Beta 12

[Veshta]

..You are right on this, and actually it had already came up a few weeks ago. The suggestion was something like this: When cities flip, there should be a cap that only 3-4 units flip with it, the others are moved back to your nearest tile

Couldn't we just increase the weight of oppression that city units impose to prevent flips?
A lot of the conquest Civs would benefit greatly (read: me when playing them ) from knowing that the city won't flip at what is always a most awkward moment.

Shouldn't impact the new historical flips as they are using a separate mechanic I think.

Depends on unit maintenance I reckon, needs to be high enough avoid cheezing ones way through world domination, hmmm .. maybe a limited unit loss on flip is better.

 

[booltimor]

I agree that stacking your units in a city should prevent it from revolting (not historical flips, of course). Having your army declare independence is not just extremely inconvenient but also highly unrealistic, it seems sensible that the presence of your empire would be the strongest wherever you have most units.

I propose that the revolt mechanics take into account the size of the city garrision: the less troops a city has the more likely it will be the one declaring independence when things start getting shaky. This will not prevent cities from revolting, so would-be conquerors still need to be careful, but it will give you a bit of control and prevent excessive save scumming (at least I tend to accept a negative outcome easier if it doesn't feel completely random).

The moving your troops to the border mechanic could perhaps be used in the case of historical flips and reborn civs?

Oh, and I'm sorry if this has already been discussed elsewhere.

 

[Tigranes]

If I am not mistaken we don't have any faith point based UHVs .... Why is it so? Perhaps, say, Kiev's Lavra can simply say -- score 50 faith points? It could also speed up the code a little...

Also what is your take on RFCE++'s idea of Unions? Possible candidates are -- Austria and Hungary, Poland and Lithuania, Sweden and Norse, Moscow and Kiev, French and Burgundy, for a short time even Spain and Austria.

And something needs to be done about Bulgaria -- they are strong in every game I played.

 

[civ_king]

If the units do influence independence the cities to go should be in unstable areas because losing a core city is silly.

FP goals seem good
Unions seem to work pretty well.
The problem isn't them being strong, the problem is making them go weak at the right time

 

[3Miro]

If I am not mistaken we don't have any faith point based UHVs .... Why is it so? Perhaps, say, Kiev's Lavra can simply say -- score 50 faith points? It could also speed up the code a little...

Also what is your take on RFCE++'s idea of Unions? Possible candidates are -- Austria and Hungary, Poland and Lithuania, Sweden and Norse, Moscow and Kiev, French and Burgundy, for a short time even Spain and Austria.

And something needs to be done about Bulgaria -- they are strong in every game I played.

Poland-Lithuania and Spain-Austria were alliances, something already in the game. Moscow-Kiev and Austria-Hungary both has the case of a foreign aggressor (Mongols and Ottomans) conquering one and the other one coming as a type of liberator. Sweden starts the game when they got out of the Kalmar Union that they had with Denmark. Only France-Burgundy can somewhat be called a "Union". RFCE++ does have more nations, like Leon-Castile.

Bulgaria does have a Faith based UHV. I think that Austria should probably have one too. Make Austria the most faithful Catholic country, perhaps?

 

[3Miro]

I am having some problems with the internet at home, so I have to slow down the coding a bit.

 

[AbsintheRed]

I am having some problems with the internet at home, so I have to slow down the coding a bit.

That's really unfortunate
What do you think, when will we able to release the next version?
(I'm not sure how many things do you plan to finish before that)

 

[3Miro]

That's really unfortunate
What do you think, when will we able to release the next version?
(I'm not sure how many things do you plan to finish before that)

The main thing currently is the balance of the improved AI. It is totally broken and needs to be readjusted. I was also hoping to get some new UHV conditions for Lithuania and perhaps some other nations (Spain needs tweaking for example). I cannot give a timeline unfortunately.

 

[AbsintheRed]

No prob, we don't have to rush at all
I also have a couple WIP updates: definitely want to upload my city name/settler/war map changes before the next version, along with the improved leader personalities
And these are progressing slowly...

My list continues with quite a few art updates, and adding a couple small modcomps (like Hidden Attitudes)
Reorganizing some of the indy cities is also long due, especially near Portugal and in Scandinavia
So take your time, the later you are ready, the more of these things may make it to the next version

 

[Morholt]

Nitpick: Poland-Lithuania after Union of Lublin certainly was a union, probably the best example of a union during the mod's timeframe.

 

[Tigranes]

Is there any adviser screen telling who owns what colonial project? A worldmap with colonies shaded in the civs' respective colors might look great

 

[3Miro]

Is there any adviser screen telling who owns what colonial project? A worldmap with colonies shaded in the civs' respective colors might look great

We already have that for the next version thanks to sedna17. Look for the thread about the colony screen and you will see some screenshots.

 

[3Miro]

Nitpick: Poland-Lithuania after Union of Lublin certainly was a union, probably the best example of a union during the mod's timeframe.

I am not 100% sure how your union mechanics work. What I was thinking was along the lines of one nation being able to peacefully take over another, with marriage, treaties, religion and so on, you can get the king of France to become the king of both France and Burgundy (same for Castile and Aragon). In gameplay mechanics, this is like one player taking over another player and all of the other player's cities and units. AFIK Poland-Lithuania was different from that.

 

[AbsintheRed]

@merijn, 3Miro
I'm in the process of changing Marshes and Muds
ATM there are no real benefits of removing muds from marshes, only the ability to settle there

I want to make it that removing the feature (mud) from the terrain type (marsh) would worth it
So, in my WIP version: Marsh = Wetland, Mud = Marsh
You can improve wetlands (farm, cottage, mills) after you remove marshes from them
Naturally only after the discovery of machine tools
It's more realistic this way, and the feature on the terrain get's a function gameplay-wise

 

[3Miro]

Mud prevents settle and units movement. Of the top of my head, I am not sure what marshes do. I think that those are just visually and sets useless terrain in different areas of the map.

Do you have any historical reference on people massively removing marshes across Europe?

 

[AbsintheRed]

The marshes still remains, it's the base terrain (just renamed it to wetland)
The option to remove the terrain feature - currently muds (I renamed to marshes) - is already in the game, without any real benefits

I only want to change that, so it would be worthy to do this
Don't really care about the name of the terrain and the feature, whatever sounds best to you is ok to me
The points is that the removal of the feature resulting in a semi-useful terrain sounds realistic IMO

 

[amrod]

Couldn't we just increase the weight of oppression that city units impose to prevent flips?

I'd like that, too.

I am not 100% sure how your union mechanics work. What I was thinking was along the lines of one nation being able to peacefully take over another, with marriage, treaties, religion and so on, you can get the king of France to become the king of both France and Burgundy (same for Castile and Aragon). In gameplay mechanics, this is like one player taking over another player and all of the other player's cities and units. AFIK Poland-Lithuania was different from that.

I haven't tested rfce+ yet, so don't exactly know what they mean there.

One thing I remember from history is called in hungarian a personal union, when two countries had the same king, but they were still separate countries legally. This was also not hereditary by default. Such as Hungary and Poland did have the same king once etc. The two countries were nominally equals.

Austria and Hungary having the same king while being separate countries seems at first similar, however in this case Hungary and Transylvania was not the equal of Austria, rather in an inferior position (with some of the decisions made in Wien, and only allowing some decisions for the Hungarian parliament). (Not speak of Bohemia,Moravia etc which had even less autonomy). And in this case the position was made hereditary. Of course this monarchy changed very much in the centuries, and the historical reasons for its creation are too complicated for an engineering mind like mine They certainly involved the Turk conquests as someone mentioned.

The Holy Roman Empire is another strange concept (and it is featured in BTS, even though it never was a civ in the traditional sense). It had nominally an emperor, but was practically a loose confederation of lots of autonomous states, often warring with each other. For countries such as Germany, France, Spain, UK, it is true they are made up of provinces that once were separate kingdoms-princedoms or whatever they were called. These could be a type of union where they can vote on peacefully becoming one country, with one them chosen the leader. These should not become unions in the first sense (remaining two civs) but become one civ (such as the mentioned countries are today).

 

[AbsintheRed]

@merijn: Checked your province changes
This was Morholt's post in June, 3Miro based the provinces on this:

So I brought this up before, the Swedish provinces are all wrong. Here is a map of how I think it should be. Note that Norrland extends into northern Finland, this is how it was for the entire timeline of the Mod.

Spoiler :

I guess you changed them because of the finnish mercenaries.
But AFAIK it's not unrealistic if you are able to hire them in Norrland too
Probably we should change the provinces back, and add Hackapels in both provinces

PS: When you change provinces next time, could you also update the labels in the provinces.wbs file?
It's much easier to keep the provinces up-to-date that way

 

[merijn_v1]

@merijn: Checked your province changes
This was Morholt's post in June, 3Miro based the provinces on this:



I guess you changed them because of the finnish mercenaries.
But AFAIK it's not unrealistic if you are able to hire them in Norrland too
Probably we should change the provinces back, and add Hackapels in both provinces

PS: When you change provinces next time, could you also update the labels in the provinces.wbs file?
It's much easier to keep the provinces up-to-date that way

Ok. I'll reverted it back.

 

[Tigranes]

Overkill...

This word describes the strange feeling I get after finishing my latest Dutch game. You see, the Mod offers so much of everything at the very end, but I just need very little to win. There was no use for my UB, UU, even UP -- just buy Tower of Belem, run Merchants, open borders, build projects without teching much... All the abundance of late era buildings was cool, but not really required for my victory...

I really believe that a number of civs must be given the task to experience the full tech tree of the mod. Be the first to finish tech tree would require from the player to go to the end. Or perhaps -- build all the available buildings. Or perhaps allow to loose projects during the wars or if stability is not high enough. There is no need to clear marshes even for Holland -- who needs Machine Tools? There must be some intensity in the late game, otherwise many things will never be used.

And as a second thought -- the mod could contain some promotion of the idea of the earliest possible UHVs. For example all the 3rd UHVs for all the civs could be "by" or simply open-ended with the task -- achieve this or that as early as possible. After the victory the special screen could emphasize the date and the score and the difficulty level -- people could use it to brag and attach it to their signatures . But seriously -- this will put players into competition, make them to invent unorthodox strategies to meet their goal faster, and always leave the room for a challenge.