Civ4 Reimagined

[keldath]

Oh how great, just when i felt like playing civ4 again cheers.

I remebr there was a crash someone reported, was it fixed?

Started a game,
First thing i saw, is that there are too many copper and horses.

 

[Team NP]

I remebr there was a crash someone reported, was it fixed?

If you are referring to the last reported crash, then maybe by accident, but probably not. We had one or two crash fixes in this version, but we couldn't reproduce the crash by Zholef. If someone could reproduce it and send us the logs, it might shed light into the issue.

Started a game,
First thing i saw, is that there are too many copper and horses.

Interesting. It might be a matter of preference; We rather err on the side of too many horses so that many players can build mounted units (especially since often they will need more than one). Which map did you play? Did you use the balanced resources option?

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Hi there. I will post a more detailed write-up once I'm actually finished with my first game, but here's my first impressions so far:

I tried stealing a worker from a neighbor with a Spearman, but it just got destroyed instead. Bug or feature?
Might I inquire where you got the idea from to grant Priests culture? I like it, I like it a lot...
Now why did you go and remove commerce from rivers? Imo they were already too weak in the early game considering how absolutely vital they were to real ancient civilizations.
What's the rationale behind removing catapults and trebuchets? Sure besieging walled and castled cities shouldn't be easy, but removing the associated units entirely?

Your civics roster seems to be inspired a lot by the one in Dawn of Civilization. As someone who made it his personal crusade to change that roster and maintains a modmod to that end to this day, I feel qualified to criticize it, even if you changed a bit. Theocracy makes no sense as a government civic if there is a whole entire separate category dedicated to religion, one that includes Secularism of all things. I suggest replacing it with Oligarchy. The labor late game trifecta of Capitalism, Industrialism and Public Welfare makes no sense if you also have Free Market and Central Planning in a separate Economics category. I'm certain I wrote a ton about this topic a year ago in the DoC forum, I'll see if I can dig it out sometime.

Also for the love of Marx replace the -1 Commerce per Town for Central Planning with some penalty to Trade Routes. It makes no sense that Central Planning would be bad for highly urbanized civs when literally all self proclaimed communist countries consistently pushed for urbanization at the expense of farmers. The only exceptions were the Khmer Rouge and the thing where Mao sent people en mass to farms after the Cultural Revolution, and that was the same Mao who made every farmer produce steel in their backyards two decades before.

Aren't the penalties for Autocracy a bit harsh?

Also the Totestra map produces too many plains for my taste. The land around me sucks, but that might just be a bad start.

Anyway, good work all around, I like it so far and will definitely be keeping an eye on this mod.

 

[Team NP]

Hi there. I will post a more detailed write-up once I'm actually finished with my first game, but here's my first impressions so far:

Great, more feedback is always welcome.

I tried stealing a worker from a neighbor with a Spearman, but it just got destroyed instead. Bug or feature?

This is intentional (I will add it to the list of changes in the initial post) and one of our oldest changes. The AI always had trouble protecting their early workers, which made early rushes a dominant strategy. Also, the capturing of workers needs to be suspended once you are at your worker limit. Granted, these are not unsurmountable challenges, and we might reintroduce worker capturing again in the future.

Might I inquire where you got the idea from to grant Priests culture? I like it, I like it a lot...

Nowhere in particular. From your smiley I take it you had the very same idea?

Now why did you go and remove commerce from rivers? Imo they were already too weak in the early game considering how absolutely vital they were to real ancient civilizations.

From a historical perspective you are absolutely correct. However we felt that players could be offered additional settling choices by making non-river locations more viable. Rivers are still a great asset to have with +2 (which is probably a bit more important in Civ4 Reimagined), instant trade-routes (very useful especially for ancient civilizations) and the construction of farms and levees.

What's the rationale behind removing catapults and trebuchets? Sure besieging walled and castled cities shouldn't be easy, but removing the associated units entirely?

Our combat overhaul has two parts, both of which directly affect early siege weapons.

Firstly, we wanted to make collateral damage more sensible and combat more interesting. Since throwing kamikaze-catapults at *armies* is wrong on so many levels we severly restricted the collateral damage and moved what damage remained to archery type units.

Secondly, we wanted to make defensive buildings useful again. Building a wall or castle in BtS would barely grant you any benefit whatsover as its defensive value would usually be shred to pieces within a turn. This is the role of cannons now in Civ4 Reimagined - to end the era of castles.

Lastly, with the old siege units losing both their collateral damage and their ability to render walls/castles ineffective, they had no useful application anymore and we decided to remove them.

Your civics roster seems to be inspired a lot by the one in Dawn of Civilization. As someone who made it his personal crusade to change that roster and maintains a modmod to that end to this day, I feel qualified to criticize it, even if you changed a bit. Theocracy makes no sense as a government civic if there is a whole entire separate category dedicated to religion, one that includes Secularism of all things. I suggest replacing it with Oligarchy. The labor late game trifecta of Capitalism, Industrialism and Public Welfare makes no sense if you also have Free Market and Central Planning in a separate Economics category. I'm certain I wrote a ton about this topic a year ago in the DoC forum, I'll see if I can dig it out sometime.

Also for the love of Marx replace the -1 Commerce per Town for Central Planning with some penalty to Trade Routes. It makes no sense that Central Planning would be bad for highly urbanized civs when literally all self proclaimed communist countries consistently pushed for urbanization at the expense of farmers. The only exceptions were the Khmer Rouge and the thing where Mao sent people en mass to farms after the Cultural Revolution, and that was the same Mao who made every farmer produce steel in their backyards two decades before.

We are not perfectly happy with the civics either and I can see where the criticism comes from. Can you post the link here or send it to me via pm?
At least the disadvantage of running both Theology and Secularism should be enough to prevent anyone of actually running those two civics together.

Aren't the penalties for Autocracy a bit harsh?

Autocracy in Civ4 Reimagined is not a civic you will want to maintain for long.
It is a very useful, but specialized tool to gain a quick military edge above your opponents; either to get rid of a strong neighbour or to defend against a superior aggressor. Since the penalties for autocracy are long-term rather than short-term your economy will not immediatly suffer, but you will have to switch back to something else in time unless you are going for a modern era domination victory.

Also the Totestra map produces too many plains for my taste. The land around me sucks, but that might just be a bad start.

Totestra can create large landmasses of the same kind as it simulates continent and mountain creation, rainfall etc. Of course in the end it comes down to personal taste and Civ4 Reimagined works well enough with other map scripts.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Ever since I installed your mod I get a bunch of error messages whenever I start the game without any mods running, something about a missing python module Totestra? Everything works fine if I load this or any mod really, but whenever I start the game completely unmodded it throws a bunch of Python errors that while they don't seem to actually affect anything are really annoying to click away, especially when I'm going through my PBEM turns. Do you perhaps have an idea what might be up with that? I'm not even sure if this mod is the cause to be honest, I downloaded a few others, but this is the only one that adds the Totestra mapscript I think.

This is intentional (I will add it to the list of changes in the initial post) and one of our oldest changes. The AI always had trouble protecting their early workers, which made early rushes a dominant strategy. Also, the capturing of workers needs to be suspended once you are at your worker limit. Granted, these are not unsurmountable challenges, and we might reintroduce worker capturing again in the future.

I'm sorry, but isn't this based on K-mod? Supposedly the mod with the best AI in Civ4? Also I can still kill other civs' workers with impunity to slow down their growth, so this isn't really that great a solution. Perhaps a better compromise would be to turn captured workers and settlers into slaves when running Slavery?

Nowhere in particular. From your smiley I take it you had the very same idea?

Yep.

From a historical perspective you are absolutely correct. However we felt that players could be offered additional settling choices by making non-river locations more viable. Rivers are still a great asset to have with +2 (which is probably a bit more important in Civ4 Reimagined), instant trade-routes (very useful especially for ancient civilizations) and the construction of farms and levees.

I'm sorry, but that seems kind of like the Civ5 design philosophy of nerfing everything that stands out until everything is the same boring mishmash. I can't even follow your line of thought, this isn't Civ5 where the be all end all is four cities, or do you want to put a hard limit on the number of cities too? Based on that logic you might as well remove all extra yields from resources to make non-resource locations more viable. The levee is too late game to matter for settling decisions in the early game.

Secondly, we wanted to make defensive buildings useful again. Building a wall or castle in BtS would barely grant you any benefit whatsover as its defensive value would usually be shred to pieces within a turn. This is the role of cannons now in Civ4 Reimagined - to end the era of castles.

This seems to be more of a quantitative than a qualitative problem imo. Increase the defense castles and walls provide as well as the bombardment rate of Cannons and Artillery, decrease the bombardment rate of Catapults and Trebuchets, done.

We are not perfectly happy with the civics either and I can see where the criticism comes from. Can you post the link here or send it to me via pm?

Hm, I thought I had written more about this topic, but all I could find so far would be this.

Leoreth is currently in the process of planning an entirely new civics roster for DoC anyway, so you might get some good ideas from the ensuing discussion. Or you could adopt my modmod's superior civics roster. Basically, replace Theocracy with Oligarchy, throw out half the Labor category and replace it with Tribalism-Slavery-Caste System-Serfdom-Capitalism-Socialism, Economy would be Subsistence-Guilds-Mercantilism-Free Market-Central Planning-Public Welfare, Fanaticism to Theocracy and Scholasticism to Tolerance.

 

[Team NP]

Ever since I installed your mod I get a bunch of error messages whenever I start the game without any mods running, something about a missing python module Totestra? Everything works fine if I load this or any mod really, but whenever I start the game completely unmodded it throws a bunch of Python errors that while they don't seem to actually affect anything are really annoying to click away, especially when I'm going through my PBEM turns. Do you perhaps have an idea what might be up with that? I'm not even sure if this mod is the cause to be honest, I downloaded a few others, but this is the only one that adds the Totestra mapscript I think.

Very strange, I have never experienced or heard of that before. Starting without any mods works flawlessly for me.

I'm sorry, but isn't this based on K-mod? Supposedly the mod with the best AI in Civ4? Also I can still kill other civs' workers with impunity to slow down their growth, so this isn't really that great a solution. Perhaps a better compromise would be to turn captured workers and settlers into slaves when running Slavery?

K-mod is awesome in it's own right, but it isn't perfect (hence various changes). The AI does a good job of protecting workers as soon as it has enough military units to send to guard duty. However, this is not the case at the early stages of the game.
Now, instead of "AI loses worker, AI probably hates me, I gain a worker" (=huge boost for own economy, slight diplomatic fallout and huge loss for enemy) you only have "AI loses worker and probably hates me", which is far less attractive. It's still a good tradeoff to make since an AI that hates you is less of a problem if it is economically falling behind, but it's more of a tradeoff than before.

Turning workers and settlers into slaves with slavery does not really adress that issue, but is a nice idea that might be implemented in the future.

I'm sorry, but that seems kind of like the Civ5 design philosophy of nerfing everything that stands out until everything is the same boring mishmash. I can't even follow your line of thought, this isn't Civ5 where the be all end all is four cities, or do you want to put a hard limit on the number of cities too? Based on that logic you might as well remove all extra yields from resources to make non-resource locations more viable.

I think removing resources altogether would be more approriate - those pesky health&happiness benefits are throwing off the balance too much. ;-)
On a more serious note though, maybe we have a misunderstanding here: I'm not saying that it is good to have as many viable settling locations as possible. This would ultimately result in "you can settle on every tile! And they are all equally good, so don't bother looking for good locations at all!". However, the opposite approach, if taken to extremes, is not so great either: "Oh look, all this settling locations return zero value except for this single one which is awesome, let us settle there!". So what we need is to find some space inbetween this extremes where different options are available, but the player has to balance their needs against each other. Did civ4 BTS have the perfect balance, creating the most compelling strategic choices? Maybe for some it did. But for us, the settling choices you make through the game are more compelling with the removal of +1 from rivers.

This seems to be more of a quantitative than a qualitative problem imo. Increase the defense castles and walls provide as well as the bombardment rate of Cannons and Artillery, decrease the bombardment rate of Catapults and Trebuchets, done.

Surely, by increasing the defensive value you'll hit the spot where defensive buildings become useful again eventually. I am wary though that the increase in time spent waiting for your siege units to get through the defense might not be a very fun activity. But if someone want's to test it on vanilla BtS, it's just a couple of XML changes.
Personally I also like how the game changes with the raise of cannons, but that is not necessarily everyone's cup of tea, some like a more steady game.

Leoreth is currently in the process of planning an entirely new civics roster for DoC anyway, so you might get some good ideas from the ensuing discussion. Or you could adopt my modmod's superior civics roster. Basically, replace Theocracy with Oligarchy, throw out half the Labor category and replace it with Tribalism-Slavery-Caste System-Serfdom-Capitalism-Socialism, Economy would be Subsistence-Guilds-Mercantilism-Free Market-Central Planning-Public Welfare, Fanaticism to Theocracy and Scholasticism to Tolerance.

Thanks, we will certainly use some of those proposed changes when we come around to redesigning civics.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Did civ4 BTS have the perfect balance, creating the most compelling strategic choices? Maybe for some it did. But for us, the settling choices you make through the game are more compelling with the removal of +1 from rivers.

I respectfully disagree, the map just looks boring now.

Incidentally I continued my game yesterday (I'm a very slow player), thought some more about civics, and came to the following ideas of restructuring the Labor and Economy civics:

Labor:
Subsistence
Slavery
Corveé (this makes more sense in Labor than Economy imo and I have grown to like it more than Serfdom)
Guilds or Caste System (unsure myself)
Capitalism
Socialism

For Economy I actually have two ideas, depending on whether avoiding redundancy or unlocking civics in the early game is more important:

Economy with early game choices:
Reciprocity
Redistribution (name stolen from History Rewritten or some other mod, basically ancient palace economy)
Merchant Trade (ancient market economy, think Rome)
Mercantilism or Regulated Market (can represent both actual mercantilism and modern welfare states)
Free Enterprise (Manchester Capitalism)
Central Planning (USSR)

Economy without redundancy:
Reciprocity
Guilds
Mercantilism
Free Market
Central Planning
Public Welfare

In the first list Central Planning and Free Market appear basically twice with different names, but in the second the earliest civic is unlocked in the Medieval era. I prefer the second list imo.

 

[Drakarska]

Got to agree with Imp concerning the map, especially if your playing a FIN civ. With the trade/tile changes, this basically makes any FIN civ a 1 trait civ only.

Managed to find a really good river cross tile with 4 tiles as flood plains while playing a FIN civ, and completely forgot about the tweek of no along rivers. It was extremely frustrating to say the least, and IMO, punishes one of the traits concerning a FIN civ with no real offset to compensate for, especially if you have no sea access for trade routes.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Hey there, so I'm a little confused about cultural mechanics in this mod/K-mod in general.

Specifically, I am wondering about Machu Picchu in my current game here:





As you can see, it's under quite a bit of cultural pressure, and even had a revolt or two. In fact, it even flipped to the Inca after the current turn of the attached savegame, and the game didn't even tell me about it. No message, no entry in the log, no nothing, I just randomly decided to move the camera over to the city and found that suddenly it was an Incan city again. Now this is unfortunately difficult to reproduce exactly since I play with the New Random Seed on Reload option enabled, as I am a filthy dirty cheater with an aversion against randomness, so you are just gonna have to take my word for it.

Apart from that missing heads up about a city just up and leaving my empire, there are two other things I am curious about:

One, I heard rumors that in Kmod culture from deep within my core can help in culture fights on the border, but I have no idea how this works exactly.

For instance, you can see here that Machu Picchu is quite isolated from the rest of my empire, with some formerly Roman nomansland and one of my vassals in between.



Now I'm wondering, if I hire a bunch of artists in these far away cities deep within the heart of my empire



would that have any effect whatsoever on Machu Picchu's likelihood to revolt?

Two, is there anything I can do but adopting Autocracy or abusing the RNG to keep Machu Picchu? Quantity of garrison troops doesn't seem to have any effect, and I have been doing whatever I can to increase its culture output, constructing appropriate buildings, raising the culture slider, I even settled a Great Artist for crying out loud!

I really want to hang on to that city, it's my symbolic spit in the face of Huayna and Shaka, those dirty double-crossing traitors who massacred the innocent people of San Francisco without provocation.

On an entirely unrelated note, I have read somewhere that corporations in this mod spread on their own. I couldn't yet verify this as so far there is only one corporation in this game and it's on a different continent. If this is true, might I ask how you accomplished that so that I may steal this feature for another mod?

 

[Team NP]

Labor:
Subsistence
Slavery
Corveé (this makes more sense in Labor than Economy imo and I have grown to like it more than Serfdom)
Guilds or Caste System (unsure myself)
Capitalism
Socialism

For Economy I actually have two ideas, depending on whether avoiding redundancy or unlocking civics in the early game is more important:

Economy with early game choices:
Reciprocity
Redistribution (name stolen from History Rewritten or some other mod, basically ancient palace economy)
Merchant Trade (ancient market economy, think Rome)
Mercantilism or Regulated Market (can represent both actual mercantilism and modern welfare states)
Free Enterprise (Manchester Capitalism)
Central Planning (USSR)

Economy without redundancy:
Reciprocity
Guilds
Mercantilism
Free Market
Central Planning
Public Welfare

In the first list Central Planning and Free Market appear basically twice with different names, but in the second the earliest civic is unlocked in the Medieval era. I prefer the second list imo.

I like the list with early game choices. Thanks for the input!

Got to agree with Imp concerning the map, especially if your playing a FIN civ. With the trade/tile changes, this basically makes any FIN civ a 1 trait civ only.

I'm sorry that you feel like FIN is worthless now. For us, FIN has always been a powerhouse of a trait and with a couple of nerfs it seems to be in a good place now. I would say it's still quite powerful, but it has a distinct early-game weakness.

Now I'm wondering, if I hire a bunch of artists in these far away cities deep within the heart of my empirewould that have any effect whatsoever on Machu Picchu's likelihood to revolt?

The further away the city, the less effective is the culture spread. It seems highly inprobable to me that your mainland cities - even uMgungundlovu - would have any effect on Machu Picchu, but I might be wrong.

Two, is there anything I can do but adopting Autocracy or abusing the RNG to keep Machu Picchu? Quantity of garrison troops doesn't seem to have any effect, and I have been doing whatever I can to increase its culture output, constructing appropriate buildings, raising the culture slider, I even settled a Great Artist for crying out loud!

I really want to hang on to that city, it's my symbolic spit in the face of Huayna and Shaka, those dirty double-crossing traitors who massacred the innocent people of San Francisco without provocation.

I can see the need for revenge.

There are a number of ways to reduce the likelihood of revolt:
-Increase happiness / decrease unhappiness (e.g. by reducing the population, though how starving would reduce unhappiness is beyond me, but that's civ).
-Use the leadership promotion
-A garrison should have an effect, but the mathematics behind it is kind of strange. It could just so happen that a garrison has little impact on large cultural differences (i.e. your vassal has a lot more culture in that city than you). But it definitely has an effect however small.
-Culture bomb artists instead of settling them - your main problem is the massive culture discrepancy between you and your vassal right now, far more than the long-term culture pressure he could exert on you.
-Beyond that, you seem to be out of luck. Improving the culture output might be feasible if you had cities within 6 tiles or so of Machu Piccu.

On an entirely unrelated note, I have read somewhere that corporations in this mod spread on their own. I couldn't yet verify this as so far there is only one corporation in this game and it's on a different continent. If this is true, might I ask how you accomplished that so that I may steal this feature for another mod?

You can find the corresponding code in CvCity::doCorporation and CvCity::spreadCorporation.

 

[Drakarska]

I'm sorry that you feel like FIN is worthless now. For us, FIN has always been a powerhouse of a trait and with a couple of nerfs it seems to be in a good place now. I would say it's still quite powerful, but it has a distinct early-game weakness.

Let's be extremely clear here regarding this statement. No where in this entire quote did I state that FIN was worthless, nor did I even imply such a thing. If you do not wan't observations or critiques concerning your mod, then perhaps you should not have a mod thread in regards to your mod. To avoid any further misunderstandings, may I politely suggest you actually inquire concerning specific statements instead of arbitrarily making an assumption?

 

[Team NP]

Let's be extremely clear here regarding this statement. No where in this entire quote did I state that FIN was worthless, nor did I even imply such a thing. If you do not wan't observations or critiques concerning your mod, then perhaps you should not have a mod thread in regards to your mod. To avoid any further misunderstandings, may I politely suggest you actually inquire concerning specific statements instead of arbitrarily making an assumption?

Wow, okay. It was neither my intention to offend you nor to presume something you didn't say. My goal was to reply to "this basically makes any FIN civ a 1 trait civ only", which I read as "any civs that have the FIN trait are playing as if they have only one trait, because their FIN traits have no value". I figured this uses exaggeration as a stylistic device and thus I responded with an exaggeration as well. Obvious for you and me, the FIN trait does have some value and the real question to solve is whether FIN is too weak, too strong, or balanced with other traits. If your sentence was not supposed to mean "I think FIN is too weak" then its meaning still eludes me and I am curious as to what your critique or observation actually is.

 

[Petromax]

I've been trying this mod and enjoying it. Thanks!

 

[keldath]

i love this mod,
its brutal, very brutal, losing on prince before middleages, i love it.

cant wait for next version (is it being worked on?)

 

[Team NP]

Thank you for your comments. It is always nice to get feedback Unfortunately we are kinda busy at the moment so not much is happening right now in terms of new features. There are plans for the next version though. Also if you find any bugs you can tell us and we will try to fix them.

 

[keldath]

yes i understand, real life...

almost reached atomics, small map 9 civs, epic speed archipelago.

im having wonderful time,
i kept loosing on prince level, started this one at one difficulty below, and im doing fine.
havnt seen any issues.

a few notes:

- im not so into the new ranged system of units, i think i prefer the original one, but it is still fun
- i think that the use of the bombard units, that in every attack take out an enemy building is too much powerful, you can decimate a city just by bombarding it, i would think that it should have some chance and luck to it, 10 20 30 ...70 % to destroy building on bomb , like maybe accuracy. for now, its to too much abusive i think.
- the civics, may need some tweaks, some are useless or to expensive.


other than these, im enjoying all the stuff you guys added, mostly the resource ratio.

 

[Team NP]

- i think that the use of the bombard units, that in every attack take out an enemy building is too much powerful, you can decimate a city just by bombarding it, i would think that it should have some chance and luck to it, 10 20 30 ...70 % to destroy building on bomb , like maybe accuracy. for now, its to too much abusive i think.

It should actually only be a certain chance to destroy a building, which depends on how many buildings the city has left. There has been a bug though where the AI simply wants to destroy walls/castle, but instead goes full bombard mode with ALL their artillery units. And thanks for your feedback, I agree with you that the chance to destroy a building is way too high. We reduced it massively for our next version.

- the civics, may need some tweaks, some are useless or to expensive.

Granted, some civics (like Warrior Code or City States) are only useful under certain conditions and with a certain playstyle. But if you think some civics are bad no matter what, feel free to mention specifics so that we can discuss them.

 

[TheUnderNoticed]

I have just joined the forum today to tell you a huge THANK YOU.

This mod is what I have always been looking for: a reasoned reshape of Civ4.

Please continue improving it, when you have time and when you feel like it. The new resource system is what really shines in your work, I would like it to be even more strict for larger realms (which file or string should I edit for that?).

In the future I suggest to reintroduce weak pre-industrial siege weapons with restrained collateral damage, tweak the policies coherence and, someday, to integrate the Revolutions mod in your game system

I really like your work! Open a channel for donating and I'll donate!

 

[Team NP]

I have just joined the forum today to tell you a huge THANK YOU.

This mod is what I have always been looking for: a reasoned reshape of Civ4.

Please continue improving it, when you have time and when you feel like it. The new resource system is what really shines in your work, I would like it to be even more strict for larger realms (which file or string should I edit for that?).

First of all thank you very much for the great feedback . It is always nice to hear that people are having fun playing our mod. I can ensure you that development is still going on. We plan to release another version soon. You can also always look into our repository ( https://bitbucket.org/NilsBatram/civ4-reimagined ) and compile your own DLL.

The new resource system can actually be edited quite easily in the GlobalDefines.xml although it is not very well documented yet (will be changed with the next update). Look for the values "TARGET_POPULATION_". There is one target population defined for each era. Those values roughly correspond to the maximum population which can be sufficiently supplied with one resource when all techs of this era are discovered. Every tech you discover lets you supply more population with one resource. Target population adds up which means e.g. real target population for classical era is: TARGET_POPULATION_ANCIENT + TARGET_POPULATION_CLASSICAL. So if you want a more strict system i.e. lower ratios you can just reduce those numbers and even choose at which era the ratios should go down. In the next version we will have lower ratios during middle ages / renaissance and after that they will slightly improve again in comparison to the current state of the mod.

In the future I suggest to reintroduce weak pre-industrial siege weapons with restrained collateral damage, tweak the policies coherence and, someday, to integrate the Revolutions mod in your game system

I really like your work! Open a channel for donating and I'll donate!

I can see why people want catapults back. The reason we removed them is that their role in combat (weakish units that deal collateral damage) is already taken by archers and crossbowmen. So from a gameplay perspective it doesn't make much sense to reintroduce them as additional units. I also don't think classical and medieval units should easily manage to destroy walls and castles as cannons or other siege units do. Of course it would be possible to give them a really small chance to destroy defensive buildings but that would probably introduce huge catapult stacks as part of classical armies again. In ancient and medieval warfare catapults were often constructed during sieges. This is better represented by the city raider promotion.

I agree that our civics need more tweaking and there is some serious overlap between them. Again from a gameplay perspective they work kinda well in my opinion. If you think otherwise, please tell us which civics you consider too weak or too strong.

The Revolutions mod is really nice but unfortunately not working for multiplayer. We might introduce a similar system but this is a lot of work and currently not on our agenda.

 

[TheNoseKnows]

Does the Chu-ko-nu get anything to compensate for the loss of its unique trait of causing collateral damage?