Large Map and New Civilizations are now playable

[Publicola]

City raze penalty is very sensible one and already depends on city's culture. Remember, a city even on a larger map still represents entire region, equivalent of a small country. Razing it should not be taken lightly.

In the case of a blatantly sub-optimal city location, this can be a real catch-22: keep a bad city, or raze it & resettle nearby. I really wish there could be an option for 'resettle city' when you capture a city, just like the options for sack/raze. There'd need to be a corresponding cost -- all non-wonders are destroyed, all wonders obsoleted so only culture is preserved, only a fraction of the population is kept, added (temp) unhappiness and diplomatic penalty? -- but there are quite a few cases I can think of where it'd be worth it.

 

[Osborneman]

I think the goal is to eventually have the AI simply settle better locations... In the meantime, worldbuilder exists.

 

[AOS9001]

Vilnius is a city I've come to hate. Sorry Lithuanians.

 

[TsimTsigal]

"back down" implies anyone is trying to convince you of something. I don't care what you believe.

You don't care so much that keep this talk going, and your argue only to convince, not to find out and spread truth? I hope that your translator has failed you and this is not what you meant.

Portugal never came close to conquering all of Indonesia and the Netherlands only achieved this very late in the 19th century

I'm aware of this (as well as that it came through means of divide and conquer). It doesn't change the fact that most of time both Portugese and Dutch were crushing vastly superior in numbers forces, which reflects their military superiority over Indonesians (e.g. Portugese-Aceh wars - notably Portugese have lost like 2 wars to Ceylon/Sri Lanka at the roughly same time - including Portugese conquest of Goa which was opposed by many Indonesian states; of all Dutch wars against Indonesians only the first expedition to Palembrang was lost, this includes both siege of Batavia in 1628-1629 and Java war of 1741-1743 and the siege of Semarang, where 3500 Dutch and local allies bested some 25000 Chinese and Javanese troops in counteroffence; unless there was some surge of militarism and technological development in 1700, i presume things weren't much better for Indonesians between Batavia and Semarang).

We could speak about equal prowess of both European and Indonesian forces if it wasn't so obviosly one-sided; either we have to admit that Europeans had some kind of black magic or superhuman intellegence to always pick fights they could comfortably win, or they had better troops. I'd rather believe that the second hypothesis, but since you don't care what i believe, you are free to pick your poison.

the original request that the Netherlands should be able to conquer Indonesia with just their colonial garrisons

treated like "natives" that only use crude melee weapons is even more absurd

Strawman opponent manuver? Really? Wasn't the previous topic "unit as equipment" vs. "unit as overall combat prowess"? And, if anything, Crossbows and Pikes have quite comfortable chances on defence vs. even Musketmen. There is no realistic way 2-3 garrisoned Arquebuses (even Rifles may struggle) can clean up 2-3 late Medieval dug in units in 20% defence cities.

The idea of the Dutch or any European power "conquering" Indonesia in the 18th century is already a video game short-hand

Obviously. But 1) we are speaking about a relatviely shallow grand strategy game, 2) it doesn't change that Europeans successfully used force and gunboat diplomacy to slowly puppet and extort de-jure independent states of Indonesia. I think that conquest is an adequate representation, especially given you can't puppet Indeps (magical annexation is much, much worse, and there are little other options).

 

[Lokki242]

UHVs which states that you should "Control" certain areas have become much harder (and in some cases impossible) with the new larger map.
It is not the conquering part that much harder, it is the amount of cities you need to own yourself to control the area.
Having that many cities which are required will cripple your economy, making other science based goals impossible in combination.
Here are some proposals which can make these goals easier. I know some of these proposals are controversial with the parts of the community here, but atleast pick one!

• Rework AI to settle cities further apart. Also pre-built cities needs to the further apart.
• Modify the cost of having many cities so that is scales slower with the amount.
• Change the UHVs to allow vassals to be part of controlling the area.
• Remove the raze city penalty.

I note from your signature you seem to be a fellow marathon player, so I will say the current "balance" seems to be that having lots of cities boosts your tech rate so much that even when I'm running 30-40%, once I'm fully "online" and have taken enough territory, I can still manage a sizable tech lead. Generally the extremely high late game tech rates seem tied to the high number of cities, but I don't know if that's just correlation vs causation.

 

[TsimTsigal]

I note from your signature you seem to be a fellow marathon player, so I will say the current "balance" seems to be that having lots of cities boosts your tech rate so much that even when I'm running 30-40%, once I'm fully "online" and have taken enough territory, I can still manage a sizable tech lead. Generally the extremely high late game tech rates seem tied to the high number of cities, but I don't know if that's just correlation vs causation.

Isn't that a Civ4 meta overall (OCC usually requires you to abuse Shrines)? Keep expanding, with settlers and arms, as long as your economy doesn't asplode.

In DoC tall gameplay is possible for some civs due to their modifiers (or enforced with draconian city maintenance modifiers), but it's mostly a necessary crutch.

 

[Dracosolon]

Man I'm not sure I could do Marathon now. Games seem way longer with the new map.

 

[SPB87559]

I note from your signature you seem to be a fellow marathon player, so I will say the current "balance" seems to be that having lots of cities boosts your tech rate so much that even when I'm running 30-40%, once I'm fully "online" and have taken enough territory, I can still manage a sizable tech lead. Generally the extremely high late game tech rates seem tied to the high number of cities, but I don't know if that's just correlation vs causation.

Marathon is all I play too. Mostly Vikings and Russia. I have tried Russia on 1.18 and run into economy issues very early on. The Norse I am really enjoying as long as I can handle the Viking barbarian landings. I do notice that the Norse cities seem to grow much slower than they did on 1.17 and tech rate seems slower as well.

 

[AOS9001]

Man I'm not sure I could do Marathon now. Games seem way longer with the new map.

I've found marathon makes the big map much more traversable. It's a huge help for any civ that needs to cover a lot of space in a small amount of time (Portugal, Russia, Mongolia, Rome, etc).

 

[Leoreth]

your argue only to convince, not to find out and spread truth?

I am not arguing at all. I am making fun of you.

 

[Lokki242]

Isn't that a Civ4 meta overall (OCC usually requires you to abuse Shrines)? Keep expanding, with settlers and arms, as long as your economy doesn't asplode.

In DoC tall gameplay is possible for some civs due to their modifiers (or enforced with draconian city maintenance modifiers), but it's mostly a necessary crutch.

Oh for sure, I would say that it's more extreme than usual right now though. Hence the frequent "global era in the 1700s" you'll see on 3000 BCE or 600 AD Marathon starts.

 

[Lokki242]

Man I'm not sure I could do Marathon now. Games seem way longer with the new map.

Yes.

I probably played normal speed only from 2005-2018, then started playing Marathon, fell in love with the slow speed for immersion/silly RP/AAR purposes, and never looked back. I personally love the speed, really lets you feel the scale of history at times.

(Also sorry for double posting I'm a bad forum user)

 

[TsimTsigal]

I am not arguing at all. I am making fun of you.

An interesting tactic. One of few that remain when running short on arguments.

I recommend learning getting joy from playing chess rather than from overturning the board.

Oh for sure, I would say that it's more extreme than usual right now though. Hence the frequent "global era in the 1700s" you'll see on 3000 BCE or 600 AD Marathon starts.

Come on, it's WIP version. Obviously a bigger map (and, subjectively speaking, richer with resources) -> more cities -> faster progress. I also begin to suspect that there might be some exact opposite to a "tech bottleneck" - i feel that Renessiance let stronger AIs snowball, but have no idea why (Universities and the third wave of civics?) Just an observation.

Also Marathon usually means stabler and bigger empires.

 

[Tigranes]

I've found marathon makes the big map much more traversable. It's a huge help for any civ that needs to cover a lot of space in a small amount of time (Portugal, Russia, Mongolia, Rome, etc).

Marathon Monarch became my new favorite for Espionage as well. 5 turn wait doesn't scale with speed, so for the first time I was able to generate 3 Great Spies before 1450 in Byzantium game.

 

[Lokki242]

An interesting tactic. One of few that remain when running short on arguments.

I recommend learning getting joy from playing chess rather than from overturning the board.


Come on, it's WIP version. Obviously a bigger map (and, subjectively speaking, richer with resources) -> more cities -> faster progress. I also begin to suspect that there might be some exact opposite to a "tech bottleneck" - i feel that Renessiance let stronger AIs snowball, but have no idea why (Universities and the third wave of civics?) Just an observation.

Also Marathon usually means stabler and bigger empires.

Well yeah I know it's WIP I never contested otherwise! Just reporting my observations thus far. I do think the opposite of a bottlenexk and that Renaissance + Strong AI + Unis is a big part of the culprit like you described.

I don't expect these speeds to be balanced anytime soon anyway, I know they're lower priority!

 

[Leoreth]

One of few that remain when running short on arguments.

I am indeed short on arguments because the matter has been discussed from literally every possible angle. You're just throwing a tantrum at this point and I am not going to waste my time engaging with the walls of text you pretend is a discussion. You're just embarrassing yourself.

 

[TsimTsigal]

I am indeed short on arguments because the matter has been discussed from literally every possible angle. You're just throwing a tantrum at this point and I am not going to waste my time engaging with the walls of text you pretend is a discussion. You're just embarrassing yourself.

If it was discussed from every angle, then surely it would be easy to find arguments against an assumption that Indonesians had inferior military because they pretty much never bested Europeans in wars (at least in 1500-1900, where I made a study), and lost absolute majority of battles. Or against any other assumption that could realistically be made.

The only reason why i *pretend* it's a discussion is because the other side accuses me in throwing tantrum (projecting?) and pretends to make fun of humbly yours, instead of, you know, having a discussion. Alas, I believe in people too much. Let's wrap it up, then.

 

[Leoreth]

No.

In the end it comes down to what you want to achieve. It is you who insists I must convince you before exiting the conversation. But I don't want to convince you, because it makes no difference to me what you believe. It is not my responsibility to correct your incorrect understanding of history, except to anyone else who might be reading, which I believe I have done sufficiently now.

I don't know what you want to achieve. It does not seem to be related at all to any concrete changes in the mod anymore, but even if it was. I am not going to make any changes in the mod, and that does not change whether I "convince" you or not. I do not need to convince you of anything to make a decision about the mod I develop. You are irrelevant to it.

But at this point it seems more that what you want to achieve is being an internet debate guy and "win" to prove that you are the smart guy you perceive yourself as. I have talked to hundreds of internet debate guys before and I have lost interest in the exercise, and anyway there are more worthwhile conversations to have than this one with you.

You can tell the difference in that I am trying to end this conversation and you are trying to declare victory.

Please just let it go. It is entirely offtopic to the purpose of this thread, which is to discuss a mod of the video game Civilization IV and its development. Thank you.

 

[TsimTsigal]

I don't know what you want to achieve.

Truth. I think I made it very clear a few posts ago.

Either I am proven right and the mod becomes more realistic and probably better balanced, or I'm proven wrong and the mod also becomes/remains more realistic, and I also learn something I apparently failed to on my own. It's win-win. But I feel (without snarking) sad that you took the third option and bluntly refused to engage, instead declaring yourself right and my knowledge as flawed without proving it, making (mostly wrong) assumptions about my emotional state and goals. No, I don't do this for my ego - otherwise it would be me using "shut up I'm right and you are throwing a tantrum". I'm a scientist and got used to be bested in discussions long ago. It's the process of finding out the right answer to the given question that drives me.

I hope this won't leave a bad blood between us. I still respect you as a dedicated modmaker, even despite this embarrassing interaction, and look forward to help the development with... less verbose feedback.

 

[Leoreth]

Okay, thank you for the clarification. I think I have made my position clear in that I am not going to make this change. You can continue to disagree with me on this, that is fine. I am not going to try to change your mind on it.

I think this is a productive end to this conversation.