Dawn of Civilization General Discussion
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
Maybe I should give a quick update on what I am currently working on. As previously mentioned, I'm currently working on moving almost all constants currently hardcoded into the DLL to Python so that they are easy to edit. I'm also setting things up so that these modifiers can be changed during the game.
While doing that I realized I can already do a lot of the groundwork for divorcing civilizations from specific slots, and get rid of the most of the awkward handling of reborn civs already (like duplicate maps and area entries for every slot, whether needed or not).
That means that this feature takes a bit longer to complete, because large parts of the DLL code base to be rewritten to accomodate that. But the time is well invested because it's saved later on and we can already reap the other benefits from now on.
While doing that I realized I can already do a lot of the groundwork for divorcing civilizations from specific slots, and get rid of the most of the awkward handling of reborn civs already (like duplicate maps and area entries for every slot, whether needed or not).
That means that this feature takes a bit longer to complete, because large parts of the DLL code base to be rewritten to accomodate that. But the time is well invested because it's saved later on and we can already reap the other benefits from now on.
After all 2016 is a leap year, so we all got ourselves an extra day 
adhiraj.bose
Deity
This would be great ! Then you can get rid of the vassalization limit which makes no sense and is unrealistic
.
Bernd-das-Brot
Prince
It has been a while since I played a civ that is late game focussed (long turn times), but over the last week I played a Prussia game (1700 AD, Paragon, normal speed, aimed for UHVs). It took me nearly 12 hours and was a very fun and interesting game (except for the last ~15 turns backfilling the techtree for UHV3).
But there are some things I observed that seem problematic to me in the late game:
1. Production in general is too high after the industrial revolution
or
units and buildings are too cheap in comparison to the production capacities of the average late game city. (See it as you like.
)
Most Units are build in 1 or 2 turns, leading to lots of units and a large amount of micromanagement.
Possible solution to this: Make industrial/modern units more expansive and perhaps stronger compared to the their earlier counterparts. Same goes for buildings.
And/or remove some of the sources of production or modifiers for unit production.
Some possibilities that come to my mind are:
- Levee (Do river tiles really need another boost?)
- Power (At least coal plants could add just 25 % prod instead of 50 %.)
- Military academies (+50 %) should be weakend, removed or at least be destroyed, when a city is conquered.
- There are a lot of settled great People in the late game. Perhaps they schould be removed after city conquest.
- Remove the triumph arch after the 2nd UHV is fullfilled.
I am sure there are more intelligent possibilities to solve this problem. If there is need for it, we could discuss it in an extra thread.
2. Infantry, SAM-Infantry, Anti-Tank and Marines are a bit problematic next to each other.
SAM-Infanty is just plain wore than infantry in 90% of the possible combat situations, but the AI loves to build it even if its opponents have no airforce.
Anti-Tank I have a rarely encountered, but could even be worse than SAM-Infantry for the AI.
Marines are just better Infantry, but don't upgrade to Mech. Infantry. And there is a promotion for landing attacks. So why the need for it?
3. Cities are more death-traps than an easier to defend position. City Raider promotions - especially on tanks - are just too powerfull. (That tanks fight best in cities seems strange to me from a historic perspective, too)
4. The Internet feels like a human cheat mode. The AI doesn't value it very high, but it is nearly always a game breaker. You beeline for it and get a lot of free techs. Seems a bit to good for me especially with just 2 civs needing to know the tech on a giant map with 15+ civs.
Possible solutions: Set the number of civs to 3 or 4
and/or make it a national wonder
and/or it works for everyone like Manhattan Project!
But there are some things I observed that seem problematic to me in the late game:
1. Production in general is too high after the industrial revolution
or
units and buildings are too cheap in comparison to the production capacities of the average late game city. (See it as you like.
)Most Units are build in 1 or 2 turns, leading to lots of units and a large amount of micromanagement.
Possible solution to this: Make industrial/modern units more expansive and perhaps stronger compared to the their earlier counterparts. Same goes for buildings.
And/or remove some of the sources of production or modifiers for unit production.
Some possibilities that come to my mind are:
- Levee (Do river tiles really need another boost?)
- Power (At least coal plants could add just 25 % prod instead of 50 %.)
- Military academies (+50 %) should be weakend, removed or at least be destroyed, when a city is conquered.
- There are a lot of settled great People in the late game. Perhaps they schould be removed after city conquest.
- Remove the triumph arch after the 2nd UHV is fullfilled.
I am sure there are more intelligent possibilities to solve this problem. If there is need for it, we could discuss it in an extra thread.
2. Infantry, SAM-Infantry, Anti-Tank and Marines are a bit problematic next to each other.
SAM-Infanty is just plain wore than infantry in 90% of the possible combat situations, but the AI loves to build it even if its opponents have no airforce.
Anti-Tank I have a rarely encountered, but could even be worse than SAM-Infantry for the AI.
Marines are just better Infantry, but don't upgrade to Mech. Infantry. And there is a promotion for landing attacks. So why the need for it?
3. Cities are more death-traps than an easier to defend position. City Raider promotions - especially on tanks - are just too powerfull. (That tanks fight best in cities seems strange to me from a historic perspective, too)
4. The Internet feels like a human cheat mode. The AI doesn't value it very high, but it is nearly always a game breaker. You beeline for it and get a lot of free techs. Seems a bit to good for me especially with just 2 civs needing to know the tech on a giant map with 15+ civs.
Possible solutions: Set the number of civs to 3 or 4
and/or make it a national wonder
and/or it works for everyone like Manhattan Project!
Agreed with these observations. I'd rather increase late game production cost because removing ways to increase late game production output just leaves the game with less things to interact with, which is not as good.
I plan emphasize cities as defensive positions when I get to change the military system.
And I will try to think about the internet. In my opinion the effect would be much better suited for early in the game, and making it available to everyone is also a good idea.
I plan emphasize cities as defensive positions when I get to change the military system.
And I will try to think about the internet. In my opinion the effect would be much better suited for early in the game, and making it available to everyone is also a good idea.
Imperator Knoedel
Simperator Knoedel
Lolwut? I doubt you really want the Internet effect available earlier in the game unless you vastly increase the number of civs that need to know a tech before you get it.
merijn_v1
Black Belt
I think the encyclopedia is a good project for that role.
Kind of like The Great Library in Civ III then. Interesting.
ezzlar
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Messages
- 1,813
The human player is usually better at stacking up those huge construction bonuses from adding together great persons, production improvement buildings, better city placement, going for mines instead of windmills, wonders, military academies, shipyards etc. A higher cost would probably hurt the AI more.
Making more buildings obsolete might work better. I wouldnt say that a forge improves New Yorks production by 25%. It will be harder for the player to achieve a large gap between his own production modifiers and that of the AI.
Imperator Knoedel
Simperator Knoedel
Hmmmm... Forge obsolete with Assembly Line or Industrialism and give its production bonus to Industrial Park instead?
Tigranes
Armenian
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
- Messages
- 9,927
Well, Forge represents all the city-wide workshops, which are understood to be automatically upgraded and redefined with each era. Similar reasoning is explaining Libraries and Markets.
ezzlar
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Messages
- 1,813
Yeah. I am just trying to figure out where you are crossing the lines in relation to buildings such as a factory.
The forge can be considered to upgrade to a factory. But it doesnt. It still represents production. But not factory production. Which would be? And still gives +25% production.
Logically, some of the forge's production should be substituted for factory production.
The forge can be considered to upgrade to a factory. But it doesnt. It still represents production. But not factory production. Which would be? And still gives +25% production.
Logically, some of the forge's production should be substituted for factory production.
Imperator Knoedel
Simperator Knoedel
Maybe Forges should just give raw hammers instead of a production modifier?
i did just play some 1.13 games (like 1.10 /1.11 / 1.12 before);
most times i tried to achieve 2 of 3 UHV goals and finish a religious goal
as well as i like to see the rise and fall of civs on nonhistorical basis
i love big civilizations
America, China, Portugal, Netherlands, England, France, Spain, Turkey, Arabia
--> they have plenty of place to build cities that run most of their 20 tiles
no need to have cities built 1 or 2 squares near to next town
Last month i started to play smaller / ancient civs;
Greece worked fine with 8-9 cities in eastern med/africa/near east, no waste of tiles
there are some flipping tiles but you might regain them.
I just started to play Holy Rome and Rome
I was surprised: the first one (H.R.) is way too small in means of tiles:
...means has little historical tiles in Europe- little to expand
but I could build a caribbean colonial empire without problems of stability?
So everything i conquer in Europe I must immediatley trade away to neighbouring civs
not to collaps myself...
not that type of reward for a country that must fight off France, Poland, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Vikings and Russians
Rome even collapsed 3 times before reaching 0 BC (because of too many cities out of its core!)
i had only built 3 cities in italy, 3 in historical africa, 1 in Southern Germany, one in Romania the last one in southern Spain, overextent to what
These might be programming errors, but, the point is:
Some civilizations dont really have a chance to grow big (by means of territory),
although in real history they might have become bigger than the Empires of England or France...
Why can some States not establish continental / colonial empires?
Why does a stable Empire in Civ4 RFC always give tiles away to a new born civ,
In real history a new born civ only got these territories because the real big Empire was unstable!
With fixed (historical, conquest) tiles (that cannot be altered by any other factor)
we play History Civ4 RFC
my idea:
Empires could gain some more (historical/conquest) tiles
as they prove to be well administered, have strong and victorious military...
as well as they could shrink to their core, when they dont do fine
Why are Mughal wars playable for France / England only?
Lets say give these Musketeers and Cannons + Settlers / Workers to a Nation that conquers 1 or 2 strongholds in subcontinental south / southeast Asia for the first time
1 of 3 neighbouring civs dont rise (if you play fine) / or give one of these neighbours not every tile / military...
This would really make gameplay quite more interesting for the Human player(s)
Give colonial tiles to at least 3-4 Civs as Historical / Conquest Tiles as done today so that they surely be settled
As player shifting preconditions are challenging
comment my thoughts
thanx Russ
most times i tried to achieve 2 of 3 UHV goals and finish a religious goal
as well as i like to see the rise and fall of civs on nonhistorical basis
i love big civilizations
America, China, Portugal, Netherlands, England, France, Spain, Turkey, Arabia
--> they have plenty of place to build cities that run most of their 20 tiles
no need to have cities built 1 or 2 squares near to next town
Last month i started to play smaller / ancient civs;
Greece worked fine with 8-9 cities in eastern med/africa/near east, no waste of tiles
there are some flipping tiles but you might regain them.
I just started to play Holy Rome and Rome
I was surprised: the first one (H.R.) is way too small in means of tiles:
...means has little historical tiles in Europe- little to expand
but I could build a caribbean colonial empire without problems of stability?
So everything i conquer in Europe I must immediatley trade away to neighbouring civs
not to collaps myself...
not that type of reward for a country that must fight off France, Poland, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Vikings and Russians
Rome even collapsed 3 times before reaching 0 BC (because of too many cities out of its core!)
i had only built 3 cities in italy, 3 in historical africa, 1 in Southern Germany, one in Romania the last one in southern Spain, overextent to what
These might be programming errors, but, the point is:
Some civilizations dont really have a chance to grow big (by means of territory),
although in real history they might have become bigger than the Empires of England or France...
Why can some States not establish continental / colonial empires?
Why does a stable Empire in Civ4 RFC always give tiles away to a new born civ,
In real history a new born civ only got these territories because the real big Empire was unstable!
With fixed (historical, conquest) tiles (that cannot be altered by any other factor)
we play History Civ4 RFC
my idea:
Empires could gain some more (historical/conquest) tiles
as they prove to be well administered, have strong and victorious military...
as well as they could shrink to their core, when they dont do fine
Why are Mughal wars playable for France / England only?
Lets say give these Musketeers and Cannons + Settlers / Workers to a Nation that conquers 1 or 2 strongholds in subcontinental south / southeast Asia for the first time
1 of 3 neighbouring civs dont rise (if you play fine) / or give one of these neighbours not every tile / military...
This would really make gameplay quite more interesting for the Human player(s)
Give colonial tiles to at least 3-4 Civs as Historical / Conquest Tiles as done today so that they surely be settled
As player shifting preconditions are challenging
comment my thoughts
thanx Russ
Vit20141012
Chieftain
Leo, can I change this mod for yourself?
If yes, how to open a project? (Not enough file CvGameCoreDLL.vcproj)
If yes, how to open a project? (Not enough file CvGameCoreDLL.vcproj)
Are you familiar with setting up a C++ compiler for Civ4? This is the same process for Civ4 in general and you can find guides for that in the creation and customization section.
After you've done that, you can simply create a project for the DoC source code and compile it.
After you've done that, you can simply create a project for the DoC source code and compile it.
