Absolute vs Relative Spawns - A Step Towards Balance and Realism

[LikeNothing]

I have been a keen contributing fan of DoC since the beginning (I remember when China's UB was Confucian Academy, a University that gave +20% Research). More recently I have run dozens of hours of autoplay on, and flipped through the code of the big map version. I am (yet again) inspired by Leoreth's (ever improving) masterpiece and have some new ideas to share regarding balance and realism.

I see the challenges against balance (in gameplay) and realism (of historicity) in DoC to have two main separate branches:

• One, Anti-Blobbing: How to simulate the increasing costs and drawbacks of bigger civilizations.
  • This is an challenge faced by all history-related strategy games, not just DoC.
  • I am NOT discussing this topic in this thread - though I have ideas that I can discuss elsewhere.
• Two, Absolute vs Relative Spawns: How DoC civ spawns are in fact two very different types of spawns, and how to both integrate and distinguish between them in a single game.
  • This is a challenge faced by very few other history-related strategy games. It was originally introduced to RFC by Rhye, but the challenge has been amplified in DoC due to the rich content Leoreth added over the years.
  • I am discussing this topic in this thread.

In this OP I will define what Absolute vs Relative Spawns are (I made up these terms), with specific examples. In following posts I will explore some of the challenges this dichotomy presents, and how to address them - i.e. how to better integrate and distinguish between them in DoC.

• An Absolute Spawn is a civ spawning in game representing that a civilization IRL history has achieved a level of INTERNAL economic, cultural, and social COHESION to be regarded as a significant civilization.
  • In DoC, most early (Ancient, Classical, Medieval Eras) spawns are Absolute Spawns.
  • Notable later Absolute Spawns are (I'd argue): Turks, Portugal, Thailand, Congo.
    • Turks and Portugal I will use as archetypical examples.
  • Absolute Spawns in DoC typically start with a single tile, minimal flips, and small unit stack.
  • Absolute Spawns are expected (from gameplay strategy and historical realism) to build up slowly.
    • Therefore, Absolute Spawns tend to currently have slower modifiers in Consts.py.
    • Absolute Spawns are favored by players with a more building playstyle.
• A Relative Spawn is a a civ spawning in game representing that a civilization IRL history has achieved a level of EXTERNAL political, diplomatic, and military INDEPENDENCE to be regarded as a significant civilization.
  • In DoC, all late (Modern+ Era) spawns are Relative Spawns, including all post-colonial civilizations.
  • Notable non-colonial Relative Spawns are (I'd argue): Iran, Netherlands, Byzantium, Prussia, Sweden.
    • Iran and Netherlands I will use as particular examples.
    • Mongolia is a special case - it is a Relative Spawn taken to the extremes, especially for AIs.
    • America is another special case - it is a Relative Spawn taken to another extreme.
  • Relative Spawns in DoC typically start by flipping at least one foreign city, and larger unit stacks.
  • Relative Spawns are expected (from gameplay strategy and historical realism) to expand quickly.
    • Therefore, Absolute Spawns tend to have superior modifiers in Consts.py, relative to its initial neighbors/rivals.
    • Absolute Spawns are favored by players with a more conquering/rapid expanding playstyle.

I conclude this OP by highlighting the unique magnitude of the challenge faced by DoC:

Most history-related strategy game has only one of these two kinds of spawns. Vanilla CIV only has Absolute Spawns. Paradox games, like Crusader Kings and Europa Universalis, only have Relative Spawns. DoC, with its rather unique mixture of Absolute and Relative Spawns, is essentially two genres of historical strategy games rolled into one - this is part of its unique charm, and presents unique challenges, challenges which I will explore in more detail later in this thread.

 

[LikeNothing]

As I have outlined in the OP, Vanilla CIV only has Absolute Spawns, and therefore it (as the bedrock of RFC and DoC) is optimized (by Firaxis) for Absolute Spawns. How to better simulate, for balance and realism, Relative Spawns on this bedrock has been a consistent challenge for DoC's game design. In this post, I will explore some existing and new solutions to meet this challenge.

[To be continued]

 

[LikeNothing]

[Reserved]

 

[Leoreth]

Leoreth has expressed sympathy and interest in reducing or removing civ-specific modifiers (in Consts.py). This may be a crux of achieving the holy grail of balance and realism in DoC.

I do not and I do not agree with the goal as framed in this post.

 

[HNation]

I have run dozens of hours of autoplay

How do you run autoplay where you get to watch the game in progress?

 

[LikeNothing]

I do not and I do not agree with the goal as framed in this post.

Understood. OP revised.

How do you run autoplay where you get to watch the game in progress?

I don't. You overestimate my power, lol.

I ran a variety of autoplays, most often the Netherlands, Ottomans, and Portugal.

 

[TsimTsigal]

Portugal and the Netherlands being different types of spawn is something that absolutely eludes me.

They both take relatively small area of Europe, never flip any cities (because AI seems to be hardcoded to avoid settling Lisboa and Amsterdam as any other nation via settler maps), expected to expand overseas, and are very fun to blow up by taking core cities.

The fact you have to set "special cases" immediately means that terms themselves are not well designed, with all due respect.

 

[SultanRedSnake]

Portugal and the Netherlands being different types of spawn is something that absolutely eludes me.

I eagerly await the next sections of the piece that I predict will justify the distinction. Meanwhile if you'd indulge my own musics:

They both take relatively small area of Europe, never flip any cities (because AI seems to be hardcoded to avoid settling Lisboa and Amsterdam as any other nation via settler maps), expected to expand overseas, and are very fun to blow up by taking core cities.

100% all absolutely true. The two runts have all these four things in common. If we stop at this short list of indenticals, your mystification would be justified. They play *entirely* different though. The most crucial factor is probably just time (I'm assuming 600AD): Portugal starts early enough that the state of the world (ya know the usual who snowballed, who collapsed, where are the wonders, is my land improved) at least as concerns their goals isn't able to vary much and even if it does, it matters little to the Game. It could be said that a Portugal campaign is The Player against (mostly) The Map (as opposed to against other civs). As long as Her Majesty doesn't decide you should die, it's gonna be almost the same song and dance every game (coming from a psycho who's done this easily 150 times in the last ten years). Hence the Portugal game is can be called Absolute.

The Dutch player opens his eyes not even knowing if the campaign is already unwinnable. There's no telling what a trainwreck of a continent the Reformation might have produced this time. The situation could vary from one extreme of an empty extra-European world without timely opportunity for conquest to the other in which Spain and France ate everything and all the spice islands are covered in Indy garrisons with no place to land first. Within the playable range of spawns though the Dutch player is still in the reactive position. Oh and yeah you have like 20 twenty turns to succeed . The Dutch game takes place Relative to any number of things the spawn serves up.

The fact you have to set "special cases" immediately means that terms themselves are not well designed, with all due respect.

Sure this is fair? Out of 60 Civs only 2 and "special" just refers to the examples lying on either extreme. Also this is only an outline of OP's proposal that we have yet to read.

 

[TsimTsigal]

They play *entirely* different though. The most crucial factor is probably just time (I'm assuming 600AD): Portugal starts early enough that the state of the world (ya know the usual who snowballed, who collapsed, where are the wonders, is my land improved) at least as concerns their goals isn't able to vary much and even if it does, it matters little to the Game. It could be said that a Portugal campaign is The Player against (mostly) The Map (as opposed to against other civs). As long as Her Majesty doesn't decide you should die, it's gonna be almost the same song and dance every game (coming from a psycho who's done this easily 150 times in the last ten years). Hence the Portugal game is can be called Absolute.

The Dutch player opens his eyes not even knowing if the campaign is already unwinnable. There's no telling what a trainwreck of a continent the Reformation might have produced this time. The situation could vary from one extreme of an empty extra-European world without timely opportunity for conquest to the other in which Spain and France ate everything and all the spice islands are covered in Indy garrisons with no place to land first. Within the playable range of spawns though the Dutch player is still in the reactive position. Oh and yeah you have like 20 twenty turns to succeed . The Dutch game takes place Relative to any number of things the spawn serves up.

(x) Doubt. Portugese game is affected a lot by if Spanish want to screw you (worst and rarer scenario: Spanish failed Reconquista and you have to deal with Moors). Well, not by a lot, but so is Dutch.

I don't know how Dutch UHV can be "unwinnable", i consider it the easiest by far and good entry point for UHVs, even on Normal time limit is generous. 3 GMerchants? Sure, you have enough time to make 4 with Republic + Monasticism (no point in Clergy save for first turn to buy more buildings), so you can safely add other specialists. Take European colonies? Unless France conquered all (which is extremely rare), you can easily bully Spanish or Portugese who usually fall into decline around time you spawn; at worst you can cheese with simutaneous attack on all French/English cities (and they can't really do anything about it, colonial cities are usually abysmally defended). Spices are essentially solved by Trade Company, you can get 7 without settling Carribean Islands (and if Portugese take Sri Lanka and Singapoure..). The Dutch UHV doesn't depend on wonders (you don't have time to build the Bourse anyway and the rest is useless), improvements (you have like 4 land tiles, same as Portugal btw), and who collapsed (unless you got super unlucky and got lots of European collapses, which i have yet to see by 1580 AD).

Portugese UHV is easy as well, especially if you cheese it with carpet settling on the last turn. I don't get how UHV can be reactive, you always actively impose your vision on map. Victory can't be reactive by definition, reactive gameplay (at least what i understand as reactive, aka to react rather than to act independently) is all about (re)taking initiative.

Out of 60 Civs only 2 and "special" just refers to the examples lying on either extreme.

It's more about there is no hard criteria, no clear definition. America is called extreme Relative yet it on Normal speed it can have 0 cities in flip zone, and only New Orlean in historical, and its early game is quite reminiscent of Chinese (Absolute), of all civs (balancing expansion in mostly empty and rich land with technology). It leads us to idea that Reactive and Absolute can be combined... and thus mean nothing at all as terms, other than vague feeling. If the original idea was how much civs are affected by others, then take about expansion and modifiers seems to be weird (Argentine depends a lot on which country (if any) builds the Eiffel Tower but doesn't expand much and have so-so modifiers).

 

[SultanRedSnake]

I don't know how Dutch UHV can be "unwinnable",

You get a sincere Touché on this one and I thank you for calling out my unfortunate fall to a dose of copium. Seriously; I reflected more on my Dutch Game over the years and had to recognize my strategic assumptions and approach to planning as almost comically rigid.

As for the rest I probably overstepped in trying to speak for OP out of genuine eagerness but just ended up muddying up the soup. Therefore the best thing I can do is just shush at least until @LikeNothing speaks for himself.