Discussion in 'Rhye's and Fall - Dawn of Civilization' started by Logoncal, Jan 29, 2018.
I am aware, balancing China is a constant challenge and India is currently too powerful overall.
Every major empire went through the major civil war, sometimes with very devastating consequences (Taiping rebellion considered 7th deadliest conflict in the history of the world and An Lushan rebellion 9th deadliest). I propose civil war mechanics which will affect the core of run away civilization. Run away can be defined as a difference of 10 techs between the target civ and it's nearest competitor. Mechanics is simple but devastating: all the cities of the core except the capital become barbarian together with adjacent units. I know people worry about buildings -- but, hey, civil wars suppose to be ultimate devastating event.
Should that happen to England?
This completely takes the fun out of the game - you are punishing people for playing the game properly - and would lead to people intentionally not researching a tenth technology, which is the opposite of what you'd want to encourage (much like how people didn't settle a fourth city in Civilization V).
One time, yes. Edinburgh and Plymouth vs London to slow them down a little. 10 tech gap is crazy in real life.
Not really, 1 time civil war event is not much punishment compared to terrible devastation suffered by real life civs during their respective civil wars, and some had more than one, but I only advocate one time even under certain conditions. Human player may abuse it by gifting techs, so has to be something in addition to tech lead to define him as a run away civ. Consider it as the final challenge: after you triumphed against all your external opponents the last test is to overcome internal resistance!
Reconquering cities destroys most of the infrastructure in them.
Surely a less destructive solution would work better. Increasing the cost of techs that are several columns ahead of the median column other that civs are in, for instance.
In plain terms, are you suggesting to have a forced collapse to capital for any civ that far outperforms all the others on the basis of "civil wars happened and were bad"?
Not to capital only, cities outside of core will stay with you plus your capital... Yes civil wars did happen and they were bad. Internal fight is a major missing element of BTS.
Honestly I would 100% not play this mod if this way implemented. I think the stability system is already typically adequate, without having this hard and fast rule that occurs regardless of context.
Getting a massive civil war just because you're doing too well makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Civil wars don't just occur because civs are doing well, they occur when there are important reforms that make certain people lose out (like abolishing slavery in the US) or when certain groups want to take advantage of weak governments to take power for themselves.
I would be happier to see civil wars represented as having some cities (randomly assigned) in slightly extended anarchy after change of civics, depending on your stability (and military strength?). Barbarian units (ie, rebels) could pop up inside your territory to represent rebels and some of the fighting that is accompanied. The rebels could actually pop up during any extended period of instability.
In my recent game, China had proven the world is round and vassalized maya at ad 1100. Is that a bug or something can be happened?
* BC 3000 start, Marathon, Monarch difficulty, played as korean.
No, if 3000 BC China doesn’t collapse it becomes an absurd powerhouse, it’s what I’ve been whining about too
Just as an FYI, the game is balanced around Regent/Normal. Marathon has 3x the number of turns (1500 from 3000 BC, rather than 500 turns), and there's a few consequences from this. First, while tech costs are scaled to the turns (3x more beakers required, give or take), production costs are not (I think its roughly 2x normal; can't remember the exact ratios, but it's not as much): this has the effect of a bunch of units running around, conquering and exploring and doing things. Add in the fact that movement costs are the same between game speeds, and there's a lot more time for armies and navies to move around and do stuff within the same year-by-year timeframe. For human players, who aren't stupid and can actually plan and stuff, having that many turns makes conquest based UHV's absurdly easy: I think an old rule of thumb was that moving up to Epic is basically turning the difficulty down by at least one step, and moving up to Marathon by two to three steps.
The AI doesn't particularly plan but just does things by dumb luck, including circumnavigating and conquering distant civs. For older civs like China, Marathon gives them a lot of time to allow this dumb luck to take effect. Also, a successful 3000 BC China can easily do both of those things even on Normal speed; Marathon just gives them more time to do it.
I am surprised with this comment .. Every single PC or video game you play -- better performance rewarded with harder challenge. Any adaptive test you take -- the better you're doing the harder questions you get if you want to rank in higher percentile. Every action movie you watch -- -- protagonist faces the toughest opponent after defeating everyone else. Keep in mind that doing well and being a run away civ are very very different things. What makes no sense is to stomp over your most advance rival with Tanks when they are still drafting Rifles. Things like that don't happen in real life, even in ancient times world was too interdependent for one civ to have absolute monopoly on power, stability and technology. Runaway civs are simply impossible in modern times and after you outsmarted stupid AI -- it is sensible to overcome yourself, your own cities and units, on a pretty limited scale. In a very real sense collapse due to overexpansion is also "massive civil war because you are doing too well". Why does that make sense to you? Remember the message -- "your empire descends into the civil war"? What I propose are Barbarians instead of Indies, Barbarians in your core, which you need to uproot fact before stability checks and you collapse via regular way.
And obviously for human player civil war has to be triggered by some additional conditions: it is way to easy to avoid civil war by simply giving your opponent techs and keeping gap at 9 techs. Something centered around new available civic, which you refuse to adopt. Most revolutions and civil wars had something to do with the fact that part of your empire becomes strong enough to challenge center and/or technological advancement/ideological development allows and unifies have not's to challenge those who have.
Wouldn’t you know it, I’ve been playing on Marathon too and hadn’t considered how that might’ve been affecting the tech balance? Indirectly through units conquering and stuff? I mean, I had Ancient Egyptian Samarqand in my last game, it’s obviously helping civs take more land! I feel silly now
you race ahead, mario throws a purple shell at you
If you’re playing as Rome, the purple shell is the snail used to dye Byzantine emperors’ robes
People aren't saying that it's good that some civs can get ahistorically far ahead of their neighbours, just that the solution isn't partially collapse the civilization.
Separate names with a comma.