Additional Civ Component Discussion Thread

ixias

Warlord
Joined
Dec 13, 2012
Messages
207
First just wanted to say that I love the 3/4 UC mod. One of the biggest issues I have without the 3/4 UCs is that, if you have both components in the late game, you're playing a vanilla civ for most of the game. The additional components allow for more opportunities throughout the tech tree to make each Civ feel unique and immersive, so any alternate/additional items are always a plus to me!

Would the idea be to reimagine the "focus" of each Civ similar to @pineappledan's Greece/Macedon split (albeit on a smaller scale) or to introduce different UCs that still align with their current strategy? Basically, if you have a Civ that currently has more of a focus towards conquest and City State relations, would these new 3/4 UCs instead focus more on something like science and culture?
 

Joey Diamond

Chieftain
Joined
Sep 26, 2016
Messages
68
I just wanted the Ottomans to have their Dardanelles Gun. As non-upgradable super unit with limited numbers.
 

pineappledan

Deity
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
7,344
Location
Alberta, Canada
I just wanted the Ottomans to have their Dardanelles Gun. As non-upgradable super unit with limited numbers.
Just in case you weren’t aware, that’s exactly what they already have in 4UC.
Would the idea be to reimagine the "focus" of each Civ similar to @pineappledan's Greece/Macedon split (albeit on a smaller scale) or to introduce different UCs that still align with their current strategy? Basically, if you have a Civ that currently has more of a focus towards conquest and City State relations, would these new 3/4 UCs instead focus more on something like science and culture?
Not trying to do anything like reorient civs in any aimed fashion. I have two stipulations for the components that I am trying to follow:
  • Try to do something different, either with component type or timing, with the other components
  • Hard rules Try to make sure that all civs, if they had all 6 components active, would at least have a mixture of Unique Buildings (UB), national wonders (UNW), Improvements (UI), and Great People (UGP)
    • don't give a 3rd UB to a civ that already has 2 UBs (17 out of 43 civs currently have 2 UBs)
    • don't give a 2nd UI to a civ that already has a UI (16 out of 43 civs currently have a UI)
    • don't give a UNW to a civ that already has a UNW, unless it's Venice (12 out of 43 civs currently have a UNW, including Venice)
Some civs are really hamstrung by being very temporally specific. Rome for example, basically by definition can't have anything that is post-classical, because any medieval or later component would be Byzantine. There's a few little issues like that, especially with European civs, simply by virtue of there being so many of them that are oversplit between ethnicities and period that they all blend together (ie. Celts/France/England, Portugal/Spain/Brazil, Denmark/Sweden/Russia)
 
Last edited:

KlHannibal2

Warlord
Joined
Aug 12, 2021
Messages
135
Just in case you weren’t aware, that’s exactly what they already have in 4UC.

Not trying to do anything like reorient civs in any aimed fashion. I have two stipulations for the components that I am trying to follow:
  • Try to do something different, either with component type or timing, with the other components
  • Hard rules Try to make sure that all civs, if they had all 6 components active, would at least have a mixture of Unique Buildings (UB), national wonders (UNW), Improvements (UI), and Great People (UGP)
    • don't give a 3rd UB to a civ that already has 2 UBs (17 out of 43 civs currently have 2 UBs)
    • don't give a 2nd UI to a civ that already has a UI (16 out of 43 civs currently have a UI)
    • don't give a UNW to a civ that already has a UNW, unless it's Venice (12 out of 43 civs currently have a UNW, including Venice)
Some civs are really hamstrung by being very temporally specific. Rome for example, basically by definition can't have anything that is post-classical, because any medieval or later component would be Byzantine. There's a few little issues like that, especially with European civs, simply by virtue of there being so many of them that are oversplit between ethnicities and period that they all blend together (ie. Celts/France/England, Portugal/Spain/Brazil, Denmark/Sweden/Russia)
Rome could have some renaissance italian stuff. Leonardo da Vinci style. No other civ is representing that.
 

pineappledan

Deity
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
7,344
Location
Alberta, Canada
There are already 4 different Italian city-States in the game and 1 of them is playable (Venice).

probably a question for @jarcast2, the resident Italian
 

KlHannibal2

Warlord
Joined
Aug 12, 2021
Messages
135
Looking over it, i found some nice and some less nice ideas. My take on it is to see it as an alternative approach to the 3/4 UC components.

In general, I favor a clear and synergistic game plan over historic accuracy.

I like that Byzantium should have another land unit instead of the dromon. I never saw the point of the dromon in a byzantine game plan. Having a longsword UU and a knight UU however feels quite redundant. I would rather keep the cataphract amd have a ranged unit to back it up or get another UU in a different era.

For Denmark, I would greatly prefer keeping the longboat instead of the ski infantry. The longboat fits so well into the danish game plan while a ski infantry feels out of place.
 

Psilonemo

Chieftain
Joined
Apr 7, 2022
Messages
18
All looks very interesting and appropriate to me. Especially the Mall for America... need that good ol' Murican consumerism!
Finally glad to see somebody give Persia some kind of cataphract of their own. I wonder though, if it will be a melee cav unit or a heavy skirmisher unit. Judging by the name I am guessing it would be the former.
The Byzantines getting the Varangian Guard also looks more than appropriate. Same for the unique improvement. I think an appropriate unique promotion for them could be one which either suppresses internal revolts in a city/boosts its defense further compared to other units (to emphasize and encourage maintaining a strong garrison for turtle play, to represent the more defensive role they played throughout Byzantine history, OR, alternatively give them a more offensive promotion which boosts their combat strength when attacking both against infantry and mounted units (as a jack of all trades), OR a strong bonus against cities so the Byzantines can field the Varangian Guard alongside Cataphracts as their window of quick domination gains.
 

Joey Diamond

Chieftain
Joined
Sep 26, 2016
Messages
68
Just in case you weren’t aware, that’s exactly what they already have in 4UC.

My bad. I was looking at the non-VP Unique Components in the workshop and remembered that years ago I was fiddling with it to make it work with VP. So I thought to myself "If UC for VP already have it, why the hell did I do that for?" and assuming UCVP didn't have it, hence the post. :cringe:
 

CppMaster

Emperor
Joined
Feb 13, 2018
Messages
1,578
Location
Poland
Yield inflation is what is keeping me from using 4UC. This idea seems to have the same problem. Do you have a plan to fix it?
 

pineappledan

Deity
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
7,344
Location
Alberta, Canada
Yield inflation is what is keeping me from using 4UC. This idea seems to have the same problem. Do you have a plan to fix it?
nope! However, @Hinin has done some calculation that are pretty convincing, showing that post-industrial techs and policies are too fast. Tech costs nearly plateau, barely increasing in the later eras, but your science yields accelerate greatly as the late game infrastructure unlocks.

I'm not suggesting I would rescale Modern era and later so that more UCs could be fit in, but I do think they should be rescaled regardless.
 

AndreyK

Prince
Joined
Mar 31, 2017
Messages
533
Location
Yakutsk, Russia
I also think that tech costs should be raised. I play on epic and use tech modifier 200 instead 150 but still think that post-industrial techs are too fast
 
Top Bottom