I've played one game so far (CP v. 51), but there were no wars as such. I kind of had a friendship relationships with the AI, and they gave a lot of nice deals, too. It wasn't a Warmonger game at all. Maybe, it depends on the particular Civs - I have no idea.
Community Patch for BNW
- Thread starter Gazebo
- Start date
Lots of variables, yes tweaks will need to happen, but we need more tests to base them on.
G
Wodhann
South American Norse God
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2014
- Messages
- 1,507
Is it possible to make it so that in world congress, you have to vote for yourself for world leader?
There's no reason to have the feature to vote others aside from kingmaking and creating frustating "let's all vote on the player with the least score just to spite the guy winning" scenarios. If someone knows another reason I'm all ears, but I don't see any.
There's no reason to have the feature to vote others aside from kingmaking and creating frustating "let's all vote on the player with the least score just to spite the guy winning" scenarios. If someone knows another reason I'm all ears, but I don't see any.
whoward69
DLL Minion
Kinda makes the vote pointless then ... "At the Nth Conference of Xyz, Abc announced themselves as Supreme Commander, dissenters were summarily executed."
Wodhann
South American Norse God
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2014
- Messages
- 1,507
Yeah, but I do hate the "HEY ALL VOET ON [Insert guy with 1 city and 100 score] 4 WORDLEARDE HUEHUEHUE" game endings.
It's just so anti-game for me. It's like if you are playing Risk and you had the option to vote someone to win, regardless of the game scenario.
whoward69
DLL Minion
That's life. I know of no board game where one or two players cannot make it so someone of their choosing wins - either via beneficial trade, helping in combat, or whatever.
They're not really saying "I want this person to win" but "I want this game to end", so even if you stop them voting that way, you'll never stop them mucking about or just quitting.
I'll look at it - the logical thing would be just to skip a 'vote' entirely and let the player that reaches the threshold simply win at the start of a 'voting session.'
G
Wodhann
South American Norse God
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2014
- Messages
- 1,507
That's life, sure. You can just end a game of civ5 and say "everybody wins" or "this player wins", nothing stops that - the question is if it should be sponsored as a game mechanic.
I think that is what he is going for, it makes sense to me.
whoward69
DLL Minion
No, the original request was to avoid situations like
Player A (clear "winner") - 10 votes
Players B, C and D - 4 votes each
Player E (clear loser) - 1 vote
A and E vote for themselves, B, C and D vote for E
E wins 13 votes to 10
By forcing A, B, C, D and E all to vote for themselves
whoward69
DLL Minion
World leader needs a % of the votes to win. Change Player A to 6 and keep the rest the same. Player A may feel they are the clear winner, but 6 votes won't win ... but 13 will
I'd rather keep the voting system as-is. Just making someone the leader once they pass a certain limit just seems so boring. Maybe somehow allow downward votes, like on normal policy things?
It might seem like a small thing but I'm sure firaxis spent quite some time figuring out how to make it work well in the first place, there must be reasons why it is what it is
It might seem like a small thing but I'm sure firaxis spent quite some time figuring out how to make it work well in the first place, there must be reasons why it is what it is
whoward69
DLL Minion
From what I can make out, the problem only exists when playing MP games with people who appear to do things out of spite. And I really do not believe we should be addressing "life" issues in this patch.
Craig_Sutter
Deity
I have a suggestion and from viewing this thread, I don't know if it has been discussed...
As it stands, while buildings can be associated with a particular belief and bought with faith, units cannot (except for possible lengthy and convoluted xml/lua methods). Can this be added to the dll changes? Is it correctable and moddable? I can think of several unit types (berserkers/dervishes/assassins) that could be associated with a religion rather than a civilization.
I think this falls within the mod's purview... forgive me if it does not.
As it stands, while buildings can be associated with a particular belief and bought with faith, units cannot (except for possible lengthy and convoluted xml/lua methods). Can this be added to the dll changes? Is it correctable and moddable? I can think of several unit types (berserkers/dervishes/assassins) that could be associated with a religion rather than a civilization.
I think this falls within the mod's purview... forgive me if it does not.
JFD
Kathigitarkh
Thanks to Whoward fixing the issue with setting FaithCosts, you can accomplish that using player.CanTrain and player.HasBelief
Does this patch do something to barbarians? I've never in my life had this much barbarian problems. They are literally everywhere.
Also enhanced UI and CSD and/or Civ4 diplomacy and/or the balance patch don't seem to work with each other.City managment screen is broken
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Also enhanced UI and CSD and/or Civ4 diplomacy and/or the balance patch don't seem to work with each other.City managment screen is broken
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Look at the EUI compatibility page - it is a conflict between EUI and CSD (you need to delete some files).
Lots of barbs? They may be living longer because they can heal now. Also, are you next to a CS that is currently suffering from a Barbarian Horde (CSD-added CS quest)? If so...yeah, lots of barbs! Go help that CS!
G
Just some misc feedback, finished a game using the following mods (and communitas map script) and everything went perfectly, looks like save loading is all patched now
Glad to hear it. Feedback?
G
