Dawn of Civilization General Discussion

[Dracosolon]

Damn, I just noticed that every lake on the map is labelled in the tooltip just like regions.

 

[Leoreth]

Learned a lot about Central Asian lakes by doing that.

 

[Hickman888]

I think this might be related to the new patch which boosts barbarian activity around China in late antiquity, because when I played Tibet a month ago I didn't experience barbarians spawning here. (But then again, in that game, I think the Turks had settled a city to the east of that oasis on the road, which might've blocked the spawn with culture, so I'm not sure.)

I think barbarian cavalry spawns should be redirect north of China and Orduqent, because it is very difficult as Tibet to deal with a stack like this, while achieving the tight conquest goal.

Spoiler Barbarians! :

Embarrassingly... I loaded the autosave of the turn before and tried to recreate the turn exactly as I had done it the first time, so that I could present a save. But when I ended the turn, the barbarians didn't spawn that time, and it saved over my previous autosave of the barbarians actually being there... So I have no save, sorry.

Edit: I attached the save from the turn before; For some reason, they spawned three tiles to the north when I recreated it.

 

[Logoncal]

Same. Quite disappointing. They took Humankind's idea of civ transitioning and spined it as a groundbreaking innovation. And unrestricted leaders were billed as something unprecedented in the franchise history!

The good news are navigable rivers for the first time (yes!), so you can have your own Mississippi or Nile.

Usually you copy from sucesseses.
These madlads copied from failures lol (No offense on Humankind, but it was not sucessful)

 

[Derdan]

I think this might be related to the new patch which boosts barbarian activity around China in late antiquity, because when I played Tibet a month ago I didn't experience barbarians spawning here. (But then again, in that game, I think the Turks had settled a city to the east of that oasis on the road, which might've blocked the spawn with culture, so I'm not sure.)

I think barbarian cavalry spawns should be redirect north of China and Orduqent, because it is very difficult as Tibet to deal with a stack like this, while achieving the tight conquest goal.

Spoiler Barbarians! :

View attachment 701100

Embarrassingly... I loaded the autosave of the turn before and tried to recreate the turn exactly as I had done it the first time, so that I could present a save. But when I ended the turn, the barbarians didn't spawn that time, and it saved over my previous autosave of the barbarians actually being there... So I have no save, sorry.

Edit: I attached the save from the turn before; For some reason, they spawned three tiles to the north when I recreated it.

Another reason India is the better choice to conquer.

 

[Novicenoble]

Recently - about a week ago - I played the latest git version, and noticed that secularism gives an unhappiness per every religion in the city, as it treats non of them as the state religion. Is it intended? Watching mordern cities getting unhappiness and revolt from religions reminds me more of the state atheism or at least something like French style Laïcité, rather than modern secular states.

 

[SultanRedSnake]

Recently - about a week ago - I played the latest git version, and noticed that secularism gives an unhappiness per every religion in the city, as it treats non of them as the state religion. Is it intended? Watching mordern cities getting unhappiness and revolt from religions reminds me more of the state atheism or at least something like French style Laïcité, rather than modern secular states.

Ohhh I caught that too!

 

[Leoreth]

Recently - about a week ago - I played the latest git version, and noticed that secularism gives an unhappiness per every religion in the city, as it treats non of them as the state religion. Is it intended?

Yes.

 

[Dracosolon]

I could see Secularism negating religious unhappiness, or keeping it, since real life secularism can go either way. Alternatively the +1 per non-state religion could come back, but for Egalitarianism.

 

[urbestfriend]

I am going to try and play a game in the next week on the new patch in debug mode to see if I still observe this behavior - but I played a long game as both persia and japan on earlier patches where china and korea were tech monsters and I was occasionally looking at them in debug mode. I often observed that they would be building all research in their cities and have very little actual infrastructure or military. China could be right up before the mongol invasion, have discovered gunpowder ages ago, and still have spears defending their cities and not even forges and markets in most cities. They really feel like paper tigers and China in particular often gets ridiculously advanced and still immediately falls to the mongols. Korea usually survives but it feels like thats more due to lack of an actual invasion than any actual ability to defend themselves.
I hope the new increased barb activity around china will force them to actually build units instead of research.

 

[SultanRedSnake]

I could see Secularism negating religious unhappiness, or keeping it, since real life secularism can go either way. Alternatively the +1 per non-state religion could come back, but for Egalitarianism.

It is back, silly goose! Syncretism.

 

[Dracosolon]

Yeah but it used to be there for both Tolerance and Secularism, no?

 

[Leoreth]

Yeah but it used to be there for both Tolerance and Secularism, no?

It was, yeah.

 

[Leoreth]

I am going to try and play a game in the next week on the new patch in debug mode to see if I still observe this behavior - but I played a long game as both persia and japan on earlier patches where china and korea were tech monsters and I was occasionally looking at them in debug mode. I often observed that they would be building all research in their cities and have very little actual infrastructure or military. China could be right up before the mongol invasion, have discovered gunpowder ages ago, and still have spears defending their cities and not even forges and markets in most cities. They really feel like paper tigers and China in particular often gets ridiculously advanced and still immediately falls to the mongols. Korea usually survives but it feels like thats more due to lack of an actual invasion than any actual ability to defend themselves.
I hope the new increased barb activity around china will force them to actually build units instead of research.

That's an interesting observation. There is some stuff going on behind the scenes with the Chinese (and Egyptian etc.) AI to make them avoid sinking their commerce into research, but maybe it is either counterproductive or not effective enough. I'll also have a look at this.

 

[SultanRedSnake]

That's an interesting observation. There is some stuff going on behind the scenes with the Chinese (and Egyptian etc.) AI to make them avoid sinking their commerce into research, but maybe it is either counterproductive or not effective enough. I'll also have a look at this.

Ah yes the Japanese have been Sciencing like madmen

 

[Tigranes]

The other persistent trend I notice in my games is a very low effort in settling cities by USA, Russia and Britain. USA vs Canada comparison is particularly striking, and remember that Canada started much later, but she was settling non-stop. I don't know what is holding 'Murica back? It cannot be Natives, they simply seem to focus on playing tall and improving existing cities. This is on 600 AD start, Normal/Monarch. And Australia is almost always neglected as well.

 

[a pen-dragon]

Could this be due to them not building cities while plotting?
In BTS the AI will not expand while plotting. If this has not been changed here this seems to be a reasonable explanation to me.
I did observe this a few times and the AI's not expanding always were plotting and building very few units. So it took them awfully long to declare war and thus they just sat around doing nothing.

 

[Leoreth]

The other persistent trend I notice in my games is a very low effort in settling cities by USA, Russia and Britain. USA vs Canada comparison is particularly striking, and remember that Canada started much later, but she was settling non-stop. I don't know what is holding 'Murica back? It cannot be Natives, they simply seem to focus on playing tall and improving existing cities. This is on 600 AD start, Normal/Monarch. And Australia is almost always neglected as well.

View attachment 702099

Can you share the save? It might be a good starting point to look into what exactly is stopping the AI from expanding.

Could this be due to them not building cities while plotting?
In BTS the AI will not expand while plotting. If this has not been changed here this seems to be a reasonable explanation to me.
I did observe this a few times and the AI's not expanding always were plotting and building very few units. So it took them awfully long to declare war and thus they just sat around doing nothing.

Yes, that is likely the reason. I discussed some aspects of this phenomenon here. I still have a note to take another look into this. I agree that plotting a war should not stop the AI from settling, especially not from using settlers it already has. But even going further than this, being at war should also not entirely stop it considering how easy it is to end up in wars that have no practical impact on you. And even if the civ is genuinely in a state of actual warfare there should still be some space given to settling their settler value 10 tiles, as long as the settler can be adequately protected. It is not trivial to find the right balance between these concerns though.

 

[Tigranes]

Can you share the save? It might be a good starting point to look into what exactly is stopping the AI from expanding.

Yes, sure.

 

[Dracosolon]

I like the +1 effect on every specialist just for how unique it is among Civ's mods, but it's objectively hard as hell to balance. My preference would be for it to come late to avoid abuse, but then that might make a specialist economy strategy too optimal.