Suggestions and Requests

[banzay13]

Will be in 1.18 with bigger map unit speed increased? I think the road movement maybe increased by +1 to current, and maybe naval unit speed too +1
Even on Epic speed it's not easy sometimes to archive some UHV - coz you need move your unit far far away for settling/wars
P/s Now i really like marathon speed (except Global/Digital time coz cheap research), you can taste Medieval ages, not like you blinked - and they gone))

 

[Leoreth]

Yes, this is addressed in multiple ways. First of all, the number of turns has been extended from 500 to 600 on normal speed, so there is more time for moving units. Most naval units received +1 move like you suggested, so e.g. Galleys now have 4 moves (it feels right).

I decided not to change the moves of land units because going from 1 to 2 moves or 2 to 3 moves changes the tactical nature of the game too much. I made modest changes to routes: roads start out at x2 speed as before and go to x3 with Engineering. Roman roads start out at x3 and go to x4 with Engineering (the latter is new). Then normal roads go to x4 speed with Cartography, and are then tied with Roman roads. In other words, you get faster land movement speed than currently in the late medieval / Renaissance period. Note that the faster ship movement also makes naval transport more attractive.

I also improved the speed multiplier for Railroads with Electronics, but that is harder to express as a numerical modifier due to how the math works out.

 

[Hickman888]

My Suggestion and Request is I'd like to see Open Borders grant your naval units permission to enter the other civilization's Fort, for canal/port purposes.

Spoiler Fort for canal/port purposes. :

 

[Leoreth]

Strange, I think that is actually a bug. You are supposed to be able to enter these tiles. I will make a note.

 

[KIJLC]

Yes, this is addressed in multiple ways. First of all, the number of turns has been extended from 500 to 600 on normal speed, so there is more time for moving units. Most naval units received +1 move like you suggested, so e.g. Galleys now have 4 moves (it feels right).

I decided not to change the moves of land units because going from 1 to 2 moves or 2 to 3 moves changes the tactical nature of the game too much. I made modest changes to routes: roads start out at x2 speed as before and go to x3 with Engineering. Roman roads start out at x3 and go to x4 with Engineering (the latter is new). Then normal roads go to x4 speed with Cartography, and are then tied with Roman roads. In other words, you get faster land movement speed than currently in the late medieval / Renaissance period. Note that the faster ship movement also makes naval transport more attractive.

I also improved the speed multiplier for Railroads with Electronics, but that is harder to express as a numerical modifier due to how the math works out.

Will there be any modifications to naval AI so they can utilize this more attractive naval transport? Or perhaps increase the cargo holding of transports. Currently if I do see the AI perform a landing, its only ever a small band of 3 or so troops.

 

[Leoreth]

Not at this time.

 

[Hickman888]

A new day, a new suggestion. I'd like to suggest that the action you take upon capturing a city (Sacking, Normal, Sparing) plays a role in how much of your culture is spread to the newly conquered city. With the percentage of your culture in a city playing a role in how much expansion penalty it incurs, I think it makes sense that a city that was treated well on its conquest would be more receptive to your culture than one that was mercilessly sacked. And therefore have less instability involved, at least initially.

Maybe something like 10% of your culture is spread on sacking, 25% on normal (the default now), and 50% on sparing a city.

 

[Cypriot]

My Suggestion and Request is I'd like to see Open Borders grant your naval units permission to enter the other civilization's Fort, for canal/port purposes.

Spoiler Fort for canal/port purposes. :

View attachment 685403View attachment 685404

Wait, naval units can enter forts?!

 

[CometHalo]

My Suggestion and Request is I'd like to see Open Borders grant your naval units permission to enter the other civilization's Fort, for canal/port purposes.

Spoiler Fort for canal/port purposes. :

View attachment 685403View attachment 685404

Honestly I’m just jealous the Suez Canal got built without you needing to control the area.

I’ve played quite a few games, and I’ve NEVER seen the AI build a fort there

 

[DragonWings]

Hi, I am new, if I have some suggestions about world wonders can I share them?
Should I design them and then present it?

 

[Hickman888]

Honestly I’m just jealous the Suez Canal got built without you needing to control the area.

I’ve played quite a few games, and I’ve NEVER seen the AI build a fort there

I Worldbuilded that example.

 

[Leoreth]

Hi, I am new, if I have some suggestions about world wonders can I share them?
Should I design them and then present it?

Welcome to the forum! Feel free to share your suggestions. There is a separate wonder suggestion thread in this subforum as well, you should be able to find it buried a few pages down.

 

[Steb]

Hi, I am new, if I have some suggestions about world wonders can I share them?
Should I design them and then present it?

Welcome! I believe this is the thread where people have been suggesting wonders, and I'll take this opportunity to mention that I've been maintaining a spreadsheet of suggested (and current) wonders here, if you want to look at past suggestions.

 

[Cosmos1985]

A new day, a new suggestion. I'd like to suggest that the action you take upon capturing a city (Sacking, Normal, Sparing) plays a role in how much of your culture is spread to the newly conquered city. With the percentage of your culture in a city playing a role in how much expansion penalty it incurs, I think it makes sense that a city that was treated well on its conquest would be more receptive to your culture than one that was mercilessly sacked. And therefore have less instability involved, at least initially.

Maybe something like 10% of your culture is spread on sacking, 25% on normal (the default now), and 50% on sparing a city.

That could make sense, but 50% seems very high.

 

[Glorfindel of Gondolin]

How about adding a cultural aspect to how combat works?
When you win battles you get some percentage of culture in the tile, and when you lose you get foreign culture in the tile.
Barbarians won't count in the system, I guess.
It would also have to take into account the strength of the units in question.

 

[venusinfurs77]

A new day, a new suggestion. I'd like to suggest that the action you take upon capturing a city (Sacking, Normal, Sparing) plays a role in how much of your culture is spread to the newly conquered city. With the percentage of your culture in a city playing a role in how much expansion penalty it incurs, I think it makes sense that a city that was treated well on its conquest would be more receptive to your culture than one that was mercilessly sacked. And therefore have less instability involved, at least initially.

Maybe something like 10% of your culture is spread on sacking, 25% on normal (the default now), and 50% on sparing a city.

wouldn't it make sense historically for it to be the other way round. sacked cities had their culture destroyed and replaced with the invaders as it was rebuilt, whereas a spared city would largely retain its own culture as its people and institutions hadn't been so ravaged

 

[Hickman888]

That could make sense, but 50% seems very high.

wouldn't it make sense historically for it to be the other way round. sacked cities had their culture destroyed and replaced with the invaders as it was rebuilt, whereas a spared city would largely retain its own culture as its people and institutions hadn't been so ravaged

Fair enough. My consideration was mostly from a gameplay perspective- Sparing a city can be very costly, I’ve seen some major cities require well over 1000 in order to spare. I was thinking that the player should be more rewarded for doing that, and increased cultural presence is a big one.

Actually, now that I’m thinking about it, didn’t most ancient empires operate this way? Once conquered, a city would usually have its existing social institutions left intact, in order to maintain order. And the city would be required to pay tribute to the empire. I don’t know if that falls under the purview of “Sparing a city” or not, but it is interesting to think about.

 

[LukeAtmey]

I suggest a buff for Religious Prosecutor. My current assessment of it is:

-Expensive in
-Capped so that you can only have 1 prosecutor at a time
-Seems to have a reasonably high chance of failure which means all your are wasted

I think maybe we could increase the cap to 3 prosecutors at a time and preferably decrease the hammer cost as well.

 

[Dracosolon]

Theocracy could also remove/loosen the limit on Persecutors and Missionaries to make it more valuable.

 

[Paavontinus Imperator]

Thank you for the great mod! I've been playing it infrequently since it's conception and find myself coming back to it every few years.

I have a suggestion regarding the discussed possibility for nomadic civilizations.

I think it would be best to keep the amount of new features to a minimum, that is why I would suggest adding only one new type of settlement, the Nomadic Camp.

The Nomadic Camp would function like a city in most ways except two: it doesn't exert cultural influence (so no cultural borders) and it doesn't work individual tiles, instead it would gain the combined yields of all the plain tiles in its area.

As such it would only benefit from grazeland (so plain steppe, grassland etc.), and also from camp and pasture resources (game and cattle), and oases. Improvements would not benefit it, which would encourage pillaging.

Nomadic Camp should be mobile in the sense it can be relocated (turning it to a nomadic settler unit), but moving it should mostly be necessary when securing better grazing grounds or retreating from invaders.

The only way to get a Nomadic Camp should be training a settler unit from another Nomadic Camp or spawning with one. If the location of a Nomadic Camp is covered by cultural influence, it would need to relocate (or turn to a normal city if it is the owner's culture).

The Nomadic Camp should have its own (limited) roster of "buildings", conceptually themed to be "nomadic" or "tribal" (eg. Horse Breeder: increased yields from horse resources, free Mobility promotion for new horse units). Population size should influence how many "buildings" one Nomadic Camp can sustain.

In terms of production or science the Nomadic Camp should not be able to compete with well-developed cities. It should however allow for nomads to thrive in areas with few resources but lots of land for grazing (eg. Central Asia, Arabia). Nomadic Camps should be able to produce high quality archers and horseunits quite efficiently but lose their competitive edge towards the end of the game period. Their habitats should be organically slowly occupied by sedentary populations.

Therefore there wouldn't be any inherent difference between a sedentary and a nomadic civilization. Some civilizations (the Turks, Mongols, Arabs, also barbarians and independents) would spawn with Nomadic Camps and acquire regular cities through conquest. Then they would rule both sedentary and nomadic populations side by side until possibly loosing their nomadic settlements alltogether (either voluntarily or to foreign conquest) and become fully sedentary.


Disregarding my suggestions, I am interested if there are indeed plans to feature nomads in some form or the other in the upcoming bigger map. Thank you!