Merijn new civs and other projects

[merijn_v1]

I do like the added requirement of the logistics it requires to create and move a settler to it. Instead of just having to discover it.

 

[Darnokthemage]

Give a great trader the option to gain money on a special improvement, maybe a trading place improvement that is placed in autralia in a certain year.

 

[TJDowling]

Why not simply a discover goal instead?

Be the first non-Asian civilization to discover Australia.

Give a great trader the option to gain money on a special improvement, maybe a trading place improvement that is placed in autralia in a certain year.

I have always wanted there to be a stepping stone between exploring and a full-on colony. Like maybe it should be possible to create trading posts that would have one tile of your territory with no potential for cultural expansion unless you build a city. These trading posts could be bought sold or flipped and act as an improvement on a distant resource. Maybe an explorer could establish a trading post?

 

[ozqar]

I have always wanted there to be a stepping stone between exploring and a full-on colony. Like maybe it should be possible to create trading posts that would have one tile of your territory with no potential for cultural expansion unless you build a city. These trading posts could be bought sold or flipped and act as an improvement on a distant resource. Maybe an explorer could establish a trading post?

This would be amazing. It's a bit weird to see European colonies in Asia as full-on cities, when many were just trading posts. Places like Hong Kong, Goa, the Dutch posts in Nagasaki, etc, would be so better as an improvement that yielded gold and/or resources to it (ie, they could send tea or silk).

I would imagine a new unit (a merchant) being able to build them, instead of explorers or workers, or otherwise have this be a Great Merchant special ability. The fort art with some town-like buildings inside would be perfect for this. Upon building the trading post, that one tile becomes territory of the owner civ and whatever was there before (farms, towns, plantations) becomes replaced by the post. Perhaps it's only when the posts are built on top of resources that they yield those to the mother civ, and the occupied civ loses access to them?

Then civs like India and China can retain their cities and most of their territory (as they mostly did in history). If they collapse and cities become independent, then it would facilitate full-on European colonization, which would represent Indian and Indonesian colonization well. Upon reclaiming (ie, when the posts are lost again to the occupied civ) then the tile could revert to being a town (or the adequate resource improvement) for the original civ.

 

[1SDANi]

I have always wanted there to be a stepping stone between exploring and a full-on colony. Like maybe it should be possible to create trading posts that would have one tile of your territory with no potential for cultural expansion unless you build a city. These trading posts could be bought sold or flipped and act as an improvement on a distant resource. Maybe an explorer could establish a trading post?

FORTS!

Don't make a new improvement, give this use to forts.

FORTS NEED LOVE!

 

[ozqar]

But can you build forts in enemy territory?

 

[1SDANi]

But can you build forts in enemy territory?

Shouldn't be hard to allow.

 

[ozqar]

Well, a fort could do it, but there would have to be something else to how they work, to differentiate them from the current defensive forts, no?

Thinking out loud, maybe eg, settling a Great Merchant on a fort "Turn into trading post" could work or using worker actions. Otherwise restrictions such as being next to coasts (eg European posts in China and India) or adjacent to rivers (Viking posts in Russia and French posts along the Mississippi) and having open borders with the civ should be there.

I'm also wondering how this would affect relations between civs. Some of the trade would be welcome by the occupied civ (perhaps when not on a resource) and some not (when there's a resource tile taken over?). Surely they would provide gold to both civs but more so to the post owner and this should be annoying to the occupied civ but not as bad as a war declaration. Maybe a diplomacy screen option of "Allow us to build trading post?" could be a requirement to enable forts in other civ's territory, but not on independent territory.

And what about placing them on "empty territory", eg, Australia or Northern America? They should still yield resources (when built on them?) but not gold?

 

[1SDANi]

Well, a fort could do it, but there would have to be something else to how they work, to differentiate them from the current defensive forts, no?

Thinking out loud, maybe eg, settling a Great Merchant on a fort "Turn into trading post" could work or using worker actions. Otherwise restrictions such as being next to coasts (eg European posts in China and India) or adjacent to rivers (Viking posts in Russia and French posts along the Mississippi) and having open borders with the civ should be there.

I'm also wondering how this would affect relations between civs. Some of the trade would be welcome by the occupied civ (perhaps when not on a resource) and some not (when there's a resource tile taken over?). Surely they would provide gold to both civs but more so to the post owner and this should be annoying to the occupied civ but not as bad as a war declaration. Maybe a diplomacy screen option of "Allow us to build trading post?" could be a requirement to enable forts in other civ's territory, but not on independent territory.

And what about placing them on "empty territory", eg, Australia or Northern America? They should still yield resources (when built on them?) but not gold?

I'd say add the feature to the existing forts, no Great People needed. You'd still need to send workers overseas to set up the fort, which would give workers something to do after improving your territory. I'd say forts should be able to be built in the territory of anyone with Open Borders with you, or through a deal to allow a single fort to be built. The latter would help represent things like Japan, which had a single point of contact. Settling on a resource should be something you make a deal for either way, and building without permission should be possible but give a diplo penalty.

 

[Leoreth]

I think it makes more sense to bind this goal to explorers. Maybe put some goody huts in Australia and require to capture all of them with an explorer?

I would like to make interactions with goody huts less gamey so long term I could imagine the option of allowing explorers to establish trade relations with tribal settlements.

 

[1SDANi]

I think it makes more sense to bind this goal to explorers. Maybe put some goody huts in Australia and require to capture all of them with an explorer?

I would like to make interactions with goody huts less gamey so long term I could imagine the option of allowing explorers to establish trade relations with tribal settlements.

Good. I absolutely hate RNG boosh like "1 in 20 chance for a new tech". The less non-AI RNG the better, and that includes combat.

 

[merijn_v1]

New civ: Manchuria (Qing dynasty)

Credits to soul-breathing and some chinese players for the base mod
Start: 1636AD @ Changchun
Leaders: Kangxi, Cixi

UP: The power of Prosperity: Improved resources adjacent to cities provide additional food and production
UB: Piaohao. Replaces Bank. 15% food storage
UU: Eight Banner. Replaces Cuirassier. 50% withdraw chance

UHV1: Have 25% of the world population in China and Manchuria in 1800 AD
UHV2: Have the highest food, production and commerce output in 1850 AD
UHV3: Be the first to discover eight Industrial and eight Global technologies

China is replaced by Manchuria in 1700 AD scenario.

 

[1SDANi]

New civ: Manchuria (Qing dynasty)

Credits to soul-breathing and some chinese players for the base mod
Start: 1636AD @ Changchun
Leaders: Kangxi, Cixi

UP: The power of Prosperity: Improved resources adjacent to cities provide additional food and production
UB: Piaohao. Replaces Bank. 15% food storage
UU: Eight Banner. Replaces Cuirassier. 50% withdraw chance

UHV1: Have 25% of the world population in China and Manchuria in 1800 AD
UHV2: Have the highest food, production and commerce output in 1850 AD
UHV3: Be the first to discover eight Industrial and eight Global technologies

China is replaced by Manchuria in 1700 AD scenario.

MANCHURIA!!!

 

[merijn_v1]

Updated all my playable civs:

Added the LH to the constants in enums.h
Added multiple texts keys

 

[ozqar]

For the Swahili, I think the gold from the Dhows is not counting as commerce and, similarly, it seems the gold from trade routes in the cities is not taken into account in the UHV counter. Are these two things intended?

 

[soul-breathing]

New civ: Manchuria (Qing dynasty)

Credits to soul-breathing and some chinese players for the base mod
Start: 1636AD @ Changchun
Leaders: Kangxi, Cixi

UP: The power of Prosperity: Improved resources adjacent to cities provide additional food and production
UB: Piaohao. Replaces Bank. 15% food storage
UU: Eight Banner. Replaces Cuirassier. 50% withdraw chance

UHV1: Have 25% of the world population in China and Manchuria in 1800 AD
UHV2: Have the highest food, production and commerce output in 1850 AD
UHV3: Be the first to discover eight Industrial and eight Global technologies

China is replaced by Manchuria in 1700 AD scenario.

Well done! It's a surprise for a new Chinese civ. I will try it and give some advices. At present it seems the UHV3 is not so suitable.

 

[soul-breathing]

Some advices and bug reports

1. There are many TXT_KEY_..., in fact the texts of UP and UHV are unable to display.

Spoiler :

2. It seems the UP of Manchuria take effect to every civs, like the pictures below, the AI cities also benefit from the UP.

Spoiler :

3. In 1700ad scenerio, Manchuria can't build the UU eight banners at beginning, because Combined Arms isn't the initial tech. How about make it unlocked with Logitics?
4. Shenyang has no religion in 1700ad, could add Confucianism or Buddhism.

 

[soul-breathing]

And in Australia branch, there is no Australia could be selected in 1700ad scenerio. When I select the other civs, the game crashes.

 

[ozqar]

Oh, another thing, when I select the Swahili in the 600 ad scenario it tells me that scenario file isn't available (something of the like), it only lets me play with the 3000 bc one

 

[merijn_v1]

For the Swahili, I think the gold from the Dhows is not counting as commerce and, similarly, it seems the gold from trade routes in the cities is not taken into account in the UHV counter. Are these two things intended?

The gold from dhows is supposed to be gold, not commerce. And they work as supposed.

Gold from trade routes take the commerce sliders into account. If you have 100% science slider, it doesn't provide any gold towards the UHV. Also, the current code (I copied the code from the Tamil UHV) rounds the values down. For example if you have 30% gold slider and 1 commerce from trade routes, you should get 0.3 gold towards the UHV. This is currently rounded down to 0.

I will change the code so it also uses fractions.
@Leoreth Should I make a PR out of it for the Tamil UHV?

Well done! It's a surprise for a new Chinese civ. I will try it and give some advices. At present it seems the UHV3 is not so suitable.

For UHV3, historically speaking Qing Dynasty is not famous with culture. Since there's a westernization movement in late 19th century, my UHV3 is "be the first to complete all industrial and early global techs, at the same time have a world's strongest navy".

I based that UHV on an idea you posted yourself. Only with a little difference to make it similar to the Japanese, English and German UHV for convenience.

Some advices and bug reports

1. There are many TXT_KEY_..., in fact the texts of UP and UHV are unable to display.

Spoiler :

View attachment 494957

2. It seems the UP of Manchuria take effect to every civs, like the pictures below, the AI cities also benefit from the UP.

Spoiler :

View attachment 494958View attachment 494959

3. In 1700ad scenerio, Manchuria can't build the UU eight banners at beginning, because Combined Arms isn't the initial tech. How about make it unlocked with Logitics?
4. Shenyang has no religion in 1700ad, could add Confucianism or Buddhism.

1. Fixed. (I incidentally bugged the text files. Luckily, this seems to be Manchuria only. Otherwise I had to redo all my civs.)
2. Fixed. (I forgot to uncomment the line that makes it Manchuria only)
3, 4. I just turned China into Manchuria in the 1700 AD scenario, but nothing else. I will fix them.

And in Australia branch, there is no Australia could be selected in 1700ad scenerio. When I select the other civs, the game crashes.

Fixed.

Oh, another thing, when I select the Swahili in the 600 ad scenario it tells me that scenario file isn't available (something of the like), it only lets me play with the 3000 bc one

Could it be the EOL conversion like the last FAQ question of the thread below?
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/bug-reports-and-technical-issues.533867/
It works fine for me.