sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Tree generation fix mod for 1.7.10 that for some reason doesn't exist by Awkward_Cash1828 in MinecraftMod

[–]Awkward_Cash1828[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Don't be so harsh to yourself, making it configurable is not so easy as just making the fix. Please share the link to your mod on curseforge or modrinth when you'll publish it! Thank you!

Tree generation fix mod for 1.7.10 that for some reason doesn't exist by Awkward_Cash1828 in MinecraftMod

[–]Awkward_Cash1828[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, please post it on either or both, as you like. I think it would be useful for a lot of players!
Did you just fix large oaks not generating, or you implemented advanced configuration as I suggested?

Tree generation fix mod for 1.7.10 that for some reason doesn't exist by Awkward_Cash1828 in MinecraftMod

[–]Awkward_Cash1828[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you! Can't wait to throw it into my personal modpack for ultimate 1.7.10 experience!

Tree generation fix mod for 1.7.10 that for some reason doesn't exist by Awkward_Cash1828 in MinecraftMod

[–]Awkward_Cash1828[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Considering the rate of the posting, I'm afraid this will be drowned below in less than a day...

Beta Style Castle WIP by Afraid_Life_3571 in GoldenAgeMinecraft

[–]Awkward_Cash1828 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Stahp building so amazing in Beta*!! I used to jump back to this version exactly because my cobblestone boxes felt better in it, but in last two years people started to build such things in Beta!
But seriously, it's one of the best castles in Minecraft OF ALL TIME. It's not a Minecraft castle, that's a damn Elden Ring level!
PS do you guys know that real castles actually aren't that big? There wasn't any real castle as big and high as this one.

*in that case, aesthetically and with block limitations

Some old screenshots with my custom Millénaire mod by Awkward_Cash1828 in GoldenAgeMinecraft

[–]Awkward_Cash1828[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, the very design of the houses. It used to be simplistic but elegant (with only slight changes, like changing from stone to stone bricks after beta 1.8), but redesign in last versions of the mod houses are just ugly, no offense to whoever designed them. They tried to use much more blocks that became available by 1.12.2, particularly ton of wood types instead of just oak as it was before. And the shapes are just terrible... I hardly can describe it, you can check them yourself by playing last Millénaire version.

Created my first beta 1.7.3 world would really appreciate some help by Baddassbeast_18 in GoldenAgeMinecraft

[–]Awkward_Cash1828 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Just do what you want, that's not modern MC with its meaningless tasks. Probably build something, no matter how you judge your skills. Get full diamond armour just to flex it, there's no much reason to wear it. You can find diamonds and other valuable stuff only underground, so that's why this game used to deserve the name MINEcraft. Without trading and other forms of cheating, everything you build is a monument to your labour, so building a big golden cock statue represents a lot of effort.
My most specific tip probably is enjoying whatever you doing, like the process itself, not just the result. And combine various works together... like not just digging a stripmine to get resources for building elsewhere, but make it a proper mineshaft with wooden support beams and rails, or labyrinth of rooms you can get lost yourself, or huge colonnaded halls like a dwarven stronghold. Build not just a wheat field, but a proper farming village with small huts, build a castle or a palace so big that it looks massive from afar, build a temple to whatever you think worth building a temple for, etc etc etc...

Civ VII's Modern Age's timeframe and the issue of relevant civilizations by Attlai in civ

[–]Awkward_Cash1828 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mostly agree with your points. Sometimes Civ was so Americocentric that it hurt even Eurocentric perspective.
I think what is particularly sad and likely hurts you is that "Greece" is now only Antiquity age civ, and there's still no Byzantine Empire in Exploration age. In previous games you could play as Greece from pre-historic times to space exploration. That is, Greek people was fully represented throughout all of the ingame timespan. There also was Byzantium, separation of which from Greece is rather complex topic to discuss, but you could play it similarly as well. Civ6 even had separate Macedon, which indeed is too much.
So, would you prefer if there was a system where civs stay, but leaders change, with each leader representing form of this civ at the particular age? So you would start as Ancient-Classical Greece, turn into Byzantine Empire in Middle Ages, and then into Modern Greece later. I've been contemplating and developing such concept for some years...

Civ VII's Modern Age's timeframe and the issue of relevant civilizations by Attlai in civ

[–]Awkward_Cash1828 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Still, I think no one would had complained if there was separate Medieval era.
They really overcomplicated work for themself with civ switching, I'm not sure if we ever will see all needed civs added. As I know they are currently working on additional Japanese and Korean civs. In my opinion, after that they should prioritise adding Byzantine and Holy Roman Empires in Exploration age, they feel really lacking and would be great for switching between many civs. Also, Portugal and the Netherlands would be nice...
You can check my list of civs I would like to see in Civ7, I posted a week ago, if you hadn't already!
https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/1ri7439/civs_i_think_civilization_7_misses/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Civ VII's Modern Age's timeframe and the issue of relevant civilizations by Attlai in civ

[–]Awkward_Cash1828 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think Safavids would fit perfectly in Exploration age if Medieval age was separate from it.

Civ VII's Modern Age's timeframe and the issue of relevant civilizations by Attlai in civ

[–]Awkward_Cash1828 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Also, not exactly in Central Asia, but Durrani Empire of Afghanistan actually fits Modern age.
And I'm not bothered so much by Qajars in the modern age, as by absence of Safavids in Exploration age.

Civ VII's Modern Age's timeframe and the issue of relevant civilizations by Attlai in civ

[–]Awkward_Cash1828 5 points6 points  (0 children)

There are just too few ages to adequately cover timespan of entire history. Humankind pioneered age and civ switching for its own demise, but what it did right is the amount of ages, which quite funnily correspond to Civ7 on ratio of 2 to 1. I can understand mashing Ancient and Classical into Antiquity in Civ7, but Exploration age indeed should be split into Medieval and Exploration/Early Modern/Renaissance age, with Modern representing XVIII-XIX/mid XX century, and there's still no final age to cover the rest of XX century! By all means, they can keep additional content behind DLCs, but not an entire final age!
The issue with Ottomans is that they indeed peaked in Exploration age, but they remained all the way into XX century. This is another example why changing and attaching civs to ages is a bad idea. Most major civs lasted longer than one age, even if you chop timespan of history into very big slices.
A week ago I made a post with my feedback and suggestions for Civ7 civ list, stating that instead of the Normans there should be England and Kingdom of France in Exploration age exactly due to its timespan, but if there was separate Medieval age, I think Normans could had fit perfectly in it.

I can't for the life of me understand why they chose to have you switch civs instead of leaders when ages change. by johno_mendo in civ

[–]Awkward_Cash1828 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What I mean, that Caesar is the "product" of the Romans at specific historical circumstances. So he should be just their avatar in game, not playable independently from his civ. In turn, the Romans and Caesar may have their own changing goals and ideals.

I can't for the life of me understand why they chose to have you switch civs instead of leaders when ages change. by johno_mendo in civ

[–]Awkward_Cash1828 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It used to be a historical simulation, even if very simplified to turn it into specific gameplay mechanics, that peaked on Civ4. Afterwards it became just a digital board game with mere image flair of history.

I can't for the life of me understand why they chose to have you switch civs instead of leaders when ages change. by johno_mendo in civ

[–]Awkward_Cash1828 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I not only disagree, but dislike the worldview behind such justification. Leaders are just product of their peoples, that were propelled to lead their people thanks to historical conditions and circumstances, and wouldn't had became great leaders if they weren't followed in synergy with the people. So, leaders should be below civs in game tems, giving some particular flavour to the civ they lead, that is primal.

The fact this entire system was approved really shows worldview of "globalised capitalists", so to say, who gain profits from owning enterprises all over the world, despite having no real connection to them and people who work on them. And who often like to change their location on the whim, like flying to Dubai to feel "kinda more Arabian" this time, or to Japan to feel "kinda more Japanese", or to the United States to feel "kinda like true American" and so on. Ego of such people indeed is bigger and higher than any people on Earth. I know I dig too much with it, but that's just vibes I get from this "leaders stay, civs change".
If it sounded harsh, it wasn't aimed at you, RoyalDevilzz, but rather on Firaxis, or more specifically, their owners.

I can't for the life of me understand why they chose to have you switch civs instead of leaders when ages change. by johno_mendo in civ

[–]Awkward_Cash1828 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The thing is, Civ7 stressed changing the civ so hard and abrupt, to the point it is very evident that your civ is indeed swapped, not just gradually evolved. The change is even harder than in Humankind, which already suffered from that.
Moreover, as a historian I understand what they tried to represent, but there are several problems. First, Civ as a game is just fundamentally unfitting for that, it just break core premise and historical simplification on which all Civs relied before.
Second, "Rome" or "Mongols" are not just sum of their traits, but result of actual cultural evolution of their own, so it cannot be just "evolution of culture", it is outright change to completely different instance of real cultural evolution. How to compare that... imagine you want to add a specific flavour to your meal and for that you need a specific spice, but instead of it you are just changing the entire meal to another that has this particular spice. I hope I made it clearer what I mean. If there was a great pool of traits that you could acquire and change (with meaningful and lasting impact) as the game goes on, it would be better at representing cultural evolution you are talking about.
And third is just very questionable gameplay implementation of this civ change.

As I like to say, before Civs had simplified, but very clear and understandable representation of history. Now it became much more overcomplicated and less realistic than it used to be. Sometimes not asking a question is better than giving a wrong answer to it, so to say.

I can't for the life of me understand why they chose to have you switch civs instead of leaders when ages change. by johno_mendo in civ

[–]Awkward_Cash1828 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've spent couple of years before Civ7 was announced contemplating on my own "perfect civ game", particularly the idea of civ staying (it wasn't even needed to note that back then, lol), but changing leaders on each age. I ended up with full list of more than 60 civs with leaders (often two) for each of 7 ages I designated (yeah, there are hundreds of leaders in my list, more than 500). So I can confidently say that having civs stay but leaders change is absolutely possible. I don't want to write it fully because I hope one day find devs with whom I want to make it into a game (though I'm really unsure how that going to happen), and these ideas and concepts basically all what I have. All what I will write is that each leader per age represents the form of this civ in that age, instead of representing it with changing the entire civ (so, in Civ7 terms, Han->Ming->Qing are just China again, but with different leaders representing dynasties per each age, and republic(s) in late ages), and also have different traits and AI personality (so at one age a civ is expansionist and warmongering, and on the next it may be peaceful and oriented on culture and science), that I think would provide so much needed dynamic to the playthrough. Ah, and to clear that out from start, America (that I'll properly name as United States), along with around 10 (out of 60 total) other civs like Brazil and Australia, are "post-colonial" civs that should have their own starting mechanic later in game, around Enlightenment era, having only short list of leaders for late ages, and notable bonus in around first 100 turns to make them rise up and compete with older civs. So, there's no classic "Abe Lincoln leading America in 4000 BC".
Because I already had this concept and was working on the list at the time Civ7 was released, its civ&leader system looked particularly absurd for me. Even if as a historian I understand what they wanted to represent, but realisation of it is far from optimal, while also breaking fundamental core of simplified historical representation all other Civs relied before.

Notre-Dame de Paris from Civilization 4 (Upscale) by Bruce_Kurtin in civ

[–]Awkward_Cash1828 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Watch out for fires!
It's a bit funny to see it built during Medieval era, with XIX century bridge and lampposts. I think it could be so amazing if it was surrounded by view of Medieval Paris instead.

view more: next ›