a few thoughts and suggestions

[Noriad2]

This, but maybe it can be coupled with a negative feedback from your pop? A resistance of foreign culture unless you do something or build something to build a good relation with their home nation?

Under current rules, which are inherited from Civ IV: BTS, if you
conquer the last city of a civilization, its main culture vanishes and
(assuming no other culture of other civilizations present) all of its
former cities get the culture of the conqueror. This is ahistorical.

For example, The territory of the Greek/Hellenistic civilization was
completely conquered by the Ottoman Empire. Yet a few centuries
later the Greeks revolted and founded what is now modern Greece.

If the rules could be changed so that accumulated culture
doesn't vanish upon conquering the last city of a civ, it would
make the game more realistic. From a game balance point of view,
it would balance against successful conquerers, making world
conquest slightly harder.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Under current rules, which are inherited from Civ IV: BTS, if you
conquer the last city of a civilization, its main culture vanishes and
(assuming no other culture of other civilizations present) all of its
former cities get the culture of the conqueror. This is ahistorical.

For example, The territory of the Greek/Hellenistic civilization was
completely conquered by the Ottoman Empire. Yet a few centuries
later the Greeks revolted and founded what is now modern Greece.

If the rules could be changed so that accumulated culture
doesn't vanish upon conquering the last city of a civ, it would
make the game more realistic. From a game balance point of view,
it would balance against successful conquerers, making world
conquest slightly harder.

If I'm not mistaken, Requires Complete Kills will help with that. Otherwise could be a good option yes.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

XP for specialists:
While it is a really nice feature that different Specialists in the city generate XP to different types of units it gets broken by the fact that so many units are classified as civilians. Since Civilan Specialists are unlimited I can easily assign vast amounts of XP to civilian types of units built in a city, for example:
Town Watchmen and equivilent (here it is really broken since I seem to be able to get all levels of Policing from the start)
Healers (although these get limited a bit since the different promotions are limited)
Spys (also rather broken since this means that I will never build spies that reveal their nationality)

There are probably more types of units where I can exploit the XP assigned by civilians but these are the ones from the top of my head. Especially for "police units" and healers this is a problem since it makes handling Crime and Disease a lot easier than it should be.

I don't play with this option on. I find it not useful. THe exp from the (settled) specialists is enough for me having the population specialists give exp just does not work in my view.

% Buildings:
There seems to be way too many buildings giving different % bonuses to commerce, science, gold, hammers. This makes balancing for the mod more or less impossible and also gives no real sense. Why should the fact that I have baskets give +1% to all gold generated by the city for example. Or the fact that I have apple in my bread increases the whole gold production of the ciry by 3%. IMHO more or less no buildings or wonders should give % bonuses.

We have had much discussion on % verses not % bonuses to buildings. Believe it or not is is easier to balance with % even though it makes the sliders less useful.

Limiting exploration:
With plyed around a bit with how the game could be more limited in the beginning of the game so that not a whole continent has been explored already in the prehistoric. Couldn't something be done where it isnät possible to go more than X steps outside of your cultural border (where X could be tech dependant or similar). Or perhaps have the troop maintenance to be dependant on the distance from the border (and then let techs or similar control that maintenance factor)? for us the ultimate solution would be if Civ somehow changed "scale" depending on the time or era (or tech) but I can see how that would be really hard to accomplish.

I have found the code and I am adding in the bits to do with Traits, map size and game speed now.

Cultural population in cities:
I know that the cultural population in the cities somehow affects the rev mod but shouldn't it also affect the defenses in a city. Let's say that my Roman city has 30% Assyrian population and Assyria attacks my city. Wouldn't it be cool if my city defenses where then 30% lower than they should be due to the large Assyrian population in my city? This could of course be expanded upon more, where the different civics could give different effects on the multi-cultural cities (I'm absolutely not saying that all effects should be negative either). Of course we would then need to open up the possibility to do an equivilent of the inquisitor but for culture/population instead (nazi-germany anyone?).
If more effects came from the "split" population this could also then be connected to trade routes, where every traderoute to a foreign city brought with it some amount of "culture" from that nation as well. Suddenly the closed borders option would give more game meaning as well.
One other use (and positive effect) of the cultural mixes in a city could also be research bonuses for techs. Let's say that 10% of the population in my Roman city is Assyrian, then I could get a research bonus for any tech that I research that the Assyrians already know of. Perhaps this could also affect my relations with assyria (depending on if I have "good" or "bad" civics for my foreign population.

I have discussed with Hydro a mechanism that works with what we have that can form a basis an aspect of this. It is a lot of work but I hope to get a mod mod with a partial solution to the bit I think is important and adds to the game play.

Cultural population in cities:
I know that the cultural population in the cities somehow affects the rev mod but shouldn't it also affect the defenses in a city. Let's say that my Roman city has 30% Assyrian population and Assyria attacks my city. Wouldn't it be cool if my city defenses where then 30% lower than they should be due to the large Assyrian population in my city?
YES! This is how Rome fell thanks to the prejudicely treated large number of Scandinavian immigrants. And what America was controversially building a defense against happening.
This could of course be expanded upon more, where the different civics could give different effects on the multi-cultural cities (I'm absolutely not saying that all effects should be negative either). Of course we would then need to open up the possibility to do an equivilent of the inquisitor but for culture/population instead (nazi-germany anyone?).
Don't forget the KKK. Some of the Moors' prejudice (and racist?) treatment of white Spaniards, Shaka's genocidal campaigns, etc. But how? Maybe if a % of the conquered or immigrant population's native/original land is not on good terms with you, your native people build resentment against them. And the more they grow or stay within your state, and you do nothing to quell your ppl or build bridges, a random inquisitor unit can be spawned? Or your people may prefer a prejudice/racist/genocial action?
If more effects came from the "split" population this could also then be connected to trade routes, where every traderoute to a foreign city brought with it some amount of "culture" from that nation as well. Suddenly the closed borders option would give more game meaning as well.
One other use (and positive effect) of the cultural mixes in a city could also be research bonuses for techs. Let's say that 10% of the population in my Roman city is Assyrian, then I could get a research bonus for any tech that I research that the Assyrians already know of. Perhaps this could also affect my relations with assyria (depending on if I have "good" or "bad" civics for my foreign population.
This, but maybe it can be coupled with a negative feedback from your pop? A resistance of foreign culture unless you do something or build something to build a good relation with their home nation?

I think there is some confusion in this and other comments in the use of the word culture. The culture TB and I am talking about affecting stuff is the C2C cultures not the original nation you choose. In fact the eventual aim of this mod is to get rid of those nations completely and have you build up your nation to the what you want. So you may start off a some prehistoric culture/nation then evolve into the Beaker culture/nation then to the Classical Rome nation. All the while having some other cultures as part of your heritage.

Then there is Culture which is a measure of your control over plots.

Speaking of changing terrain..do people realize that as the game starts 50,000 BC, the game covers a large part of the Ice Age?
...
So what about a world wide Great Cataclysm event called "The End of the Ice Age"?

If we had the correct climate modles in place this may be easier. It would require a lot of coding.

2) More complicated, and certainly more RAM- and processor-intensive: have concealed terrain experience random changes to either base terrain or features or both until the terrain becomes permanently visible whenever the appropriate technology is researched.

I know that, strictly speaking, this wouldn't be scientifically accurate -- cataclysms like earthquakes and volcanoes notwithstanding. Within the confines of the game engine, however, it might be a way to simulate the loss of knowledge over the centuries? millennia? represented by each turn in the prehistoric era. ("Lore passed down from our ancestors says there are mountains 4 tiles to the north, but we see that they are actually hills, 3 tiles to the northwest. The lore must have been exaggerated over the generations.") Again, this would stop once your civ learns how to make maps and keep permanent records of the explored territory, at whatever the appropriate tech is.

#2 might be too difficult to program, and I don't know how much it would tax RAM and processor speed. Plus, it might represent a direction the team doesn't want to take. And of course, if implemented, it would have to be very clearly explained in the 'pedia.

I have seen a game which did this but it's approach was that the terrain shown through exploration was only an approximation of what the real terrain was like. It became more real as your tech improved, the more it was explored and by the increase in commerce through the area by trade routes. That may be easier to do and has less randomness involved.

We would need a new "fog of war" or not. Maybe trade routes should show the plots as not being in the fog. Unless barbarians cut it.

Oh the pain that will be to program.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Oh I'm not forgetting any of this... There was just a few things you could've been pointing to with that comment and I wanted to be clear which things you were referring to.


They were squabbling without me. To be fair I wasn't really in agreement with either of their approaches but wanted desperately to show some respect for their opinions despite those opinions being completely incompatible with each other.

I felt ls612 was more undercutting in the whole thing, particularly by trying to make the claim that his structure was somehow unquestioningly 'better' (a claim I disagree with) and that it was more about control over the mod for him whereas slick had been given charge of that region but was perhaps not as focused in trying to resolve it as I was hoping to see.

So we were left with a few sets because they could not get along. Which do you prefer? I'm not very happy with either but I haven't taken the time to get a set of my own put forward, in part out of respect for their efforts. If and when I must choose I clearly leave it on default and NOT use focused traits (ls612's set.) But that's mostly because I found most of his 'superior' design ideas there to be poor choices.

Nevertheless I saw both of their approaches as representing the opinions many players would have - and if modders can disagree that vehemently then players surely would as well in their expectations.


Well... no... but what are YOU unhappy with there (specifically?)

I for the most part don't use Any of the Options for LH traits. Hoping that I'm actually still able to play with the vanilla BtS set. But of course with all the New LH's in the mod it's really the BtS vanilla Traits I hope I'm using.

I did use Focused every once in awhile. But SO wanted them cut out of the Mod so I have not even looked for them since.

I got totally disgusted with sgtslick's Traits after doing pages of cross checking and bringing up questions on how they worked and getting "crap" for it. His set of Traits has, for example, some really weird and totally confusing crime ratios among other things. I pointed out some major inequities in number of traits and trait strengths, like Julius Caesar (Hydro's favorite) having no downside at all. And was the strongest LH you could have. I'd have to dig my notes out and sort thru them for greater detail but I Ain't gonna do it. Too much negativity brought back to the surface after 2 years.

Then there was the Pure traits: All Positive or All Negative and that just made my head hurt.

So again I don't use any Trait Options. Maybe I'm missing out, but somehow I don't feel or think so. And I think I have a better game play eXperience For Me with out them.

JosEPh

 

[Thunderbrd]

I for the most part don't use Any of the Options for LH traits. Hoping that I'm actually still able to play with the vanilla BtS set. But of course with all the New LH's in the mod it's really the BtS vanilla Traits I hope I'm using.

I did use Focused every once in awhile. But SO wanted them cut out of the Mod so I have not even looked for them since.

I got totally disgusted with sgtslick's Traits after doing pages of cross checking and bringing up questions on how they worked and getting "crap" for it. His set of Traits has, for example, some really weird and totally confusing crime ratios among other things. I pointed out some major inequities in number of traits and trait strengths, like Julius Caesar (Hydro's favorite) having no downside at all. And was the strongest LH you could have. I'd have to dig my notes out and sort thru them for greater detail but I Ain't gonna do it. Too much negativity brought back to the surface after 2 years.

Then there was the Pure traits: All Positive or All Negative and that just made my head hurt.

So again I don't use any Trait Options. Maybe I'm missing out, but somehow I don't feel or think so. And I think I have a better game play eXperience For Me with out them.

JosEPh

I actually agree with all of your judgements on the current trait set. And I also think the 'focused' traits are worse. Again, it's still on my to-do list to put in what I feel are much more balanced and well considered trait structures.

Putting in an 'original traits' option could be done as well so that players can have the original BtS traits again - at the moment that's not possible - particularly due to leaders having a number of C2C traits set to them in the XML. It would require having some replacement entries for existing leaders to make it work and it would be very helpful to have the Leader Archetype project completed to make that much cleaner in the xml and more easily worked with.

I just got... side tracked back to trying to wrap up my original combat mod projects. I do plan to get back to that side of things and really perfect our approach with that... much of your feedback actually forms plans for myself there.

As for the options, I really quite like how start without positive and developing leaders works together - that's what I play on.

I don't use Pure Traits. I made it to pacify those who felt that there should be no negative features on positive traits and no positive features on negative traits. But since I feel there should be a little negative to all positive traits and a little positive on all negative traits, not using Pure Traits is what works for me. You might like pure traits as the original BtS traits operated more like that option. You also might like No Negative Traits if you want a more original-ish feel.

 

[Nor'easter]

I have seen a game which did this but it's approach was that the terrain shown through exploration was only an approximation of what the real terrain was like. It became more real as your tech improved, the more it was explored and by the increase in commerce through the area by trade routes. That may be easier to do and has less randomness involved.

We would need a new "fog of war" or not. Maybe trade routes should show the plots as not being in the fog. Unless barbarians cut it.

Oh the pain that will be to program.

Even if you can program it, you need to consider how much more taxing it would be on RAM and processor speed. C2C already slows down considerably on larger maps and especially in the mid- to late game, so having more "stuff" take place will likely slow things down further.

Part of my thinking about the randomness was that a human player's memory wouldn't give him/her an advantage over the AI -- in addition to simulating the loss of knowledge over generations. It might be easier to simply program it according to my first suggestion, so that "Unexplore" affects only human players and not the AI -- if you guys decide to use it at all, that is.