voigt
Chieftain
Glad to hear that! What do you think about adding the soundtracks module by default in 1.18 ?
Suggestions and Requests
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
voigt
Chieftain
I thought that with the default game terrain being Blue Marble in version 1.18, adding the DoC soundtracks module to the mod made sense and would make the gaming experience more complete in a way.
caketastydelish
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2008
- Messages
- 9,571
in my game I can’t found Vinland as Vikings until after discovering compass. The part of of North America I can reach west of Greenland dosent let my settler found a city is that right? Could it be changed so Greenland can have a city even if it’s a small one? The Vikings did have a settlement there.
Can we change Prussia uhv to invade or make vassals of the territory they are supposed to get instead of annex all of it? Italy was just an ally and Vichy France was a vassal for example.
I’d like some wonders to be designed to be more exclusive that you can’t built them unless you are playing as the civ that built them OR you invaded and own (or have vassalized) the civ that built them. For example only Russia can built the kremlin but if someone invades Moscow or makes Russia their vassal then they are allowed to build it. Why can’t we buy barbarian units ?
Edit: more ideas: can you fix it so we can turn time victory off ? One idea I would like implemented, if possible, is group alliances like nato with article 5 protection (if one member gets attacked all do). The founder of it could be constructed like a world wonder, and the founder os allowed to make offers to which civ wants to join it. They must be a democracy to be allowed in (if it is nato specifically but there can be an equaivent for fascist and communist). You can only be in one of these types of alliances. Being in the alliance gives you a boost of some kind (cultural, wealth. Research whatever).
Can we change Prussia uhv to invade or make vassals of the territory they are supposed to get instead of annex all of it? Italy was just an ally and Vichy France was a vassal for example.
I’d like some wonders to be designed to be more exclusive that you can’t built them unless you are playing as the civ that built them OR you invaded and own (or have vassalized) the civ that built them. For example only Russia can built the kremlin but if someone invades Moscow or makes Russia their vassal then they are allowed to build it. Why can’t we buy barbarian units ?
Edit: more ideas: can you fix it so we can turn time victory off ? One idea I would like implemented, if possible, is group alliances like nato with article 5 protection (if one member gets attacked all do). The founder of it could be constructed like a world wonder, and the founder os allowed to make offers to which civ wants to join it. They must be a democracy to be allowed in (if it is nato specifically but there can be an equaivent for fascist and communist). You can only be in one of these types of alliances. Being in the alliance gives you a boost of some kind (cultural, wealth. Research whatever).
Last edited:
psyblade
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2022
- Messages
- 40
Late game has some weird borders and expansions, as well as dead civs that have no hope of returning. In a post nationalism world, it is strange to continue to see large sprawling empires. At end-game, however, stability isn't hard to attain.
With that said, I think a U.N. Decolonization Resolution is a good mechanic to get to our desired outcome for a more dynamic endgame.
The Decolonization Resolution pops up every now and again, and targets one dead civ and tries to resurrect it.
For example, the Decolonize Mexico (if the US expands south too far), Decolonize Vietnam (French), or Decolonize Poland (Russia, et al.) Resolutions would, once they pop up, allow for the world to vote on supporting the guerillas and revolutionaries.
The U.N. vote also has a weighted 'Liberation Score' (which could be displayed next to the [Dead] marker for dead civs. The Liberation Score is a value proportional to the size and strength of the colonized cities. If the occupied cities have high stability bonuses (courthouses, religious bonuses, etc.), the liberation value is reduced, and vice versa (overextended, underdeveloped, and angry cities have higher liberation score).
The possible outcomes are:
- Vote Success: This triggers gives a 'Rise of X Civilization' pop-up that is similar to regular spawns for civs that own core cities,
- Vote Failure: This rotates the next Decolonization Resolution to the next dead civ in line,
- Vote Defiance: This gives the normal penalties to all defiant civs, and gives an additional angry citizens in the core cities of the colonized civ, which increases the Liberation Score and makes the next decolonization resolution more likely to succeed.
Decolonization also affects independent-ruled cities, with a succeess respawning the civ in the core areas.
Alternatively, of course, a general 'Rise and Fall' mechanic that is independent of U.N. Resolutions could also get the job done, but having it be tied to the U.N. gives a twist on modern diplomacy that is quite appealing.
Edit: Oops. I realized there WAS a decolonization and 'free nation' option in the U.N.
I think the Liberation Score idea (and showing the value next to dead civs) is still viable however, but perhaps changed to be called Rise score. It can be a core mechanic as part of the general Rise and Fall cycle of the game. A civ collapses, keeps a Rise Score, which fluctuates over time. If it reaches a certain threshold, it triggers guerilla troops and random liberation events, and contributes as an additional weight in the U.N. votes.
For example, when the U.N. vote on whether or not to restore a collapsed and occupied France (24 Rise Score), the Yes vote automatically has 24 votes from the Rise Score.
With that said, I think a U.N. Decolonization Resolution is a good mechanic to get to our desired outcome for a more dynamic endgame.
The Decolonization Resolution pops up every now and again, and targets one dead civ and tries to resurrect it.
For example, the Decolonize Mexico (if the US expands south too far), Decolonize Vietnam (French), or Decolonize Poland (Russia, et al.) Resolutions would, once they pop up, allow for the world to vote on supporting the guerillas and revolutionaries.
The U.N. vote also has a weighted 'Liberation Score' (which could be displayed next to the [Dead] marker for dead civs. The Liberation Score is a value proportional to the size and strength of the colonized cities. If the occupied cities have high stability bonuses (courthouses, religious bonuses, etc.), the liberation value is reduced, and vice versa (overextended, underdeveloped, and angry cities have higher liberation score).
The possible outcomes are:
- Vote Success: This triggers gives a 'Rise of X Civilization' pop-up that is similar to regular spawns for civs that own core cities,
- Vote Failure: This rotates the next Decolonization Resolution to the next dead civ in line,
- Vote Defiance: This gives the normal penalties to all defiant civs, and gives an additional angry citizens in the core cities of the colonized civ, which increases the Liberation Score and makes the next decolonization resolution more likely to succeed.
Decolonization also affects independent-ruled cities, with a succeess respawning the civ in the core areas.
Alternatively, of course, a general 'Rise and Fall' mechanic that is independent of U.N. Resolutions could also get the job done, but having it be tied to the U.N. gives a twist on modern diplomacy that is quite appealing.
Edit: Oops. I realized there WAS a decolonization and 'free nation' option in the U.N.
I think the Liberation Score idea (and showing the value next to dead civs) is still viable however, but perhaps changed to be called Rise score. It can be a core mechanic as part of the general Rise and Fall cycle of the game. A civ collapses, keeps a Rise Score, which fluctuates over time. If it reaches a certain threshold, it triggers guerilla troops and random liberation events, and contributes as an additional weight in the U.N. votes.
For example, when the U.N. vote on whether or not to restore a collapsed and occupied France (24 Rise Score), the Yes vote automatically has 24 votes from the Rise Score.
Last edited:
psyblade
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2022
- Messages
- 40
Another suggestion (that is much lighter) is: Minor Settlement Landmarks.
So basically cottages sort of represent minor settlements, but they can't be named right? What if there is a tile marker that pops up when cottage is built and is removed when it is destroyed (drawing dynamically from the city names logic)?
No England player would ever be able to build a city of York next to a city of Liverpool (they're adjacent tiles). With this suggestion, building the city of York and a cottage in the Liverpool tile would make one city of York and a small tile marker atop Liverpool. This would increase immersion and allow for minor city representation.
Of course, that means cottage economies would clutter the map, but one marker could suppress other generated markers within one tile.
So basically cottages sort of represent minor settlements, but they can't be named right? What if there is a tile marker that pops up when cottage is built and is removed when it is destroyed (drawing dynamically from the city names logic)?
No England player would ever be able to build a city of York next to a city of Liverpool (they're adjacent tiles). With this suggestion, building the city of York and a cottage in the Liverpool tile would make one city of York and a small tile marker atop Liverpool. This would increase immersion and allow for minor city representation.
Of course, that means cottage economies would clutter the map, but one marker could suppress other generated markers within one tile.
I would like to humbly request that the current stability mechanic be changed.
Currently, stability increases with each era. (I believe.) I would like to see it peak in the industrial era and then decrease in the global and information eras.
That is a more accurately reflection of how technological progress affected the expansion of empires than we currently have, and it would encourage European colonies to declare independence / Russia to collapse in the late game.
I apologize if I have either suggested this before, or if I misunderstand how stability currently works. My main point is that big empires should be harder to hold together after the industrial era, rather than easier.
Currently, stability increases with each era. (I believe.) I would like to see it peak in the industrial era and then decrease in the global and information eras.
That is a more accurately reflection of how technological progress affected the expansion of empires than we currently have, and it would encourage European colonies to declare independence / Russia to collapse in the late game.
I apologize if I have either suggested this before, or if I misunderstand how stability currently works. My main point is that big empires should be harder to hold together after the industrial era, rather than easier.
Genghis Khaiser
King
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2012
- Messages
- 701
I kinda agree, except I'd change it for the last era (Digital I think it is) to be where it decreases.
I see people love to suggest things which makes world conquest or just massive expansion even less possible. :-/
More advanced technology -> more efficient administration -> more stability limit on overextention. That makes sense for me. If you wanna go for historicity, it's more logical to remove historical tiles from oversea empires. Or make year of Africa event which cause colonies to become independent. Or, considering how the mod just fails to properly simulate modern history on fundamental level, just foget about historicity and enjoy the game instead of proposing something which will make life harder for the player and do only that. Cause AI doesn't care and anyways will massively die after 2020, cause that's how this game works.
I'll make my case and bow out:
1. That is not how the AI works in 2020--the AIs gets conquered by super-states (typically Russia or Germany) that do not collapse in the late game b/c of the stability buffs. They don't go up in the air in a poof of smoke or just "die" through magical alchemical transmutation.
2. Easier for the player does not necessarily make a better game. Sometimes a more challenging game can provide more joy because of the challenge. You may want easier---but there are difficulty levels for precisely this reason. Difficulty is more variable based on player taste whereas historicity is not.
3. You misunderstad what it means for a state to be stable definitionally:
a. It is not synonymous with efficient administration. Otherwise the modern Soviet Union with its technology that allowed instantaneous communication across 11 time zones would've been more "stable" at its collapse than Rome during the Pax Romana. That's absurd on its face.
b. Stability's relation to technology has been complicated throughout history. The question with regards to each technology throughout history is: Does this enhance a state's coercive and/or responsive apparatus more than it enhances political opposition groups' ability to organize and/or circumvent said apparatus. For example, the printing press massively increased administrative capacity by allowing for the easy dissemination of information, but it enhanced dissidents' ability to organize to an even greater degree. Now, I'm not proposing each technology have its own specific impact on stability because I think there's value in parsimony and because I don't like to ask Leoreth (who I'm sure has a day job) for huge overhauls when small fixes can achieve a similar result. But there is no straightforward linear relationship between technology and stability, and there never has been.
Zaddy
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2018
- Messages
- 341
As someone that plays very frequently into the modern era, I do not have this experience with superstates that mccp does. I was actually reminiscing a few days ago when Russia would become a Eurasian superpower when playing in the New World, which no longer really occurs. I would be pretty disappointed if this lack of strong late-game opponents was accentuated by making them even more prone to collapse.
Additionally, Domination victories are already pretty difficult and I politely disagree with making it even more difficult in service to making the game slightly more historical in the late game.
Additionally, Domination victories are already pretty difficult and I politely disagree with making it even more difficult in service to making the game slightly more historical in the late game.
1SDANi
Sister Lady
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2014
- Messages
- 2,935
If we were to go with the nuclear option, we could buff independents to actually be semi-competent at managing and defending their cities, make settling territory/expanding borders spawn hostile native units, add nationalism events after nationalism is researched/enough civs have said tech to make given cities gain independent culture or, if enough such culture is in their city, spawn independent hostile units, and add decolonization events, thus adding more sources of instability rather than removing sources of stability. Might be possible to get away with something like having independents always be at war with major civs, but keep track of which cities are at war with which players and fake peace status for those who aren't, faking independent ownership of units by restricting units to acting within tiles assigned to the given city. Though a kludge like that does raise a question regarding how to implement independent cities attacking major civ neighbors, and whether they even should.
Last edited:
It IS how AI work. Each civilization in DoC has "expiration" date after each it becomes more likely to collapse. 2020 is the end game date, so it is the last year for every civilization which didn't expire before. And also no civ is allowed to reborn after 2020. So if you decide to continue to play after the end, every single AI civilization will collapse in the span of less than 100 years. Or it used to be so in the previous patches.
psyblade
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2022
- Messages
- 40
I second MCCP's suggestion, late game is far too stable with gigantic empires. A solution may be adding new events that impact stability based on civics, which becomes more frequent with certain technologies.
For example, the nationalism tech adds more minority events. The instability coming from underdeveloping minority regions could spiral out of control for civs with incompatible civics like monarchy and bureaucracy.
For example, the nationalism tech adds more minority events. The instability coming from underdeveloping minority regions could spiral out of control for civs with incompatible civics like monarchy and bureaucracy.
Dracosolon
King
As a compromise, the stability bonus getting better with each era could stop doing so post Industrial (so Global era modifiers stay the same), while civs from Africa and Asia are more likely to ressurect then (the Americas already have plenty of young civs so this isn't a problem for them).
