Fromage10x
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2004
- Messages
- 78
Any large-scale overseas invasion or colonization should require transport ships, but I think embarkation should be allowed for certain units over short distances. In particularly, to avoid the hastle in early game of getting units across narrow straits (especially when you want to use a worker to develop tiny islands just offshore withing the radius of a mainland city).
Maybe limit it with one or more of the following:
* Only available to civilian units (possibly infantry as well).
* Must end turn on land (so you can cross narrow straits, but not seas).
** Alternatively, take damage if you end a turn at sea.
Seems reasonable to want something like that. I think having to end your turn on land is the best option (so that unlike in CiV there's a reason to have actual ships exploring for you instead of embarked units).
That sounds interesting, but quite complicated. And are these going to be real religions in name, or generic/custom?
Personally, I liked Civ IV's method of tying named religions to specific technologies (so they appeared in vaguely the right eras). Civ V's customization was interesting, but I agree it shouldn't be 'only one religion can have X effect'. Also, giving named religious buildings to the wrong religion (Protestant mosques, etc) is silly. It would be better for each named religion to have its own name for certain buildings (i.e. all religions have a temple building, but the name for a temple depends on the religion). The effect of a temple could then be customizable.
Another thing that might be interesting would be able create modified versions of other civ's religions. So if you have enough people following a religion, you can use a Great Prophet to create a new religion that is based on that one (different name, mostly same effects, but with one or more changes). You would then get some followers for that religion (some new, some converts from the existing one).
Depending on your civics/virtues, there should be penalties or dangers from having multiple religions in your civ, or religions that are not your state religion, so this would act as a balance to stop this being an easy way to found an advanced religion with lots of followers. (So e.g. you can't found Protestantism unless you are already mostly Catholic, but fo
Another thought: perhaps the multiple-religion penalties could be affected by how a religion has been customized. So e.g. effects that grant powerful military, loyalty or production bonuses (i.e. things that represent stiring up the population towards a particular goal and/or against outsiders) also come with big penalties regarding other religions. (E.g. unrest if other religions are present, or inability to build buildings of non-state religions). Whereas religions that grant weaker effects (e.g. minor cultural bonusues), are more tolerant of other religions.
Well, to avoid imposing game ideas to specific religions I think the ciV naming technique is probably best. This would possibly make the building name scheme kinda weird but I dunno if I really think that's too much of a problem. It meas that if you actively -want- to model a specific religion you can try it, but it's not forced on you. And yeah, it could be seen as pretty complicated, but I think presented correctly it would actually have a good arc to it..very simple in the start of the game as you work at expanding and customizing your pantheon (it also is a cool extra reward for exploration which is nice to incentivize some way other than huts) and only gets more complicated as you get more comfortable with the game.
Reformations should definitely be a thing. If you have a great prophet and another civ's religion in your cities, you should be able to use it as a base just like one you started.
Agreed, that would be a great class of penalties and very thematic to boot.