Current (SVN) development discussion thread

Thank you very much, Leoreth, for FINALLY LETTING WORKERS SPAWN IN A FLIPPED CAPITAL!!! Now I can play as India to my heart's content without using WorldBuilder!

All bow down to Leoreth! :worship:
 
Praise me for writing buggy code and then eventually fixing it like two months later :D
 
Here's my suggestion about the recent stability system.

Now the expansion stability is linked with the population of core area, and it's very unfavorable to European colonial civs, especially for Spain and Portugal, these two civs(and most of other European civs, more or less) often has too little core population compared with their other population, I can see Spain and Portugal has a expansion stability at -20+ in about 1700ad almost every time(and sometimes for other European civs). And it's also affect players a lot, it's very hard to keep expansion stability up to -10 even in Viceroy.

So I think it's necessary to add a new system to prevent it. This is my suggestion.

When a land tile covered by a civ's culture continuously for some turns, the stability level of this tile for this civ will be upgrade for a level. For example, a historical area tile will become core area, a foreign area will become contest area. But tiles that are foreign core area can't upgrade.

This "some turns" could be different for different civs, for the game balance. For example, ancient civs like India, Babylon may need 100 turns or more to upgrade a level(normal speed), America, Brazil and so on may only need 50 turns or even less(normal speed). It's just probable numbers. We could refer to every civ's Culture Rating, Starting Year, the Number of Core Area Tiles and so on, to make this "some turns" more balanced for this game.

My suggestion all above, any discussion's welcomed.
 
New commit:
- culture is only prevented from spreading into foreign cores from non-core cities if the respective civ has already spawned
- new Turkish UHV:
- have three non-obsolete wonders in your capital in 1550 AD
- control the Eastern Mediterranean, the Black Sea, Cairo, Mecca, Baghdad and Vienna by 1700 AD
- have more culture than all European civilizations combined in 1800 AD
- fixed the Polish religious unity stability
 
Here's my suggestion about the recent stability system.

Now the expansion stability is linked with the population of core area, and it's very unfavorable to European colonial civs, especially for Spain and Portugal, these two civs(and most of other European civs, more or less) often has too little core population compared with their other population, I can see Spain and Portugal has a expansion stability at -20+ in about 1700ad almost every time(and sometimes for other European civs). And it's also affect players a lot, it's very hard to keep expansion stability up to -10 even in Viceroy.

So I think it's necessary to add a new system to prevent it. This is my suggestion.

When a land tile covered by a civ's culture continuously for some turns, the stability level of this tile for this civ will be upgrade for a level. For example, a historical area tile will become core area, a foreign area will become contest area. But tiles that are foreign core area can't upgrade.

This "some turns" could be different for different civs, for the game balance. For example, ancient civs like India, Babylon may need 100 turns or more to upgrade a level(normal speed), America, Brazil and so on may only need 50 turns or even less(normal speed). It's just probable numbers. We could refer to every civ's Culture Rating, Starting Year, the Number of Core Area Tiles and so on, to make this "some turns" more balanced for this game.

My suggestion all above, any discussion's welcomed.

That suggestion has been brought up before, and I don't think it's a good thing to implement this. The current system with fixed stability values favours historical settling patterns and is finely tuned; your suggestion basically allows you to settle all great spots in the world and get them to core too.

Of course, the Spain/Portugal problem could be easily fixed by multiplying their core population in the calculations.

New commit:
- culture is only prevented from spreading into foreign cores from non-core cities if the respective civ has already spawned
- new Turkish UHV:
- have three non-obsolete wonders in your capital in 1550 AD
- control the Eastern Mediterranean, the Black Sea, Cairo, Mecca, Baghdad and Vienna by 1700 AD
- have more culture than all European civilizations combined in 1800 AD
- fixed the Polish religious unity stability

I really like the third one, as it allows two paths to victory (conquest and culture).
 
That suggestion has been brought up before, and I don't think it's a good thing to implement this. The current system with fixed stability values favours historical settling patterns and is finely tuned; your suggestion basically allows you to settle all great spots in the world and get them to core too.
I agree. Most people are not aware of this, but due to their UP Portugal is the only civ whose non-core cities' population cannot count at all towards their expansion stability as long as they're overseas and historical. A stable Portuguese colonial empire should not be a problem for this reason.

Spain has the problem that its core stays so small over the course of the game. I plan to address this by expanding it in the Renaissance provided the Moors are driven out by then.

I really like the third one, as it allows two paths to victory (conquest and culture).
Yeah, I was unsure whether only one military goal (the second) would suit the Ottomans, but then I realized that defeating the Europeans also helps you with the third one.
 
New commit:
- have more culture than all European civilizations combined in 1800 AD

I don't like it to be honest, because it is unhistorical and it is based on the turkish UP. How about "Control an army stronger than all other european armies combined in 1800AD"? It is more difficult and historically oriented.
However, I would like the 1st UHV, if theodosian walls were obselete with rifle. However, they should be obselete with gunpowder, so I propose this change:
"Have two non-obselete wonders and a shrine in your capital."
And make Topkapi palace and blue mosque to require wine.
 
I don't like it to be honest, because it is unhistorical and it is based on the turkish UP.
Yeah, because 18th century Europe wasn't obsessed with Ottoman culture at all.

How about "Control an army stronger than all other european armies combined in 1800AD"? It is more difficult and historically oriented.
I've replaced the previous third goal for a reason.

However, I would like the 1st UHV, if theodosian walls were obselete with rifle. However, they should be obselete with gunpowder, so I propose this change:
"Have two non-obselete wonders and a shrine in your capital."
The Theodosian walls don't obsolete at all, it is enough that their effect doesn't help against gunpowder units. But I have changed it so that shrines count again, increasing the required number of wonders to four again. Commit coming soon.

And make Topkapi palace and blue mosque to require wine.
Why?
 
New commit:
- increased the first Turkish goal requirement to four wonders and made shrines count as wonders again
- adjusted the victory screen to properly display all text
 
I agree. Most people are not aware of this, but due to their UP Portugal is the only civ whose non-core cities' population cannot count at all towards their expansion stability as long as they're overseas and historical. A stable Portuguese colonial empire should not be a problem for this reason.

Spain has the problem that its core stays so small over the course of the game. I plan to address this by expanding it in the Renaissance provided the Moors are driven out by then.

If so, then Italy and Dutch also need to expand their core after a certain time, especially for Italy's third goal.

In fact I suggest it to make civs have a small core area win a domination victory possible. In recent system, you could almost impossible to win a domination victory with Tibet or Iran, while it will be possible and interesting under my suggestion.

We could make more turns to upgrade, and make it only possible to upgrade among contest, historical and core area.
 
In fact I suggest it to make civs have a small core area win a domination victory possible. In recent system, you could almost impossible to win a domination victory with Tibet or Iran, while it will be possible and interesting under my suggestion.

I don't think the game should tailor for Domination victories. The reason it's so hard with Tibet is that you're trying to do something completely non-historical, so it should be really hard.
 
In fact I suggest it to make civs have a small core area win a domination victory possible. In recent system, you could almost impossible to win a domination victory with Tibet or Iran, while it will be possible and interesting under my suggestion.

I can understand with Tibet, but is an Iran domination game truly impossible? In the average game post-Biology (which is when you'd be doing most of your conquering anyways), Isfahan would be around size 11, Shiraz at around 12, Herat at 7, and the city directly west of Karachi (which you found after starving Karachi to size 1 and razing it) also at size 12. That makes for a combined total of 42 core population. The Netherlands only have Amsterdam as their core, which makes for around 30 core population. If it's possible for the Dutch, why not for the Iranians?

Of course, it's probably going to be affected by stuff like tech rate and any one of the bonuses the Western Europeans get, in practice.
 
Yeah, Chep posted a Dutch Domination awhile ago. Iran is hard not because of core population limits, which can be controlled by drafting and whipping non-core cities, but because of the slow tech rate, the gimped starting tech situation all non-European and American civs face, and lack of good cottageable land. The only viable cottage spots must be conquered from either the Ottomans for Babylon and Egypt (no easy task), or the Mughals (slightly easier).
 
I think that the population of historical cities shouldn't count as PeripheryPopulation . Building cities in the historical tiles shouldn't have expansion stability punishment.
It is unrealistic that a civ which only settle in the historical tiles may also Collapse by the expansion stablity.
The population of historical cities can count as neither PeripheryPopulation nor CorePopulation,
so that the player don't worry to settle in the historical tiles and the AI won't collapse so easy.
What's more,it will be more according with the real history
 
I don't think expansion stability is the problem for the AI. Rather, economic recession and military losses can hit them hard.
 
I don't think expansion stability is the problem for the AI. Rather, economic recession and military losses can hit them hard.

expansion stability is not the problem for all the AI,But for theAI of Colonial civilization.

Now the the upper cap is zero, and the player can't benefit from the expansion even if the player only settle in the core and hisitorical tiles
 
I don't think expansion stability is the problem for the AI. Rather, economic recession and military losses can hit them hard.

I usually see the AI England collpse when they only occupy the india and the western coast of the north America
 
If so, then Italy and Dutch also need to expand their core after a certain time, especially for Italy's third goal.
I agree about Italy, but where should the Dutch core expand?

Every time the complaint that you cannot control historical territories comes up, I request saves that demonstrate this problem, yet I never see any. Call me arrogant, but until I see evidence to the contrary I'm going to assume that you're either trying to overexpand into ahistorical territory or just aren't managing your stability right (I'm not talking about down-slaving or -drafting).

Domination is another subject. I think the difficulty of this victory should depend on the historical viability of global conquest, and usually that correlates pretty well with the size of your core. Tibetan world domination is very unlikely so it should be next to impossible.

I think that the population of historical cities shouldn't count as PeripheryPopulation . Building cities in the historical tiles shouldn't have expansion stability punishment.
It is unrealistic that a civ which only settle in the historical tiles may also Collapse by the expansion stablity.
The population of historical cities can count as neither PeripheryPopulation nor CorePopulation,
so that the player don't worry to settle in the historical tiles and the AI won't collapse so easy.
What's more,it will be more according with the real history
When initially designing the expansion stability mechanism, I thought the same thing, but then I realized that the last sentence is completely false. Historical territory is usually everything a civ has ever controlled, and multiple civs have collapsed from the extent described by their historical territory. Case in point: basically all colonial empires.

It's still very lenient that assuming no further penalties, you can control (2 + era) times your core population in historical territory without incurring any negative expansion stability.
 
Back
Top Bottom