1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Civilisation Attributes open discussion

Discussion in 'Rhye's and Fall - Dawn of Civilization' started by Leoreth, Jun 30, 2020.

  1. 1SDAN

    1SDAN Brother Lady

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    Messages:
    2,742
    Even if we did that: How do players switch leaders? Does it just use the current rules, or should they be modified to better fit gameplay?
     
    Enyavar and ShinobiHus92 like this.
  2. ShinobiHus92

    ShinobiHus92 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2019
    Messages:
    71
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    Sounds like a great idea! It certainly makes the game dynamic and interesting! I asume as time goes on your leader will change automatically? Or a pop-up appears stated that you now controll this leader moving foward etc
     
    Enyavar and phoenixfire7 like this.
  3. urbestfriend

    urbestfriend Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2014
    Messages:
    22
    I'm going to go against the grain and say that I don't think thats a very good idea. I think it's bad in and out of game and I'm just going to give some bullet points as to why I think so:

    Takes away player planning: The AI leaderhead changes happen with very little input from the player, and while some happen from set dates, others are based on factors like civics and religion choice, which the player cannot account for. And while some amount of variance and dynamic play is good, we should also encourage players to think long term and plan around the AI's abilities, not punish them because they planned to sabotage an enemy in a specific way except oh no things are different now and you wasted your time.

    Loss of a cohesive civ: I like playing as a civ and making it feel like my own. Like I'm really building this special civ that I can pilot because I know it inside and out. That from turn 1 to turn 2000 I'm taking every part of the civ and maximizing it and optimizing it to the fullest, and a huge part of that is that I have this one special trait that I'm stuck with and I can't just swap it around whenever it suits me. I'm not going to deny there may be some skill in swapping leaderheads to use the right trait at the right time but personally, I feel like you lose something aesthetically pleasing from this.

    More knowledge required: I don't know all the leaderheads in this game and I've played well over 100 games of this mod. I don't know the triggers for half the leaderhead switches. I'm wouldn't be surprised if Leo couldn't tell you 2/3 of them off the top of his head. This is a lot of random bits of trivia that players aren't expected to know because it just isn't all that relevant in most situations - except now it is, and it's going to send players running to the civpedia or a guide too many times imo just to figure out their own civ.

    Balance: This is the big one. It is already hard enough to balance say, 6 civics in the same category against each other. How do we make state planning vs free market balanced? Thats been a huge ever changing part of the mod since the start and is something still being actively worked on. Now take all the work done on balancing those... and throw them in the dumpster because now those civic swaps can come with new traits you have to balance with each other and the civics. For every. single. Civ. in the freaking mod. And the problem only gets worse as new civs and leaderheads are added. Speaking of...

    Development Priorities: I would so much rather see Leoreth spend time polishing the currently existing traits to a perfect shine, where every one feels unique and fair, rather than trying to make 50-100 traits that, lets be honest, are probably going to involve some Copy and Paste. I'd rather see new interesting civs added rather then trying to spend time picking out and balancing 10 leaderheads and their conditions.

    Overall I think this is an idea that while it sounds cool at first, opens up a way too big can of worms to feasibly control. I'd be interested in hearing other opinions or thoughts however.
     
  4. Enyavar

    Enyavar Prince

    Joined:
    May 16, 2015
    Messages:
    485
    That's why I already covered ~40 leaderheads in my post already. If anything in that direction gets realized, we should recycle the current Unique Powers, and also not go overboard with some of the lesser figures. Past-UHV-leaders like Baibars and Nasser don't need awesome Unique Powers in my opinion. Neither do Franco or George I. or Bhutto.

    Yes, that is a major issue. I would suggest that this would need to be done via revolution (civic change), but probably only going forward: Genghis would be tied to "Mongolian Conquest", but once you leave that Civic towards Kublai's "Mongolian Tributary or higher" civic, you just cannot return to Genghis.

    The AI-players would just remain triggered just as they currently are.

    Yeah, there are a lot of concerns. I already adressed the first: It is up to the player to plan when he (permanently?) switches the leaderhead towards a more favorable civic and UP.

    I don't fully get the loss of cohesion. If you play for UHV, you already have to make your plans, and the way I described the process, it would make for better historicity in playthrough. Instead of remaining "King Alfred" into the 20th century. England's current unique power is fully useless until the age of Imperialism.

    On the "more knowledge required": I already think that before each playthrough, you have to do all the research on UHV, UP, UB, the potential zone switches and even about when they occur. For example, the Turks' core switches two times in the game, the Mongolian core and the Japanese core switch, but the Chinese core doesn't unless you are the AI. Taking all that into account, it wouldn't be that much more complicated, as long as the UPs and leaderheads are listed neatly in the 'pedia.

    The rest of your arguments are all fair. This IS Leoreth's mod, and I just wanted to toss an idea into the room. We all know that Leoreth only realizes the 5-10% of ideas that HE thinks are beneficial to the game. And this idea is also not something I would ever expect to be realized in short time, even if Leo (or another mod-modder) gave it a go.
     
  5. LikeNothing

    LikeNothing Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2016
    Messages:
    87
    Some ideas for the English UUs and the French Guard (Garde?).

    Redcoat
    Starts with Amphibious
    (Optional) Remove or reduce Collateral Damage
    (Optional) Attack bonus vs Arquebusier and Bombard

    Man-of-War
    Carries (2 or 3) military units as cargo
    Privateer can upgrade to Ship of the Line

    Garde
    Replaces Rifleman
    Available with Nationalism
    No XP penalty from Drafting
    No or reduced :mad: from Drafting
    (Optional) Cannot be Drafted overseas
    (Optional) +1 Movement
    (Optional) Increased build cost

    France doesn't need a second Heavy Cavalry UU, since Gendarme (with Leadership) promoted into Dragoon still functions as an elite Heavy Cavalry, better than regular Dragoons.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2021
  6. LikeNothing

    LikeNothing Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2016
    Messages:
    87
    New Chinese UP: The Power of Dynastic Cycles
    When you enter a new Era, you receive a Stability bonus (Or penalty, depending on balance) for some turns, and your Great People and Great General Thresholds reduced (down to zero, or half, or some other level).

    Optional: This only works for the first 4 new Eras you enter. To balance 3000BC China vs 600AD China.
    Optional: You also receive the "Rise of Civilization" tech cost discount for some turns.
    Optional: Your non-Historical cities become Independents.
    Optional: You also receive a small stack of free units:

    IRL China has collapsed multiple times and went through multiple cycles of reform and rebirth. This is not just part of China's national mythos (as stated in the opening sentence of Romance of Three Kingdoms) - it's a historical fact, and a very interesting one worthy of study.

    But I think most agree it's impractical to represent each major Chinese dynasty as a separate civ in DoC. China will likely be the longest continuously running civ in a game like DoC, as it has always been. That should be what makes it unique and interesting to play, not a detriment.

    Put another way, if any civ in game should represent multiple IRL civs/states/regimes/dynasties, it's China. The question is how to simulate this. I've thought of a controlled voluntary collapse (hence, the 3rd Optional above) but perhaps other players may hate it (although perhaps not too much, with my next idea below and the 4th Optional above).

    The current Chinese UP has no effect on player or AI choices or tactics. It is functionally equivalent to a moderate boost to iModifierGrowthThreshold, which, even after the boost, still make China's pop growth rate slower than most civs'. This is easily balanced and somewhat useful - just not interesting enough to be noticeable IMHO.

    ===

    New Game Mechanism: Mandate of Heaven (Alt Name: Zhuluzhongyuan)
    If your Capital is in China's Core and has at least 50% of your own Culture, you receive no (or reduced) Resistance in the cities you conquer in China's Core and Historical Areas.

    Optional: This can also work if your Capital is in China's Historical Area.
    Optional: This can also work if your Capital is not in China, but your Religion is Confucian or Taoist.
    Optional: You also lose fewer Buildings when conquering these cities.
    Optional: You also receive free defenders in these cities after conquering them.
    Optional: You also absorb more of the Culture in these cities after conquering them.
    Optional: You also receive a Stability boost (equivalent to Conquest Civic) from conquering these cities.

    This idea is inspired by both RFCAsia and the Common Universalis Mod of EU4. In RFC Asia if you conquer half of China the other half auto-flips to you. I think a no Resistance bonus is more fun.

    Currently, this mechanism would give Mongolia, Japan, Korea, Tibet, Khmer, etc. more motivation and benefits to conquer China. In a future larger map, where I assume there will be more civs in the area like the Manchus, it'd be even more interesting.
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2021
  7. Genghis Khaiser

    Genghis Khaiser King

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2012
    Messages:
    614
    Byzantium's UP should be changed. It requires money and by the time you have enough to meet your UHV you don't get barbarians anymore so there's no use of it.

    My ideas:
    -Same as the original, but not requiring Gold.
    -Same as original, but it earns you Gold.
    -Same as original, but you can bribe any enemy unit within your territory, or just Core area if it's too OP.
    -Something religion-related, like +1 Food or +5% Defense per state religion building (Double per Cathedral).
     
  8. LikeNothing

    LikeNothing Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2016
    Messages:
    87
    The Spy movement speed is as much a pain as the :gold: cost, if not greater IMO. It not just makes the Byzantine UP annoying to micro (especially since barbs spawn semi-randomly within your Cultural Borders) - it makes the UP practically nonexistent most of the time, because you simply cannot move the Spies in place quickly enough for it to make a noticeable difference.

    In DoC military units move at the astounding speed of less than 1 km per day (less than 1 km per week/month in the earlier eras). That is (I suppose) qualitatively justified as representing logistics and supply lines. Spies IRL have zero logistics and supply issues compared to armies, and move much faster than armies.

    So perhaps one blessing of Byzantine UP being so bad is that it reveals something about Spies generally that should be changed.
     
  9. MechatronicJazz

    MechatronicJazz Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    299
    I appreciate that spies might need to be a bit faster to work mechanically well, but I don't think it's useful to draw comparisons to real life speeds. Especially in the early game, any unit is an abstraction for long term activity. Millitary units do not represent a single army moving, they're more like years of sustained warfare in a region. Likewise, spies are more like sustained espionage campaigns. The timescales are always going to be off.

    However, if needing to be on top of a unit to bribe it is impractical (if that is how it works; I don't remember), then maybe they need a range they can operate in. What would them fun to use in the game? I think that's the better question in this case than what makes them more realistic. Same goes for the Byzantine UP.
     
    RustyBrick likes this.
  10. LikeNothing

    LikeNothing Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2016
    Messages:
    87
    I agree! That's what I was referring to by logistics and supply lines.

    I agree! But I think all Spy actions require same tile. If Spies had range, the movement speed would be less of an issue in general, but I'm not sure the engine even allows it.

    How similar are Spies to armies though? Say, when Chinese Spies wish to conduct an espionage campaign in St. Petersburg, Russia, must they start sustained espionage campaign in East Siberia first, then West Siberia, and then the Urals, and so on?

    The whole point of espionage, at least for military purposes, is to have agents that can move much faster than armies (due to lack of supply and logistical issues or enemy resistance) gather intel ahead of time, often before the military campaign strategy is even decided. If espionage takes as much time as military campaigns (as it does in DoC) there would be no point to it.
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2021

Share This Page