Dawn of Civilization General Discussion

[Rodnok]

I think the conditional spawns are listed in civilopedia... and Mughals aren't there I guess.

 

[banzay13]

With new tech divergence mechanic - winning Space race with Polynesia became much more easy. Just keep in touch with all possible civs to get cheap tech and fast catchup
EDIT. Forgot to mention - New Zealand, Australia and Philippines now much more reaches, so you even don't need go in mainlands

 

[Alexandre92]

Any option to build st Sophia cathedral for Rus? Tried several times, looks like there's no chance.
(Latest git version)

 

[borhap88]

Any option to build st Sophia cathedral for Rus? Tried several times, looks like there's no chance.
(Latest git version)

I made this proposal

 

[Hickman888]

I like to get my thoughts and suggestions out there after I play through a civilization, but I haven't done that in awhile. Allow me to make a big post getting all of these thoughts out of my head, regarding the last several civilizations I've played: The Celts, Romans, Mayans, Dravidians, and Ethiopians.

Celts​

My main problem with the Celts is that they feel like a secondary character in their own story. The Celts spawn only a few turns before the Romans (setting the Celts up for a losing war), Iberia is swarming with barbarian swordsmen and you can barely afford to defend a city there (therefore removing an option from where you can potentially settle), they have no way to themselves bring olives and wine up to their own core, and they ultimately get kicked out of Gaul with the French spawn. It's like they're always waiting for an outside force to act on them, rather than being the primary movers of their own game, which IMO leads to less fun gameplay. Of course, we want the Celts to, most of the time, lose the war against the Romans and become the Scottish-Irish-Brittanish (is that how you say it?). But I think there's a couple of changes that can help them feel more free and involved in their gameplay.

First, I think that the Celtic spawn needs to be pushed back several hundred turns, and spawn more to the east (Hallstatt?) to give them time to breathe and enjoy some peaceful turns... Before the Romans spawn and immediately march Legions at them. I think I remember Leoreth saying he wants the Celts here to more represent the region of Gaul. So with an earlier Celtic spawn, we can change their first historical goal to something like:
"Settle four cities in Gaul; And settle a city in five regions out of Italy, Iberia, Britain, Ireland, Pannonia and Anatolia; And construct a Palace in Gaul".
The Palace goal here representing the development of the Gallic civilization, and having the player focus their attention on this region. This goal mirrors the Phoenicians, who likewise need to settle several cities and construct a Palace. The Celts would probably have to lose a technology or two, but I think all this extra maintenance would drive their research down anyways.

For the Olive and Wine resources in Gaul, I think it would be cool if the Celtic player can have them spawn if they manage to capture a city with Wine or Olive in its vicinity. Or at the very least, just have the resources spawn in 1 AD at the latest. It can be so sad if you wallop the Romans before they capture a single Celtic city, and your reward is you just don't get access to those resources for your core territory.

For the French spawn, I think it would be great if you could deny their spawn if you prevent the barbarians from capturing a city west of the Rhine. Difficult to pull off, but if you do, you've got a big reward.

Romans​

For the Romans, their gameplay is already very solid. Their tech pacing in their early game feels right on point, and in my game, I founded Orthodoxy in 50 AD, so I really can't argue with those results. However, I have noticed a few games where AI Rome founds Islam way ahistorically early, and I also managed to complete the historical technologies as Rome in 140 AD, which feels a bit too early. I feel like sometime in the fourth century AD, with the Byzantium spawn and the conversion to Christianity, is a better target for when Rome should finish their technologies win. So I propose that the Roman city maintenace modifier be increased by 15-20%, to keep their economy a bit more in check as their empire grows.

To help counteract that a little, I would also like to suggest that the Roman unique building be changed into a Barracks that decreases city maintenance by -10%. I think nothing could be more symbolic for Rome, and it would also lend itself very well to Roman gameplay.

For the Ballista, I think the 2 extra isn't especially helpful. The Romans have a lot of cities to capture and they're up against the clock to do it. I think if the Ballista instead got something like 2 , or increased city bombard damage, that would help your armies weaken the enemy cities faster, allowing your Legions (the real frontline troops of your military) to do their job.

Maya​

The Mayans seem to be in a very good spot at the moment. All of their goals are extremely tight and their gameplay is well designed. I ended up settling 11 cities across Mexico and the Caribbean, and I was able to meet Portugal in 1435. However, I saw there was a French caravel set to discover me within the next 1-3 turns. So although I won, that margin of error seems very tight, especially for coming at the end of a very long tech race. But that's just one games reference point. I saw @Dracosolon won his Maya game in 1335, so it's also possible that I haven't discovered the most optimal way to play the Mayans. France being set to discover me in 1450 AD does seem a bit too early, but it's much much better than it was before the recent Medieval tech cost patch, and this is also the 3000 BC start... And this is just one game reference. Ultimately, I don't have any suggestions for the Mayans, they play really great already.

Dravidia​

For the Dravidians, I don't have a problem with the goals per se, but all together they lead to a very awkward game pacing, and I think ultimately a goal or two needs to be changed to fix this pacing. For example, we start the game out with several technologies we need to research, while also needing to acquire gold and culture for the first goal. This is a good start, asking of the player competing goals. However, by the time the player is done with the first part of the first goal, they will probably have 5,000-7,500 in reserve, and 40 more turns to conquer a few cities in the Deccan, and the newly formed Malay civilization. This is on top of the previous 100 turns where the player had plenty of time to build a decent army. And now, with all that extra treasury , the player can just buy several units to make the job even easier. Unfortunately, the conquest goal is in turn 270, so although the player can rush these areas, they'll still end up sitting around waiting to complete. And finally, the third goal of growing the city to size 25. It does feel a little awkward to start the game running Redistribution, adopt Merchant Trade to help complete the first goal, and go back into Redistribution to do the third goal, but it's not a big issue. It'd also be one thing if the cities you had to conquer gave you access to more resources to help your capital grow so tall, but this isn't the case here, you already have access to all these resources. Additionally, the Dravidian unique building, the Gopuram, is just available too late (early Renaissance) to make a difference for this third goal. Ultimately, this goal feels underwhelming.

To fix this, I think the first goal can be expanded, asking the player to develop a lot more culture, and maybe even acquire a bit more gold too. I was able to run the culture slider at 100% for just a few turns to get it done. Next, I think the second goal can also be expanded, maybe into alt-history territory. Make the player capitulate India, and even conquer Burma as well. The player at this point has stockpiles of gold, lets force them to use it! For the third goal, I think this should be reworked slightly... Something like "Generate 30 that doesn't come from tiles by 1000 AD". This encourages the player to construct Jetavanaramaya and run artists (meshing with the first goal), as well as construct their unique building, the Gopuram, increasing food by 10%. This building should also be available way earlier, at the end of the Classical era, to allow the player to build this. Or have it replace the Market or something, perhaps. This updated 3rd goal will also give the player another goal to focus on while conquering their empire, so that their empire building won't be quite the cakewalk that it currently is, IMO.

Ethiopia​

For Ethiopia, I don't really have any comments on the first goal. For the second goal, upon completion of it, I noticed every civilization received a -2 diplomatic penalty: "Past events have drawn our people apart." It's possible that every civilization I've played has this and I've just completely overlooked it, but I only noticed it here in my Ethiopian game because I was closely paying attention to diplomacy. I unfortunately don't have a save of this, and I'm also not sure if this is working as intended, in order to get the AIs more bellicose as you get closer to victory. I'm not sure I'm a fan of it though, especially in games where you need to watch your diplomacy and make friends. I could see this issue being annoying in a Holy Rome or Russia game, for instance.

Anyways, goal three is the big one for Ethiopia. My Ethiopia video took 4 hours to complete the first two goals, and an additional 9 and a half hours to complete the third. The third goal also has an "in" requirement, so if anything goes wrong in that final turn, you lose. Actually, in my Ethiopia game, I dealt with America settling Liberia in 1930, the final turn. Luckily I had a transport with tanks within striking distance to save the day, but I dislike how such a long and drawn out game can be failed by such a trivial matter as an AI settling a city on the very last turn. Especially when you have a whole continent to keep watch over.

In keeping with the theme of the third Ethiopian goal, I recommend it be changed to "Allow only African civilizations in Africa and have Friendly relations with all African civilizations for 100 turns by 1930 AD". Or perhaps "Liberate 10 cities in Africa by 1930 AD". Or "Liberate 10 cities given to outsiders through the Congress in Africa by 1930 AD." Or "Make sure the continent of Africa has a higher military power than the continent of Europe by 1930 AD". That last one might be tricky, because I think a lot of African civilizations are predisposed to collapse in the late game to facilitate European colonization. But if the player could keep the African civilizations alive and strong and fighting back, that could be fun.

The Shotelai swordsman UU was also not incredibly useful. Other than the odd Native raider here or there, your core of Ethiopia is relatively safe from invaders, and the Shotelai having Guerilla wasn't that helpful. But I suppose not every unique unit needs to be super relevant, so maybe he's fine as is.


Alright, that wraps up all of my thoughts for the last several civilizations I've played through. Hopefully this wasn't too much idea dumping for one post , and you guys can share your own thoughts on these civilizations.

 

[Dracosolon]

For the Romans, their gameplay is already very solid. Their tech pacing in their early game feels right on point, and in my game, I founded Orthodoxy in 50 AD, so I really can't argue with those results. However, I have noticed a few games where AI Rome founds Islam way ahistorically early, and I also managed to complete the historical technologies as Rome in 140 AD, which feels a bit too early. I feel like sometime in the fourth century AD, with the Byzantium spawn and the conversion to Christianity, is a better target for when Rome should finish their technologies win. So I propose that the Roman city maintenace modifier be increased by 15-20%, to keep their economy a bit more in check as their empire grows.

The 'Late Antiquity' tech goal can ironically be completed by the midgame. It's also pretty trivial: you have a slight risk of a rival outteching you in the early game, but very soon you'll be conquering Greece, your main competitor. Rome also doesn't have that much pressure on acquiring other techs besides Law for Citizenship, so you can beeline the UHV techs without too much problem.

I had an alternative in mind: Be the first to discover six Classical and six Medieval techs and control 100 improvements between you and Bizantium by X (476 AD?). Numbers could be adjusted for difficulty, but the focus would be more on preserving the empire from pillaging without tanking your maintenance.

 

[manio curio]

good comments about the Romans, I will try to play with Rome again and implement some of the tricks @Hickman888 has shown in his victory video to confirm the UHV are actually easy to get. I would just add how the game currently overlooks a little bit the wonders construction Rome actually did, I would add Pont du Gard and the Pantheon as wonders, now the timeline would be too short to really build them, therefore I would add an extra feature to Rome's unique ability, something along the lines of build ancient wonders 30% faster.

 

[Krieger-FS]

Celts​

My main problem with the Celts is that they feel like a secondary character in their own story. The Celts spawn only a few turns before the Romans (setting the Celts up for a losing war), Iberia is swarming with barbarian swordsmen and you can barely afford to defend a city there (therefore removing an option from where you can potentially settle), they have no way to themselves bring olives and wine up to their own core, and they ultimately get kicked out of Gaul with the French spawn. It's like they're always waiting for an outside force to act on them, rather than being the primary movers of their own game, which IMO leads to less fun gameplay. Of course, we want the Celts to, most of the time, lose the war against the Romans and become the Scottish-Irish-Brittanish (is that how you say it?). But I think there's a couple of changes that can help them feel more free and involved in their gameplay.

First, I think that the Celtic spawn needs to be pushed back several hundred turns, and spawn more to the east (Hallstatt?) to give them time to breathe and enjoy some peaceful turns... Before the Romans spawn and immediately march Legions at them. I think I remember Leoreth saying he wants the Celts here to more represent the region of Gaul. So with an earlier Celtic spawn, we can change their first historical goal to something like:
"Settle four cities in Gaul; And settle a city in five regions out of Italy, Iberia, Britain, Ireland, Pannonia and Anatolia; And construct a Palace in Gaul".
The Palace goal here representing the development of the Gallic civilization, and having the player focus their attention on this region. This goal mirrors the Phoenicians, who likewise need to settle several cities and construct a Palace. The Celts would probably have to lose a technology or two, but I think all this extra maintenance would drive their research down anyways.

For the Olive and Wine resources in Gaul, I think it would be cool if the Celtic player can have them spawn if they manage to capture a city with Wine or Olive in its vicinity. Or at the very least, just have the resources spawn in 1 AD at the latest. It can be so sad if you wallop the Romans before they capture a single Celtic city, and your reward is you just don't get access to those resources for your core territory.

For the French spawn, I think it would be great if you could deny their spawn if you prevent the barbarians from capturing a city west of the Rhine. Difficult to pull off, but if you do, you've got a big reward.

While I’m generally in favor of longer games, I see some issues with an earlier and eastern spawn for the Celts. More significantly, a long-lasting Celtic civ could lead to parts of Europe (such as Central Europe) becoming much more developed and filled with cities than they historically were, which could affect the balance for later civilizations. Another problem is naming these early eastern Celtic cities: since many of them were located far from the Mediterranean world and existed (and in may cases, were abandoned) well before Roman conquest, we lack recorded names, which could impact immersion. The earliest I can remember is Pyrene (Heuneburg), a city on the Danube with a Greek name recorded by Herodotus. Perhaps, if we can find a better way to represent non-urbanized civs (as we discussed in an old thread where I think Leoreth really nailed the issue), then an earlier Celtic spawn might be more interesting.

Fully agree with you about the Mediterranean resources and the conditional spawn for the French. Another thing I’ve been thinking about is how to create a smoother transition from the Gaulish to the Irish/Gaelic phase. Right now, it feels too abrupt, IMO. Maybe we could improve this by introducing a more distinct Brittonic phase, perhaps by giving them greater expansion stability and stronger settling priorities in England if not an part in the Celtic UHV.

 

[karuruna]

In keeping with the theme of the third Ethiopian goal, I recommend it be changed to "Allow only African civilizations in Africa and have Friendly relations with all African civilizations for 100 turns by 1930 AD". Or perhaps "Liberate 10 cities in Africa by 1930 AD". Or "Liberate 10 cities given to outsiders through the Congress in Africa by 1930 AD." Or "Make sure the continent of Africa has a higher military power than the continent of Europe by 1930 AD". That last one might be tricky, because I think a lot of African civilizations are predisposed to collapse in the late game to facilitate European colonization. But if the player could keep the African civilizations alive and strong and fighting back, that could be fun.

While I definitely agree with the spirit of the proposal; especially considering your playthrough video, I see an issue with your proposed goals, which – thinking about it again while writing it, might not be as significant as it initially seemed to me, but I’ll still share it.

In your playthrough, which I’m taking as an example of a game where Africa has not been scrambled for nearly as much as in OTL, the Europeans only got to have 10 cities in Africa: there were 4 French cities (1 in Seychelles, 2 in the Congo, and Dakar), 4 English (all in South Africa), 1 German (in Ghana), and 1 Portuguese (in Sierra Leone). That seems to me to be quite tight a requirement: it might lead to the optimal (and sometimes necessary) playstyle being to side with the Europeans in the Congress to ensure they do get their 10 cities – or even deliberately not having strong African allies – so that the goal can be met.

To me it would seem that a better alternative would be, though I have no idea if that’s really possible or realistic to implement in DoC architecture, to ensure that for at least 10–15 turns during, say, 1890–1940 no African city is held by Europeans. Or something like that.

Regarding other civs: I fully agree about the Romans; I don’t have much to say about the Dravidians; the Mayan game conditions to me seem to be rather in the spirit of DoC in general, compare it to, say, the Nubia game difficulty varying wildly depending on how (un)successful Egypt is in resisting the Sea Peoples.

 

[Dracosolon]

I think taking cities from the Europeans is an interesting proposal. Another possible tweak to the current goal would be to change it to a BY condition while adding some additional goal making it impossible to be completed before colonization begins in earnest. Something like "Allow only African civilizations in Africa and reach the Industrial era by 1930 AD". The friendly relations goal could also be kept.

In general I feel like it's best to avoid IN conditions for the goal that is expected to be completed last, especially when there's such a long stretch of time between it and the second one. No point in making the player wait if they've already done the job.

 

[Leoreth]

Wouldn't the most practical solution to getting a city founded on you in the last turns before the deadline to exclude cities newer than e.g. 10 turns?

 

[Hickman888]

I would just add how the game currently overlooks a little bit the wonders construction Rome actually did, I would add Pont du Gard and the Pantheon as wonders, now the timeline would be too short to really build them, therefore I would add an extra feature to Rome's unique ability, something along the lines of build ancient wonders 30% faster.

Well we already have the Aqua Appia WW, I don't think we should have more than one aqueduct wonder. The Pantheon could be very interesting, but what would it's ability be?

While I’m generally in favor of longer games, I see some issues with an earlier and eastern spawn for the Celts. More significantly, a long-lasting Celtic civ could lead to parts of Europe (such as Central Europe) becoming much more developed and filled with cities than they historically were, which could affect the balance for later civilizations. Another problem is naming these early eastern Celtic cities: since many of them were located far from the Mediterranean world and existed (and in may cases, were abandoned) well before Roman conquest, we lack recorded names, which could impact immersion. The earliest I can remember is Pyrene (Heuneburg), a city on the Danube with a Greek name recorded by Herodotus. Perhaps, if we can find a better way to represent non-urbanized civs (as we discussed in an old thread where I think Leoreth really nailed the issue), then an earlier Celtic spawn might be more interesting.

Well my thinking was that the barbarian waves that begin spawning in the fourth century could be set to pillage and raze any cities/improvements that are outside Italy/Gaul, to sort of reset these areas back to zero. So these regions will be barebones again for the latter European civilizations. As for naming the cities, I hadn't considered that. But maybe it could use the default city list for the Celts if a name for that tile doesn't exist?

While I definitely agree with the spirit of the proposal; especially considering your playthrough video, I see an issue with your proposed goals, which – thinking about it again while writing it, might not be as significant as it initially seemed to me, but I’ll still share it.

In your playthrough, which I’m taking as an example of a game where Africa has not been scrambled for nearly as much as in OTL, the Europeans only got to have 10 cities in Africa: there were 4 French cities (1 in Seychelles, 2 in the Congo, and Dakar), 4 English (all in South Africa), 1 German (in Ghana), and 1 Portuguese (in Sierra Leone). That seems to me to be quite tight a requirement: it might lead to the optimal (and sometimes necessary) playstyle being to side with the Europeans in the Congress to ensure they do get their 10 cities – or even deliberately not having strong African allies – so that the goal can be met.

To me it would seem that a better alternative would be, though I have no idea if that’s really possible or realistic to implement in DoC architecture, to ensure that for at least 10–15 turns during, say, 1890–1940 no African city is held by Europeans. Or something like that.

Regarding other civs: I fully agree about the Romans; I don’t have much to say about the Dravidians; the Mayan game conditions to me seem to be rather in the spirit of DoC in general, compare it to, say, the Nubia game difficulty varying wildly depending on how (un)successful Egypt is in resisting the Sea Peoples.

That's a good point I hadn't considered: The incentive structure would set you up to vote in favor of the Europeans getting colonies in Africa through the Congress, so that you could then forcibly "liberate" those cities afterwards. Yeah, giving you a specific timeline for completing a goal, i.e. 1890-1940, doesn't have precedent in DoC, I'm not sure how Leoreth feels about those types of goals. I saw there's a couple of goals like that in RFCE though.

Wouldn't the most practical solution to getting a city founded on you in the last turns before the deadline to exclude cities newer than e.g. 10 turns?

IMO, the AI founding a city on the last turn isn't the biggest issue with the third goal; It's more the amount of downtime that lies between the second and third goal where you're not doing anything except teching and staying strong. Because the third goal is "in", I opted to not begin kicking the Europeans out of Africa until 20-25 turns to the deadline, because :
A.) I didn't want to sour relations with the Europeans too early
B.) If I took all their colonies, I would be overexpanded, and would probably have to make the cities I capture independent anyways, thus leaving them open for another Congress demand
C.) Almost none of their colonies were especially well defended. It was nothing I couldn't handle with a concentrated effort, especially with 200 turns of preparation.

I don't necessarily mind if Ethiopia is structured to have a long game, but I think the third goal should be changed in a way that requires a little more proactive play from the player, rather than preparing for 200 turns and taking action the last 20 turns.

 

[manio curio]

Well we already have the Aqua Appia WW, I don't think we should have more than one aqueduct wonder. The Pantheon could be very interesting, but what would it's ability be

Originally the Pantheon was built to have the gods protect Augustus and his family. Unfortunately the original had been destroyed in a fire, what we admire today had been build during Trojan and Hadrian reigns. The theme of the Gods protecting the Roman rulers seem to still have permeated the reconstruction, I would suggest +5 stability points. What do you think?

 

[Dracosolon]

Gonna quote this suggestion again for the Pantheon:

I think I had a good idea for a Rome Pantheon wonder effect: Gain +50 gold (or some appropriate amount) whenever a Pagan Temple is converted to a major religion temple. Pagan Temples are always converted instead of abandoned.

This would have the nice effect of both encouraging Rome (or Greece or whoever builds it) to develop its pagan religion and build a lot of temples, and to convert to Christianity and spread it. It also fits thematically since the Pantheon was a pagan temple (to “all the gods”) that later became a Catholic church (and still is).

The second part of the effect is added to make sure you don't lose some of the bonus when religion begins spreading due to abandonment and to allow for a period of coexistence in which you can still build temples even as the religion spreads. But it could also be left out to encourage quick conversion.

The tech for the wonder obviously has to be Cement, given that the Pantheon boasts the largest concrete dome ever built.

 

[Genghis Khaiser]

How do I meet the new first Japanese UHV?
(30,000 culture in founded cities by 1600 AD)
I know the key is saving your Great Artists until you reach Renaissance and the best way is beelining for Heritage. However you now start more technologically lagged than before so it takes longer to build Samurais and Himeji Castle.
Another helpful thing is founding two cities north of your starting location.

 

[manio curio]

How do I meet the new first Japanese UHV?
(30,000 culture in founded cities by 1600 AD)
I know the key is saving your Great Artists until you reach Renaissance and the best way is beelining for Heritage. However you now start more technologically lagged than before so it takes longer to build Samurais and Himeji Castle.
Another helpful thing is founding two cities north of your starting location.

I got it done with Regent/Normal and I got a lot of points by just building culture related buildings and nothing else pretty much, I probably had military 4 units in total until I completed that goal

 

[Dracosolon]

Did the Norse UHV again, it's pretty fun - on the easy side on the 3000 BC scenario but fairly frantic in the end as you're trying to finish before your bad stability gets to you. Citizenship-hurried Huskarls and Longships are great and Republic+Thalassocracy means you can research Compass for the America UHV fairly early.

One note though is that there's a huge discrepancy between the two starts, despite the fact they're only separated by 50 years and a couple of turns.

550 AD - Four Huskarls, four Longships, three Settlers, four Archers and two Workboats, plus two Workers on settling:

600 AD - Three cities, two Crossbowmen, two Archers, one Workboat, no Huskarls:

Feels like the 600 AD start could use a couple of Huskarls at least, especially since early sacking in the Mediterranean is nice to build up momentum. The 550 AD start could also be a bit harder.

 

[Lilna]

Yeah 600 AD on Vikings is rough. Best strat I've found is to build some militia while you can before your copper's online, and then upgrade them. And while I know that the reasoning behind the heavier start in 3000 BC is because civs will have had more time to build up, I've often seen France with archers in that one - vs 600 AD where they have crossbows. Not to mention that there's less to pillage, especially in Italy that the Romans in the 3000 BC start love filling with cottages for you to burn.

 

[BaneFire]

Does anyone know if razing penalty stacks indefinitely? I kind of want to play a civ and raze the entire world. See how bad the game lags in 2000AD that way!

 

[Derdan]

It does, but you can just play as Mongolia. They can raze cities without penalty, and their Keshik UU makes it very easy.