New policy system

[aatami]

There is already quite a lot of variation and difference, due to the fact that you can only forge your government a certain amount, more if you have a cultural style of play.
Now, for one, logically the deletion of certain combinations removes the number of combinations available (not my real point, but just pointing out).

I've probably been writing for 30 minutes now, but it's useless. The answer is simple: 1 There would be such a few ways to build up a basic structure for your government, and 2 There would be such a few logical policy-plans.
Both of which would be big problems because some of the choices would be just insane just insane.

Here, I'll quote far the best excludance chart here.
Tradition vs. Liberty
Freedom vs. Autocracy
Order vs. Commerce (Communism vs. Capitalism)
Piety vs. Rationalism
Patronage vs. Honor

Yes, there are some modifiers that you get to choose, but there are just few basic structures that aren't stupid.

You would basically have about three variables, say x, y and z, and you would have to choose two for each game, instead of having about 8 variables, from which you would have to choose five. Which gives more strategic choice?

 

[CYZ]

I agree that symmetry in the policy branches may not be so good for gameplay. I wonder why there are excluding branches in the first place, it doesn't seem to be for gameplay reasons. Perhaps it'd be more logical to take out the entire idea of excluding branches. I think if the devs never implemented it people wouldn't have missed it. I also can't wait for the United States of Freedom, Liberty and Autocracy

Anyway, so much for the symmetry.

I think adding the ''completion'' of the branch as an option not needed for culture victory is an option. It might work very well gameplaywise.

Personally I'm more in favor of granting the bonus when completing the branch. I know this is like two bonusses at once. But I think it should go combined with a higher culture cost per policy and a lower requirement for the utopia project (4 instead of 5).

 

[aatami]

I wonder why there are excluding branches in the first place, it doesn't seem to be for gameplay reasons.

Because of logical and realism reasons.

 

[markusbeutel]

I tweaked policies in my NiGHTS mod so that there are 7 main policy Branches, each representing a Government type. Each Government has 6 ruling policies that consist of an economic/military/foreign/health/education/building policy. The Government's are activated at specific era's, like in Vanilla, and the 6 ruling policies are mutually exclusive in the sense that a more advanced one replaces one gained earlier. As an example, the economic policy of Monarchy would replace the economic policy of Despotism. For the most part, more advanced ruling policies are better than earlier ruling policies - (but this is not always the case as some favor wide/tall empires alternatively). Below these 6 ruling policies are 15 district policies that affect buildings unique to the era that it's government type was unlocked in. These district policies are not mutually exclusive and remain with you regardless of how many you activate. The Government Branches themselves do not disable each other and only one completed branch is required to initiate the Utopia Project, (except for Despotism - it doesn't count towards Utopia).

I'm always looking for ways to improve the system and would welcome any feedback. Here's a screenshot of what it looks like so far. (As you mouse over the different branches the policy icons appear. The city picture/map is just a cover/placeholder of sorts.) Also, adopting ruling policies cost you a set amount of Stability points while adopting new individual Government types costs Stability points in relation to how many cities you've have built. (Stability replaces Happiness in NiGHTS while Unrest replaces Unhappiness.)

http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads/nightsgovernments_M5X.jpg

 

[Camikaze]

I think it should be game-changing to make it more than just another policy. Because then it's just another policy.

Game-changing isn't really a good thing for reaching thresholds. Thresholds are arbitrary, and it would be odd to suddenly get such a predictable yet massive bonus from breaching one.

If you make it so that when you get the fifth policy in the tree, you get that policy's benefits, as well as an additional benefit equivalent to another policy, that's a fairly significant boost, without breaking the game.

Unless you're talking about realism. In which case it's a different discussion...

Yeah, I was talking about realism.

 

[void_genesis]

I love the idea of a big game changing benefit at the end of a policy tree. But it has to come with a trade-off. So wouldn't the most obvious trade off be to block a complementary policy branch? This retains the complexity of mixing and matching any combination of policy trees if you wish (maybe even remove current branch incompatibility), but also tempts you to fully commit to one policy branch to the exclusion of another. As such the bonus policy would have to be a chosen option, not automatically unlocked. That opens the possibility of making it take more culture than normal policies, though I am not as convinced extra culture costs are necessary.

Another possibility is making the bonus policy only available to the first culture to choose it- a kind of cultural wonder.

On the idea for border expansion bonus policies- how would these work if your border was already hemmed in? Is it like a great artist culture bomb effect that steals territory in all directions?

Perhaps a better bonus final policy would be a strengthening of ALL of the policies already taken in the branch- repeat any GAs, great people, increase enhanced boosts to food, science, culutre, production and military etc.

I can see this approach favouring early empire specialisation, but then taking your game in a different direction once you completed a policy branch. Sounds like fun and a huge boost to cultural play-styles!

 

[CYZ]

I love the idea of a big game changing benefit at the end of a policy tree. But it has to come with a trade-off. So wouldn't the most obvious trade off be to block a complementary policy branch? This retains the complexity of mixing and matching any combination of policy trees if you wish (maybe even remove current branch incompatibility), but also tempts you to fully commit to one policy branch to the exclusion of another. As such the bonus policy would have to be a chosen option, not automatically unlocked. That opens the possibility of making it take more culture than normal policies, though I am not as convinced extra culture costs are necessary.

Another possibility is making the bonus policy only available to the first culture to choose it- a kind of cultural wonder.

I like both ideas. I think making it exclusive might be the best one. Then again, that could overpower culture too much compared to other victory types. The idea is very nice though.

On the idea for border expansion bonus policies- how would these work if your border was already hemmed in? Is it like a great artist culture bomb effect that steals territory in all directions?

You mean the one for tradition? The way I see it the cultural area of the capital doesn't change, it's the workable area that grows by one hex in every direction. Right now, cities can work tiles 3 hexes away, for the capital it will then be 4 hexes. This is obviously powerfull as it brings in extra high yield tiles and really suits a tall or OCC empire.

I can see this approach favouring early empire specialisation, but then taking your game in a different direction once you completed a policy branch. Sounds like fun and a huge boost to cultural play-styles!

I know! I'm really hoping this idea catches on with some of the modders out there!

 

[void_genesis]

I know! I'm really hoping this idea catches on with some of the modders out there!

I like the idea that when properly balanced this approach makes it pretty difficult to ignore culture in the early game- another effective restraint on early game ICS. It encourages you to complete one or two policy branches in the early game before going on to conquer the world.

The bonus policy should be well balanced *against* going for a cultural victory. It adds extra time to complete the required policy branches. Instead it makes early culture more important for every victory condition. The main thing would be avoiding locking players into a single victory condition too early on, and limiting the combinations of civilisation strengths to explore.

 

[Deggial]

I love the idea of a big game changing benefit at the end of a policy tree. But it has to come with a trade-off. So wouldn't the most obvious trade off be to block a complementary policy branch? This retains the complexity of mixing and matching any combination of policy trees if you wish (maybe even remove current branch incompatibility), but also tempts you to fully commit to one policy branch to the exclusion of another. As such the bonus policy would have to be a chosen option, not automatically unlocked. That opens the possibility of making it take more culture than normal policies, though I am not as convinced extra culture costs are necessary.

I strongly second the need for trade-offs! They make the game interesting.

But as stated before, I'm not overly fond of "closing" more trees than it is done right now. And again, it doesn't solve the problem of the (in some way) artificial counterparts.

Maybe, we are only allowed to choose one extra-benefit-policy.
With this, not an *entire* opposite tree will be locked, but only all other "game changing benefits".
Maybe ONE of them should be enough, too! It still alters your empires strategy but is way easier to ballance, as there won't be accidental "side effects" and "must-have-combos".

I'm aware, that this proposal is a little bit against the basic idea of this thread (having "über-Effects" when finishing *every* tree). Nevertheless, too many gamechanging effects could be a little bit over the top.

 

[CYZ]

I strongly second the need for trade-offs! They make the game interesting.

But as stated before, I'm not overly fond of "closing" more trees than it is done right now. And again, it doesn't solve the problem of the (in some way) artificial counterparts.

Maybe, we are only allowed to choose one extra-benefit-policy.
With this, not an *entire* opposite tree will be locked, but only all other "game changing benefits".
Maybe ONE of them should be enough, too! It still alters your empires strategy but is way easier to ballance, as there won't be accidental "side effects" and "must-have-combos".

I'm aware, that this proposal is a little bit against the basic idea of this thread (having "über-Effects" when finishing *every* tree). Nevertheless, too many gamechanging effects could be a little bit over the top.

If I understand correctly, completing a branch will give you the option for a game-changing bonus, but the you may only have one bonus active at a time?

So if you have both Tradition and Honor filled up, you can choose between the two bonusses and switch at any points.

If this is your suggestion, I'm 100% for it. This would be a bit like the civic system in Civ IV. You unlock new ''civics'' through completing branches, and may have one active at a time.

 

[Deggial]

Well, switching between bonuses was not intended by me, but it is a good idea to bring back a little bit of flexibility - if wanted.

The main reason why I'm quite happy with the actual "non-switching-system" in social policies is replayability.
If you have to make final decissions when picking a tree / branch, you have to deal with it for the rest of your game. Want to try something different? Play a new game!

While I accept the concept of flexibility and understand why it is appealing, I could see in my own games of Civ4, that I did the same things at nearly the same time in every game. (New civics came with new technologies automaticaly and you did not have to make *any* decission about their "appearance" anyway (OK, OK, you could beeline to a certain tech...)).

So, the possibility of switching may add an extra strategic layer to tailor the bonuses to your actual situation in the game. But I really don't know, whether this is preferable to my replayability argument.

(OK, to counterattack my own argument: if you did find your favourite "Über-Slot", you would take it most probably in every game and there is no replayability in this neither. On the other hand I find myself actually choosing different social politics in CiV, depending on situaton and civ I play...)

 

[CYZ]

Well, switching between bonuses was not intended by me, but it is a good idea to bring back a little bit of flexibility - if wanted.

The main reason why I'm quite happy with the actual "non-switching-system" in social policies is replayability.
If you have to make final decissions when picking a tree / branch, you have to deal with it for the rest of your game. Want to try something different? Play a new game!

While I accept the concept of flexibility and understand why it is appealing, I could see in my own games of Civ4, that I did the same things at nearly the same time in every game. (New civics came with new technologies automaticaly and you did not have to make *any* decission about their "appearance" anyway (OK, OK, you could beeline to a certain tech...)).

So, the possibility of switching may add an extra strategic layer to tailor the bonuses to your actual situation in the game. But I really don't know, whether this is preferable to my replayability argument.

(OK, to counterattack my own argument: if you did find your favourite "Über-Slot", you would take it most probably in every game and there is no replayability in this neither. On the other hand I find myself actually choosing different social politics in CiV, depending on situaton and civ I play...)

Picking one and sticking to it really suits the direction CiV seems to have taken. I would still opt for making it flexible. It's not that you'll have that many branches filled out unless you're going for cult victory. Usually you would stick to one and perhaps change to another later on. I rarely have enough culture to fill three branches.

 

[Deggial]

It's not that you'll have that many branches filled out unless you're going for cult victory. Usually you would stick to one and perhaps change to another later on. I rarely have enough culture to fill three branches.

Good argument! I do nothing but scratch several trees, too.

Moreover: if we stay with the concept of an *extra* slot at the top of the filled tree which is *not* needed for Cultural Victory, even a player heading to this victory has to decide, wheteher or not taking the detour is worth the expense. (And if he wants to be able to switch, he has to pay twice!)

Well then: let's make it flexible!

 

[void_genesis]

The ideas here are all exciting and converging on one main idea- extend policies in a way that makes a player stop and think and make real decisions throughout a game. After all isn't that why we love civ?

Should we try and summarise the idea and send it over to one of the modder forums?

 

[CYZ]

Good plan. I would summarize it as follows:


Upon completing a policybranch, you are able to recieve a certain ''game-changing'' bonus. Every branch has it's own bonus upon completion and you may only have one bonus active at a time. You may however switch at any time, as long as corresponding branches are completely filled in. For balancing reasons, perhaps a turn of anarchy should be implemented after a switch.

The reasoning behind such a change would be that right now it's often best to ''cherry-pick'' your way through the branches, without filling them up, at least not untill the end (if you are going for culture win). With the new system, players would be tempted to stick at least one branch out, and perhaps a second later in the game. For strategic reasons.

Second, it will make the game much more interesting. The changes I have proposed are very situational and strong. They will to some extend allow for more strategic choices.



Here is a list of proposed effects per branch:

Tradition
Workable area of capital grows with one hex. The workable area, not the cultural area. This simply gives the capital alot of extra workable tiles to choose from, making it a potential supercapital.

Liberty
One free workable tile per city. Obviously favours a rex strategy, especially since the bonus is biggest for many small cities.

Honor
Walls give cities +50% damage on range attack
Castles will damage all enemy units adjacent to the city with 1 hp
Military base will increase range of city attack with one hex (to 3)
(change should be made so these buildings don't require prerequisites)
If this is too weak or situational, walls and castles could also get 1 or 2 culture respectively.

Piety
Happiness, or unhappines, increased by 33% (don't know about this number).
This will give you alot of extra golden ages, but could also backfire if you go into negative happiness.

Patronage
Completing CS quests decreases influence degradiation with that CS by 33% (don't know about the number). This way, by fulfilling quests, you make it alot easier to maintain relations with CS.

Order
Recieve 1 and per city for every city in the empire.
So ten cities= ten food and hammers per city.
Powerfull, I know, but you won't complete this branch untill the near end of the game.

Autocracy
When a military unit is killed you recieve 50% of the purchase cost of that unit. When you kill an enemy unit you recieve 2 happiness for 1/2/4 turns (depending on gamespeed) or 25% of it's purchase cost.
Again, powerfull, but comes only in the end.

Freedom
Specialists have double yields (ie, Engineer goes from 2 to 4 hammers, GP points stay the same). GP improvements double the basic yields of tiles. (academy on a river hill goes from 2 1 and 6 to 4 2 and 6

Rationalism
Recieve a 1% increase of science per turn.
If you have 1000 science when completing the branch, it will be 1010 one turn later. Then 1020.1 after two turns. Etcetera. This will speed up your research untill the end of the tree.

Commercialization
Any ideas for this one?
Best I could think of was this:
Golden ages provide 1 additional on tiles with at least 1 and also 1 on tiles with at least 1

 

[CYZ]

Second proposed change is making the exclusiveness of policy branches more natural. It seems weird right now to some people.

This could either be done by

a) taking away all exclusiveness. So autocracy and liberty can go together. Not the best choice perhaps

b) make every policy branch exclude the one right above or below it. Best way to do it. It only excludes it counterpart if you are using it's special bonus. So, if you are using the special bonus from Liberty, one free workable area per tile. You may not put any policies in autocracy. If you stop using the bonus and use another one, you may fill up both autocracy and liberty.

 

[CYZ]

Any comments, additions or ideas for the way I put it down?

 

[void_genesis]

Just some responses on the superbonus ideas......

"Tradition
Workable area of capital grows with one hex. The workable area, not the cultural area. This simply gives the capital alot of extra workable tiles to choose from, making it a potential supercapital."

Excellent idea and totally in keeping with the branch.

"Liberty
One free workable tile per city. Obviously favours a rex strategy, especially since the bonus is biggest for many small cities."

Not completely convinced this one is strong enough, especially if the cities are already squashed together. Maybe something as an alternative would be a fixed number of settlers pop that produce cities with zero base unhappiness. This would allow a kind of delayed expansion for culture followed by explosive unhappy free growth.

"Honor
Walls give cities +50% damage on range attack
Castles will damage all enemy units adjacent to the city with 1 hp
Military base will increase range of city attack with one hex (to 3)
(change should be made so these buildings don't require prerequisites)
If this is too weak or situational, walls and castles could also get 1 or 2 culture respectively."

These all sound more like defensive bonuses, so I'm not convinced it fits with honor. That said I do love the idea of making active defense even pointier. Maybe more in keeping with the liberty idea, what about duplicating your existing army with a gold maintenance free copy? It makes getting the timing of using this policy crucial. It also makes keeping your gpt free army alive essential as they are irreplaceable.

"Piety
Happiness, or unhappiness, increased by 33% (don't know about this number).
This will give you alot of extra golden ages, but could also backfire if you go into negative happiness."

Love this one, especially the potential downside if things go horribly wrong. Though that said, for a super policy, shouldnt it be solid gold? An alternative may be- minimum happiness level of 0 or -4. The former would allow unlimited rexing. The latter would prevent major penalties to gold, production and military if happiness was ignored.

"Patronage
Completing CS quests decreases influence degradiation with that CS by 33% (don't know about the number). This way, by fulfilling quests, you make it alot easier to maintain relations with CS."

Love this one also. Though the number of achievable requests may be too low to make it worthwhile. As an alternative- what about something like city states above a certain threshold of influence above allies become vassals that have all the upsides of puppets (low/zero contribution to unhappiness and culture costs) but allow you to manage the city as if it was your own.

"Order
Recieve 1 and per city for every city in the empire.
So ten cities= ten food and hammers per city.
Powerfull, I know, but you won't complete this branch untill the near end of the game."

Love this one. These super policies need to be a bit off the charts to make them exciting.

"Autocracy
When a military unit is killed you recieve 50% of the purchase cost of that unit. When you kill an enemy unit you recieve 2 happiness for 1/2/4 turns (depending on gamespeed) or 25% of it's purchase cost. Again, powerfull, but comes only in the end."

Love this one too as is. The happiness is a lovely synergy to a rolling battle front and captured cities. Maybe less happiness but for more turns to make it more manageable? Needs to be more powerful for being so late though- maybe 100% return for killed units and a substantial amount of happiness for killing enemies (better than gold in return I think or the snowball going back into rush buying more units would be too powerful).

"Freedom
Specialists have double yields (ie, Engineer goes from 2 to 4 hammers, GP points stay the same). GP improvements double the basic yields of tiles. (academy on a river hill goes from 2 1 and 6 to 4 2 and 6?

Love this one too.

"Rationalism
Recieve a 1% increase of science per turn.
If you have 1000 science when completing the branch, it will be 1010 one turn later. Then 1020.1 after two turns. Etcetera. This will speed up your research untill the end of the tree."

Oh yeah! Brilliant.

"Commercialization
Any ideas for this one?
Best I could think of was this:
Golden ages provide 1 additional on tiles with at least 1 and also 1 on tiles with at least 1"

The best idea here would be compound interest. All gold held in reserve attracts 10% interest per turn. Building a cash reserve then living large off the interest (one atom bomb per turn sir?) would be an interesting balance to perfect.

On the issue of exclusiveness, i agree there has to be some price to pay for using a super policy other than the extra culture cost. I like the idea of excluding paired policy branches only if the super policy is used, but it still feels a bit OP for someone to be virtually guaranteed of getting five superpolicies if they wanted to. I would still argue the idea of the super-policies being a kind of cultural wonder- only one civ can have each one, and each civ can only have one at most active at a time.

I would point out as well that the early era superpolicies have to be less powerful than the late era ones if they are to be balanced. We want a supercharged rexing liberty civ or a behemoth super capital from tradition to be challenged by a civ that waited for thousands of years to unlock order or autocracy before unleashing hell upon the world.

 

[CYZ]

"Liberty
One free workable tile per city. Obviously favours a rex strategy, especially since the bonus is biggest for many small cities."

Not completely convinced this one is strong enough, especially if the cities are already squashed together. Maybe something as an alternative would be a fixed number of settlers pop that produce cities with zero base unhappiness. This would allow a kind of delayed expansion for culture followed by explosive unhappy free growth.

I think you underestimate the power of a free tile, with no food or happiness cost. It's a bonus per city and thus favours large empires. It's also a bigger bonus for small cities, they will grow really fast.

"Honor
Walls give cities +50% damage on range attack
Castles will damage all enemy units adjacent to the city with 1 hp
Military base will increase range of city attack with one hex (to 3)
(change should be made so these buildings don't require prerequisites)
If this is too weak or situational, walls and castles could also get 1 or 2 culture respectively."

These all sound more like defensive bonuses, so I'm not convinced it fits with honor. That said I do love the idea of making active defense even pointier. Maybe more in keeping with the liberty idea, what about duplicating your existing army with a gold maintenance free copy? It makes getting the timing of using this policy crucial. It also makes keeping your gpt free army alive essential as they are irreplaceable.

I really like the idea of making defensive buildings worthwhile, especially with the extra culture. Honour already is very offensive, so a strong defensive bonus seems justified imo. I also like your idea but it seems highly exploitable, especially if you can change bonusses during the game. You could easily start pumping out a massive free army.

"Piety
Happiness, or unhappiness, increased by 33% (don't know about this number).
This will give you alot of extra golden ages, but could also backfire if you go into negative happiness."

Love this one, especially the potential downside if things go horribly wrong. Though that said, for a super policy, shouldnt it be solid gold? An alternative may be- minimum happiness level of 0 or -4. The former would allow unlimited rexing. The latter would prevent major penalties to gold, production and military if happiness was ignored.

What do you mean by ''solid gold''? I think this ability is already powerfull, but mainly as a golden age engine. After all, if you build more cities, your happiness lowers, and so does the 33%. Maybe it should be more than 33%, don't know, would require playtesting.

"Patronage
Completing CS quests decreases influence degradiation with that CS by 33% (don't know about the number). This way, by fulfilling quests, you make it alot easier to maintain relations with CS."

Love this one also. Though the number of achievable requests may be too low to make it worthwhile. As an alternative- what about something like city states above a certain threshold of influence above allies become vassals that have all the upsides of puppets (low/zero contribution to unhappiness and culture costs) but allow you to manage the city as if it was your own.

I think it can be strong, but maybe needs to be 50%. After fulfilling two quests you're degredation is at 25%, not even considering the initial bonus patronage gives you. Quests are often easy as well, though a fix for the ''X wants Y eliminated'' is needed.

"Autocracy
When a military unit is killed you recieve 50% of the purchase cost of that unit. When you kill an enemy unit you recieve 2 happiness for 1/2/4 turns (depending on gamespeed) or 25% of it's purchase cost. Again, powerfull, but comes only in the end."

Love this one too as is. The happiness is a lovely synergy to a rolling battle front and captured cities. Maybe less happiness but for more turns to make it more manageable? Needs to be more powerful for being so late though- maybe 100% return for killed units and a substantial amount of happiness for killing enemies (better than gold in return I think or the snowball going back into rush buying more units would be too powerful).

I think you are right about the happiness. Should possibly last longer to be worthwhile.

"Commercialization
Any ideas for this one?
Best I could think of was this:
Golden ages provide 1 additional on tiles with at least 1 and also 1 on tiles with at least 1"

The best idea here would be compound interest. All gold held in reserve attracts 10% interest per turn. Building a cash reserve then living large off the interest (one atom bomb per turn sir?) would be an interesting balance to perfect.

I think your idea is very good. probably better than mine. But the snowball effect it has can be extremely powerfull. so the percentage should not be too high.

On the issue of exclusiveness, i agree there has to be some price to pay for using a super policy other than the extra culture cost. I like the idea of excluding paired policy branches only if the super policy is used, but it still feels a bit OP for someone to be virtually guaranteed of getting five superpolicies if they wanted to. I would still argue the idea of the super-policies being a kind of cultural wonder- only one civ can have each one, and each civ can only have one at most active at a time.

My idea is you can only have one active at a time, and by doing so the opposite branch is completely excluded. You may switch however, at the cost of anarchy. This way the difference between early and late bonusses doesn't have to be so huge.

I'm strongly againt the cultural wonder idea. For one, it makes it less fun because someone could just beat you to the punch. Also, there is too big a difference between a small and large game. Whereas in small getting bonusses is easy and in large you might get unlucky and have no bonusses the entire game. Too imbalanced.

 

[void_genesis]

Ah....I misunderstood your phrasing on liberty. So a free worked tile means in effect a cost free ghost citizen who adds without requiring food or happiness. Yes- in that case it is perfect, possibly OP since it comes so early. Playtesting may show it needs to be limited to the first X cities.

Doubling the army in honour is almost certainly excessive. I agree a strong defensive buff would complement offense well- your unguarded home cities could do well to defend themselves more strongly. It frees up your military to wander further.

On piety, I like the suggested mechanic, and agree playtesting is the way to find the appropriate percentage. By solid gold I meant all good, with no intrinsic downside. It would make civs taking this option extremely vulnerable to luxury pillaging (though you can always cancel the policy if you fall into an unhappy hole).

On patronage, the nerfing of "eliminate X for me" and enhanced % reduction in influence decay ideas appeal to me.

For autocracy: you could also maybe make razing an enemy city increase your people's happiness (vindictive souls that they are).

Agreed on playtesting the percentage on commerce. But it does have some historical relevance with the move from anchored to fiat currencies.

I can see your point, and hadn't thought about the large vs small game problems. Agree one at a time is the way to go, and branch locking consequences. It should be achievable to fill two policy branches in a typical game with some delayed early expansion and later cultural focus.

Final question....how should we approach modders with the idea? I assume some of these ideas will be easy to code, and others will be next to impossible without source code, so some may need rethinking...