Dawn of Civilization General Discussion

Yeah that was kind of the attempt of the Isolationism move. Originally I only felt the effect appropriate to put in the Government category because it competes with other strong effects, but it was impossible to make the effect work with the intended use of the Republic civic considering the limited access to specialists in that time period. Isolationism was considered weak before, but the design space is the opposite in the Territory column, where effects are generally less powerful, so despite its drawbacks it made the civic too powerful.

I think Authority is in a similar space, where benefits are rather limited and situational, so the concentration of Bureaucracy modifiers made it a bit too powerful relative to the alternatives.
 
I guess one possibility would be spreading the :food: bonus around between different civics, for exemple replacing the "double slots for Artists/Scientists/etc" with that for the specific specialist type. So Egalitarianism would get +1:food: for Artists, etc.

One issue overall for me is that I'm not sure what this bonus is supposed to simulate and what civilizations should normally choose it. China is obvious since it has a custom-made wonder to ignore Isolationism's drawbacks, but otherwise?
 
Does the "having only 1 city in the core provides double core population points" rule still apply? I'm currently doing a run of Toltecs and the math for core vs periphery population is getting dicey...
 
No, instead the capital (if in core) provides extra points equal to its population, not scaling with era. This applies no matter how many cities there are in core overall.
 
No, instead the capital (if in core) provides extra points equal to its population, not scaling with era. This applies no matter how many cities there are in core overall.
So it always makes sense for stability to have as much population (and as many cities) in your core as possible. Thanks; I appreciate this change -- the 'single-city double-effect' thing made sense for smaller empires like the Netherlands, but it always felt more than a little game-y.
 
Yeah. It worked well for those civs but it encouraged strategies for other civs that I do not like.
 
We discussed the alternative rule I put in already.
 
But why?
 
The era scaling is not quite linear, but (1 + 0.5 * era) approximates it well enough. So yeah, the current rule falls off more than the previous one over time. But considering that I made the choice to make the additional value non-scaling, it can be inferred that that was intentional.

Are there any actual issues that impact realism or historicity? Not being able to build a large empire as Tibet is not exactly a compelling argument in that regard.
 
The era scaling is not quite linear, but (1 + 0.5 * era) approximates it well enough. So yeah, the current rule falls off more than the previous one over time. But considering that I made the choice to make the additional value non-scaling, it can be inferred that that was intentional.

Are there any actual issues that impact realism or historicity? Not being able to build a large empire as Tibet is not exactly a compelling argument in that regard.
I went to test on my recent-ish Tibet save, reducing Rasa pop to 9 (a realistic maximum I think) meant controlling most of India in Industrial Era was catastrophically bad stability, but when reducing my territory to just historical territory it was perfectly fine. So no, no issues for historicity as far as I can tell.

Apologies for misreading the room! I appreciate the incredible amount of work you have put into this mod and didn't mean for our first interaction to be me deriding your intentional balance choice.
 
No need to apologise! I did not read it that way, I just wanted to know why you thought further changes were necessary.
 
I noticed the unique units for Italy are spelled as balestrieri and lanternas, they are both plural forms. The singular forms are balestriere and lanterna. If the plural forms are to be kept then lanterne is the correct one rather than lanternas.
From what I can tell, it already is Balestriere. Will correct Lanterna though.
 
Yeah that might be part of the problem :)
 
Yeah. It worked well for those civs but it encouraged strategies for other civs that I do not like.
Nooooo my Babylon and Toltec domination games!

I suppose I am kind of proving your point...
 
Is there a way to adjust the size of some of the windows/ui elements in the game? I looked in the options and bug options but could not find anything for these particular items.

1726514270476.png
The espionage window is particularly bad, it cuts off a lot of numbers. And my screenshot doesn't show this but it doesn't take up that much of the total game window - I'm playing in a 1920-1080 window and I would estimate the espionage window is maybe 1280 x 600 at max, so there's a lot of room for it to just take up more real estate to show the information.

1726514598228.png
This one's less egregious (at least at a high resolution) but on the city screen, it can cut off info longer than 4 digits. Which wouldn't be so bad but there's all that empty space to the right! I feel like I should be able to just grab the windows with the mouse to expand but I can't.

Again, just wondering if anyone else has these issues or if there is a settings options I am missing.
 
I don't know if you can adjust the espionage screen. But you can edit the city screen. It's one of the buttons in the bottom left. IIRC it is the button with the paper scroll on it.
 
I was (barely) able to do it on marathon by focusing almost entirely on converting civs to Orthodoxy. Mali and Swahili are the easiest targets, but you'll have to go far and withstand a lot of missionary failures. I believe I also converted Dravidia, Malaya, Germany, Poland, Norse, Sweden. You should be able to get pleased relations with a few Catholic civs too.
 
Back
Top Bottom