Plans for DoC 1.16

[Logoncal]

Why don't we make it so that if you allow a civ to rise, it rises normally, but if you decide to go against them they spawn with more units but zero flips? The less stable you are, the more units would be spawned in this way. That way you could actually defend against rising civs, instead of the current method of don't bother.

But it's kinda like how it works these days. You can allow your cities to not be flipped, but good luck fighting the defectors because oh boy, it's a lose-lose.

 

[HNation]

But it's kinda like how it works these days. You can allow your cities to not be flipped, but good luck fighting the defectors because oh boy, it's a lose-lose.

Defections only make sense sometimes, though. Roman units defecting to the Byzantines makes sense, but Byzantine units defecting to the Arabs makes no sense. There should be a distinction between breakaway flips (i.e. Byzantines, America, Brazil, etc...) and invasion flips (i.e. Arabs, Ottomans, Mongols, etc...)

 

[cmakk1012]

Honestly, how cool would it be to play a Celtic empire and supersede the Romans? Arguably they weren't a united nation-state as we know it, but how unified were feudal HRE, France, England, Japan really? Or the Greeks, Vikings, the Russian principalities in the medieval era... The list can go on.

I think the real issue is the lack of documentation on ancient Celtia. There’s not much left behind in terms of records of a cohesive civilization. The medieval nations, at least, had significant recorded occasions of cohesion, things like the Domesday Book. I suppose Ancient Greece was similarly disunited

I do think there should be a Celtic civ, though.

Defections only make sense sometimes, though. Roman units defecting to the Byzantines makes sense, but Byzantine units defecting to the Arabs makes no sense. There should be a distinction between breakaway flips (i.e. Byzantines, America, Brazil, etc...) and invasion flips (i.e. Arabs, Ottomans, Mongols, etc...)

I wholeheartedly support this. For the AI there wouldn’t be much difference—how often does the AI keep cities during the Seljuk invasions currently? All of the invasions would need to be of a similar intensity to work, though. This would allow strategies like defending Egypt as the Byzantines.

 

[KeeperOT7Keys]

Defections only make sense sometimes, though. Roman units defecting to the Byzantines makes sense, but Byzantine units defecting to the Arabs makes no sense. There should be a distinction between breakaway flips (i.e. Byzantines, America, Brazil, etc...) and invasion flips (i.e. Arabs, Ottomans, Mongols, etc...)

I think Leoreth already said he is planning something like this but I don't remember for which version he plans it.

 

[Leoreth]

Byzantium will ALWAYS spawn if Rome is alive and is an AI, even if it's Solid.

ONLY THE PLAYER can prevent Byzantine Spawn by being Solid.

It's similar to Khmer. Only the Player can prevent a Thai Spawn, the AI are doomed.

That's not true, the exception is that the human player will always spawn. But the AI can prevent other AIs from spawning.

Defections only make sense sometimes, though. Roman units defecting to the Byzantines makes sense, but Byzantine units defecting to the Arabs makes no sense.

Bad example, part of the reason for the success of the early Caliphate was that unhappy Byzantine cities and garrisons in Syria and the Levant joined the Caliphate to avoid excessive war time taxation resulting from the Sassanid wars.

I think Leoreth already said he is planning something like this but I don't remember for which version he plans it.

That's right, but not this one. It will happen together with the civ slot rewrite.

 

[1SDANi]

But it's kinda like how it works these days. You can allow your cities to not be flipped, but good luck fighting the defectors because oh boy, it's a lose-lose.

The extra units that rising civs start with based on the stability of the owner of their territory is supposed to represent this flip. Flipping units on top of this would be overboard.

 

[Tigranes]

Byzantium will ALWAYS spawn if Rome is alive and is an AI, even if it's Solid.

ONLY THE PLAYER can prevent Byzantine Spawn by being Solid.

It's similar to Khmer. Only the Player can prevent a Thai Spawn, the AI are doomed.

I wouldn't go so far as to say "doomed". Sometimes, to my joy I see Dai Viet Khmer surviving and even Shaky. Pre-historic Vietnam was home to some of the world's earliest civilizations and societies—making them one of the world's first people who practiced agriculture. With an estimated 94.6 million inhabitants as of 2016, it is the world's 14th-most-populous country and deserves to respawn as Khmer-turn to-Vietnam civ in 20th century.

 

[Logoncal]

I wouldn't go so far as to say "doomed". Sometimes, to my joy I see Dai Viet Khmer surviving and even Shaky. Pre-historic Vietnam was home to some of the world's earliest civilizations and societies—making them one of the world's first people who practiced agriculture. With an estimated 94.6 million inhabitants as of 2016, it is the world's 14th-most-populous country and deserves to respawn as Khmer-turn to-Vietnam civ in 20th century.

[ N A P A L M INTENSIFIES ]

 

[cmakk1012]

Y’know with the addition of the Turkic civ there could be a new conditional spawn: if the Turkic civ is stable and holds Anatolia IMO the Ottomans shouldn’t spawn

 

[Hightower]

I think Leoreth already said he is planning something like this but I don't remember for which version he plans it.

Ideally, the Arabs wouldn't flip the Levant/Mesopotamia/Egypt at all but instead get conqueror units to allow them to conquer the region. Same for Ottomans and Anatolia and other civs whose spawns cover a substantial amount of other civs' historical territory.

 

[Hightower]

Bad example, part of the reason for the success of the early Caliphate was that unhappy Byzantine cities and garrisons in Syria and the Levant joined the Caliphate to avoid excessive war time taxation resulting from the Sassanid wars.

I had always heard it was more about religion - the mostly Monophysite Levant and Egypt thought they'd be treated better under the Muslim Arabs than under the Chalcedonian Byzantines, who were busy persecuting Monophysites.

 

[Guillermo11]

On another topic, would it be possible to remove marsh tiles in the new map?
I get they fulfill an important role as deterrents, but with the increased removal time for jungles and rainforest it would be enough.
I mean, even if some civ wanted to rapidly expand towards those areas, the sheer aditional cost of maintaining the workers would represent the investment.
It just bothers me too much that Brazil's Amazonian expansion is blocked, not because of the amount of work required (realistic reason: requires an inmense amount of time and effort), but because it's literally imposible. Same with some east asian or african terrains, given that swamps have been drained since the Ancient Egypt.
As for the swamps in Siberia, wouldn't it be better to just leave them as tundras (or even ice)? Isn't it there to represent low quality terrain?
I know the topic has been discused before, so please forgive my ramblings, but it thought it better to raise it now that the map is being remade.
Of course, I understand if it can't be done. After all, I would not be the one having to restructure so much .
Thanks, anyway.

 

[Guillermo11]

Is there any way to link stability with distance to palace maintenance?
It would surely help a lot, since civ with low modifiers would be able to expand further from their core, while civ with high modifiers would be compelled to stay closer to their area, effectively giving creating a reason for China/Japan not to colonize North America or Siberia, while England or Russia wouldn't share the same problem, and so on.
Hopefully the non-expansive civilization could get another kind of advantage to compensate.

 

[Leoreth]

On another topic, would it be possible to remove marsh tiles in the new map?

Why?

 

[1SDANi]

Why?

I think they mean like how in Civ 5 there's a "Drain Swamp" worker action that removes swamps, much like how we currently have "Chop Rainforest" and "Chop Jungle" actions. I only just noticed the lack of a "Drain Swamp" command yesterday when implementing the city chop effect. I was wondering if there were any features other than Coverings that were removed by worker builds, and were surprised to find there really wasn't.

As to whether or not a "Drain Swamp" build should be added... adunno

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Wait a minute... Rome is famous for having been constructed on seven hills, and yet its tile on the map is flat, how come?

 

[1SDANi]

Wait a minute... Rome is famous for having been constructed on seven hills, and yet its tile on the map is flat, how come?

Might I ask what induced this sudden, and curiously delayed, realization?

 

[Leoreth]

I think they mean like how in Civ 5 there's a "Drain Swamp" worker action that removes swamps, much like how we currently have "Chop Rainforest" and "Chop Jungle" actions. I only just noticed the lack of a "Drain Swamp" command yesterday when implementing the city chop effect. I was wondering if there were any features other than Coverings that were removed by worker builds, and were surprised to find there really wasn't.

As to whether or not a "Drain Swamp" build should be added... adunno

The whole point of swamp features is to make areas of the map as unproductive as they are in reality, even with the ability to clear jungle tiles. Siberian marshes and the deep Amazon and Central African rainforests should never be productive. Since they are currently plain grassland terrain they would suddenly become the most commercially viable terrain which is not realistic.

I can review this when more terrain is added for tropical and tundra regions.

Wait a minute... Rome is famous for having been constructed on seven hills, and yet its tile on the map is flat, how come?

I grew up in the North German Plain and the highest point in our town was 50m above sea level and we called it a mountain, does that answer your question? If I compare Rome to other cities like e.g. San Francisco it is not particularly hilly.

 

[star15389]

I think you've essentially already solved the problem by adding Rainforest. Just make that choppable in the industrial era but not jungles so ie New Guinea and the Amazon remain unproductive

 

[Leoreth]

So your suggestion is to not make jungles removable at all? This kind of goes against the idea of representing modern jungle clearance.