) Could you include everything a religion offers in the 'pedia? It's a real hassle looking up what buildings each religion offers, and it's even worse now with new promotions and whatnot.

3) The difference between barter and free trade is far too extreme. Going from - with no foreign routes to foreign trade routes + more trade routes + no - is an absolutely huge difference. There's slavery in between, but frankly it makes zero sense for slavery being used to get more commerce!

4) Related, at the point free trade becomes available, everything is incredibly easy to research. 1-3 turns for everything is silly. Ramp up research costs bigtime, please! What schack said, basically. The amount of commerce and gold coming in suddenly ramps up at a ridiculous rate, but tech costs/unit support/maintenance/whatever doesn't, so you have tons of gold and research.

No idea why folks are saying they have trouble getting gold. With the crazy number of trade routes, plus all the numerous , and modifiers, it's easy to run 100% science and research everything in 2 turns while racking up gold.

I totally agree. :king:

zappara · Feb 20, 2009

schack said:
All in all I think it's some great upgrades you have in store and I do hope the religious bonuses to units, buildings and wonders will be spread amongst the religions to give a more balanced feel.

Edit: Forgot to mention that it's now possible to found several religions again. I don't know if it's a bug or rebalancing.

In current version most religious promotions are now available only with Leader promotion and in my test game Vikings had several units with Leader + religious promotions in use so it seems that AI players value those promotions in this kind of situation. So I'm not sure at the moment how those promotions will be included in the v2.6 release.

I disabled Limited Religions feature in this patch cycle so you can find multiple religions again - many were complaining about it so I changed it

JosEPh_II said:
With Brothel now needing 50% Culture to get a 2nd happy face, who's going to spend enough to get Culture rate to 50%? I can't. RoM has become less "friendly" to Cultural Victory over the last few iterations.

And with arena giving no happy face but only 1 culture then needing 25% culture to get a happy they're worthless to me.

Coliseum is borderline useful.

I put harsh limits to them to force player to use that culture rate to keep citizens happy - that's what the culture rate is there for, to provide culture to your people which then keeps them happier...

This of course affects your gold, research and espionage rates and the goal is to find good balance. Getting happiness was bit too easy in previous versions. Anyway some adjustments can be still made so that the buildings will be useful.

konradcabral said:
About mines' unhappiness: Only Shaft Mines should give unhappiness (or 0,5 for regular mines, if it's possible). We can manage our cities with the early unhappy mines , but can AI? Besides, someone said wisely that people only "realize" that mines make them unhappy recently in history.

Most likely only shaft mine will have that unhappiness included in the final patch release. There's too few happiness sources early game.

rabber said:
Yes, Yes, Yes!!!! I would love to have a counter. One of the reasons that I changed to an unlimited number of wonders in my cities is because I never knew when I was going to hit the limit.

From a game playing point of view I agree that obsolete wonders shouldn't count towards the total. However, from a reality point of view it doesn't make sense. For example., the Pyramids are still around, adding to Egypt's "culture" and tourism even though the benefits of the Pyramids have long since disappeared.

I think it would require changes to game engine if we wanted it not to count the obsolete wonders - so this probably isn't doable. Can't promise counter either, though I think that might be doable through python (most likely requires some time to figure out how it could be done as my python skills are rather limited).

Sioux said:
zappara, what do you think about adding new types of specialist like doctor or statesman?? Especially doctor would be helpful to fight with unhealthiness.

Few things:

1. Mounted unit system should be simplified - there is too many units. I would remove mounted infantry, heavy cavalry (knights were heavy cavalry) and templar knights.
then we have two paths for mounted units: recon and battle.
a. Chariot->Horseman ->Light Cavalry->Hussars (light cavalry, not Polish Winged Hussars, which were heavy battle mounted units)->Cavalry
b. Chariot->Horse Archer->Knight ->Cuirassier->Cavalry

2. There is a problem with salt. It s spams to rarely. I had games without any on a map or 1-2. Maybe adding building, which provide salt in coastal cities from salted water, will solve the problem. In that case I would increase bonus from salt, beacause its great value in antiquity and middle ages.

No great statesman or great doctor as those require SDK changes - unless those are included in RevolutionDCM which probably doesn't happen.

If you haven't noticed, Mounted Infantry is the only mounted unit that does get defensive bonuses so you should think of them as fast moving defensive units...

But there might be some changes for units in v2.7 patch (what that might be, I'm not telling yet!)

Cruel said:
I believe the solution is to increase the number of available Hammers and further increase the time to research. As the cost of everything produced, I think that should be examined case by case and not impose a general rule.

In some earlier RoM patches many of the hammer production were nerfed down to slow down production - some of these might be reverted back to original values now that the unit costs are set higher. I've already returned the era train cost value percentages back to the BtS default values - these values reduce unit costs as you advance to next eras.

Plenty of stuff has been changed/added this week:
- Holy Wars 0.2 units & buildings, in modular format so player can easily disable them
- All civ specific unit flavor arstyles converted to modular format so that players can easily reduce the amount of graphics the mod will be using. Without civ specific unit artstyles the mod will use ethnic group unit artstyles.
- Completely redone renaissance->future era ship lines. Most upgrade paths have been changed and several ship classes added so that ships upgrade like this: late renaissance unit->early industrial unit->ww1 unit class->ww2 unit class->future era unit. Some of this work has not been made yet
- All ships unit AIs have been adjusted so that AI players should make better use of their ships
- Static leaderhead module made (off by default) to allow players reduce the amount of graphics. Includes 50 BtS default leaders.

I'll try to post full version list changes shortly. No new download release yet as there are some things still in middle of changes but next week we might have new alpha2 release

If you are wondering when v2.6 will be released, I can say that it will be at least week after new RevolutionDCM is released so that I can merge it to RoM (it will include newer Better BtS AI among other things). Also I've been waiting for BUG mod 3.6 release which should be on any day now (most of the changes from it are already included in alpha test version). So probably few weeks still...

zappara · Feb 20, 2009

Current patch notes:

Spoiler :

xmen510 · Feb 20, 2009

WOW!

That is quite the update. Looks great. Any idea when we might see a finalized version of 2.6 up on the Latest Version page?

DavidB1111 · Feb 20, 2009

Cruel said:
Of course not, and you understood the point where I want to reach. Clearly, any activity needs resources.

Do you have any idea of how long it takes to acquire training resources to mount a battalion or construct a submarine or a ship or plane? Since starting the project until the end? I'll give you an idea, the Russians who say that fast and built with few resources are spending several billion for its 5 th generation jet on a project that is beginning in the 80s and is not ready yet ...

A statue and wall of wood/stone can be made in weeks.

Yes, the game have many options for wins, and some changes simply become too easy or simple to get the victory, as adding building elements that produce such great culture. The point where I want reach is not just a only way to win the game or my personal strategy, but put it on that level all the original forms of victory has fun and closer to "reality".

I believe this should be modified product is not in itself, but the production capacity of this product and it comes down to having more available Hammers.

Me too, I believe the purpose of this MOD is to provide increased quality of the game, which can and should be the same rules of victory of the original game.

I don´t agree again: any civilization with infrastructure at the same time could build the great lighthouse, but none could build a tank. We have obviously the technological capacity to do.

The technology capability is the result of many years of development and the game that is as "test tubes" and not Hammers. I believe that this type of comparison you're suggesting needs to be done within the same "era" as starting a presupposed technological, where feasible this comparison. Without this, a comparison suggests that it is easier a civilization to build a tank then a great lighthouse, but is not. A civilization of that time has neither close to capacity we have today. A tank has the most varied technological equipment, since the chemical area, techniques of Steel, even in some cases even nuclear, eletronics, but our current capacity in logistics and training and productivity makes us more able to produce a tank faster than the olders civilizations building a great lighthouse.

Sigh, good point on some, but on others, huh?
Bare with me here. Tanks should never take longer to build then the lighthouse, which is bigger than the Ultimate tank, the Dreadnought.

I would like it be realistic in the sense that the bigger the object, the more it costs. Not the more advanced.

Seriously, The Great Wall took 1600 years in Real life to build, you're recommendation on making certain armies and tanks and such take a lot to build wouldn't make sense in compassion.
Again, the bigger it is, the longer it takes to build. A battecruiser should take longer than a tank, yes, but not longer than the Colossus.
Again, advanced doesn't mean expensive. Technically.
Oh, and no jet ever takes 20 years to build, period. The Russians are more than likely working on several different jets at once.
To Zappara? Hey, I posted a lot of stuff, will you take a look at it and reply?

Axil · Feb 21, 2009

Actually the great wall took the life time of one Emperor to build - What he did was link the defensive wall of previous dynasties - the links however were quite major thing to build in themselves. An as for your assumption the bigger it is the longer it takes to build - absolute poppycock

With the units the time it takes to build them it related to the time it takes to build and train up a competent military unit - one that can actually fight and not get annilated in the first battle (just look what happened to quickly put together units of the first and second war (e.g. when the germans started running out of pilots in the 1st world war they just trained cadets to fly and sent them up - most did not survive the first encouter nor damage the enemy and were as such totally ineffective)

As for lighthouses taking longer than tanks - in the UK there are lighthouses that were replaced in less than 6 months after the previous one was washed away whereas the the first Mark IV tank took over a year to build

JosEPh_II · Feb 21, 2009

zappara wrote:I put harsh limits to them to force player to use that culture rate to keep citizens happy - that's what the culture rate is there for, to provide culture to your people which then keeps them happier... This of course affects your gold, research and espionage rates and the goal is to find good balance. Getting happiness was bit too easy in previous versions. Anyway some adjustments can be still made so that the buildings will be useful.

Usually the best I can get my culture up to, and still win the tech race, is about 20%. I find that I need to keep espionage rate at 10-15% to keep from being robbed blind. Consider that I'm a "Builder" type player and getting the edge in the tech race is what keeps me from being overrun by the War type AI like Shaka. So if I'm spending 30- 40% of my Gold on Culture and Espionage and I need at least 15-25% of the Gold for upkeep, then I only have 40 -50% for Research. Early game this amount may not keep you abreast of your rivals. I will admit that after Medieval when certain techs like Usury and Banking are available then maintaining the 50% for research is easier and I can drop the research rate to 40% if necessary.

Also something to remember is that I do Not play with the RevMod. I know most of the RoM players love it, but I don't. This is most likely rooted in the fact that I'm not an expert player and Noble and Prince levels can "eat my lunch" more often than not. I play what I call "Core" RoM, the basic setup of earlier versions. I started with RoM.80. (In fact I still have those early versions stored away cause I enjoyed them so much.)

I guess what I'm saying is that as the Mod gets more complicated/difficult I'm getting uncomfortable. Which is not a bad thing. But what bothers me most is that the "pace" of the Mod is making everything take longer. In my current game of 2.6a I'm at 1851AD and I just got Frigates and Musketmen! This is easily 200+ years later than when I would get them in even RoM2.52. That bothers me. Is my play that bad? Or is there something Mod wise that is the cause? Am I the only one experiencing this?

Change is good, but can also be disturbing. Maybe it's just "growing" pains for an "old and slow.......player".

JosEPh

Version 2.6 discussion

Emperor

King

Warlord

Chieftain

Not-so-smart Man

TBS WarLord

Not-so-smart Man

Deity

Deity

Warlord

Not-so-smart Man

King

King

King

Mod Designer

Mod Designer

Emperor

Not-so-smart Man

Prince

TBS WarLord

Similar threads