New and Changed Civilizations in 1.18

[Dracosolon]

Is the Ai actually supposed to complete historical goals?
Because it's a bit weird that Rome almost always fails to settle Iberia, or doesn't reach England

Rome settling Europe would have no impact on any other civ (except maybe the coming Celts) so it'd really mostly matter if you're playing it yourself.

Conqueror events that also reflect UHV are another matter, but they can't be overdone either.

 

[CivEnthusiast]

Rome settling Europe would have no impact on any other civ (except maybe the coming Celts) so it'd really mostly matter if you're playing it yourself.

Conqueror events that also reflect UHV are another matter, but they can't be overdone either.

That's why I prefer to run Rome to their historical conquests myself every Classical Era gameplay

 

[mccp77]

Romes city placements are very important for determining the relative strength of Spain/France in the current map. I think the bigger map will fix this, but always better to play Rome yourself.

 

[Leoreth]

For a fair setup you can always play the 600 AD scenario.

 

[Logoncal]

No, the AI is not aware of historical goals at all and by default, the game does not check for the historical goals of non-player civilizations.

Base RFC and Europe they keep checks for AI, which always makes me paranoid of the idea of losing to a UHV AI in those versions.
Sometimes i forget the sheer ammount of QoL changes your mod has, like the fact that plagues cannot kill units.

 

[Leoreth]

Yeah the latter was one of the earliest changes in this mod. I don't know if I would consider the UHV thing a QOL improvement - there just was little point in advertising something the AI could at best stumble into.

 

[Derdan]

I remember an AI winning their UHV while I was still waiting for my civ to spawn.

 

[venusinfurs77]

maybe greece AI could do theirs independently? can't think any of the rest would

 

[Logoncal]

Yeah the latter was one of the earliest changes in this mod. I don't know if I would consider the UHV thing a QOL improvement - there just was little point in advertising something the AI could at best stumble into.

It's Civ IV, the game is infamous for its RNG.

 

[Askii2D]

Rus UP Ideas:


Varangian trade route:

- river cities act like coastal. can build lighthouse, customs house...
or
- cities can have trade routes with Independents




Every Rus prince had his own army called "Druzhina".

- two additional units without upkeep per city.




Christianization of Rus'/"Taufe der Rus"
Around 988AC pagan prince Vladimir was choosing religion. He talked to catholic, jewish, islamic and orthodox missionaries. Fair conclusion (his wife was Greek) he choose orthodoxy.

- get decision to choose religion. or spawn 4 missionaries in Kiev.

 

[LikeNothing]

Ideas on making some of my favorites among these even better:

Celts UP: Can this also allow them to heal while moving in forests? If that can be coded it would be nice, and make more full dynamic use of the UU's 2 movement.

Kushans UP: Does this also include spreading religions in other players' cities? If so, this would encourage Open Borders, and make for more dynamic and proactive diplomatic gameplay.

Malays UP: A trade-focused UP is fitting. How about "Trade routes in your capital also brings food"? A food version of Multilateralism. Again, this effect is more dynamic which allows for more player agency. It also allows Malays parity in competing with their neighbors Khmer and Java in building large cities, which is historical.

Burma UP: Can it also allow Great Prophets to lead armies as Great Generals? I imagine Burma will have conquest UHVs, and its UUs are very far apart in timespan.

Rus: Will it respawn as Ukraine? Like Vikings as Denmark-Norway? If so, should it also have access to Cossacks UU?

Vietnam UP: Awesome UP - would you also code Vietnam's AI to make use of it? It could be as simple as having them be more aggressive/warmongering.

Swahilis UP: Could you also add an effect to allow forests/palm trees to spread with greater chances along coasts? Like the effect of forest preserves? I like planting trees not just IRL, but also in DoC.

America UP: Powerful, but balanced UP. Would the happiness bonus exceed the population bonus, or be just enough to cover it? I think for realism it should be just enough (or even less than enough), but for gameplay it may exceed a little.

Brazil: With 3 mighty fighting UUs for America, can happy Brazil have a military UU too? Por favor? Based on ideas from this Brazilian:

Spoiler Reddit Link :

https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/e9rxlb/a_brazilians_view_on_brazil_history_perspective

• Tucano: Fighter, cheaper to build, no unit maintenance cost.
• Selva: Infantry, melee unit, starts with Woodsman I, Woodsman II.
• FEB/Pracinha: Fighter/Bomber, more expensive to build, starts with Blitz.

Canada UP: Realistic, but a bit too passive IMO? How about "Increased trade routes yields from years of peace and defensive pacts"? The defensive pacts allow for some more active gameplay decision-making.

Dravidians UP: The trade guilds were not just focused on foreign trade. They were a special social stratum with enormous domestic influence as well. Also they had both mercantilist and free trade practices. How about "Each happiness and health resource affect double/triple the number of domestic cities?" This would allow the player to focus foreign trade (since can trade more resources away), and/or be militaristic (with the better economy & domestic happiness/health). It would also allow Dravidia to have more parity with India's health/life expectancy with India's awesome new UP.

India UP: Powerful UP, clever in how it encourages building temples and cathedrals. A bit OP maybe, but flexible and unique and suits India well.

Russia UP: Harsh, fun, unique, powerful, but exquisitely balanced. Also a nice dual/contrast/opposite/nemesis of America's new UP. Everything an UP should be. How did you think of this?! Is the old General Winter effect available to all based on terrain/map locations then? Would it also occur in places like e.g. Tibet?

 

[Leoreth]

Kushans UP: Does this also include spreading religions in other players' cities?

Yes. The only thing that matters is that the religion being spread is not the state religion of the owner.

Rus: Will it respawn as Ukraine? Like Vikings as Denmark-Norway? If so, should it also have access to Cossacks UU?

Probably yeah. I thought about Cossacks being in a strange place right now, but nevertheless they were still used by Russia. For now I did not make any changes, but I might revisit that decision.

Russia UP: Harsh, fun, unique, powerful, but exquisitely balanced. Also a nice dual/contrast/opposite/nemesis of America's new UP. Everything an UP should be. How did you think of this?!

I thought about the various iterations of Siberian prison/labour camps in Russian history and whether they would have potential for a UP effect. I eventually came to the conclusion that any effect should not strengthen those cities but rather the European cities at the expense of Siberian cities. The happiness transferral dovetailed nicely with the idea that many Siberian cities would be small and not care about unhappiness that much.

Is the old General Winter effect available to all based on terrain/map locations then? Would it also occur in places like e.g. Tibet?

Nope, it's not in the game at all anymore (unless you count the somewhat similar Great Wall effect). I always wanted to get rid of general winter in its existing form because it was difficult for the AI to handle.

 

[LikeNothing]

Re: the new Russian UP, IMO it can even simulate pre-Siberian Muscovy features, such as Ivan the Terrible's Oprichnina. It is the most elegant and fun UP for Russia I have ever seen in a historical strategy game.

Re: General Winter, I think with the larger map we probably don't need it any more. In RFC Europe Muscovy has a different UP, and it's still the most difficult to invade due to its sheer size and the terrain.

Even though the new DoC map is not as zoomed in as the RFC Europe map, it contains more of Russia. This sheer size effect can be enhanced further by: (1) Giving Russia an elongated Core, extending to the east, so that it doesn't collapse too easily from its western half being conquered (I think Leoreth already did this) (2) Giving the Kremlin a possible global city defense bonus; (3) Making the Russian AI draft more to leverage its new UP and UB.

Re: Great Wall's General Winter effect, I think it's less of a problem because it only affects barbarians, and if barbarians' AI can't handle it well it's WAD, and barbarians can be balanced much more easily than civs by adjusting their unit spawns.

Re: Cossacks, perhaps a solution (other than making it a shared UU) is to make it a unit enabled by a wonder (e.g. Kremlin or St. Basil's) and perhaps also require a resource (e.g. Fur). This way, even Poland can build it, which is historical.

I will try to come up with a new UP for China, given these stylish refined fun and powerful new UPs for Russia, America, and India. I think I may have an old thread somewhere...

 

[Leoreth]

Re: General Winter, I think with the larger map we probably don't need it any more. In RFC Europe Muscovy has a different UP, and it's still the most difficult to invade due to its sheer size and the terrain.

Even though the new DoC map is not as zoomed in as the RFC Europe map, it contains more of Russia. This sheer size effect can be enhanced further by: (1) Giving Russia an elongated Core, extending to the east, so that it doesn't collapse too easily from its western half being conquered (I think Leoreth already did this) (2) Giving the Kremlin a possible global city defense bonus; (3) Making the Russian AI draft more to leverage its new UP and UB.

Yeah, I did not mention this earlier but I also think the general winter is a bit overrated as a pop historical trope rather than a coherent lens to approach history with. The real strength of Russian defense in the two wars that produced this trope (Napoleonic Wars and WW2) was its strategic depth, so I agree with you that the size of the map alone should be enough to benefit them in that regard.

Re: Great Wall's General Winter effect, I think it's less of a problem because it only affects barbarians, and if barbarians' AI can't handle it well it's WAD, and barbarians can be balanced much more easily than civs by adjusting their unit spawns.

I agree, I don't think there is any concern with the Great Wall effect.

 

[AOS9001]

The real strength of Russian defense in the two wars that produced this trope (Napoleonic Wars and WW2) was its strategic depth, so I agree with you that the size of the map alone should be enough to benefit them in that regard.

Yeah, half of Napoleon's million man army starved/deserted before Borodino, in the summer. Hunger killed more than cold by far, and what hunger (and Cossack raiders, and enraged peasant partisans) didn't get, the river crossings (unfrozen rivers - the Russian winter arrived late) did on the way home. The cold only became a serious issue after Berezina, and by then the vast majority of Napoleon's army had already disintegrated.

I'm excited for Russia's new UP, it synergizes hugely with the new UB. I would like if one of their UUs was modern so they could match the USA better, but that's a minor problem for another discussion.

Re: Cossacks, perhaps a solution (other than making it a shared UU) is to make it a unit enabled by a wonder (e.g. Kremlin or St. Basil's) and perhaps also require a resource (e.g. Fur). This way, even Poland can build it, which is historical.

I really like this idea, it's a creative way to reward Rus/Russia and Poland for dominating eastern Europe. The Poles made it all the way to Moscow in 1612 after all!

 

[TsimTsigal]

Cossacks should remain Muscovite Russian and not Rus' for two reasons imho:

1) Russia had roughly a dozen Cossack hosts (including Ural and Far Eastern ones), Zaporozhie Cossacks are just the most famous.

2) Reappearing civilizations like Mamluks, Peru and so on are mostly "filler" factions that don't have much going on for them (i presume they will eventually get Iran/Mexico treatment, especially Peru which is usually completely helpless even compared to overall poor SA civs). While Ukraine makes sense as possible breakaway modern state (I don't think Zaporozhie should be represented by anything but Independents, being too short-lived and not influential enough), probably it would be better to keep Kievan Rus focused on Medieval Rus.

Making it regional or wonder unit makes not much sense tbh, mostly because it creates a weird precedent. If we have regional unit in form of Cossacks, why don't add regional Crusader Knights? Gurkhas? Warrior Monks? It is the point when adding entities turns into bloat.

Moreover, current Cossacks are Imperial/Industrial Age unit and come in play too late to make sense for Zaporozhie or Poland.

Personally i find Leoreth's vision of Rus' pretty compelling (altho if the UP stacks with Elective, it might lead to hilarious synergy when the best improvement for Kiev would be glorious No Improvement, especially on forests; if the UHV will be short one, no improvement will be strictly better than Cottages) and good as it is.

 

[HNation]

The Kievan Rus should probably use Old East Slavic names instead of modern Russian or Ukrainian ones. Many of these can be found on Wiktionary. For example, Kyiv should be Kievu. Minsk should be Menisku. Lwów should be Livovu. Seems East Slavic toponyms used to have a final -u that became silent over the years.

 

[Cypriot]

Seems East Slavic toponyms used to have a final -u that became silent over the years.

Firstly, it became silent by the end of 12th century, so you'll have to remove it around 1200. Secondly, I have never seen transliteration of -ъ as -u before, it just seems confusing. And thirdly, I cannot remember any other representation of linguistic changes for any other civ.

 

[Leoreth]

There are more attempts to do this in 1.18, for example there is more of an effort to represent Old Chinese city names or use period appropriate names in the Indian subcontinent. With proper names it is hard to make a distinction what is a linguistic shift vs just a name change. I definitely do not want to get drawn into debates about e.g. Middle English names and when they started and stopped being used, least of all because before language standardisation there is always some arbitrariness to the question.

What's more important to me is capturing the identity of a civilization in the game. There is a fluid transition between classical, medieval, and modern Greek but it makes sense to use classical Greek for Greek city names and medieval Greek for Byzantine city names and modern Greek for neither, even though there is a lot of room to choose from e.g. "which" medieval Greek name version to choose specifically. Because doing so makes Greece and Byzantium more distinct and communicates their presence in the game better.

I could see something similar for the Rus civilization as well where they could use Old East Slavic while Russia uses (modern) Russian, simply to communicate the distinction between those two civilizations more clearly.

 

[Cypriot]

I appreciate your work, but I don't think that adding ending -u for East Slavic cities works for your goal. In pronunciation, it vanished before differentiation of russian, ukrainian and belarusian, though I don't remember when you planned to introduce Muscovy civilization. In writing, it remained literally until bolsheviks, so making it distinct feature of Kievan Rus in oppose to modern Russia just looks weird.