[WIP] Project Civ: A Quality-Oriented Civ Pack

[Irkalla]

I was thinking about the same point of view and abstacting it to the game as science... but culture fits the best

Agreed. Also, I fixed my system. Power supply was roached.

 

[mrc2022]

Israel is looking good

what do you think of
Kanem-Bornu
Leader: Idris Alawma
Trait: Trans-Sahara Trade - +1 Gold per citizen, roads on desert cost no maintenance
UU: Kanembu Rider - replaces the Knight, cheaper, weaker, no cost to pillage
UU: Turkish Musketeer - replaces Musketman, same cost, stronger or bonus similar to discipline

 

[Pouakai]

Kanem-Bornu is actually underway as part of the Zambezi project, so there will be a version of them ingame soon

 

[AbsintheRed]

Kanem-Bornu is actually underway as part of the Zambezi project, so there will be a version of them ingame soon

Do you have a thread about this Zambezi project?
I know Kilwa/Swahili is also planned as a civ, but somehow didn't find any discussion about the project

 

[SuperWaffle247]

I think at least one modern UU is perfectly appropriate for Israel. Look at our German and Indian civs. They both contain traces of centuries of history, many different periods. If you look back to Civ 4, the different leaderheads exemplify this as well. I think synogauge is a good choice for UB as well. I guess the UA doesn't really make sense to me, but that's probably due to my perspective as a modern Jew, and lack of knowledge of ancient Israel. I do like how it would undoubtedly yield new gameplay possibilities.

 

[Pouakai]

Do you have a thread about this Zambezi project?
I know Kilwa/Swahili is also planned as a civ, but somehow didn't find any discussion about the project

Not yet, but there will be soon as we're nearing the first release

 

[Irkalla]

I think at least one modern UU is perfectly appropriate for Israel. Look at our German and Indian civs. They both contain traces of centuries of history, many different periods. If you look back to Civ 4, the different leaderheads exemplify this as well. I think synogauge is a good choice for UB as well. I guess the UA doesn't really make sense to me, but that's probably due to my perspective as a modern Jew, and lack of knowledge of ancient Israel. I do like how it would undoubtedly yield new gameplay possibilities.

The problem is, I'd rather stay away from the Modern Regime. While I personally welcome the modern Israeli people, I think the actors in their government are despicable people. Modern Israel is far too sensitive and too many people will get butthurt.

I view Kingdom of Israel and Modern Israel as two separate political entities with separate histories, and any attempt by the latter to link itself to the former is just some pathetic attempt at making a grab for legitimacy.

Similar to why Persia doesn't have the Revolutionary Guard for a UU. I may consider it, though.

About the UA, Israel was like, never at peace. Ever Always going around ensuring that they had control of the lands God promised to them.

 

[isnorden]

The problem is, I'd rather stay away from the Modern Regime. While I personally welcome the modern Israeli people, I think the actors in their government are despicable people. Modern Israel is far too sensitive and too many people will get butthurt. [...] Similar to why Persia doesn't have the Revolutionary Guard for a UU. I may consider it, though.

Agreed; Firaxis didn't base Germany on the WWII regime or Arabia on the modern Saudi kingdom either, because they knew that those versions would offend a lot of potential players/customers. As modders. we do (and should) have more creative freedom; I personally enjoy being able to kick Soviet and Nazi butts in a modded game. Still, a civ based on a present-day leader's controversial politics will alienate more players than it attracts.

About the UA, Israel was like, never at peace. Ever Always going around ensuring that they had control of the lands God promised to them.

Not quite; Biblical Israel did have brief periods of peace now and then, although accepting foreign religions inevitably got the kingdom into trouble. The UA is fine as originally written, except that I might cut the duration of peace treaties in half if the other civ hasn't converted.

As for a unique unit that fits Biblical Israel: King David allegedly had a corps of expert slingers who could "aim at a hair's breadth and not miss." I forget the exact chapter/verse numbers. but those guys could easily replace the default Archer.

 

[Pouakai]

But they still represented World War Germany with the Panzer

 

[Irkalla]

Agreed; Firaxis didn't base Germany on the WWII regime or Arabia on the modern Saudi kingdom either, because they knew that those versions would offend a lot of potential players/customers. As modders. we do (and should) have more creative freedom; I personally enjoy being able to kick Soviet and Nazi butts in a modded game. Still, a civ based on a present-day leader's controversial politics will alienate more players than it attracts.



Not quite; Biblical Israel did have brief periods of peace now and then, although accepting foreign religions inevitably got the kingdom into trouble. The UA is fine as originally written, except that I might cut the duration of peace treaties in half if the other civ hasn't converted.

As for a unique unit that fits Biblical Israel: King David allegedly had a corps of expert slingers who could "aim at a hair's breadth and not miss." I forget the exact chapter/verse numbers. but those guys could easily replace the default Archer.

Honestly, I think they should have included controversial leaders, but make them the player's choice.

Example: Russia. You go Russia, and choose Freedom. You get Gorbachev. Go Autocracy, and you get Stalin. Go Order, and you get Lenin.

Or Germany: Go Autocracy, get Hitler. Order, get Luxemburg? Liebknecht? Go Freedom, get someone else.

England would get George VI for freedom, and Mosley for Autocracy.

You know, stuff like that.

 

[trystero49]

Honestly, I think they should have included controversial leaders, but make them the player's choice.

Example: Russia. You go Russia, and choose Freedom. You get Gorbachev. Go Autocracy, and you get Stalin. Go Order, and you get Lenin.

Or Germany: Go Autocracy, get Hitler. Order, get Luxemburg? Liebknecht? Go Freedom, get someone else.

England would get George VI for freedom, and Mosley for Autocracy.

You know, stuff like that.

Civs I through IV had Chairman Mao, and Civ I had Stalin. I think I miss multiple Civ leaders.

 

[SuperWaffle247]

The problem is, I'd rather stay away from the Modern Regime. While I personally welcome the modern Israeli people, I think the actors in their government are despicable people. Modern Israel is far too sensitive and too many people will get butthurt.

I view Kingdom of Israel and Modern Israel as two separate political entities with separate histories, and any attempt by the latter to link itself to the former is just some pathetic attempt at making a grab for legitimacy.

Similar to why Persia doesn't have the Revolutionary Guard for a UU. I may consider it, though.

About the UA, Israel was like, never at peace. Ever Always going around ensuring that they had control of the lands God promised to them.

Absolutely understood. Modern Israel is still very controversial and a very hot-button issue. As is Iran. I do think that the inclusion of merely a contemporary UU would be reasonable, however. A leader or UA, less so. That's why the Israel civ will never be official in Civ.

Regarding the idea for differing leaders depending on your course of the game -- I think that would be incredibly cool, but I don't see it as viable for all civs to have that option....

 

[Irkalla]

Absolutely understood. Modern Israel is still very controversial and a very hot-button issue. As is Iran. I do think that the inclusion of merely a contemporary UU would be reasonable, however. A leader or UA, less so. That's why the Israel civ will never be official in Civ.

Regarding the idea for differing leaders depending on your course of the game -- I think that would be incredibly cool, but I don't see it as viable for all civs to have that option....

Virtually any civ could do it.

Civ | Policy | Leader
America|Freedom|Washington
America|Autocracy|Wilson
America|Order|Foster
Spain|Freedom|Juan Carlos
Spain|Autocracy|Franco
Spain|Order|Lister? Carrillo?
England|Freedom|George VI
England|Autocracy|Mosley
England|Order| ????
China|Freedom|Liang Qichao
China|Autocracy|Sun Yat-sen? Chiang Kai-shek?
China|Order|Mao
Russia|Freedom|Gorbachev
Russia|Autocracy|Stalin
Russia|Order|Lenin
Germany|Freedom|Ebert
Germany|Autocracy|Hitler
Germany|Order|Ulbricht
Persia|Freedom|Pahlavi
Persia|Autocracy|Khomeini
Persia|Order|Mansoor Hekmat

There's one problem, though. Due to technical limitations, this could only really work properly in games with 7 players or less. Unless there's a way to change info about a civilization on the fly.

 

[Genghis.Khan]

Why not to every SP Tree

England

e.g Liberty John Lackland
Tradition ? Charles I
Honor Richard the Lionheart
Piety Edward the Martyr ?; Edward the Confessor?; Henry VIII
Commerce Elizabeth I

 

[isnorden]

Why not to every SP Tree

England

e.g Liberty John Lackland
Tradition ? Charles I
Honor Richard the Lionheart
Piety Edward the Martyr ?; Edward the Confessor?; Henry VIII
Commerce Elizabeth I

I can see two problems here: First, adding ten choices for every civilization would make the game code huge (not to mention making it harder to mod new civilizations in). Second, not every civilization has a good selection of leaders for each policy. I still agree that the game should let players choose a leader for their civ at the start, but tying the choices to social policies could make Civ5 needlessly complicated.

 

[Genghis.Khan]

I can see two problems here: First, adding ten choices for every civilization would make the game code huge (not to mention making it harder to mod new civilizations in). Second, not every civilization has a good selection of leaders for each policy. I still agree that the game should let players choose a leader for their civ at the start, but tying the choices to social policies could make Civ5 needlessly complicated.

Is this just dead

 

[Irkalla]

I can see two problems here: First, adding ten choices for every civilization would make the game code huge (not to mention making it harder to mod new civilizations in). Second, not every civilization has a good selection of leaders for each policy. I still agree that the game should let players choose a leader for their civ at the start, but tying the choices to social policies could make Civ5 needlessly complicated.

Yeah, it was just a brainfart. Didn't expect a whole page discussion :V

Anyway, I've finished coding for Sparta. I'l begin working on everything else, and the project should go from experimental to alpha soon.

Give Moriboe and whoward a big thanks for helping me out with this. If any of you go by the SDK forum, you can see that I actually got fairly worn down and started just doing mindless things. I now know why everything wasn't working

While I did the design and a good portion of the debugging and fixing, without Moriboe and whoward I'd still be bashing my head on the keyboard and wondering why it wasn't working.

 

[Genghis.Khan]

For Portugal (next to Poland, pls), my final ideas.

UA: The Discoveries. (+1 Sight to Every Naval Unit or Temples and Naval Units are 15% cheaper.). +3 Gold From Sea Routes. Caravels are unlocked at Compass.

UU: Carrack/Nau (New UnitClass unlocked at Compass).In land is a Settler in water a Carrack. May settle cities only on coast. Has an higher than a Caravel but has -1 Movement.

UB: Feitoria (Replaces Market). + 2 Gold per Luxury Resource. Gives a small (2) Defensive Bonus to the City. May be only built on Coastal Cities

 

[Irkalla]

For Portugal (next to Poland, pls), my final ideas.

UA: The Discoveries. (+1 Sight to Every Naval Unit or Temples and Naval Units are 15% cheaper.). +3 Gold From Sea Routes. Caravels are unlocked at Compass.

UU: Carrack/Nau (New UnitClass unlocked at Compass).In land is a Settler in water a Carrack. May settle cities only on coast. Has an higher than a Caravel but has -1 Movement.

UB: Feitoria (Replaces Market). + 2 Gold per Luxury Resource. Gives a small (2) Defensive Bonus to the City. May be only built on Coastal Cities

That sounds doable. Give Portugal a blank UU for Caravel, and then create a new unitclass with no default unit. This means that the other civs should function as if the unit class doesn't even exist. Then give Portugal for their new unitclass UU the carrack.

Feitoria sounds cool.

Also thought of giving the Carrack a special promotion. When it disembarks, it creates your current land melee unit that is not armored and does not have a bonus vs. mounted.

The unit it creates has the ability to settle on foreign continents. in addition, I should probably find some way to ensure that the Carrack can only disembark on foreign continents. Also, the unit it creates will inherit all the XP of the Carrack.

Sound alright?

 

[trystero49]

Why are you making a new unit class? Why not just replace the Caravel?