raystuttgart
Civ4Col Modder
Hi guys,
I had some interesting discussions lately and thus started thinking a bit about some features / concepts we had been talking about before.
Monasteries
1. Monasteries would be improvements that cannot be built within the cultural borders of another nation (unless you are at war with that Nation).
2. They could be built by Pioneers.
(Time and money would be a little bit more than with Mines.)
3. Monasteries would only be "active" if a Missionary is stationed in them.
4. If a "wandering" Native (UnitAI-check) walks into an active Monastery or one of its surrounding plots (its Zone of Control) there is :
A) A small chance to become a "Converted Native" of the Monastery Owner.
B) A small chance to switch UnitAI to "bearing gifts"
5. The chances are doubled if the Missionary in the Monastery is an Expert (Jesuit Missionary / Evangelist).
6. Any Nation that is at war with the owner of the Monastery could destroy it.
Otherwise units can simply walk through it.
7. A Missionary of another Nation that accidently walks by an empty Monastery could take possession of it.
8. Your own Military will heal much faster in such a Monastery.
9. If a City is built on top of a Monastery it is destroyed.
Forts
I always had a problem with an improvement "Forts", because I never saw a real use compared to building cities.
But there is a use: A shield from Native Raids.
(Since Forts would not have Population, Buildings or Yields, there is not that much harm a Native Raid could do at a Fort.)
1. Forts would be improvements that cannot be built within the cultural borders of another nation (unless you are at war with that Nation).
2. They could be built by Pioneers.
(Time and Money would be a little bit more than with Mines.)
3. Forts would only be "active" if a military Unit is stationed in them.
4. Aggressive Units (Raiding or at War) could not simply walk by an active Fort.
(Zone of Control of 1 Plot).
5. Forts will give a defensive Bonus to the Units inside.
6. Natives on Raid, would attack such Forts.
(Thus Forts would shield your cities from raids.)
7. Empty Forts would be destroyed by Natives that are at war with you.
8. Empty Forts would be taken by Europeans that are at war with you.
9. If a City is built on top of a Fort it is destroyed.
--------------
Summary:
Both concepts would be based on new improvements.
Both concepts work with "Zones of Control" that however do different things.
Both concepts should be taught to AI.
The basic idea about these features is, that the player should try to position these new improvements in strategic locations.
I believe, this would add a new dimension to the game and could be a lot of fun.
I am not really sure about historical accuracy.
(But Forts and Monasteries did exist of course.)
Efforts would be considerable although there already exists a feature with code that I could partially reuse.
(This should be taught to AI.)
Balancing exposed to XML.
--------------
Feedback ?
I had some interesting discussions lately and thus started thinking a bit about some features / concepts we had been talking about before.
Monasteries
1. Monasteries would be improvements that cannot be built within the cultural borders of another nation (unless you are at war with that Nation).
2. They could be built by Pioneers.
(Time and money would be a little bit more than with Mines.)
3. Monasteries would only be "active" if a Missionary is stationed in them.
4. If a "wandering" Native (UnitAI-check) walks into an active Monastery or one of its surrounding plots (its Zone of Control) there is :
A) A small chance to become a "Converted Native" of the Monastery Owner.
B) A small chance to switch UnitAI to "bearing gifts"
5. The chances are doubled if the Missionary in the Monastery is an Expert (Jesuit Missionary / Evangelist).
6. Any Nation that is at war with the owner of the Monastery could destroy it.
Otherwise units can simply walk through it.
7. A Missionary of another Nation that accidently walks by an empty Monastery could take possession of it.
8. Your own Military will heal much faster in such a Monastery.
9. If a City is built on top of a Monastery it is destroyed.
Forts
I always had a problem with an improvement "Forts", because I never saw a real use compared to building cities.
But there is a use: A shield from Native Raids.
(Since Forts would not have Population, Buildings or Yields, there is not that much harm a Native Raid could do at a Fort.)
1. Forts would be improvements that cannot be built within the cultural borders of another nation (unless you are at war with that Nation).
2. They could be built by Pioneers.
(Time and Money would be a little bit more than with Mines.)
3. Forts would only be "active" if a military Unit is stationed in them.
4. Aggressive Units (Raiding or at War) could not simply walk by an active Fort.
(Zone of Control of 1 Plot).
5. Forts will give a defensive Bonus to the Units inside.
6. Natives on Raid, would attack such Forts.
(Thus Forts would shield your cities from raids.)
7. Empty Forts would be destroyed by Natives that are at war with you.
8. Empty Forts would be taken by Europeans that are at war with you.
9. If a City is built on top of a Fort it is destroyed.
--------------
Summary:
Both concepts would be based on new improvements.
Both concepts work with "Zones of Control" that however do different things.
Both concepts should be taught to AI.
The basic idea about these features is, that the player should try to position these new improvements in strategic locations.
I believe, this would add a new dimension to the game and could be a lot of fun.
I am not really sure about historical accuracy.
(But Forts and Monasteries did exist of course.)
Efforts would be considerable although there already exists a feature with code that I could partially reuse.
(This should be taught to AI.)
Balancing exposed to XML.
--------------
Feedback ?