[Modmodmod] RFC:Europe Extra Civs

[ezzlar]

Seems very interesting!! What determines the AI willingness to spend money/anarchy/espionage? 3 turns of anarchy is madness stability wise.

What would the downside of unions be? If no other penalties unions are only upside. Maybe some permanent loss of stability to reflect the internal struggles?

Union dates should be approximate, just like the plague dates.

Some more ideas:

- Size of army/lose units
- Score
- Faith points/lose buildings
- Techs/trade away (if only part of land disappears)
- Foreign relations/start wars against opponents or "worst" rival

Edit: alternative approach:

The civ with the highest scores attemps to buy over the smaller civ. The number of "points" needed to win are calculated from the difference in score between the two civs, the smaller difference the higher cost. Each of the categories give certain defined points. If enough concessions you take over the smaller civ.

You could also calculate cost depending on how high the civs is on the relative score list. Higher relative score means higher cost.

Human players arent target of unions talks if on lower side of score. Unions also provide interesting UHVs!

 

[Morholt]

Seems very interesting!! What determines the AI willingness to spend money/anarchy/espionage? 3 turns of anarchy is madness stability wise.

I haven't gotten to that part yet. Probably I won't actually subject the AI to going into anarchy and so on as it has no sense for stability. I'll probably just calculate the score the AI would have gotten if they chose the middle option.

What would the downside of unions be? If no other penalties unions are only upside. Maybe some permanent loss of stability to reflect the internal struggles?

Something like that. Remember that there's also an initial stability loss from taking over a lot of cities at once.

Union dates should be approximate, just like the plague dates.

Yes, that's the plan.

Some more ideas:

- Size of army/lose units
- Score
- Faith points/lose buildings
- Techs/trade away (if only part of land disappears)
- Foreign relations/start wars against opponents or "worst" rival

Score is largely based on your cities so it is already sort of represented by the bureaucracy phase. And a faith phase is complicated since the two nations might not have the same religion. Having a military phase where you can use your military to make a show of force is a good idea though. The "payment" could be a permanent attitude hit with every other civ for being an agressive imperialist.

Edit: alternative approach:

The civ with the highest scores attemps to buy over the smaller civ. The number of "points" needed to win are calculated from the difference in score between the two civs, the smaller difference the higher cost. Each of the categories give certain defined points. If enough concessions you take over the smaller civ.

You could also calculate cost depending on how high the civs is on the relative score list. Higher relative score means higher cost.

Human players arent target of unions talks if on lower side of score. Unions also provide interesting UHVs!

I prefer a system where both civs have a chance of "winning".

 

[ezzlar]

Flipping gives a boost, right? Or do you see the cities as conquered?

Faith points are still 0-100 no matter which religion you have, so it shouldnt be a problem?

Both sides able to win isnt that fun when its human vs AI.

 

[Morholt]

Flipping gives a boost, right? Or do you see the cities as conquered?

Faith points are still 0-100 no matter which religion you have, so it shouldnt be a problem?

Both sides able to win isnt that fun when its human vs AI.

Flipping only gives a boost if the city is in a Solid province. I thought OK and lower gave a penalty but it turns out that's only when you built a new city in those areas.

What would the comparison of faith points represent if the civs are not the same religion?

And the human gets an emergency "stop the talks" option if he should lose.

 

[ezzlar]

The most pious nation. And its probably catholic/protestant/orthodox which are all very similiar.

More like a forced reload.

 

[Morholt]

Hmm, well maybe faith points can be a part of some sort of composite starting score (also based on civ score or power perhaps), but I don't see making a separate option for it as part of the union negotiations.

And it's no more reload-y than say having a civ be reborn within your territory. Some players will reload when that happens, others appreciate the challenge of playing a reload-less game and will not.

 

[Baron03]

Sounds good. Instead of an exact date of union chance, why not have a really Hugh probability of it happening during the specific century it should occur. And have all other years a low probability.

And can you unionize with any Civ or is it only a certain one? I would prefer you being able to pick between a neighboring civ

There would be a lot of dynamic names from unionizing

I suppose this will be on the next alpha?

 

[Morholt]

Currently the unions occur within +-5 turns of a preset year. The unions are only between certain civs that historically formed or attempted to form unions (it is possible to set a probability the AI will agree to talk). So the Union of Lublin can happen between 1554-1578, between Poland and Lithuania, with Poland more likely to take command of the union. Remember that a human player can choose whether to enter the union or attempt to reverse the historical outcome.

One positive thing about introducing this system it will somewhat reduce the "cluttering" of the map by the new civs. Also I like that Austria will likely take charge of Hungary.

 

[Wessel V1]

Does the newly formed civ also adopt settler maps from both countries? I think that an Austro-Hungarian empire needs a combination of both civs at least. I think that the highest value of both maps should be in the new map, though the favored area may become rather large.

 

[Morholt]

Clarification: No new civ is formed. It is either the one or the other that takes over some or all cities from the other.

Using settlermaps of both civs (picking the maximum value from both) should be possible, I might implement that later along with dynamic names for having formed unions.

 

[civ_king]

A province stability merge would be good, because IIRC Poland has some areas as unstable where Lithuania has OK or even Solid.

 

[ozqar]

The union system looks very interesting, and yes, it should make for some new UHV's and strategies, but, could it be possible not to enter the union, even for the AI? Perhaps the stronger nation could get some extra units and start a war with the weaker one, should they refuse.

 

[Morholt]

Currently the AI has a % chance of refusing a union which is set per union. Lublin has 90% chance of being accepted, Prussia-Brandenburg 80%, etc..

I wouldn't base an UHV on forming a union unless it's a union that has 100% chance of being formed or at least proposed.

 

[Duke of Awesome]

what would happen if one of the civs talking about a union is a vassal of another civ? or the civ theyre in talks with? ive seen Austria become a vassal of Hungary before. would that influence the talks? also what if Austria is a vassal of Germany and then talks begin?

 

[Morholt]

Good point, if one civ is a vassal of the other the master should get a large bonus to its union score. If one of the civs is vassal to a third civ then perhaps the union should not be allowed to happen.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Good point, if one civ is a vassal of the other the master should get a large bonus to its union score. If one of the civs is vassal to a third civ then perhaps the union should not be allowed to happen.

Agreed on both things
Good idea on the merged city name maps (based on settler map values), also on the merged province stabilities

Another thing you should also take into account, that a partially union is not really possible with the stability mechanics we have here
If the "losing" civ losts half of it's territory, the stability will be so low that there is no point keeping the civs in. Will collapse in a few turns anyway.
Also, huge territory of the "winner" civs will be on the loser civs war map.
Would be really strange to see: Lithuania declared war on the union of Poland-Lithuania, or the remnants of Austria on the union of Hungary-Austria ,)

What should be with respawns?
I can imagine this both ways:
The respawn means the "loser" civs sruggle for freedom - like Hungary's several attempts in the 18-19th century
Or disabling respawns could be better for gameplay

 

[AbsintheRed]

The most pious nation. And its probably catholic/protestant/orthodox which are all very similiar.

More like a forced reload.

You are right that religion should be important too
But I think an union should only be possible between nations of the same religion
Religion was way too important in medieval Europe
Morholt, you can even give this a new screen (4th power calculation), faith points are perfect for it

 

[dragodon64]

You are right that religion should be important too
But I think an union should only be possible between nations of the same religion
Religion was way too important in medieval Europe
Morholt, you can even give this a new screen (4th power calculation), faith points are perfect for it

Generally, I'd agree with the religion thing, but Poland-Lithuania might have to be an exception. I think that the Union of Krevo (1385) should be the date for union between these two, especially if you want a united front against the Teutonic Order.

Jogaila, who became King Consort and then King Regnant of Poland, only converted to Catholicism to be eligible to marry Jadwiga of Poland, and the legitimacy of the pagan Lithuanian nobles within the commonwealth was confirmed by several treaties in the 15th century.

 

[3Miro]

The union between Poland and Lithuania did include religious "clauses" and while paganism was not prosecuted, Lithuania is considered Catholic after that date. In the game, the Lithuanian AI should convert to Catholicism after its cities grow beyond certain point (average of 6 or 7), so a special exception should not be needed.

I am thinking about RFCE here, but the only other such Unions would be "Leon-Aragon" (this mod only) and Austria-Hungary. I don't think France-Burgundy qualifies. Maybe a temporary Spain-Portugal one. Am I missing any?

 

[Duke of Awesome]

maybe an Ottoman Egypt one (when theyre included) a Denmark and Sweden union to represent the Kalmar Union. England and Scotland around 1700s. Muscovy and Novgorod? I'm not sure on the history of the formation of Russia so disregard that if its historically inaccurate.