Dawn of Civilization General Discussion

[banzay13]

Marathon game speed. I played numeros games and "Houston we have a problem"
Until late industrial game quiet balanced, and even small civs more or less advanced (Mali goin very well in about 50% for example), but then England (and some time others civs) gor far ahead in science coz a very development world (terrain). I suppose Global and Digital era tech cost must be much higher for AI (x1,5 for Digital and x2 for Global?). Is it possible to fix it?

Spoiler Example :

The year 1914 and we gor Electronics already. My vassal Russia researching Globalism already, and making Ballistic missile)

 

[BaneFire]

Marathon game speed. I played numeros games and "Houston we have a problem"
Until late industrial game quiet balanced, and even small civs more or less advanced (Mali goin very well in about 50% for example), but then England (and some time others civs) gor far ahead in science coz a very development world (terrain). I suppose Global and Digital era tech cost must be much higher for AI (x1,5 for Digital and x2 for Global?). Is it possible to fix it?

Spoiler Example :

The year 1914 and we gor Electronics already. My vassal Russia researching Globalism already, and making Ballistic missile)
View attachment 683718

Right now this is mostly a function of England having insane modifiers, the US having great terrain and great modifiers, Russia having great terrain and decent modifiers, and China/others having good terrain but bad modifiers.

I think modifiers are some of the more dull mechanics in the game, as seeing super England gets somewhat tiring. Especially for tech UHVs - why am I as Japan conquering London?

Here's one proposal. It's just an idea. Add some industrial and modern era Great Wonders that can only be constructed by Great People, but, go obsolete as soon as the next era. Therefore, much like England IRL, if you reach the industrial era first you can rush through it with some first mover advantages, but as you reach new difficulties, and others catch up and tech diffuses, that advantage becomes harder to maintain.

 

[FraggleJock]

Anybody have a quick answer on how to deal with Mongols as Russia? I can't figure it out. I get stomped every time.

fighting the mongols is an expensive proposition. They get about 3 spawn stacks in their invasion the siege they get slow em up so it's nice if you can ambush one of the stacks to kill the siege they let the mobile force capture some cities it will likely trap some keshiks or if lucky some Magudi on garrison duty. in the cities you guide them to capture by baiting their stacks with cavalry. you want a good road network or your pied pipers will get caught by the Keshiks. Then when the mongols collapse you'll get 2 xbows in each returning city and a force of loyal mongol cavalry you can crush any pesky euro stacks with. so concentrate your Pre Mongol Development in the NW where the mongols don't reach but put enough cities down to swallow their troops. Settling Caricyn ON the iron in your SE core is an easy way to establish an instant and secure supply, 2 archers is highly likely to hold off the entire Crimean spawn cycle

 

[banzay13]

Right now this is mostly a function of England having insane modifiers, the US having great terrain and great modifiers, Russia having great terrain and decent modifiers, and China/others having good terrain but bad modifiers.

I think modifiers are some of the more dull mechanics in the game, as seeing super England gets somewhat tiring. Especially for tech UHVs - why am I as Japan conquering London?

Here's one proposal. It's just an idea. Add some industrial and modern era Great Wonders that can only be constructed by Great People, but, go obsolete as soon as the next era. Therefore, much like England IRL, if you reach the industrial era first you can rush through it with some first mover advantages, but as you reach new difficulties, and others catch up and tech diffuses, that advantage becomes harder to maintain.

Problem with England - that they don't have natural enemy)) Once they got and hold India - they won. In 1.16 they sometimes collapsed to Core, but in 1.17 - never saw this
On Epic speed they, and USA tech leaders and it's O'k, but on marathon - England (and others) can enter digital in 1930. Thats not so fun)
Or England could lose their UP then reach Global era (like Inca was with thier UP in Renessance)

And my thought about ancient civs, what could respawn - that they should respawn with new modifiers (maybe new civs, with same name?)
Egypt, India, Greece and maybe China in global era (like - Aztec - Mexican, Persia - Iran)?

 

[Darnokthemage]

Problem with England - that they don't have natural enemy)) Once they got and hold India - they won. In 1.16 they sometimes collapsed to Core, but in 1.17 - never saw this
On Epic speed they, and USA tech leaders and it's O'k, but on marathon - England (and others) can enter digital in 1930. Thats not so fun)
Or England could lose their UP then reach Global era (like Inca was with thier UP in Renessance)

And my thought about ancient civs, what could respawn - that they should respawn with new modifiers (maybe new civs, with same name?)
Egypt, India, Greece and maybe China in global era (like - Aztec - Mexican, Persia - Iran)?

Yeah, It's hard because you can't really represent the Scottish, Irish and Welsh very well, So England is basically unhindered.

 

[Logoncal]

England outside of viking invasions has no strifes or existential threats. France can and will die to Spain if it slips, HRE can get clobbered by Ottomans, Germany can get 3 front warred, Russia can overextend itself. So no wonder England and America can overtake everyone, they have nothing to worry about!

 

[Leoreth]

Isn't history unfair.

 

[KIJLC]

Maybe the New Celtic civilization can reduce to Ireland and Scotland the way Pheonicia get pushed out of Syria, and act as a roadblock for ahistorically early control of the entire British isles the moment Britain spawns. Could even be through a re spawn in the late 1st millennium after initial collapse via Roman conquest.

 

[Logoncal]

Isn't history unfair.

i mean i'm okay with the anglo nations being the tech leader for flavor, my problem is them being the only ones reaching modern era while the rest of the world is using pike and shot while Russia is in medieval attire.

 

[BigSchwartzzz]

Problem with England - that they don't have natural enemy)) Once they got and hold India - they won. In 1.16 they sometimes collapsed to Core, but in 1.17 - never saw this
On Epic speed they, and USA tech leaders and it's O'k, but on marathon - England (and others) can enter digital in 1930. Thats not so fun)
Or England could lose their UP then reach Global era (like Inca was with thier UP in Renessance)

And my thought about ancient civs, what could respawn - that they should respawn with new modifiers (maybe new civs, with same name?)
Egypt, India, Greece and maybe China in global era (like - Aztec - Mexican, Persia - Iran)?

Just my opinion, I can't stand expiring UPs. I feel like it diminishes the flavor of playing a civ all the way through past UHV. Like I wish the moors kept their UP for example.

 

[KIJLC]

You can edit the python to revert it back.

In which file would one revert back Docmaps?

 

[banzay13]

Just my opinion, I can't stand expiring UPs. I feel like it diminishes the flavor of playing a civ all the way through past UHV. Like I wish the moors kept their UP for example.

Why not? we see in live England lost their Power of indirect rules
Now USA have it))
And even if England lose it, their distance maintenance modifier only 60

 

[Dracosolon]

Relatedly, there was some discussion of changing the stability modifiers to make vast empires more difficult after the Industrial era.

 

[KIJLC]

Relatedly, there was some discussion of changing the stability modifiers to make vast empires more difficult after the Industrial era.

Problem is the limits of this game, especially when representing the 20th century. Looks like independent cities will be improved for 1.18 but while they are good for representing "minor civs" or "city states" in earlier portions of the game I think they do a poor job of representing post-colonial states in the 20th century. If England say, is unstable and loses its African cities, independent cities just become a sort of black hole on the map where their resources are inaccessible. That is of course not the case in real history, where post-colonial states remained economically subject to their former overlords, exporting resources in unequal exchange, but in-game a vast empire breaking apart just means those resources are taken out of circulation entirely. Its arguable whether this is better than England (as an example) being an eternal empire well into the end of the game.

 

[1SDANi]

Problem is the limits of this game, especially when representing the 20th century. Looks like independent cities will be improved for 1.18 but while they are good for representing "minor civs" or "city states" in earlier portions of the game I think they do a poor job of representing post-colonial states in the 20th century. If England say, is unstable and loses its African cities, independent cities just become a sort of black hole on the map where their resources are inaccessible. That is of course not the case in real history, where post-colonial states remained economically subject to their former overlords, exporting resources in unequal exchange, but in-game a vast empire breaking apart just means those resources are taken out of circulation entirely. Its arguable whether this is better than England (as an example) being an eternal empire well into the end of the game.

Yeah, a major rework of independents would be really cool, and for more than just lategame at that, lots of societies just straight up can't interact with major historical allies because those allies weren't big enough to warrant their own civilization and thus are either independents or not even ingame.

 

[Leoreth]

Here are the saves I was able to salvage.

testi - this is a save from normal gameplay when the war has lasted about 50 turns. A lot of enemy troops killing have happened and the first city has been conquered. War weariness for Russia is something like 88.

In this save you have 8326 war weariness from Russia and Russia has 340 war weariness from you. From the state of the game it looks like the fighting occurred in Russian territory - you either get no or greatly reduced war weariness when you are defending on your own territory.

 

[Maggy_domain]

Why not? we see in live England lost their Power of indirect rules
Now USA have it))
And even if England lose it, their distance maintenance modifier only 60

That's the thing, England has too good modifiers. As an easy tweak, I respectfully suggest tuning them down for 1.18. This is the easiest and less time consuming way to nerf England, and it probably works well. Think about it: with an expanded map, England will be even more boosted as all the other civs will greatly suffer by overextending. This is true for US, Russia and all the colonial powers. With all competitors hit, England will emerge even more busted.
And again, not contesting the principle of England being strong in late game, but if any tech\culture UHV strategy above Regent involves collapsing England we might have a replayability problem. In the hand of a player you can reach Mars by early 1900.

 

[Leoreth]

I wish it were that easy to extrapolate what the relative performance of a civilization on the new map is going to be.

 

[Logoncal]

That's the thing, England has too good modifiers. As an easy tweak, I respectfully suggest tuning them down for 1.18. This is the easiest and less time consuming way to nerf England, and it probably works well. Think about it: with an expanded map, England will be even more boosted as all the other civs will greatly suffer by overextending. This is true for US, Russia and all the colonial powers. With all competitors hit, England will emerge even more busted.
And again, not contesting the principle of England being strong in late game, but if any tech\culture UHV strategy above Regent involves collapsing England we might have a replayability problem. In the hand of a player you can reach Mars by early 1900.

Chief i'm gonna be 100 with you, if balancing this new map was easy we would've gotten it 4 years ago.

 

[Dracosolon]

England's science game should be balanced by forcing it to repeatedly make self-destructive decisions once it hits the Global era.

Problem is the limits of this game, especially when representing the 20th century. Looks like independent cities will be improved for 1.18 but while they are good for representing "minor civs" or "city states" in earlier portions of the game I think they do a poor job of representing post-colonial states in the 20th century. If England say, is unstable and loses its African cities, independent cities just become a sort of black hole on the map where their resources are inaccessible. That is of course not the case in real history, where post-colonial states remained economically subject to their former overlords, exporting resources in unequal exchange, but in-game a vast empire breaking apart just means those resources are taken out of circulation entirely. Its arguable whether this is better than England (as an example) being an eternal empire well into the end of the game.

I actually agree with this, Independents are always going to be a limited tool, and more generally modelling the 20th century is always going to be a unique challenge in a Civ-based game - especially since decolonization runs directly counter to Four X logic.

That's why my suggestion would be a conservative one: the era-based stability ratio should plateau in the Industrial Era and beyond, not worsening but not getting better either - and civs (especially African and Asian ones) should have better odds of rebirth in the Global era. A map full of Independent cities is indeed undesirable.