Discussion in 'Rhye's and Fall - Dawn of Civilization' started by Leoreth, Nov 19, 2015.
Can you give me a save with that so I can try for myself?
Sure thing, they're installed at Mexico City, London, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, and Tokyo.
Now that I used them again, the relationships only improved by 4 points each.
Does anyone have a save where that happens? The code does not intentionally flip the city in any circumstance.
Using the diplomatic mission is supposed to cancel all negative temporary modifiers, but there was a bug that did not cancel all of them. With this fix, the reduction plus the additional +4 is enough to get England, Germany and Mexico to friendly. Looks like this is balanced.
Do you have any tips on how to manage those pesky Independence! events? For something so heavily RNG-reliant* they're really, really punishing. I wouldn't even mind fighting off the deathstacks if weren't for the huge setbacks that the cities themselves face following them due to the mandatory evacuation and mandatory re-capture.
I haven't been able to find much recent (2018) discussion on this particular gameplay feature by searching the forums, but this is nevertheless a pretty consistent frustration that my group of friends who casually plays DoC runs into. I figured it couldn't hurt to ask here and see if anyone has strategies for how to control it.
*on multiple occasions I've played around with reloading saves from 16~20 turns prior and playing more-or-less the same until reaching the turn where my cities revolted, but instead the RNG rolled a different independence movement and notified me that "X cities have declared independence from foreign domination!" and my cities were spared
Leoreth has plans to redo the Rise and Fall system sometime in the future, IIRC that also includes rebirths.
Wow, really? That would be super great. This particular feature is kind of a nuisance.
Would love to know what Leoreth has planned.
So my planned overhaul is mostly concerned with allowing more additional civs and changing the ways their initial spawn works, but it's likely that this will inevitably affect how respawns work as well. In particular, if new game mechanics are introduced to the spawn system those might come handy to make the respawn system more interesting as well.
Overall I am very happy with how the respawn system works considering what a wide array of possible scenarios it needs to cover with satisfying results, while providing both a check on the player and producing historical outcomes. The problem is mostly one of fine tuning, such as who cities flip back to and what the triggers for a respawn actually are. I agree that it's not the best solution to have a random element in there, and at the very least I will base that on more concrete criteria that the player has control over (e.g. x turns below a threshold will guarantee a respawn instead of there is a chance of respawn every turn you're below the threshold).
But regardless please share feedback and strategies on how to handle the current stability/respawn rules. The problems people face with it and how they solve it are the best way for me to find out what is and isn't working with it and what the best solution would be.
It's also great that now you've learned to never ever replace civ's slots (Which happens for Mexico, Iran and Colombia)
About the independence event, it seems that you can only get it by being very unstable. The only times i've seen respawns on my civ is when i'm very unstable.
Yes, instability is a prerequisite for it happening, but even then there's still a random chance that may hit you or not.
The random respawn mechanic is a really big problem for my friend group, which may or may not be exacerbated by the fact that we play almost exclusively on Marathon speed. That many more turns means that many more potential RNG-based independence movements that would make sense for an unstable player, but seem to happen even to fully stable ones too (and ones with no domestic or expansion instability to boot...). The way we circumvent it is either by taking the bullet and accepting the loss of buildings in once-great cities or by literally reloading 20~ turns back in the past and trying to play slightly differently so the RNG is nicer to us. One time I deliberately saved a Golden Age in preparation for an Independence! event and that worked, but hopefully we're all on the same page that doing so is tremendously gamey and not really reflective of how I think we want this mechanic to work.
May I suggest tightening the respawn conditions, but only for the player? No one wants to lose civ rebirths since they add plenty of flavour to the game, but I think this is one place where gameplay trumps historicity a bit -- it's just so extremely punishing to suffer one of these (especially if, say, you're playing as Egypt and suddenly Arabia flips half your kingdom when you're stable, taking from Babylon down to Mecca along with most of the Levant). More concrete means of control would be great, too; to make an over-simplified example for the sake of rhetoric, if Shaky were a necessary requisite for AI to suffer rebirths in their territory and Unstable were necessary for the player I think that would be a lot more fun to play.
But naturally, that's all coming from the perspective of an avid player (and a marathon enthusiast at that), not a modder nor an active part of the forums. I'm just glad to help spur this discussion onwards if you have future plans to renovate this!
It's easier for the player to control their stability, so I don't think that's a good idea. It's more a problem with the random element in my view.
I'm new to this mod, so I can't yet share much experience with respawns.
What I think is the greatest innovation to Civ, made by Rhye, is the stability map that differs between core areas, historical areas and disputed areas, as well as foreign and, implicitly, foreign core.
That was a wonderful feature to have in Rhye's and Falls, and I enjoyed it greatly (played this original mod throughout the last year).
However, you are currently trying to develop DoC into a "history simulator", right? However, with the stability maps I think you're restricting the "simulator" so that it follows historical outcomes as close as possible to our reality. Historical outcomes - instead of historical developments and causalities.
This can be seen right under the label "historical area" - which means, an area that a civ ended up controlling in our history.
Spoiler Example from the Rhye stability :
As an example, the French history map (here the one from Rhye) already limits which plots you should own when playing as France. Note on that map that India is foreign, despite a colonial history of French-India rulership in that area. But the historical outcome was that Britain conquered the French holdings, so the British stability map got India as "contested area". Note also on the French map, Madagascar: Historical in the south, but not in the north, where Portugal and Netherlands get two plots each as historical, with the South as Foreign. My question was always: Why this exact partitioning of Madagascar?
Spoiler Potential areas instead of historical ones? :
I know that I'm suggesting something new which isn't completely balanced yet, but I'm thinking of a slightly different mechanic that could replace the hardcoded historical areas: Potential areas in dynamical stability maps. Don't know how much pain that would be to implement.
- So, Each civ has its core areas, of course, everything else is potential, foreign or foreign core.
- Outside of the core, there should rather be potential areas which means areas that the civ is suggested to conquer or settle. For the first turns, those areas would actually be foreign, stability-wise. And settling the entire potential area should give stability problems, so the player (or the AI) has to choose.
- If a civ completely owns a "potential area" plot for more than 50 turns, only then the plot becomes a historical one, which means more stability.
- And owning a plot, culture-wise, for more than ... say, 150 turns, means that it becomes a core area.
There should still be factors that prevent the oldest civs from Area-Hogging: If core areas overlap, the newer civ should be favored, and the ownership claims of the older civ should be downgraded. That means, the process of foreign-->foreign potential-->historical-->core is revertable, and a "falling" civ will fall sooner and harder if it cannot hold on to their acquired historical areas.
Spoiler An Example of the potential system - France again :
- Even if Rome has held Lutetia for a long time already, once Rome loses stability, Lutetia will become independent or if the timeframe is right, starting the new Francia immediately.
- Francia would start with a core in Northern France, and potential areas in Brittany both sides of the Channel, also in Provence, Lombardia, Germany. This means that France is suggested to settle in some of these areas, but balance should prevent them from settling them all and still be stable. In our history, it turned out that the German holdings flipped to Germany (or more accurately, Francia was divided). Lombardia was conquered by the Germans when they truly erected their Holy Roman Empire. Brittany in southern England was first conquered by France from "Independent" Anglosaxons, but then it seceded as "England". However, the potential area of Provence (which could have also become Spanish, Italian or even Holy-Roman if our history had been just a little bit different) was solidified into French core, eventually.
- In the renaissance time, France should get a new set of potential areas overseas, depending on what they discovered so far. I can already imagine a game dialog that gives them the choice between several continents - They can't choose all of them, but for example in our world, they chose North America and Northern Africa as their "potential" areas, and began colonizing there, and as we know with mixed results. But they also chose to colonize in India and Indochina, which proved to be far less stable.
Just an example for things that could go different in the medieval time:
Spoiler North Coast Option :
Francia could choose to not settle the Provence at all, but focus entirely on Brest, Paris, Bruxelles and Cologne as its future core cities, giving it a strong presence in the North Sea area as a direct rival to England.
The Netherlands wouldn't spawn in that case, but instead we would get a (non-playable) AI Occitania which would take over Italy eventually - and after some renaming results in an Italy that has a strong presence from the Pyrenees to to Sicily, while France has little to no influence in Provence. However, there would have been a long rivalry with the Holy Roman Empire which still ends up with Venedig/Venice, while Hamburg hasn't turned out to be profitable thanks to French-Bruxelles.
Spoiler Normanny Option :
Francia could choose to settle the entire Brittany: Paris, Londres, Brest. England wouldn't spawn then, but rather Scotland (settling Wales, Ireland, Iceland and competing with the Vikings as well as trying to conquer the Normannian-French southern part of Britain). Netherlands and Germany would spawn/develop as "normal". But this time, Aragon settles the Provence and Southern Italy before Occitania spawns. No early reconquista, because Aragon would overextend by conquering the Moors this early (as the Moorish area is also just a potential for Spain/Aragon)
Spoiler The French Supreme option :
So, the human player chooses to settle Paris, Londres, Bruxelles, Brest, Toulouse, Marseilles, Aix-en-Chapelles? This early this much, it means serious overextension, and instead of slowly developing a huge historical+core area, he can't resist the spawns of England and Germany, which leaves him just with France proper. Let's say that Occitania is designed to not spawn until after 1400, so after the human player lost the other areas already, he should focus on culturing up Southern France and can at least prevent Occitanian spawn.
P.S.: I fear I just described a culture-based stability system. Still, it means less hardcoded reality in a simulator.
Of course, you still want a simulator that at least follows the general outline of history, I guess, which means that causality needs to be included. Causality for (in)stability and civilization's (re)spawns is hard to simulate, because the Randomness of events, AI decisions and the RNG is such a huge factor.
Spoiler More Examples :
More civs should have spawn requirements: For example, the Moors and the Tibetans: AI Moors should only spawn, if Islam is present in Hispania (which needs pre-placed cities, or leftovers from others). AI Tibetans only, if Buddhism spreads to Lhasa... But also AI Spain should only spawn if Christianity (of any nomination) is present in the area. I'm rather sure that there should be preplaced independent cities in most cases, unless the spawn area has been settled before by someone. Eventually, the civs should still appear once the condition has been fulfilled.
Causality also means to stop using predetermined dates.
Say, for example, the American Independence, which is, also in CoD, currently hardcoded to a specific year, if I'm not mistaken. For the human player, who wants to play America, that's simple and neat: At the predetermined date, the player spawns and gets all cities in the American spawn area. Human players don't give a single flip about the causality of their spawn, and they shouldn't.
However, as the English player, I refrained (in original RFC) from settling in the US flip zone, and if I did, it was just "founded a city, will lose it soon". It was too much trouble. In CoD, there is a stricter requirement to settle somewhere. But unless the British Empire is really unstable or in a crisis, or has recently switched civics or whatever: there simply shouldn't be reason for a set-in-stone USA spawn. They should spawn, eventually, yes of course.
The same goes for Colombia, Brazil, Canada, Argentina, Mexiko: They are tied to dates (and then a stability check) instead of just a series of stability checks. If the Spanish or British or French AI fail long enough to have stable empires - why not spawn the AI colonial offshoots a century early?
And if Rome goes down early - why not having an earlier Byzantium?
And the Mughals had a combination of Muslim and Mongolian roots. In a game where Islam doesn't traverse Persia, and where the Mongols are thwarted by China, the Mughals shouldn't be an issue. But if the Turks islamize Persia just a bit later, the Mughals could still have a late start.
These are just some weird ideas that went through by head during a recent travel with not much to think about, and I tried to finally formulate them in a halfway coherent manner.
Reject or embrace them however you want - I think you already have your own concept in this matter.
At the end of the day, anything that takes the random element out of the equation is a win in my book. That's the biggest problem here by far IMO. Looking forward to what you decide on, Leoreth.
@Enyavar suggestions that go in that direction have been made multiple times already and I have given detailed explanations at times, I hope you understand that I won't go into much detail but you can search for these posts.
In general I think the enjoyment of a mod like DoC comes from a combination of the ability to change history as well as the historical verisimilitude of what happens in your games, even though these aspects are inherently opposed to each other.
The whole point of the stability system is to achieve the latter, especially in the expansion context, so making it dynamic and offering players ways out of its limitations would undermine its purpose.
The same concern is with making more spawns dynamic. We only have a set of civs that historically existed, so every dynamic spawn potentially reduces the number of civs in the game because by definition we cannot have civs that spawn in any alternate history development.
Think of these game elements as attractors in the chaos theory sense that sometimes draw the game in the direction of historical verisimilitude.
However, I agree with your criticism of the gaps in some stability maps and this is something that we should rectify with the new map. I also plan to include a new stability type that represents less continuous presence in certain regions to accommodate some less likely but still historically possible eventualities.
That's cool too!
I know that this mod (and others that have vastly different approaches) have been around for a long time, and that you can't and won't take every single random idea and steer your mod into a vastly different direction. That's expected. Just wanted to throw some ideas out there, and I hope that reading and answering didn't distract you too much from modding.
The more I read of the announcements what will be included in 1.16, the more I am completely stunned by the amount of work that goes into that development. Once I get a new stable computer system (Christmas??) I want to help by getting git, testplay and provide actually helpful comments instead of unqualified ones that compare DoC to vanilla RFC.
No that's fine, don't take my reply the wrong way. I don't view feedback and suggestions as a sequence of isolated people who try to steer my own work into the direction of what they prefer. Every idea is valuable because at the very least it gives me an idea what people expect from the mod, and even if I do not see the need for the specific proposal, the aggregate of all these suggestions definitely influence how I address their concerns in some other ways.
I just wanted to make sure that you understand if my reasoning behind what I do isn't completely spelled out in my reply, because I have done so at length in the past and it's tiring to repeat yourself. I know that may be unsatisfying if you're not up to speed on years of discussion, but it's also hard for me to accommodate this unfortunately. In any case, I try to be more explicit about my goals and intentions for stuff that I am currently working on to let everyone provide more specific feedback in those areas. Everything further off is a more abstract concern but yours is definitely reflected in my equally abstract plans to address them.
In that case, a "simpler" solution would be to add an intermediate level of stability, Ocupied/Conquered level, which would be flexible. After a certain time or certain city culture level, a foreign tile can change into a Conquered one, which would impact stability less so than a foreign one. Though it could also be reversed, if enough time has passed since last holding it.
Enabling control of any foreign tile is exactly what I don't want.
How about using projects to make certain areas historical or core? That could possibly represent the rise in power of some civilizations better, although it would still be civ-specific (don't really see a plausible solution for making it independent of the civ right now, unless it would be very slow conversion of foreign to the intermediate level between foreign and historical, intermediate to historical and eventually historical to core). I can envision projects as a good way to simulate the increasing power of some cultures if certain conditions are met (stability, economic, cultural?). Additionally, the projects could reverse while at low stability, so that weaker civs' core and historical shrink on the borders.
As for the areas in question, I'm mostly thinking of colonies and border areas. It can't be valid for any foreign tile, because that would approach it to vanilla in that matter and that's not quite the way to go. Requirements for the projects could include having a cultural presence in the region for some time before being able to improve the stability type of this particular land. As an example, Russia would gradually end up with the Volga delta and Siberia as historical (maybe core to some extent, for Ekaterinburg for instance?) while having culture in there for X turns and building a project (not sure how well you can program the AI to do that, but I suppose it's like the Colonial Projects in RFCE). Similarly, European colonies would not be too stable at first. But again, it would have to be scripted for both specific areas and specific civs.
Separate names with a comma.