All Activity

In general yes, but Iberians have stronger towers than other civs in EA. They can be the exception though. Exceptions make the game fun!

Which civs would fall into this category?

Well, they may be initially nomads. Also hunting could have a little bonus (they might therefore have two or three scout cavalry at the beginning instead of one) and farming could be available only later after technologies have been researched? Not sure this woudl be changing much in the long run but it could nudge players towards a little different initial strategy.

nah i think decay is good. and yes,wonders are already territory root. this discussion is only about forts being root or not.. we are not discussing whether decay as a whole is good or bad

They definitely should be root territory, Wondeds as well. I’ve actually never felt like buildings that are inhabited by people should decay to Gaia, it felt a little strange. Buildings that are just storehouses and such? Yeah, they can be abandoned and stuff, but houses, barracks, stoas, etc? No.

I actually got the idea watching a game and remembering abt your mod having it.

Not sure how many times I have asked, suggested you play Classical again, but yes we have them as teritory roots.....

I mean,historically forts were where many last stands and guerilla warfare happened. I think they should be root.

Ok, I’ll start with either city states or tribes. would it be safe to say in general all tribal buildings are mostly wood? some other ideas on what they may all have in common?

The categorisation cannot be clean cut, because it mixes forms of government with sizes, which is related to how heterogeneous they were. Taking what they were for the most time (Macedonia was an Empire for a very few years): Tribes: Britons, Gauls, Iberians, Germans. City-states: Athenians, Spartans, Thebans. Republics: Romans, Carthaginians. Kingdoms: Macedonians, Ptolemies, Kushites. Empires: Seleucids, Persians, Mauryans, Han.

He didn't want to have it anymore, but wanted his posts to stay around.

We actually have rome go from republic to empire, they are currently the only Empire Kush is a tough one

What happened to his account??

My take: City-states: Athenians, Spartans, Thebans Hellenistic Empires: Macedonians, Seleucids, Ptolemies Eastern Empires: Persians, Mauryans, Han Republics: Romans, Carthaginians Tribal societies: Britons, Gauls, Iberians, Germans I cannot place Kushites though...

@Stan` I can do shorts, or trailers. But I'm open to trying out whatever you guys need.

Its also something I have wanted to do, but I have had a hard time coming up with good ways of group them with unique bonuses... you are giving some good ideas similarly here! Either one of you can PM me with how to set some of this stuff up Tribals I know Gauls/Brits and they already have something similar... I would think Germans could be put in that category? But the way the base game added germans they are quite different in their structures... so I didn't want to change that yet. Would Iber be in the tribal group? There are 16 civs, about 4 groups of 4 would be nice

He is after 500 AD, is this not a problem for DE?

Maybe Bahram V is worth adding?

I agree civs should be grouped somehow at some point, or things will become unwieldy, and it would be nice if they share some common important characteristics. That’s also why I supported the Confederacies idea for tribes, and proposed the Leagues one for the Greeks.

A recommendation: why dont you we have groups of different civs like city-states, empires, tribal societies, pastoral nomads etc which have common attributes within the group and are differentiated with civs from another group? Example: city-states have lower available manpower i.e. population, but each citizen is more motivated i.e. better stats in economy and/or fighting. Empires have more manpower i.e. population but citizens are subjects i.e. worse states. Pastoral nomads have lower building or tech prerequisites. Trival societied have cheaper but less sturdy buildings etc.

Ha, it’s THE god, that book says “Ohrmazd”, which is just another name for Ahura Mazda, the supreme god of Zoroastrianism. But I realise I made a mistake, since when I wanted to check which one was which, I just looked fast on Wikipedia, and it’s wrong! That book and other sources (https://www.livius.org/articles/place/naqs-e-rustam/naqs-e-rustam-photos/naqs-e-rustam-investiture-relief-of-ardasir-i) state that Ardashir I is the one on the left! But no issue, here a coin with Ardashir using the crown we want (from https://www.vcoins.com/de/stores/pashiz_coins_ltd/282/product/sasanian_empire_ardashir_i_2234240_ar_drachm_ctesiphon_ex_john_c_huntington_collection/1872615/Default.aspx, and which is apparently the crown of Ahura Mazda):

Are the crowns a civ bonus or do they need to be researched? I was thinking who has the insolance to wear a larger crown. Turns out its a god so i guess it is allowed...

What kind of videos would you like to do ?

Yeah, we're certainly intending to remove them. I just mean it's easy to see for us even if no one reports it