Suggestions and Requests

[VGL]

So, i don't understand the difference of some civics, their meaning or what does there combination mean.
What is a Republic+totalitarianism?
What is a Republic+absolution?
What is the difference between industrialism and capitalism?
What is a Autocracy+Egalitarianism?
What is a Monarchy+totalitarianism?
What is a central planning+ capitalism?
What is a environmentalism+industrialism?
What does theocracy in the government column mean?
What does scholasticism civic mean?
What is a Vassalage+Every other civic in the government column except monarchy?

 

[citis]

Republic and totalitarianism: The head of state is "elected", but relies on secret agencies. He doesn't rely on lineage or religion.

Republic and absolutism: Republic (some kind of elections), but the central government has absolute authority (maybe the absence of prefectures and decentralised government).

Industrialism: Goods are manufactured in factories.
Capitalism: Indivitual property and accumulation of it is allowed.
I agree with you, that capitalism should be in the same coloumn with central planning. Capitalism in this coloumn represents "artisantship", goods are produced by artisants and not by combining machines and people.

Autocracy and egalitarianism: All people have the same rights, indepedently of sex and race. Abolition of slavery. Maybe a woman autocrat or a balck autocrat in a european country?

Monarchy and totalitarianism: The king uses secret agencies to spy anyone in the state.

Central planning+capitalismartisantship: Communist state that doesn't use factories and machines but relies on hand-made goods.

Environmentalism+Industrialism: The society uses extensively factories to produce goods, but industry has effective environmental standards.

Theocracy: Power relies on religion. To me it makes sence if it is connected to ages. So dynasticism is classical age form of governmetn, theocracy is medieval age form of government.

Scholasticism: State religion is present, but scholars can say their opinion on religious matters without having the fear of being persecuted as heretics. Examples: Renaiscence Europe, Mughal empire under Akbar.

Vassalage: Decentralised government is applied by feudal lords and nobles. I agree it should require dynasticism or theocracy.

 

[VGL]

Some more questions:
Does Republic+absolutism means a Unitarian republic like many European and middle east republics?
What is a Republic+totalitarianism+ any religion civic other than secularism mean?
what does a Republic/Autocracy+Vassalage mean?

 

[Leoreth]

So, i don't understand the difference of some civics, their meaning or what does there combination mean.
What is a Republic+totalitarianism?
What is a Republic+absolution?
What is the difference between industrialism and capitalism?
What is a Autocracy+Egalitarianism?
What is a Monarchy+totalitarianism?
What is a central planning+ capitalism?
What is a environmentalism+industrialism?
What does theocracy in the government column mean?
What does scholasticism civic mean?
What is a Vassalage+Every other civic in the government column except monarchy?

1) I don't see where the confusion is. Republic does not imply elections.
2) I wouldn't think too much in the sense of modern republics, more like what EU4 labels as "Administrative Republic"
3) Industrialism = mostly economic policies focused on industrial production as practiced by Warsaw Pact countries, Capitalism = more leaning on financial capitalism. In more modern contexts it can also mean service sector economy vs. production sector economy
4) Why shouldn't there be equal rights in an autocratic state?
5) Monarchy doesn't exist. Dynasticism only implies there is a monarch, while Totalitarianism describes the method of ruling. Think Francoist Spain, or WW2 Japan.
6) State Capitalism (think modern China).
7) Focus on the productive sector with environmental regulations.
8) The head of government is also a religious leader, e.g. the Caliphate, Tibet, revolutionary Iran.
9) Focus on religious learning, often decentralized, as opposed to a hierarchical church structure. I would consider the medieval Middle East under this civic.
10) I don't see what it would be incompatible with. For instance, the PLC is an example of a Republic with Vassalage, the same could be said about the early Dutch Republic. Vassalage in general only implies that the aristocracy plays a role in the administration of the country.

Some more questions:
Does Republic+absolutism means a Unitarian republic like many European and middle east republics?
What is a Republic+totalitarianism+ any religion civic other than secularism mean?
what does a Republic/Autocracy+Vassalage mean?

1) Wouldn't say so.
2) Why is the religion civic important? Totalitarian states definitely don't have to be atheist.
3) see above.

By the way, this is the suggestions thread, so take it to a more appropriate location if you want to continue discussion.

 

[ezzlar]

I prefer conditional spawns over respawns, where the "new" civ has its own new UB/UU, starting stack etc. There are already a few civs in place with this mechanism but a few more would be welcome like:

Vikings -> Swedish
Indians -> Mughals -> Marathas
Egypt -> Mamluks -> (modern?) Egypt
Greece -> Byzantium -> (modern?) Greece
etc

What is your view on this Leoreth? Or do you consider it as adding more civs and not that interesting right now?

 

[Leoreth]

Every "actual" spawn costs a slot. Which costs performance.

The talk about completely new additions is already inflationary, and I have enough on my hands with those.

 

[ezzlar]

Ah, ok. It "costs" even if they are conditional on performance. Too bad.

Just a suggestion/idea!

 

[Leoreth]

Unfortunately. As I've mentioned somewhere before, it is theoretically possible to decouple civilizations from slots, so that slots would only limit how many civilizations can be in the game at the same time (and how many will be available in the starting screen). But that would require rewriting the entire groundwork of RFC, not something I'd want to invest my time in right now.

 

[VGL]

1) I don't see where the confusion is. Republic does not imply elections.

Well,the confusion is that totalitarianism is usually a extreme version of authoritarianism so i want to see what does this two together mean. thanks for clearing it up

5) Monarchy doesn't exist. Dynasticism only implies there is a monarch, while Totalitarianism describes the method of ruling. Think Francoist Spain, or WW2 Japan.

Sorry if i confused you. i meant Dynastism+Totalitarianism. Both of the examples were dictatorships

By the way, this is the suggestions thread, so take it to a more appropriate location if you want to continue discussion.

Sorry. I didn't knew where at that time

 

[Leoreth]

Sorry if i confused you. i meant Dynastism+Totalitarianism. Both of the examples were dictatorships

Both derived their authority from claiming to act under consent of the monarch. Especially in Japan.

 

[JustAnotherNerd]

After game as Russia, appeared interesting opinion.
What if Russia would have something (UP or some unique religious power) that was giving bonus to farms? Say, 1 from farm and additional . This finally will allow to be agrarian, instead of cottaging in every single tile and adopting Egalitarianism early than any other civ.
Then adopting communism would have sense, to replace your farms with watermills. But now it has sense only for UHV and for couple of watermills somewhere in plains instead of farms... Who will destroy town with 8 , to build instead of it some shabby watermill?
Would it be OP? Not a fact. Because monarchy is capped on 4, not many happiness resourses in the beginning. But it willl allow to produce more units to protect your lands from agressive neighbours and finally will allow to get rid of this very stereotypical UP. Power of "General Winter"... Strangely, that it isn't some "Power of Bears" or "Power of Vodka".
Gameplay around farming would be interesting and, I'd say, unforgettable But now farming has no sense completely Build it for what? To cover more useless tiles with 2 commerce. Farming just for faster growing not the best idea too. Growing is already decent with growth modifiers of Russia and replacing all farms with such huge distances as in Russia will demand to have hundreds of workers.

 

[Lokki242]

Ok Leoreth, I know you aren't particularly optimistic about the inclusion of a native north american nation, but are you open to hearing my ideas I've had to include the Sioux? If you'd rather not hear about any new civilizations right now that's fine.

 

[merijn_v1]

Ok Leoreth, I know you aren't particularly optimistic about the inclusion of a native north american nation, but are you open to hearing my ideas I've had to include the Sioux? If you'd rather not hear about any new civilizations right now that's fine.

I'm planning to develop my Native American camp idea I suggested a while ago. It's not a civ, but the Native Americans will be more interesting. (Or at least dealing with them)

I say please post your suggestions. Posting it wouldn't hurt anyone. I might get some inspiration for my camp idea.

 

[Leoreth]

Ok Leoreth, I know you aren't particularly optimistic about the inclusion of a native north american nation, but are you open to hearing my ideas I've had to include the Sioux? If you'd rather not hear about any new civilizations right now that's fine.

Please do. Individual Native American civilizations like the Sioux or Iroquois were never out of the question.

 

[Lokki242]

Well, here are my ideas for the Sioux nation. Please forgive any dumb ideas, I am just a moronic teenager

Sioux Nation

LHs: Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull

Spawn: I was thinking around 1790 AD, but I think somewhere between 1690-1820 is good.

Core: Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Nebraska
Historical: The Midwest, Oklahoma, North Texas, Southern Alberta and Saskatchewan (Many Sioux tribes fled to southern Canada in the late 1800s and early 1900s)

UP: Power of the Nomadic Tribes: 1/2 the Population of Sioux Cities Captured or Razed joins the Military
OR
UP: Power of the Last Tribes: Units Have +50% strength against American, Mexican or European Units

UU: Mounted Brave (Replaces Cuiraisser): Starts with either Pinch or Flanking, doesn't require Iron. (I don't know if there should also be some sort of bonus against Riflemen)
UB: Buffalo Hunting Grounds (Replaces Barracks?): Provides 1 Food and 1 Hammer

UHVs:
1. No European, American or Mexican Cities in the Sioux Core at 1900 AD (maybe extend the required area of this)
2. Raze 20 US or Mexican Improvements by 1920 AD
3. Conquer 3 European, Mexican or American Settlements and Control 2 Gold Resources in 1930 AD
(Maybe increase the amount of cities to capture)

My reasoning for wanting to include the Sioux should be somewhat obvious, as they are one of the most instantly recognizable Native American cultures that played a huge part in North America's history.

This would additionally require a slight map revamp of the area, as well as the inclusion of a horse resource or two in the Sioux Core spawning at a certain date (maybe 1750 AD).

EDIT: I've also had ideas for the Iroqouis and Inuit, but they aren't as well put together as this one.

 

[mrrandomplayer]

Please do. Individual Native American civilizations like the Sioux or Iroquois were never out of the question.

I think that the Iroquois could be an interesting nation to play as. Trying to play the French and English against each other and maintaining a balancing act would make for neat gameplay.

 

[Shadow Merc]

Stemming from the Babylon is OP discussion, I have a suggestion for the Greek UHV.

I think it's goal #2, but it should be changed to require the Statue of Zeus instead of the Oracle. The statue is one of the seven wonders of the ancient world and it's effects synch well with the 3rd UHV. It will also reduce the frustration of losing a wonder to Babylon since I don't think the statue is built all that often.

 

[AtlantaMarty]

1 minor esthetic suggestion and 1 major balance one:
For the scoreboard when it says [Leader/Civ Description] it will give results like [Mughals / British Raj] Is there anyway to change it so the [Leader/Civ Description] option yields results like [Akbar / British Raj] instead?

When the Latin American Nations declare independence, Spain always collapses, which makes no sense. Can you change it so loss of colonial territories does not make a nation collapse?

Alternatively, you could make it so a colonial civ that loses it's colonies collapses to it's core.

Keep up the great work!

 

[Fresol]

I suggest setting full collapse impossible except for two cases: 1) not controlling all core cities; 2) it's after a civ's supposed “collapse time”. Other than the two cases, the civ only collapse to core when previously they fully collapse.

This mechanic will help deal with the current situation where too many civs are collapsing on their own.

 

[DC123456789]

I think that the Iroquois could be an interesting nation to play as. Trying to play the French and English against each other and maintaining a balancing act would make for neat gameplay.

Wasn't there a discussion about it a long time ago? IIRC one the main problems was that it would overlap with the American core too much.