Minor Suggestions Thread

[blizzrd]

That seems like a crazy request. The buildings are already built, they don't get knocked down and rebuilt upon vassalization, so why should they change appearance?

 

[star15389]

Just go outside and walk around. Most of the buildings you'll see were constructed fairly recently, especially if you live in a city, and it only makes sense that recently constructed buildings will match the culture of the time they were built in. Rome hasn't been sacked since 410, yet very few buildings there are 1600 years old or look much like 1600 year old buildings. You'll notice that if the French conquer Rome, the buildings change from Greco-Roman to European style even if they don't raze it. How to explain this besides new buildings being constructed in a more French manner?

 

[LukeUeda-Sarson]

Pedant's point - Rome has been sacked *many* times since 410. As in 455 (Vandals, a proper sacking, unlike the 410 version which was only a bit of looting), various points in the Byzantine-Goth wars, and let's not forget the 16th century.

Cheers, Luke

 

[sk8er AG]

I think star15389 has a good point, another similar thing is sometimes buildings styles change unlike they did in history. for instance when the turks conquer greece and some of the balkan cities they shouldnt turn to the middleastern appearance, same with Arabia and Spain. however, in other cases like spains conquering of the aztecs or incans the buildings should change.

Another thing, Would be somehow possible to have revolution in a civ for a number of turns as a median between nations losing a city or desecending to civil war. sometimes some civs collapse and dont return which radically remakes the map, espacially in europe. When germany collapses the dutch usually grap frankfurt and sometimes berlin. and then if france collapses spain and the dutch usually divide up the complete territory.

 

[sk8er AG]

Because The holy roman empire is not used couldnt the civ be adapted to be used as Hapsburg Austria. A major civ In the balkans would really add to the game. It usually takes a while cities to appear in the balkans and sometimes they dont appear until the enlightment it seems.

 

[kravixon]

The Holy Roman Empire is in game though as Germany when it first spawns (bts). Same leader and full name, only difference is the unique unit.

 

[sk8er AG]

But isnt there a Germany civ and a Holy Roman Empire civ, i think which ever one isnt being used could be used as Austria.

 

[Walliard]

You don't need to replace an existing civ to add a new one, but it's helpful to have existing LH/UB/UU graphics.

Anyway, with a bit of renaming, Otto/Charlemagne, the Rathaus and the Landsknecht could be used. An Austria modcomp would be an interesting idea, though it could get a bit cramped on the 3000 BC start if Greece survives.

 

[deanej]

I wouldn't mind being able to contact the Byzantine empire via diplomacy in the 600 AD start.

 

[Positronic]

I wouldn't mind being able to contact the Byzantine empire via diplomacy in the 600 AD start.

I wouldn't mind being able to play as the Byzantine empire in the 600AD start.

 

[say1988]

But isnt there a Germany civ and a Holy Roman Empire civ, i think which ever one isnt being used could be used as Austria.

But in Civ terms they are one and the same. German civ represents a united German nation. Really, HRE when it was somewhat united, Austria when it was dominant, and Prussia/Germany, when it rose to power.
It is like greece, sure Athens, Sparta, Macedonia, and all the other city states are all completely different political entities, but are encompassed by the greek civ.

Playable Byzantines, Korea, Poland, and I am sure there are others that should come ahead of an seperate Austria.

 

[kairob]

OK, I have a couple of things that I think could improve the game a little.
1)Earlier Carthage (if possible without being unhistorical) The Greeks and Phoenicians were rivals before Rome was a big player and I think Carthage being around for a bit before Rome might be interesting as well as letting them get more into colonising before the Romans arrive. (Although they do seem to do this more with the new patch, which is good)
2)Secondly could the Mountain in southern Macedonia be changed into a hill if possible, this would actually allow the possibility of a coastal Macedonian city that isnt built on a food resource as well representing that Macedonia was a very productive region and not completely unworkable.
3)Can we have it so that when you invade a city you keep the naval units in it instead of them being destroyed and if you destroy a civ keeping some of their navy as well. Historically when empires invading provinces they often kept their Navies and this would help emerging powers grow. (Like if you kept Carthage's Navy as Rome after destroying the civ it would help you control the Med.) The are examples of this all throughout history from the Persians acquiring the Phoenician navy after invading to the Germans trying to keep the French's navy when they surrendered in WWII and the British having to destroy the French fleets to stop the Nazis getting them.)

 

[AnotherPacifist]

Now that we've nerfed the golden age even more (2 turns of anarchy for any civ change for large empires), can we at least give India and Cristo Redentor a little bit more advantage, namely, when you switch away from Communism there's no post-communist crisis, and when you switch into Universal Suffrage there is no period of adjustment when you're not in representation. This is only fair, the idea of no anarchy being that there should be NO disturbance at all when you switch civics.

 

[kairob]

Any chance of making the Maoi Statues a National Wonder again, but maybe changing its name to a Royal Harbour or National Port or something?

 

[Rhye]

kairob, in this moment I don't think I can do this, as I want to provide 1.183 as early as possible.

 

[kairob]

That's OK. Is it still in consideration for any possible later patch?

 

[sk8er AG]

OK, I have a couple of things that I think could improve the game a little.
1)Earlier Carthage (if possible without being unhistorical) The Greeks and Phoenicians were rivals before Rome was a big player and I think Carthage being around for a bit before Rome might be interesting as well as letting them get more into colonising before the Romans arrive. (Although they do seem to do this more with the new patch, which is good)
2)Secondly could the Mountain in southern Macedonia be changed into a hill if possible, this would actually allow the possibility of a coastal Macedonian city that isnt built on a food resource as well representing that Macedonia was a very productive region and not completely unworkable.
3)Can we have it so that when you invade a city you keep the naval units in it instead of them being destroyed and if you destroy a civ keeping some of their navy as well. Historically when empires invading provinces they often kept their Navies and this would help emerging powers grow. (Like if you kept Carthage's Navy as Rome after destroying the civ it would help you control the Med.) The are examples of this all throughout history from the Persians acquiring the Phoenician navy after invading to the Germans trying to keep the French's navy when they surrendered in WWII and the British having to destroy the French fleets to stop the Nazis getting them.)

I agree with 1 and 2, and 3 to a lesser extent. My Carthegianian history is a little bit shaky but i know the phonecians had many territories in spain and greeks in southern italy and sicily. Rome though did not appear as a major power until some time later(400BC-200BC?). As for 2 i agree as well and i think the mountian on the northern tip of morroco (1 East of sheep resource) should be switched to a hill so ceuta can be built. The Carpathians i think should also be shrunk to hills to allow a city to be built in Romania with out interfereing with constantinople.

 

[Positronic]

OK, I have a couple of things that I think could improve the game a little.
1)Earlier Carthage (if possible without being unhistorical) The Greeks and Phoenicians were rivals before Rome was a big player and I think Carthage being around for a bit before Rome might be interesting as well as letting them get more into colonising before the Romans arrive. (Although they do seem to do this more with the new patch, which is good)
2)Secondly could the Mountain in southern Macedonia be changed into a hill if possible, this would actually allow the possibility of a coastal Macedonian city that isnt built on a food resource as well representing that Macedonia was a very productive region and not completely unworkable.
3)Can we have it so that when you invade a city you keep the naval units in it instead of them being destroyed and if you destroy a civ keeping some of their navy as well. Historically when empires invading provinces they often kept their Navies and this would help emerging powers grow. (Like if you kept Carthage's Navy as Rome after destroying the civ it would help you control the Med.) The are examples of this all throughout history from the Persians acquiring the Phoenician navy after invading to the Germans trying to keep the French's navy when they surrendered in WWII and the British having to destroy the French fleets to stop the Nazis getting them.)

Excellent suggestions, especially 3. The way it works now (ships being destroyed upon city conquest) doesn't exactly make sense. Conquerors typically don't burn the military vehicles of the conquered when they can use them.

 

[LukeUeda-Sarson]

Rhye - could you rename Emperor level something different so as not to confuse newcomers that it equates to regular civ Emperor level?

(My tongue in check suggestion would be "masochistic"...)

Cheers, Luke

 

[Rhye]

Can't think of anything else that's pertinent