Discussion in '[MAC+WIN] Civ4 - History Rewritten' started by Xyth, Aug 3, 2015.
Now attached ... the attachment apparently became forgotten during a re-edit
If by "Great Golden Age" you mean that you chained a bunch of them back-to-back, then that's the core of your problem right there. Using your limited number of Golden Ages so early, and especially with no interval between them, squanders most of their dissent-nullifying effect. See below.
It may be satisfying in the short term, but as you discovered, it comes with a hefty price tag further down the road. And the sudden jump in dissent just strikes me as the societal equivalent of waking up from a centuries-long bender with a hangover to scale.
I think you are entirely correct that the lack of information on how much dissent the Golden Age is suppressing is a problem that should be addressed, but I very much disagree that removing the mechanic entirely is the way to do so. When properly leveraged it's our strongest tool for keeping dissent in check, so removal would just make all the difficulties you've encountered far, far worse. Again, see below.
I do think the positive effects of excess Health and Happiness could stand to be a bit higher.
There *is* strategy involved in managing dissent (even aside from suppressing the growth of the *number* of your cities). This is what I was talking about above with regards to the way you misused your Golden Ages. *They* are your most powerful tool for preventing this situation. Wait until *after* dissent has accumulated, then start one when a city is about to hit Rebellious. By the time the Golden Age expires, even your most restive cities will probably be back down to zero dissent. If you've got another one ready to go, *save* it until you're on the brink of rebellion again. Repeat.
The Authoritarianism civic *does* do that. It's just that, as with Constabularies, you've managed to paint yourself into the corner of needing it before you have it.
Having looked at your game and played with it for a bit, it looks to me like the Dissent mechanic is working pretty much exactly as intended. An empire of that size is *supposed* to be nigh unsustainable at that level of technology.
It appears to me that you have made a number of moderate to minor errors in this game, none of which would be insurmountable on its own, but which concatenate to create your present impossible situation.
My line of thinking for this sort of mechanic is 'post-revolutionary honeymoon period' followed by 'counter revolution'
This post inspired me to try One City Challenge mode again (for the first time in several years). I quickly discovered that Great Temples (and presumably Monasteries) are inaccessible in OCC under the current version. Unlike National Wonders, they still require multiple prerequisite buildings (Temples in this case), when you can never have more than one.
Possibly related, I encountered the Python error shown in the screenshot when I attempted to select a sleeping Great Prophet from the city screen right after researching Priesthood (which enables Great Temples).
I never thought to test those in OCC. Will fix.
Unrelated. It's an interface error, part of BUG.
Can anyone explain how and why each turn I get free research points into Hunting and Ceremonial Burial in this game?
Tech diffusion. If two thirds of civilizations in a game know a technology, the remaining third receive earn a little bit of progress towards it each turn. How much depends on a variety of factors: era, open borders, leader attitude, etc.
Okay, I started another Huge Earth game to test this out. The only civ with me in North America was the Iroquois, and I was getting 5 free research per turn into Hunting. Twenty turns later my scout encounters the Inca, and I start getting 3 free research per turn into Ceremonial Burial... for all of two turns, at which point I stopped getting any free points into either. What's going on here?
Thats will probably explain why (In previous game versions on late advanced game whit multiple alliances) i was see the tech bar rise multiple time per waiting turn. Effective reduce any tech discover to two turns even when the numbers say something else. The same for opponents.
But something else will in cities in Gold age some note how many dissent is blocked? Or is too hard to make?
And for still going on this mod.
I've had a look through the code and realised it works differently to how I thought it did (it's a component written by Platyping, not me). In particular, it's based on rank, not on number of civs who know the tech. I may rewrite it.
In 1.24 the blocked dissent will appear in grey next to the Golden Age symbol, on the Domestic Advisor and the Dissent Bar tooltip. In the meantime you can find out how much in the Civics Advisor.
It helps the needy AFAIK. If you are high rank, you don't deserve a boost
I appear to have encountered a Civil War related bug. In the attached game, on the next turn the Iroquois take their turn, then the Inca suffer a civil war and spawn the Maya in the slot opened by the recent demise of the Tibetans. And then the Iroquois get *another* turn before it comes back around to me.
Well, I did actually know this ... I was just taking a shot at OCC. I've played it and won it, but it's a fundamentally silly play mode because it's so asymmetric and ahistorical: Try playing a one-city state with all these advantages against a multi-city empire played by a skilled human (say, yourself). The city will in time become a province.
Thank you Nightstar for the feedback. I am glad that someone is thinking about these things.
Suddenly I don't feel so guilty at exploiting a gamey Medieval Great Golden Age (chaining 3-5 Golden Ages together after building the Mausoleum of Maussollos). It turns out that it is possible to be much more seriously gamey!
Genghis: Methinks more "Centuries of glory, prosperity, technological improvement, increased happiness and health, physical protection from potential invaders, the Pax Mongolica and the bringing of advances in civilization to barbarians". We just ran out of the inspirational elixir for a while.
Genghis: The game is not lost. The game is actually won. We are only stuck in the sense that the future is a predictable clickthrough. We Mongols might be running Iron Age civics for the foreseeable future but we have Dissent firmly under control in our relatively large empire. Our size means that we easily out-tech our competitors, who are already centuries behind us. It means that we can field a much larger army than our competitors. Over the next 100-200 turns, even before we can do anything to address Dissent, these factors will only increase in our favour. Our size lastly means that we have access to multiple religions and the resources to systematically evangelise all of them to all cities of all our competitors so that their levels of Dissent rise uncontrollably and Civil War shreds them.
Maximilian (Genghis' largest competitor): I'm trying the strategy of cycling carefully engineered Golden Ages to surf out waves of Dissent. It has always worked against computer opponents. To leverage better civics, I remain relatively small. I hope that the Golden Ages don't expire before we reach Constitution. If we can just hold out long enough we might be able to overtake Genghis Khan.
Genghis: My biggest strategic decision right now involves maximising the plunder and Great Generals I will receive whilst genociding the weak Maximilian off the map. Perhaps I will let him trade me Constitution in return for letting him remain a one-island civilization for a while.
Genghis: So, once I research Dogma, I will be running Authoritarianism forever? That sounds a little dull. My people will never know Liberty or Equality? OK, perhaps that is necessary so that I can afford other high-Dissent civics. But, in order to use Authoritarianism to suppress Dissent, I will really need to pack every Barracks with a huge garrison. The Civilopedia states that under Authoritarianism, each garrisoned unit will increase happiness by one happy face, which leads to a corresponding reduction in Dissent. If that happy face is all that there is to it, it's not actually worth doing. And ... why would the population of a city be so riotously happy when most of them actually sleep in the Barracks?
Theocracy: "Can Train Missionaries without Monasteries"
Is this intended to be "Can train Missionaries of the State Religion without Monasteries"?
As it is now, a theocratic state can train Missionaries of all religions within its borders. Surely that wasn't the intention.
How about Great temple or Holly place can train missionary?
The humans players can get a advantage from spreading the right one religion when they build missionaries systematically.
Yeah, the Maya are re-using slot 3, and every player in a slot higher than that are getting an extra turn. Working on a solution.
It's how the mechanic works in regular BTS. Theocracies don't have to be monistic or intolerant.
Surely theocracy involves the state being wedded to one religion and shunning all others. Why would a theocracy let evangelists of non-state religions evangelise?
Do you know of any historical examples of theocracies that weren't monistic or intolerant?
A theocracy is where the head(s) of state is considered to be divine (e.g. Egyptian Pharaohs) or to be the chief intermediary of the divine (e.g. the Pope). There is no definitional requirement to outlaw other religions, and indeed most historical theocracies did not: ancient Egypt, Ghana, early China, Tibet, Angkor (switched between Hinduism and Buddhism quite often, encouraged both) the Toltecs, the Maya, etc. Even Byzantium and the Arab caliphates had long periods of relative tolerance.
Hmm. I would imagine the same thing can happen in a non-modded play, where a Civ generates a Colony? Has this been approached by any other models?
Separate names with a comma.