Some minor UI feeds back too:
1 I believe the BUG mod is quite old in this mod. Is it possible that we are seeing an updated BUG mod?
2 Units have type and role. And it is quite confusing when looking at units, players have to check both these information from a long popup text which has a lot of lines, such as Distinct Units bala bala. The distinct name of distinct units does not help in this regard. Here is a simple solution. We could design new icons which state both the type and role of units. And these icons are used as free promotions and given out to units when producing them. In this way, we can see the type and role of units from the hovering popup windows, since these icons are treated as promotions. It is a feature from Fall From Heaven where race and type of units are given as free promotion. In FFH, a dwarf warrior would have dwarf promotion and melee promotion. It is a quality of life improvement.
3 Higher level promotion stacks with lower level promotion in Civ IV. This makes reading unit promotion data quite encumber some. For example, a Combat V soldier would also have Combat I/II/III/IV. These icons all show up when hovering over the units and players have to add the number to give the final bonus. My suggestion is to make higher level promotion replaced lower level one. So a Combat V soldier only has Combat V promotion and the text of that promotion shows the final benefits. When hovering my mouse over the unit, only Combat V promotion icon show up. This is another quality of life improvement which is implemented in CIv V mod. Sight, in the history of Civ game, the UI design is actually becoming worse rather than better.
Some AI behavior feedback:
1 AI tends to make ridiculous demand and hate player for refusing them, such as refusing warring against their opponent, refusing changing into their favorite civil or religion. I can understand why refusing giving tribute and refusing stopping trading with their worst enemy give penalty in diplomat. But I consider starting a war against their opponent and change religion and civil a major decision for an empire, so answering these demands should give bigger diplomatic bonus and refusing them should not give penalty. These demands are big favor and player should not suffer from refusing. Come to think of it. I think I never see refusing demand diplomatic penalty between AIs. I wonder if these penalties only apply to player.
2 The “you are getting ahead of us” diplomatic penalty should not exist when “AI play to win” is disable. I think the “AI play to win” is to give player a taste of multiplayer like experience. With this feature disable, player should have a more civ simulation style play. “You are getting ahead of us” is kind of out of character in this type of play.
3 I am suggesting giving a warmonger diplomatic penalty. Every time one civ declared war on another civ, it add warmonger penalty to all other known AI. Razing City increases this penalty too. This penalty should be additive to the current “you declared war on our friend” penalty. And this penalty should not be added if the target of war is also the worst enemy of AI. This penalty decreases as the game move on, so if the civ forfeit their warmonger attitude and live peacefully, they don’t suffer this penalty after some time. The goal is to stop warmonger civ from climbing into the top. This feature comes from Civ V’s Vox Populis mod.
4 In current game, declaring war against AI, raze one of their city ASAP and sue for peace immediately and repeat is a too good tactics. With preparation, Players can use a stack of doom to take out one of AI’s cities and the stack is damaged and is not in a fighting state after the conquering. The AI start marshaling their troops and AI’s stack of doom is approaching player’s cities. Player sue for peace, take a huge ransom, avoid the immediate retaliate from AI’s main troop, have 15 turn to heal and replenish their troop. AI lost a city, pays off a lot of ransom, have a stack of doom which does nothing, and is in a worst state than before. Player can repeat this tactic to eat up the AI step by step.
I suggest put a longer period of locked time in which you can no sue for peace at the beginning of a war, to ensure AI put up a good fight. The AI should also reevaluate their willingness for peace if their army strength is not destroyed much in a war. Also, the peace period should be higher than 15 turns too, since the realistic speed is much slower than standard.
Another good ideas is to implement the “I notice you are marching a large army near my border, If you are going to declare war against me” feature from Civ V. This feature makes surprise attack less impactful, since AI would ask you in advance when you are still in war preparation. You can certainly cheat the AI, but there would be a global diplomatic penalty on all AIs against your treachery. This may require some coding though.
Some mechanic feedback:
The 40% tech transfer bonus is too huge. I believe it is only 5% for every known civ who have the tech in Civ V. Under this huge bonus, I closed border with every one once I have a tech lead. In this ways I can ensure a tech gap between me and AIs. In one of my recent monarch game, I closed my border in the end of Classic Era and have
My suggestion would be 5% for every known civs who have the tech and also in the same continent, 7.5% when having open border. The same continent limitation could be canceled once Optics is researched. The bonus could become higher when going into later era, since in later era nations are more connected than before.
Some mechanic questions:
How collateral damage from siege weapon work? In one of my game, I had 2 stacks, each consisting of 3 siege weapons and 3 melees. First, I reduced the fortification of city. Then, I bombard, range attack, the city. Only 4 of my siege weapon are able to do range attack. The other 2 siege weapons refuse to range attack. I believe every range attack only damage one enemy unit and there are certainly more than 4 units in that city.
What is flank damage? Does it mean mounted enemy can target my siege weapon directly, or does it only do collateral to my siege weapon?
1 I believe the BUG mod is quite old in this mod. Is it possible that we are seeing an updated BUG mod?
2 Units have type and role. And it is quite confusing when looking at units, players have to check both these information from a long popup text which has a lot of lines, such as Distinct Units bala bala. The distinct name of distinct units does not help in this regard. Here is a simple solution. We could design new icons which state both the type and role of units. And these icons are used as free promotions and given out to units when producing them. In this way, we can see the type and role of units from the hovering popup windows, since these icons are treated as promotions. It is a feature from Fall From Heaven where race and type of units are given as free promotion. In FFH, a dwarf warrior would have dwarf promotion and melee promotion. It is a quality of life improvement.
3 Higher level promotion stacks with lower level promotion in Civ IV. This makes reading unit promotion data quite encumber some. For example, a Combat V soldier would also have Combat I/II/III/IV. These icons all show up when hovering over the units and players have to add the number to give the final bonus. My suggestion is to make higher level promotion replaced lower level one. So a Combat V soldier only has Combat V promotion and the text of that promotion shows the final benefits. When hovering my mouse over the unit, only Combat V promotion icon show up. This is another quality of life improvement which is implemented in CIv V mod. Sight, in the history of Civ game, the UI design is actually becoming worse rather than better.
Some AI behavior feedback:
1 AI tends to make ridiculous demand and hate player for refusing them, such as refusing warring against their opponent, refusing changing into their favorite civil or religion. I can understand why refusing giving tribute and refusing stopping trading with their worst enemy give penalty in diplomat. But I consider starting a war against their opponent and change religion and civil a major decision for an empire, so answering these demands should give bigger diplomatic bonus and refusing them should not give penalty. These demands are big favor and player should not suffer from refusing. Come to think of it. I think I never see refusing demand diplomatic penalty between AIs. I wonder if these penalties only apply to player.
2 The “you are getting ahead of us” diplomatic penalty should not exist when “AI play to win” is disable. I think the “AI play to win” is to give player a taste of multiplayer like experience. With this feature disable, player should have a more civ simulation style play. “You are getting ahead of us” is kind of out of character in this type of play.
3 I am suggesting giving a warmonger diplomatic penalty. Every time one civ declared war on another civ, it add warmonger penalty to all other known AI. Razing City increases this penalty too. This penalty should be additive to the current “you declared war on our friend” penalty. And this penalty should not be added if the target of war is also the worst enemy of AI. This penalty decreases as the game move on, so if the civ forfeit their warmonger attitude and live peacefully, they don’t suffer this penalty after some time. The goal is to stop warmonger civ from climbing into the top. This feature comes from Civ V’s Vox Populis mod.
4 In current game, declaring war against AI, raze one of their city ASAP and sue for peace immediately and repeat is a too good tactics. With preparation, Players can use a stack of doom to take out one of AI’s cities and the stack is damaged and is not in a fighting state after the conquering. The AI start marshaling their troops and AI’s stack of doom is approaching player’s cities. Player sue for peace, take a huge ransom, avoid the immediate retaliate from AI’s main troop, have 15 turn to heal and replenish their troop. AI lost a city, pays off a lot of ransom, have a stack of doom which does nothing, and is in a worst state than before. Player can repeat this tactic to eat up the AI step by step.
I suggest put a longer period of locked time in which you can no sue for peace at the beginning of a war, to ensure AI put up a good fight. The AI should also reevaluate their willingness for peace if their army strength is not destroyed much in a war. Also, the peace period should be higher than 15 turns too, since the realistic speed is much slower than standard.
Another good ideas is to implement the “I notice you are marching a large army near my border, If you are going to declare war against me” feature from Civ V. This feature makes surprise attack less impactful, since AI would ask you in advance when you are still in war preparation. You can certainly cheat the AI, but there would be a global diplomatic penalty on all AIs against your treachery. This may require some coding though.
Some mechanic feedback:
The 40% tech transfer bonus is too huge. I believe it is only 5% for every known civ who have the tech in Civ V. Under this huge bonus, I closed border with every one once I have a tech lead. In this ways I can ensure a tech gap between me and AIs. In one of my recent monarch game, I closed my border in the end of Classic Era and have
My suggestion would be 5% for every known civs who have the tech and also in the same continent, 7.5% when having open border. The same continent limitation could be canceled once Optics is researched. The bonus could become higher when going into later era, since in later era nations are more connected than before.
Some mechanic questions:
How collateral damage from siege weapon work? In one of my game, I had 2 stacks, each consisting of 3 siege weapons and 3 melees. First, I reduced the fortification of city. Then, I bombard, range attack, the city. Only 4 of my siege weapon are able to do range attack. The other 2 siege weapons refuse to range attack. I believe every range attack only damage one enemy unit and there are certainly more than 4 units in that city.
What is flank damage? Does it mean mounted enemy can target my siege weapon directly, or does it only do collateral to my siege weapon?
