Civilisation Attributes open discussion

[MechatronicJazz]

I think a European balancing act would be super interesting for England - and very historical. I would make the condition allow independents, though, as independent civs would be the kind of States the UK would support (like Belgium). So the UHV could be defined something like: Make sure no continental European power holds more than X% of tiles over their core / historical territory; or no more than X number of cities outside their core.

I like that too, because there are potentially a lot of ways to do it. On the one hand, this could be a very diplomacy heavy game, probably with a need to be tech leader to buy peace deals, which goes nicely with the tech goals (if those end up staying). Alternatively, it could mean getting directly involved to defend smaller civs, or to reconquer conquered territory to gift back or release as independents.

It also does not rule out more direct involvement. The player could opt to directly conquer Europe to pre-empt continental powers, but they would need to balance the expansion instability from that and the required colonies. Could also go for a vassal game instead, with the nice bonus that vassals collapsing would not instantly make you lose, it would just open those areas up to conquest by others.

This has a lot of potential.

 

[MechatronicJazz]

I'll just add that the challenge of this UHV goal would depend on the AI's ability to conquer in Europe. It wouldn't be much fun if in 90% of games the AI hand you this goal on their own by not successfully expanding.

 

[JHLee]

Generally, I would like to see more units with 1 UU replacement each
rather than fewer units hogging 3+ UU's
(as is the case with Swords, Heavy Swords, Spearmen, Arquebusiers, Lancers, and Cuirassiers).
If there are too many civs with a 'Unique Unit' replacement for a certain unit,
it hurts the sense of each of those replacments being 'unique'.
Currently, Lancers have 6 UU's and Arqs have 5 UU's (leaving out the barbarian replacements).

Also, UU's that are upgraded to another UU of the same civ should be avoided,
because massing UU's can become a way too powerful strategy.
There are currrently two civs with such UU's: France (Gendarme -> Guard) and China (Chu-ko-nu -> Firelance)

In such context, I suggest:

* replacing Minutemen with Navy SEAL.
* replacing Guards with Heavy Cannons.
* replacing Gendarmes with Foreign Legions (Riflemen)

Spoiler reason :

Even if either one of Guards/Gendarmes are replaced with HC, they are still too close together. I think there are more times in French military history that deserves spotlight then only the Napoleonic era. I think the Foreign Legion would be a UU which reflects the French accomplishments in 19c~WW1.

* replacing Firelance with another UU, perhaps an Infantry UU with cheaper cost or production with food.
* replacing Strelts with Druzhina (Heavy Spear, preferably with a bonus that actually helps Russia against Mongol light cavs)
* replacing Qizilbash with a Camel Gunner UU (which would be useful in the desert terrains of Iraq/Transoxiana/West India that they have to conquer)

 

[Leoreth]

French accomplishments in 19c~WW1.

lol which?

 

[JHLee]

lol which?

Well they did win WW1...

 

[brett0007]

Well they did win WW1...

You mean the British and Americans did

 

[LikeNothing]

I think there are more times in French military history that deserves spotlight then only the Napoleonic era.

Very true, but those times are before the Napoleonic era, no? Gendarme represents the eras of Turenne, le Grand Condé, and the first half of Louis XIV's reign, when the French army was unbeatable for close to a century.

If Gendarme overlaps too much with Guard, I think it's Guard that should be changed into an infantry unit, a cheaper replacement of Rifleman that perhaps requires Nationalism instead of Ballistics and/or with a Movement bonus. France during the Revolution and Napoleonic Wars were actually running out of horse supplies for their cavalry, and the Guard in reality (like the rest of the Grande Armée) was mostly infantry.

Similarly for China, even if Chokonu overlaps too much with Firelancer as you say, it should be Chokonu that's changed.

Unlike in BtS, in DoC Chokonu is mainly ceremonial. Chokonu is only really useful vs. barbarians, because given China's location and spawning time Chokonu becomes obsolete by the time you would fight any foreign civ (including Independents). Thus Chokonu's function (other than flavor) can mostly be replaced by a cheaper Great Wall. We can also give Great Wall or Terracotta Army a XP bonus to Archery units.

And IMHO, defending against barbarians using the Great Wall and normal units is more fun than using Chokonu (which makes the strategy too similar to Rome and Legions).

Moreover, Chokonu quickly becomes literally obsolete in the 600AD scenario, where China is playable for UHV, and China literally has an UHV that obsoletes it. Is there another civ with an UHV that literally obsoletes its UU?

To replace Chokonu, China's 2nd UU could be a Worker that's cheaper and can be used to Hurry Wonders.

 

[JHLee]

Unlike in BtS, in DoC Chokonu is mainly ceremonial.

What? How is China supposed to wipe out the Mongol doomstack without mass Chu-ko-nu's? I don't think you can research Firearms and mass a substantial amount of Firelancers until 1200 in Monarch+ difficulties.

 

[LikeNothing]

What? How is China supposed to wipe out the Mongol doomstack without mass Chu-ko-nu's? I don't think you can research Firearms and mass a substantial amount of Firelancers until 1200 in Monarch+ difficulties.

Firelancers require Gunpowder, not Firearms, no? Or has that changed?

If China couldn't use Firelancers to wipe Mongol doomstacks in game, then it means China could not do as well as IRL history, then it means China cannot accomplish its UHV (which is about outperforming IRL history), then it means China should be rebalanced. But I don't think that's true.

 

[triplebassist]

I'll just add that the challenge of this UHV goal would depend on the AI's ability to conquer in Europe. It wouldn't be much fun if in 90% of games the AI hand you this goal on their own by not successfully expanding.

Depending on the date, France and Prussia could do a lot of that by attempting to achieve their own UHVs

 

[JHLee]

Firelancers require Gunpowder, not Firearms, no?

Oh yes, you're right.

 

[JHLee]

In order to make the conquest faster, Companions should also have the Commando promotion and add their healing and movements benefits to units within the same tile.

Are you serious

 

[Pavel Chichikov]

Babylon: I think incorporating some sort of conquest goal wouldn't be amiss, as people have mentioned before. Honestly, although I know the lack of turns in the Ancient Era probably makes it impossible, the lack of variety or dynamism in the pre-Achaemenid Near-East always bothered me, with Sumerians, Hittites, Assyrians, Armenians etc all being relegated to barbarians or not existing at all. Anyway, for Babylon, another UU, "Siege Tower" (replacing the catapult, available at an earlier tech) would facilitate rapid conquest for a decent player.

Sumeria? With the precedent of Harrapa being added as a 'short-puzzle civ' which invariably gets razed/conquered on another Civilisation's spawn, I think something quite fun could be done with this. A later spawning Babylonia inheriting some improved land with more tech would allow a wider variety of playstyles. I know Babylon as it exists now is sacred to many people, being practically unchanged since RFC 1.0, but I always felt it was a very meagre representation for the many great states of Ancient Mesopotamia, but least we have early Phoenicia now.

Prussia: Regarding the UHV, probably a bunch of people have carped on this before, but the requirement to conquer 'Italy and Britain by 1940' doesn't make sense historically, Hitler never wanted to go war with Britain (or France for that matter) and always admired the British Empire. Italy of course goes without saying. Replacing them with Greece, Poland and the Netherlands is better, though the player will probably do that anyway to get the UHV. 1940 is also too early, Hitler and Mussolini planned for war at 1942 at the earliest, iirc. Not a big thing gameplay-wise, it just always bugged me.

 

[Leoreth]

Concrete ideas for Sumer? I am interested in them, but their timeframe is even shorter than Harappa, so I found it hard to craft a UHV that is both representative and non-trivial.

 

[PinkPallin]

Prussia: Regarding the UHV, probably a bunch of people have carped on this before, but the requirement to conquer 'Italy and Britain by 1940' doesn't make sense historically, Hitler never wanted to go war with Britain (or France for that matter) and always admired the British Empire. Italy of course goes without saying. Replacing them with Greece, Poland and the Netherlands is better, though the player will probably do that anyway to get the UHV. 1940 is also too early, Hitler and Mussolini planned for war at 1942 at the earliest, iirc.

Well, Hitler's plans were to conquer all Europe. He started with Poland, and was at war with France and UK before he wanted. The Prussian 1st UHV is mixture of history and wishes, as the invasion of Russia didn't start until mid 1941.
I agree that Italy is not necessary, being a friendly nation. It just helps enlarging the target.
Greece, on the other way, wasn't in Hitler's plans. He was forced to send his troops because Italy was losing the campaign and Greece was becoming an uncomfortable British stronghold.

That's why I wouldn't bother changing this UHV.

And, by the way, Mussolini didn't plan the war against France and Great Britain, he just caught a chance. As he said, "I only need a few thousand deaths to be able to sit at the winners table".

 

[Leoreth]

Well, Hitler's plans were to conquer all Europe.

Not really.

 

[Hickman888]

I am interested in Sumer? I am interested in them, but their timeframe is even shorter than Harappa, so I found it hard to craft a UHV that is both representative and non-trivial.

I'm gonna spitball my ideas for Sumeria here:

Sumeria
(Would start 2S, 1E of current Babylon spawn)

UP: Fertile Crescent: Starts with Caste System/Despotism, and receives +1 population in the nearest city for every improvement built in the ancient era
UU: Aga Ush Lugal (replaces Militia, full time soldiers in service to the king) Starts with City Raider 1
UB: Brewery (replaces Granary, Sumerians were the first beer drinkers ): Half the cost of the granary it replaces

Historical Goals:

1. Akkadian Empire: Conquer Shushan and Babylon (independent city spawn) by 2250 BC (I know having Sumeria conquer north is backwards, but I'm working with what I got)
2. Cradle of Civilization: Construct 5 buildings by 2025 BC
3. Fertile Crescent: Control 7 improvements by 1825 BC

The Sumerian game is quick, a bit of a puzzle, and relies on strategic use of whipping, in order to train your army and construct your buildings. You will quickly build many improvements due to your Caste System...However you will not pillage your improvements with the intent to build over it again, if you intend to meet the 3rd UHV deadline.

Babylon would spawn in in perhaps 1800 BC, coinciding with the rule of Hammurabi. Similar to how Prussia emerges from the HRE, stealing many of their cities, so would the Babylonians emerge in Babylon, stealing their city. Babylon should find itself with developed land surrounding it, as well as hopefully a granary and temple, which should give it a boost in pursuing its own story.

I know this might not meet the "non-trivial" requirement, but I would still like to find a way for more bronze age cultures to find themselves in the mod, especially the Sumerians!

 

[Leoreth]

Just realised how nonsensical my post was, but you seem to have gotten my intent regardless.

 

[Cypriot]

Akkadian Empire: Conquer Shushan and Babylon (independent city spawn) by 2250 BC (I know having Sumeria conquer north is backwards, but I'm working with what I got)

But Akkadians were a Semite people, not Sumerian. It is quite strange to give Sumeria the goal which reflects their conquerors, isn't it?

 

[Hickman888]

But Akkadians were a Semite people, not Sumerian. It is quite strange to give Sumeria the goal which reflects their conquerors, is it?

It is, but I still wanted to reflect the Sargon's empire somehow, as well as give the Sumerians a good challenge for a historical goal. I'm open to other ideas for a good first Sumerian goal.