Minor Suggestions Thread

[mateofuerte]

I know it's been said a number of times before, but the Vikings really should spawn with a settler in Denmark. The Dutch and Germans settle this area far too often and the Vikings never do.

 

[kairob]

@ TBB; Germany collapses in most of my games, and the Netherlands never neads a helping hand it ends up being way too powerful in most of my games, because it expands into German terratory after they collapse...

@mateofuerte; I agree that Denmark should control Denmark more often, is it even in their flip area ATM?

 

[Fairy]

This crowds the Dutch too much and the Dutch should get a chance to have a 2nd city.

I disagree, the Dutch are always very powerful in the games I play and manage to build two or three cities in their area, they're not at all crowded. They always seem to be my main rivals for the top spot, so I think them being more powerful would mean they just dominated the game entirely. They may only have one main city and one or two side cities in Europe, but they pretty much always end up with South Africa & Australia leading to a very powerful Netherlands.

 

[ADP101]

The dutch are an uber powerful civ even with 1 city for about 10 or 20 turns.

I think Budhism should spread more, usually i see a few cities in india with budhism and then the khemer with their few cities. none in the Tibenen area. And also for some reason it always spreads to Persian Sush. But in one odd game, it had spread to 20% of the world.

Also the American vassilization problem needs to be fixed, they always end up getting vassilized by some Europeon nation

 

[Rhye]

the southern Rhine again like they used to. What happened to Aix-la-Chapelle or Strasbourg? They never build anything east of Paris now.

I fear this would either cripple the dutch, or if it flips, cripple France itself

 

[Sam767]

I would humbly suggest that jungles can be removed with iron working again, or that they can at least have cities founded on them and can be home to improvements without removing the jungle. The whole idea of marsh is really annoying too. If I am India, it is impossible to build Karachi because of these factors (by the way, that area really isn't jungle and marsh in real life, anyways. It's mostly flood plain). I then noticed that it is somewhat difficult to be Mali when one cannot remove jungle- and Mali was a pretty good civilization back in the day (real life). I was only Mali once, though, and others probably have had better luck than me. Still, some important cities cannot be founded because of the restrictions of marsh and jungle.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

Can I suggest that marsh can be drained once Medicine and Plastics are available? (e.g. draining marshes to prevent malaria)
I don't think jungle should be removed early, it helps with defense of weak civs like Khmer. Maybe Mali should have more grasslands in their territory rather.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

I fear this would either cripple the dutch, or if it flips, cripple France itself

Yup, Constance in my games as France always pushes Amsterdam's culture to one block south. Never flips to either Netherlands or Germany.

 

[The Q-Meister]

Another thought with regards to civics: Can there be more done to discourage civs from making combinations like State Property/Theocracy/Hereditary Rule? I've seen, more than once the Soviet Union or People's Repubic of China adopt this.

It would also be interesting to see civs with common civics, esp in the modern era have diplomatic bonuses with each other to create a political bloc of nations much like there is a religious bloc in the earlier eras of the game.

EDIT: Baghdad. I almost never see Baghdad in the game, just Babil. Maybe this is a nitpicking detail to some, but Baghdad has had such an important part of middle eastern and even world history to not have it all in the game, ever and instead have a city that was all but dead by the time of the Roman epoch dominate Mesopotamia is just crazy to me.

 

[The Q-Meister]

Last pet peeve of the day: Any chance to disable certain victories in the game? I for one absolutely HATE the Space Race Victory. While I'm conquering 4 or 5 different civilizations, have the most land, the highest culture, the most people....an AI civ, especially if they're a West Euro one can get a Space race victory by bottling up (which is what they love to do anyway) and build up their science and with friendly AI tech trades it's almost impossible to catch up. At least the score victory gives you some time to try to overtake the AIs another way.

 

[SadoMacho]

On the marsh thing:
The Dutch used windmills to drain the land and make it usefull for agreculture. Later on steampower was used to drain them further. That land was very furtile. Maybe building windmills on marches could give a +1 and after steampower an extra +1 ?

 

[Panopticon]

EDIT: Baghdad. I almost never see Baghdad in the game, just Babil. Maybe this is a nitpicking detail to some, but Baghdad has had such an important part of middle eastern and even world history to not have it all in the game, ever and instead have a city that was all but dead by the time of the Roman epoch dominate Mesopotamia is just crazy to me.

I agree with this - it's due to the computer's reluctance to raze cities it captures. A nice wave of barbarians would sort it out, but it hardly reflects reality, does it?

 

[jessiecat]

I agree with this - it's due to the computer's reluctance to raze cities it captures. A nice wave of barbarians would sort it out, but it hardly reflects reality, does it?

I realy don't know what he's talking about. Baghdad is in every game I
play. And if it's already not there, which it usually is, I found it myself,
just above the marble/stone. It's a powerful location. Don't waste it!

 

[Lokolus]

I realy don't know what he's talking about. Baghdad is in every game I
play. And if it's already not there, which it usually is, I found it myself,
just above the marble/stone. It's a powerful location. Don't waste it!

It's because you play the 600 AD start. I never saw Baghdad in the 3000 one, because Babili is in the same tile.

 

[jessiecat]

It's because you play the 600 AD start. I never saw Baghdad in the 3000 one, because Babili is in the same tile.

Oh, OK. I never play the 3000BC start. That explains it. But it's only a name.
Isn't there a mechanism where city names change by era? If not, maybe
there should be?

 

[mitsho]

There is a mechanism that changes conquered cities according to the civ that owns it newly. However, that system is based upon a city approach meaning that the city that is there gets renamed (Babylon stays that way) and not the most important city in the region is chosen (Baghdad). Another example is As-Sur and not Damascus! That's also why you do not see Al-Qahira very often, as Niwt-Rist/Thebes doesn't get razed...

Which is a pity in my opinion, I rather have the "real" cities, gives more flavour, but that is just my two cents...

m

 

[Panopticon]

Correct. 600 AD is much more satisfying if you like historically-important locations. You will often see Baghdad, Cairo, Istanbul in their correct locations.

 

[Sam767]

On the marsh thing:
The Dutch used windmills to drain the land and make it usefull for agreculture. Later on steampower was used to drain them further. That land was very furtile. Maybe building windmills on marches could give a +1 and after steampower an extra +1 ?

Makes sense!

That involves building windmills on flat ground, which I think makes sense; I don't understand why they can only be built on hills.

 

[kairob]

more wind

 

[SadoMacho]

Well, there aren't many hills in Holland, but a lot of windmills...