Dawn of Civilization - an RFC modmod by Leoreth

[Leoreth]

It didn't fail on a technical level, I still have a stable merged version of DoC 1.10 in my Mods folder.

It was just that the merge introduced several bugs and the AI did not noticeably worse after the changes (weird vassalization and settling behavior are the first points that come to mind).

 

[yurisusuki]

The immigration UP never brought religions, only culture. And currently everyone with a capital in the new world can benefit from it.

I saw it happen in my last game..The Chinese led the confucionism for a american city

 

[Leoreth]

I was talking about the old American UP mechanic.

 

[yurisusuki]

It was about this
I played with China and a immigration event happened,and they spread the confucionism in the american city

this just happened one time..maybe is just a coincidence..oh before i forget this happened in 1.11 version (SVN)

 

[Leoreth]

Yes, the new mechanic does that.

 

[yurisusuki]

Pretty nice
These little things are sometimes the most impressive

 

[The Southerner]

That's very cool - now that I comprehend your understanding of religions in the game.

Confucianism in the USA! Arrgghhh!!!!

 

[willim1066]

One suggestion about Mongolian stability map:
I'm playing the current svn version and the whole of Xinjiang and a big chunk of central Asia(North Kazakhstan, etc) are in the Mongolian core area. That makes no sense at all, because Mongols have never been the majority in that area and in real history they conquered Central Asia(Khwarezmian empire etc) by brutal force rather than flipping. Therefore I think at least Kazakhstan and south Xinjiang including Kashgar should be their historical rather than core area. North Xinjiang aka Dzungaria can remain as their core area though.

 

[Linkman226]

Would it be possible to have a mechanic that changes tile stability depending on the year? That would allow a greater portion of Eurasia to be stable/core for Mongolia initially, and then still allow them to collapse later. I could see applicability elsewhere too.

 

[SheaferDaDawg]

Would it be possible to have a mechanic that changes tile stability depending on the year? That would allow a greater portion of Eurasia to be stable/core for Mongolia initially, and then still allow them to collapse later. I could see applicability elsewhere too.

If this would be possible (and not too difficult), then I would like to see gradual stability changes for the tiles. If an empire subjugates an area for 500 years, and the culture in the city is >95%, then the stability of the area should change. Now, rather than make this too easy, foreign cores would not be modifiable at all, so that respawns still occur. My main idea would be that the city, founded in the New World and having been controlled for all that time, might drop its BFC from Foreign to contested.

 

[Locutus_Morti]

Contested =/= semi-historical. Contested is historical for you and a foreign core.

 

[Woody5000]

Is there also a version for Civ Vanilla?

 

[Leoreth]

Nope.

 

[SheaferDaDawg]

Contested =/= semi-historical. Contested is historical for you and a foreign core.

I know, but I'm suggesting that gradual assimilation of the native culture and region would result in the tile dropping from foreign to something that doesn't impact stability, and contested seemed to fit the bill. Of course, it could be called semi-historical as well, or partially-assimilated, but for me contested gets the idea across.

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

I know, but I'm suggesting that gradual assimilation of the native culture and region would result in the tile dropping from foreign to something that doesn't impact stability, and contested seemed to fit the bill. Of course, it could be called semi-historical as well, or partially-assimilated, but for me contested gets the idea across.

Except Contested will not and cannot get the idea across no matter what,
because it is defined by someone else having their core there.
It just happens to be Historical for you too. That's literally the only distinction, but an important one.

It's Historical or bust.
And being able to permanently alter stability tiles over the course of a game is inherently broken for all the obvious reasons, and as much as I love ancient civs,
makes them have an inherent advantage over everyone else. Which brings up another problem; if you make it colonial civs only, then we're back to having overt favoritism for another group.

 

[Linkman226]

It's Historical or bust.
And being able to permanently alter stability tiles over the course of a game is inherently broken for all the obvious reasons, and as much as I love ancient civs,
makes them have an inherent advantage over everyone else. Which brings up another problem; if you make it colonial civs only, then we're back to having overt favoritism for another group.

I don't get what you're saying. What is broken about it? How does it give ancient civs an advantage? I'm saying we should consider that maybe tile stab values shouldn't be locked in place throughout the game's timespan, rather, they should change under certain circumstances.

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

I don't get what you're saying. What is broken about it? How does it give ancient civs an advantage? I'm saying we should consider that maybe tile stab values shouldn't be locked in place throughout the game's timespan, rather, they should change under certain circumstances.

Ancient civs exist for more turns, by virtue of their earlier starts,
so they would theoretically get more time to utilize "historicity conversion".

 

[Linkman226]

Ancient civs exist for more turns, by virtue of their earlier starts,
so they would theoretically get more time to utilize "historicity conversion".

Well for starters I don't see how that is necessarily a problem. I can't speak for others, but personally, I envisioned it more as changing with respect to actual history then to the passage of turns/years. For example, in 1300 it makes sense for the Mongols to control a vast swath of Eurasia. In 1600? Not so much. So you can gradually decrease their stability in those areas. Plus IIRC stab maps affect AI decisions about where to expand.

Now, I think the passage of turns/years can have an effect too, but only to a point. For example, after controlling a tile for, say, 20 turns (or however many), it'll not be as unstable for you. But that's it- it won't drop further. So there's no real advantage for ancient civs.

 

[Locutus_Morti]

I once thought up the idea of "dynamic stability maps", where civs would use a different stability map for different portions of the game. England might start out with contested areas in France, but those would dissappear around 1500 to be replaced with historical territory in North America, Africa, and it's other colonies. I came to the conclusion that it would be silly to penalize civs for early expansion into their outer territories.

 

[willim1066]

Is it possible for civs to have different stability maps in different scenarios? For instance, Mongolia can have central asia as their core area in 3000 BC and 600 AD start but their stability map will be much smaller in 1700 AD scenario.