World Map

[Anaztazioch]

World Map has to be completelly reworked.
Or atleast barbarians. They still rape America before 3000bc. As i checked with WB he had 3 native archers in Washington and 1 wounded near it.

Also barbarians resarch tech 1000 times slower than AI. In 2500bc EVERY civ exept me had bronze working (prince difficulty) and i had only Mysticism, Hunting, Archery, Priesthood and Dualism (but Incas had both Zoroastranins and Judaism founded...). At this rate Shaka was making his Axeman campany vs barbs (next turn Mozambique will be Zulo or ruins), Rabat got captured by Carthages Hypaspists, The city north from Chooson start location was captured by Chooson (and had LOTS of mongolian and chineese forces arround it, motly archers, but shortswordsmans as well).
Cyrus and India was in early war (i hate that AI declares a war without expanding even if it has place and time). Saladin expands very slowelly (even with imperialistic).
Oulu (Helsinki) is captured by Ragnar or Cathrine or Bismark faster than "instantly".
Barbarian still move his forces from one city to another making them more vulnurable to attacks. Egypt even when not in war doesnt expand much.

And most irritating... One barbarian warrior (no xp) on grassland with no river took out 4 of my attack I mongolian (ottoman)archers... Same with attacking city Scthius (or something) defended by walls 2 mongolian archers(one has city garrison II, other city garrison I) 1 huntsman 2 warriors and worker. I attacked him with 2 stacks:
stack no 1 - 9 mongolian archers(each city raider I) 3 warriors(each had combat I and cover I)
stack no 2 - mongolian archer (city garrison I) mongolian archer (combat I) settler, scout.
After I used all my units i had to retreat my settler and scout... Here is what his defedners had after my "siege":
mongolian archer city garrison II 1.3/3 (turn later he was city garrison IV)
mongolian archer city garrison I 0.4/3 (city garrison II)
huntsman 1.2/3 (attack II, amphibious)
warrior 1.0/2 (combat I)
warrior 0.1/2 (ombat II)
worker
I DONT HAVE SUCH PROBLEMS CONQUERING OTHER CIVILIZATIONS.

I also waited till that defenders get healed and used WB to put 6 janissaries and give 5xp to all of them. 3 of them recived city raider II 3 of them recived Combat I and Cover I. attacked that city... strongest mongolian arhcer killed 3 jannisaries with city raider II and get his hp down to 2.0/3 other 3 jannisaries killed huntsman and weakened weaker mongolian archer to 1.2/3 and killed 1 warrior. The one Jannisary that survived 2.4/9 was kileld by counter attacking newelly created huntsman with attack I.

In beta3 i would not loose more than 5 mongolian archers. In bet4 i played as England so didnt have contact with barbs.

I played again by other civ (saladin) and had same (almost same) problem trying to conquer Babylon (walls 2 archers, 2 huntsman, 1 warrior, 1 warrior attack I) attacked him with 4 shortswordsman city raider II or city raider I (some made in Mecca with great general) and 7 (7!) attack I and attack II axemans (some made in Mecca). I did not capture that city... Axemans took out archers and huntsmans, that 2 warriors killed all 4 shortswordsmans and left them with 0.3/2 and 0.4/2. Next turn i wanted to attack him with my wounded 3 axemans (only those did survive, all had above 2.7 +xp healing when taking promotion). But he just brought backups... 2 skirmishers... and warrior went city garrison I other went attack II. that one with attack II attacked my axeman(as i gave up and moved my nOObs not army to hills that are also protected by river from that city direct attack) who had 3.8/5 and city raider II AND THAT WARRIOR WAS VICTORIOUS ! He attacked me with 2 meshes, and 1 died.

So far i did not see such problems in Random maps. Exept close starting positions and Ragnar who is making army and moves his army for 80 turn (to the other side of pangea) to declare a war with Isabella... When all civs had 3 or 4 cities and mostly archers as units and sometimes shortswordsmans, Ragnar had only his capitol and warrior witch he sent to attack Spain. After war ended his remaining warriors got killed by barbs who had axemans by that time... Shortly after Ragnar got owned by Ghandi who was neghbour of Spain and moved his 10 axemans for 80 turn (other side of pangea) to finish ragnar off.
I REALLY CANT WAIT for Really Better AI.

 

[Houman]

AI just got updated today. Most of these problems are solved for gold version.

Americans would get it a bit easier (removing some barbs).
If it is still too hard, we could give the two starting units also a level 3 City Garrison.

 

[Anaztazioch]

They have 2 units with lvl II garrison.
I think it will be better to gove all starting barbarian archers defance I. This way not only they will not finish civs early, but also their cities will last a bit longer.

 

[Temujin_Khan]

well i just finished V. 1 of my Earth1000AD map so here it is.

BTW if anyone wants a premade map changed so it is compatible with the Total Realism mod I'll try to do so(i did so with the Civ IV 1000AD map).


edit:forgot to mention the map is compatible with the pre-gold, beta 4, and beta 3 versions(I'm not sure about any other versions. also i haven't tried it but think you can use it on the Civ IV vanilla total realism version by changing the file extension).

 

[Anaztazioch]

AI just got updated today. Most of these problems are solved for gold version.

Americans would get it a bit easier (removing some barbs).
If it is still too hard, we could give the two starting units also a level 3 City Garrison.

Well Reall i would give all barbarians Defance I or Defance II promotions(almost all as barbarians still need to kill scouts etc, but since animals are there... But we need more animals i would think). So he will not get whiped as Archers will defend good and will not attack enemies.

 

[skurdzh]

First, let me state that I am not a programmer or modder, so if I put forth forth an idea that is totally impossible to code, I apologize.

In an earlier post, Anaztazioch asked, "Where's the coffee in Brazil?" Well, based on history, there was no coffee in Brazil until it was brought there; but, based on current game mechanics, there should never be any coffee in Brazil. There should also not be any horses anywhere but the steppes of Russia and Central Asia. However, in the real world, coffee is grown in Brazil, potatoes are grown in Ireland, and horses and cattle are raised everywhere. This is because plant and animal resources, unlike mineral resources aren't forever fixed.

So, what would be a realistic solution for this problem. Again, let me apologize if this can't be implemented.

First, there should be two kinds of agricultural resources: original/primary resources (e.g., horses, wheat, and coffee) and optional/secondary resources (i.e., pasture land, crop land, and plantation land). For example, there should be 2 or 3 sources of horses in the steppes of Central Asia and then there should be 'pasture land' resources where horses, cattle, or other livestock could be raised. For other livestock sources of origin, see livestock table 1 or livestock table 2. For food crops, those usually made available by Agriculture, and cash/plantation crops, those usually made available by Calendar, there should likewise be the 2 or 3 original resources where appropriate, see plant map 1 or plant map 2.

Second, there should an agriculture transfer mechanism, similar to the technology transfer mechanism, for acquiring breeding stock and planting stock from a civilization that already has these resources. Actual trading of resources should greatly increase the transfer rate. Planting stock for cash crops should be more difficult to obtain than for food crops; and breeding stock for horses should also be more difficult to acquire than for other livestock. Since, elephants, originating in India and North Africa, were never really domesticated and, in the game, are utilized through camps not pastures, they should remain unaffected by this mechanism.

Last, once a breeding stock or planting stock is acquired, there should be a way for the civilization to then go out and build their own secondary resource on a plot of the appropriate optional resource. These secondary resources should be able to be pillaged or changed. So, if a civilization loses control of all of it's primary and secondary sources of a resource, it must then repeat the agriculture transfer process for that resource. Here, I should note that there is difference in a regular farm and a resource farm. In reality, this is certainly a difference between an area of small-scale, family/subsistance farms and and area of large-scale, profit/surplus farms. There are roughly 20,000 species of edible plants, but only 30 of these provide most of the world's food, see source. So, a regular farm could be assumed to be growing a variety of crops and livestock in sufficient quantities to feed a nearby city, but not enough for exporting to the rest of the empire or another civilization. But, still building a farm without having any type of planting stock on a 'crop land' resource tile should be more beneficial than building one on a plains tile.

Here, I will present a full example of this process.
Playing the Aztecs, I have no chance for horses, wheat, or coffee until I am able to trade with the Old World. I can however trade maize for potatoes with the Incans. So, I either work out a deal with Huayna Capac to speed up the process or I wait until trade routes do the job for me. Then, once I have my planting stock for potatoes, which would most likely mean the Incans also have a planting stock for maize, I send my workers out to build a potato farm on a crop land tile. Now, if I get into war with the Americans and they either capture or destroy all of my potato farms, I then must wait until I rebuild my planting stock before I can again build a potato farm. As for maize, should the Americans destroy all of my maize farms, I simply have to rebuild on the site of a primary source for maize and I again can build secondary maize farms. Much later when I have made contact with Old World civilizations, I can begin to acquire breeding stock for horses and planting stock for wheat and coffee. I still must improve pasture land, crop land, or plantation land to actually have any of these resources.

In conclusion, using a system like what I have outlined here would allow all civilizations to eventually be able have any agricultural resource, including horses, but those that have the primary sources would still have an early advantage.

 

[Hian the Frog]

@ skurdzh

Interesting point of view. Some of your comments are really good. IMO, something had to be done to promote the "spread of agricultural and pastoral ressources" around the world.
But we've got not enough time to do all we want. It's probably not the answer you wait for. I'm sorry.
But we will look at your suggestions and we will think about a good playable and balanced solution.

Hian the Frog.

 

[Temujin_Khan]

actually that is possible but to what extent I'm not sure. All i know is that Rhye's and Fall of Civilization mod uses something similar to this, but whether or not this can be used for any thing other than the earth map i really would not know.

BTW noticed this after i posted my map but allot of the units will need to be replaced because of the changes that have been done I'm not going to fix it until the gold version is released(mainly because i don't have do it twice).

Hian i love your sig, i hate it when seems like i would be better off with less than 50% chance of wining.

 

[Uncle Anton]

(Low Priority) Suggestion about the World Map, specifically in relation to the naming of the Barb tribes in Australia...

It really doesn't make much sense to have the Alemanni, Ghuzz and whoever else is currently there. Maybe name each of the three barb cities after Aboriginal tribes who actually populated those areas...

Where Alemanni, replace with Nyoongar.
Where Ghuzz (in modern day QLD), replace with Ankamuti (many aboriginal tribes could be used, this is just one example)
The tribe near modern day Darwin (forget the name), replace with Tiwi (again, many tribes could be used, this is just one)

I think given the context of the mod, the Australian continent should remain unsettled except for barbs... While it would be appropriate in other mods to have Australia as an AI/playable civ (Such as XX Century Mod), for TR it should stay as is. Having said that, I think having the barb cities that are placed there should be renamed for accuracy's sake.

 

[Morfydd]

Trying to find a way to allow tech trades with Vassals and Permanet Allinace with Tech trading off..<Vassals should always be willing to give up their techs for yours regardless of the tech trading key> I think this is a Warlords bug and not a mod bug but if a solution can be found ;o) it would be great

 

[Morfydd]

First, let me state that I am not a programmer or modder, so if I put forth forth an idea that is totally impossible to code, I apologize.

In an earlier post, Anaztazioch asked, "Where's the coffee in Brazil?" Well, based on history, there was no coffee in Brazil until it was brought there; but, based on current game mechanics, there should never be any coffee in Brazil. There should also not be any horses anywhere but the steppes of Russia and Central Asia. However, in the real world, coffee is grown in Brazil, potatoes are grown in Ireland, and horses and cattle are raised everywhere. This is because plant and animal resources, unlike mineral resources aren't forever fixed.

So, what would be a realistic solution for this problem. Again, let me apologize if this can't be implemented.

First, there should be two kinds of agricultural resources: original/primary resources (e.g., horses, wheat, and coffee) and optional/secondary resources (i.e., pasture land, crop land, and plantation land). For example, there should be 2 or 3 sources of horses in the steppes of Central Asia and then there should be 'pasture land' resources where horses, cattle, or other livestock could be raised. For other livestock sources of origin, see livestock table 1 or livestock table 2. For food crops, those usually made available by Agriculture, and cash/plantation crops, those usually made available by Calendar, there should likewise be the 2 or 3 original resources where appropriate, see plant map 1 or plant map 2.

Second, there should an agriculture transfer mechanism, similar to the technology transfer mechanism, for acquiring breeding stock and planting stock from a civilization that already has these resources. Actual trading of resources should greatly increase the transfer rate. Planting stock for cash crops should be more difficult to obtain than for food crops; and breeding stock for horses should also be more difficult to acquire than for other livestock. Since, elephants, originating in India and North Africa, were never really domesticated and, in the game, are utilized through camps not pastures, they should remain unaffected by this mechanism.

Last, once a breeding stock or planting stock is acquired, there should be a way for the civilization to then go out and build their own secondary resource on a plot of the appropriate optional resource. These secondary resources should be able to be pillaged or changed. So, if a civilization loses control of all of it's primary and secondary sources of a resource, it must then repeat the agriculture transfer process for that resource. Here, I should note that there is difference in a regular farm and a resource farm. In reality, this is certainly a difference between an area of small-scale, family/subsistance farms and and area of large-scale, profit/surplus farms. There are roughly 20,000 species of edible plants, but only 30 of these provide most of the world's food, see source. So, a regular farm could be assumed to be growing a variety of crops and livestock in sufficient quantities to feed a nearby city, but not enough for exporting to the rest of the empire or another civilization. But, still building a farm without having any type of planting stock on a 'crop land' resource tile should be more beneficial than building one on a plains tile.

Here, I will present a full example of this process.
Playing the Aztecs, I have no chance for horses, wheat, or coffee until I am able to trade with the Old World. I can however trade maize for potatoes with the Incans. So, I either work out a deal with Huayna Capac to speed up the process or I wait until trade routes do the job for me. Then, once I have my planting stock for potatoes, which would most likely mean the Incans also have a planting stock for maize, I send my workers out to build a potato farm on a crop land tile. Now, if I get into war with the Americans and they either capture or destroy all of my potato farms, I then must wait until I rebuild my planting stock before I can again build a potato farm. As for maize, should the Americans destroy all of my maize farms, I simply have to rebuild on the site of a primary source for maize and I again can build secondary maize farms. Much later when I have made contact with Old World civilizations, I can begin to acquire breeding stock for horses and planting stock for wheat and coffee. I still must improve pasture land, crop land, or plantation land to actually have any of these resources.

In conclusion, using a system like what I have outlined here would allow all civilizations to eventually be able have any agricultural resource, including horses, but those that have the primary sources would still have an early advantage.

Missing from the list and missing from the game are 2 of the earliest food sources Ocre <no other animal on the planet ate it so man made it a staple and it still is in a large protion of the world> and Chickpeas <extreamly easy to grow high in protien content and eaten worldwide even today <most know it in the form of humus or falafel or as a protien additive in thousands of of food produce..

Also Missing Canning and canneries <Napoleon commisioned the first metal mass produce canneries on the planet to feed his armys> and tin coated steel cans are the primary means of food transportation and preservation still today and will be far into the future...

 

[Anaztazioch]

Gold version.

Why Incas start with Native warriors, not Quechas ?

 

[Snake Pliskeen]

I've played a lot with the world map, with many different civs. This is my opinion: playing in America is, in general enough boring, without horses (chariots) is very expensive, in terms of units losses. I didnt play too long with America Civs because even when I conquered completely this continents I realize that my army was less than half than a normal army in the old world, due to battle losses, furthermore without chariots, I cant even imagine the possibility to attack someone in the old world and this makes the game unplayable for an America Civ. If you wanted to make this game realistic you fail because USA, for example, is the strongest empire in the world, but american civ cant never grow up to this level without horses. If we think how important were horses for American history I think this is a non-sense. I know horses were brought in America by Europeans, but this is a game, not a lessons of history. So, I think it would be better to make possible horses resource even in America. Second, playing as Incan for example, jungle is a serious handicap because you cant chop until ironworking, usually enough late, so there are few things to do before this is researched, this means Incas can never reach high levels. This happened already in history, why repeat it in a game? In my opinion the world map must give a starting position for civs, after then, each one must have his chance to raise as leading power, if not for this at least to give some fun to players. Last thing, I think there are too many civs in the west and I've never seen a game where Celtic, England or France got more than 2-3 cities and are all destined to disappear when a major civ attack them. This map is fantastic to play but only with asian and african civs, if you can change a little the balance can be a wonderful and infinite-playable scenario. Thx!

 

[Anaztazioch]

Horses for America, Ever tough about bringing them from old world ?
American Cavalary does not require horses as they are "virtually" brough form Europe. Or at least it was like that, never bothered to check.

For Incas, do not build in Jungles. You have Coast dont you ? And if you play the Incas the same way they lived in history, why you would make it differant ? You must play differant way, to change history.

Celtic - true, but thats mostly becouse there is no place to put them and still call this map WorldMap for Total Realism.
England, you must be joking. Unless they find them selves in early war that stops their economy, they grow in power fast enough to own ANY European civ.
France, they mostly do Early wars to Germany and win often. If i dont stop France my self, AI usually build a big empire.

 

[Snake Pliskeen]

Horses for America, Ever tough about bringing them from old world ?
American Cavalary does not require horses as they are "virtually" brough form Europe. Or at least it was like that, never bothered to check.

For Incas, do not build in Jungles. You have Coast dont you ? And if you play the Incas the same way they lived in history, why you would make it differant ? You must play differant way, to change history.

Celtic - true, but thats mostly becouse there is no place to put them and still call this map WorldMap for Total Realism.
England, you must be joking. Unless they find them selves in early war that stops their economy, they grow in power fast enough to own ANY European civ.
France, they mostly do Early wars to Germany and win often. If i dont stop France my self, AI usually build a big empire.

Sorry, maybe you misunderstand me. I mean that this is simple a game and a game must give same satisfaction with all civs in the game. How is the map and the resource system and the position of civs, it is a funny game only playing with asian or african civs. I didnt play a game where the first 4-5 leading civs were not asian or african, at prince and noble levels.
I dont understand what do you say about England, usually in my games England disappears from history books as soon as Ragnar has enough units to destroy them.
In my opinion it can be good to separate some resources as coffee, potatoes, sugar (why not even tomatoes then, probably the most important original food ?), but bronze, iron and horses must be common in all continents to give same chances and same fun to all civs. Bye!

 

[Anaztazioch]

but bronze, iron and horses must be common in all continents to give same chances and same fun to all civs.

Maybe giving Oil to all civs as well ? Becouse USA has its own big refineries, so whay they trade with "Arabic" countries, or invade Iraq ?

Aztecz doesnt even require Iron, as Jaguars and Elite Jaguars does not require Iron for production.

Incas ? Their Quecha and Elite Quecha has +75&#37; vs archery units.

Another thing is that its hard for European civs to attack Americas, Only access is from Arctica... They must swin thour England, Islandia, Arctica Green Land to reach America. I say this must be delated. And when you will have transporting units through water, Incas should have Musketmans, They have Slatpater there. With Musketmans and cannons its pretty ballanced.


As for England, it must attack Celts 1st. If not they wont have enough resarch output.

And by saying That World Map doesnt give you expected satisfaction, no one did forced you to play it. You can allways play some Random game, or use in game World Builder and add some horses as well other changes that makes you feel are needed to have fun. But I warn you that with Horses Incas doesnt get stronger by big degree, Mostly couse they mounted units cant move fastin jungle. As for America, with horses they will have no problems wiping out Aztecs.

 

[Morfydd]

Horses in 4000BC roam free in the SW and great pains of America ..but they suffer the same fate as the Bison in America did <early explores /settelrs hunted them into extinction or cross bred them into european species till they were unrecogniozable as such>

Oil in America's ..its more plentiful here than in Mid east ..just cheaper to buy from The mid east than to use wahts here..Brazil dosent even bother to use Fossil fuel much anymore theyve swapped to almost pure alchohol for personal vehicals <somethign the US is headed towards ..>

OIL location in America..Texas ..Huge reserves..MIdwest Largest reserve on planet not uitilized except in time of MAJOR war <ie last time it was tapped was 1945.....>
Alaska ..Many Many Feilds HQ and easily accessable..Not fully utilized due to Treehuggers complaints..
Venezuala ..Mexico ..columbia etc all have local sources of oil but its either more expensive to use local or its crappy similar to the Polish oil stated earlier ..but it is there..Gulf of mexico ..Enourmous reserve there..

 

[Anaztazioch]

Forgot that USA actually has lots of Oil...

Still its much to pay for american for oil than "Arabs".

 

[Sidewinder00Q]

Major Oil fields in the United States/North America:
Pennsylvannia/West New York: Primary Oil production from 1850s to about 1900ish
Texas: Major Oil fields discovered around 1900, still producing to this day, although at a much more reduced rate.
Rocky Mountain region (Utah, Idaho, Nevada): Small amount of Oil, difficult to access, generally considered not worth the investment to extract.
Alaska/Northwest Territories: ANWAR, Largest Oil deposit outside of the Middle East. Environmental restrictions prevent wide-scale drilling.

I am less familiar with oil deposits in Mexico, although they do produce quite a bit of oil on there own. There is also a large deposit of Oil in the Gulf of Mexico, currently this makes up the bulk of US domestic Oil production.

There's really no need for the United States to be importing the oil it does from the Middle East. Environmental laws may play a part, but I believe that there is another reason that every US Administration as far back as Nixon (perhaps farther) has seen it more useful to pump OPEC dry first. Unfortunately, they are keeping it a rather closely guarded secret.

 

[Morfydd]

Major Oil fields in the United States/North America:
Pennsylvannia/West New York: Primary Oil production from 1850s to about 1900ish
Texas: Major Oil fields discovered around 1900, still producing to this day, although at a much more reduced rate.
Rocky Mountain region (Utah, Idaho, Nevada): Small amount of Oil, difficult to access, generally considered not worth the investment to extract.
Alaska/Northwest Territories: ANWAR, Largest Oil deposit outside of the Middle East. Environmental restrictions prevent wide-scale drilling.

I am less familiar with oil deposits in Mexico, although they do produce quite a bit of oil on there own. There is also a large deposit of Oil in the Gulf of Mexico, currently this makes up the bulk of US domestic Oil production.

There's really no need for the United States to be importing the oil it does from the Middle East. Environmental laws may play a part, but I believe that there is another reason that every US Administration as far back as Nixon (perhaps farther) has seen it more useful to pump OPEC dry first. Unfortunately, they are keeping it a rather closely guarded secret.

No secret ..US naval reserves ..ie if we have another LARge conventional war (ww1 ww2 ) the US has the oil reserves to fight a full scale conventional war for 100 years with no fear of ever being short of oil...