What you HATE in DOC?

[calad]

That would be fantastic.

And it could be easily done by moving resources to match with current mechanics.
If we would want encourage players to found city in specific on spot, but there a production or commerce resource.
And to discourage, but there a food resource.
Of course civilizations stability maps and the victory type going for matters too.

Some of examples:
-Dye should be under Sur, because that is what they were famous of.
-Egypt could have horses under their starting spot so they have earlier access to War Chariots.
-Athens could be made better than Corinth by moving marble under it and removing or moving(1S) those clams that can be reached from Corinth but not from Athens.
-Rome could have marble under it (Urbem latericium invenit, marmoream reliquit).
-Carthago could have stone under it making it better spot than 1 south.
-Bordeaux could have wine under it (Bordeaux Wines).
-Aksum could have coffee under it.
-Sana'a could have incense under it.
-Yax Mutal could silver under it.
-Oslo could have silver under it.
-London could have horses or stone under it to make it better than capital on south coast.
...

If Leoreths thinks that settling on resource is too strong, maybe it could only give half of fields rounded up.

I don't want to add more resources, only move them. In my games I count long time (I am a mathematician) what would be perfect city combination of current civ.
And it's annoying to notice that optimal combination is very ahistorical. Like in my last Paragon Roman game, I made Pisa my capital instead Roma to get better start and more stability.

For same reason I think that more resources should be dynamic, like for example gold and silver in Japan could appear when Japan spawns, to discourage Chinese colonialism.
And since this is hate thread, I hate that Japan AI never founds city on top of gold to reach whale.

This is a game after all. If you want to win UHV you need to play few times, have a bit luck and depending on difficult level use every possible trick you know. Ahistorical cities are one that kind of trick, if we make historical cities too good then every game would only repeat itselfs.

 

[Tigranes]

That would be fantastic.

And it could be easily done by moving resources to match with current mechanics.

I like your ideas and justifications, very thoughtful. So good to see people putting some research behind their ideas. They belong to suggestion thread big time .

I had zero support when I proposed in SoI to depart from silly BTS rule discouraging from settling on resource. After some hesitation he made it provisional rule pending some extensive feedback. Later it became accepted norm and even made it way into DoC. But of course DoC's map was designed with an old rules in mind. It only makes sense: reformed rule ==>reformed map. No one pours new wine into old wineskins

 

[The Southerner]

Hate to break it to you, but most big cities in real life are coastal.

Thanks for the sarcasm ...

The food they consume is not from the sea - it's grain grown in the fields. Coastal cities are big due to ports, trade, etc. That's my point. New Yorker's eat the foodstuffs grown in the Midwest (and the rest of the world) ... hate to break it to you.

 

[spaceman98]

Thanks for the sarcasm ...

The food they consume is not from the sea - it's grain grown in the fields. Coastal cities are big due to ports, trade, etc. That's my point. New Yorker's eat the foodstuffs grown in the Midwest (and the rest of the world) ... hate to break it to you.

Unfortunately, civ 4 does a poor job of representing trade. In principle, there is a solution:

Make coasts and oceans produce less food, but make trade routes give some food in addition to commerce.


This would require a lot of rebalancing to work properly though (numerous buildings like the lighthouse will be affected, as will wonders like the Great Cothon and Colossus which rely on coast tiles. Civics will be affected as well. Modifiers will likely have to be rebalanced. This will further change which city sites are favored and which aren't and may lead to things like giant Oslo (Vikings have a lot of pro-trade buildings and potential trading partners) or tiny Tokyo (Japan is isolationist and has few trading partners), etc.). I don't think its worth it. IMO the current system is fine.

 

[The Southerner]

Unfortunately, civ 4 does a poor job of representing trade. In principle, there is a solution:

Make coasts and oceans produce less food, but make trade routes give some food in addition to commerce.


This would require a lot of rebalancing to work properly though (numerous buildings like the lighthouse will be affected, as will wonders like the Great Cothon and Colossus which rely on coast tiles. Civics will be affected as well. Modifiers will likely have to be rebalanced. This will further change which city sites are favored and which aren't and may lead to things like giant Oslo (Vikings have a lot of pro-trade buildings and potential trading partners) or tiny Tokyo (Japan is isolationist and has few trading partners), etc.). I don't think its worth it. IMO the current system is fine.

I agree.

It would be interesting if anyone had the time/skill to implement a food/hammers/commerce distribution system though. Hammers are a silly way of representing building/manufacturing potential. Take Belfast as an example - it's production is so low (even with Industrialism, etc) - but IRL it was a massive shipbuilding centre in the industrial age.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

It would be interesting if anyone had the time/skill to implement a food/hammers/commerce distribution system though.

It's actually just a tiny XML change if you know where to look, no coding required.

 

[Leoreth]

It's actually just a tiny XML change if you know where to look, no coding required.

I don't think he is talking about assigning food/production to trade routes, which does not redistribute anything, but instead generates extra food/production.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

I don't think he is talking about assigning food/production to trade routes, which does not redistribute anything, but instead generates extra food/production.

Fair enough.

Alternative suggestion:
Export/Import buildings. Say there's an import building that adds 2 Food but to construct it you need to have at least one export building in your empire which removes 2 Food in its city. You could use the same mechanism that requires you to build temples before Cathedrals and just set the required number of export buildings for every import building to 1 so you ideally have an equal number of both. Of course nothing's stopping you from exporting food from a poor tundra nest, starving it in the process, and the AI needs some work, but it's something. To make it less of a zero sum game you could also add a small amount of commerce. Thoughts?

 

[The Southerner]

I don't think he is talking about assigning food/production to trade routes, which does not redistribute anything, but instead generates extra food/production.

IRL hills don't generate production (hammers) - people (labour) do using their bare hands, tools and machines. The higher the population of a city the more potential for those people to be employed (as in utilised) for production (or for science, culture, gold).

My idea would be to have a forge (as an example) increase hammers based on population not the number of hammers already available to the city. This would represent a proportion of the population of a city working in a forge to manufacture things. Resources such as iron and stone would not generate hammers in and of themselves - they would simply supply the resource to be used in production. This would mean that any city could, should the player wish, specialise in production, science, culture or gold. All is clear ya?

 

[Tigranes]

they would simply supply the resource to be used in production.

This is the approach in Colonization 2. Lumberjacks work in the field chopping wood for Carpenters who work in the colony and produce hummers that can be used to produce buildings.

I need to use my "orders of approximation" theory again: Colonization allows 2nd order of approximation, Civilization, especially this global mod, only allows 1st order of approximation. We really should not get into coding the fine lines and nanomanagement .

BFC represents general dynamics very effectively. No need to change it. After all, mod is loosing simplicity very rapidly: there is a complicated rule, exception to the rule, and conditional exception to the rule.

Corporations should be the vehicle that will take care of effects outside of the BFC. It is very unrealistic that size 17 New York gets the same effect from Cereal Corporation as size 2 Phoenix. And it is a bad idea to remove player's control of the late game spreading of Corporations. Late game corporations need to get more love, their effect in modern world is as great as the effect of the religion in Middle Ages. Certain Corporations have higher "GDP" than many countries. From circa 1850 AD Corporations need to become almost like a civ in a civ.

Mechanics:
1. Silk road and Trading Company need to be the only corporations spread by the game.
2. From Industrial Era onward 5 types of Corporations (2 competitors in each type, so 10 in total) will become gradually available to be established by civilizations. Those types are: Banking (ICBC, Chase) , Oil (Exxon, BP) , Technology (Apple, Samsung) , Retail(Walmart, Nestle) , and Auto(Toyota, Volkswagen) .
3. Only HQs can build branch CEOs.
4. HQ produces no gold. Instead maintenance gpt in foreign civ becomes gpt income of the mother civ. Maintenance in your own cities from your own corporation just gets lost as in vanila.
5. War and certain civics of the foreign state will erase your corporation there.
6. Expansion costs, corporation benefit and corporation maintenance are all depending on TWO variables: number of the resources and the size of the city!

 

[spaceman98]

IRL hills don't generate production (hammers) - people (labour) do using their bare hands, tools and machines. The higher the population of a city the more potential for those people to be employed (as in utilised) for production (or for science, culture, gold).

My idea would be to have a forge (as an example) increase hammers based on population not the number of hammers already available to the city. This would represent a proportion of the population of a city working in a forge to manufacture things. Resources such as iron and stone would not generate hammers in and of themselves - they would simply supply the resource to be used in production. This would mean that any city could, should the player wish, specialise in production, science, culture or gold. All is clear ya?

This would make historically important places like Magnitogorsk useless unless the value and rarity of resources was increased, or some value was attached to having multiple of the same resource (aside from trade, e.g a cap on how many military units may be produced per resource). Hills generating production represents numerous mining industries (e.g. clay for bricks that are too local, too ubiquitous or too small to represent on the map as resources, but locally or regionally important)

 

[spaceman98]

And it is a bad idea to remove player's control of the late game spreading of Corporations. Late game corporations need to get more love, their effect in modern world is as great as the effect of the religion in Middle Ages. Certain Corporations have higher "GDP" than many countries. From circa 1850 AD Corporations need to become almost like a civ in a civ.

I feel like these goals are contradictory: Having corporations spread independently of the player represents their status as a "civ in a civ", while having corporations controlled by the player represents government interaction with them.

IMO we should ideally have a mix of both: The player can manually spread the corporation, and like a religion, the corporation can spread itself. Other than that, I like your idea.

 

[Tigranes]

I feel like these goals are contradictory: Having corporations spread independently of the player represents their status as a "civ in a civ", while having corporations controlled by the player represents government interaction with them.

Spreading by itself, even under special diplomatic and civic conditions is not a very good idea. It means benefit without investment. Civ in civ means powerful entity.

 

[The Southerner]

This would make historically important places like Magnitogorsk useless

Vice versa Belfast can hardly produce a workboat let alone the Titanic in the game yet IRL ...

 

[spaceman98]

Spreading by itself, even under special diplomatic and civic conditions is not a very good idea. It means benefit without investment. Civ in civ means powerful entity.

But religion already spreads by itself...

 

[Tigranes]

Vice versa Belfast can hardly produce a workboat let alone the Titanic in the game yet IRL ...

Grow Belfast big (as per my suggestion) and expand corporation in it

 

[Tigranes]

But religion already spreads by itself...

True. But Corporations will have far greater effect, if Leoreth consider my proposal. Religion can bring you 20 golds max with Holy City. Expanding Corporation is an equivalent of recieving 4-15 gpt gift from rival civ with foreign expansion!

 

[ales_]

Grow Belfast big (as per my suggestion) and expand corporation in it

How can a Toyota or a Volkswagen help building a Titanic?

 

[merijn_v1]

How can a Toyota or a Volkswagen help building a Titanic?

Both the Titanic and a Volkswagen Golf sink when you put them in water.

Toyota's do float however.

Spoiler :

 

[Tigranes]

Drydocks will help, Auto Corp is just a symbol of industrious city! No nanomanagement is possible or advisable in global mod.