I've been planning new climate change mechanics for HR that are vaguely similar to what's been described in this thread. Won't be in 1.25, but it's a priority for the version after. You are of course most welcome to borrow/steal/adapt it when it's finished.
Plans for DoC 1.16
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
Edmund Ironside
White Rabbit Object
So what are the plans for DOC 1.17?
M U L T I M A P S
Imperator Knoedel
Currently obsessed with The Owl House
And half of the maps are districts of Venice.
Bair_the_Normal
転輪聖王
I haven't been here for years but good to see that my former advocacy is finally seeing results. :^)
AtlantaMarty
No longer active
Use Epic or Marathon?
Though, @Leoreth - I would recommend making all of the speeds about 50% longer with the new map. More territory and more techs means there should be more turns.
I would say that making Epic or Marathon any longer than they already are would run into unreasonableness, especially Marathon. There's just an obscene amount of turns even currently, and a lot of the time turns feel empty while waiting for Science/Production. Further, while the game isn't balanced around these settings, the difficulty already collapses with either one; adding more turns would only compound that problem for the longer difficulties. More doesn't always equal better, with turns in particular being a place where more can create a lot of problems.
Even with the new map, increasing the number of turns by 50% is a dramatic rebalancing; just compare what you can do right now in Epic versus what you can do in Normal (Epic has 50% more turns) in the same year-by-year timeframe (even with Epic's reduced Science/Production speeds) to get an idea of how much changing turn count can break the game.
This isn't even touching on the performance problems that emerge as more turns elapse, which is very noticeable once you get into the 1900's (earlier with Epic/Marathon). Why bother adding more turns when the game takes ages to load?
Even with the new map, increasing the number of turns by 50% is a dramatic rebalancing; just compare what you can do right now in Epic versus what you can do in Normal (Epic has 50% more turns) in the same year-by-year timeframe (even with Epic's reduced Science/Production speeds) to get an idea of how much changing turn count can break the game.
This isn't even touching on the performance problems that emerge as more turns elapse, which is very noticeable once you get into the 1900's (earlier with Epic/Marathon). Why bother adding more turns when the game takes ages to load?
AtlantaMarty
No longer active
I usually play on Epic or Marathon anyway. A bigger map will make a longer timescale more viable, as there will be more cities and units to do stuff with in the more turns.
I'm of the opinion that game design should come first, and making it work on weaker computers is a secondary concern.
Wessel V1
Emperor
I'm in the camp of more isn't always better and in this case I think it is not. I regularly play on Normal game speed and for me the reason not to play on Normal game speed would be the logistics required to achieve the Mongol, Persian, Moorish or to a lesser extent Roman, Greek, Turkish, American or English UHV. More turns means that it's relatively quicker to move units from one place to another and also sieging a city takes less time. For most UHVs (and other victories), this is hardly a relevant factor.
Furthermore, the new map as proposed by Bautos 42 (I think it wasn't altered since, was it?) has 150 x 80 tiles instead of the current 124 x 68.. On the horizontal axis this means a bit more than 20% more tiles instead of 50%. Since units can move diagonally , time required to cross the map is in the same range. To cover this, perhaps road speed could be increased to 4x instead of 3x and railroad speed to 15. This speeds up the distribution of new troops by roughly 1/3rd provided you have roads in your core production territory and combined with the relatively slower unit movement in war territory, I think it pretty much evens out the impact of the larger map.
One could even argue that the benefits of Epic and Marathon game speeds can be negated this way: on Epic game speed, roads give a 3x benefit and on Marathon game speed, roads give a 2x benefit. Together with slower sieging (1/2x on Epic, 1/3x on Marathon), this helps a lot in equalizing difficulty ratings on different time scales.
Furthermore, the new map as proposed by Bautos 42 (I think it wasn't altered since, was it?) has 150 x 80 tiles instead of the current 124 x 68.. On the horizontal axis this means a bit more than 20% more tiles instead of 50%. Since units can move diagonally , time required to cross the map is in the same range. To cover this, perhaps road speed could be increased to 4x instead of 3x and railroad speed to 15. This speeds up the distribution of new troops by roughly 1/3rd provided you have roads in your core production territory and combined with the relatively slower unit movement in war territory, I think it pretty much evens out the impact of the larger map.
One could even argue that the benefits of Epic and Marathon game speeds can be negated this way: on Epic game speed, roads give a 3x benefit and on Marathon game speed, roads give a 2x benefit. Together with slower sieging (1/2x on Epic, 1/3x on Marathon), this helps a lot in equalizing difficulty ratings on different time scales.
Epic or Marathon are not a proper solution in my opinion. It does extend early era, but at the same it extends later eras. It isn't a "I want to experience more turns" thing, it's a "I want to have relatively the same amount of time across eras" thing.
Different game speeds are more a question of what your desired relationship of unit turns to research and production are (the higher, the slower). Of course the number of turns needs to fit the map, and balancing or readjusting the number of years per turn in a given time period is probably going to be part of the overall balancing process for the new map. I don't expect a 50% increase to be necessary though. All of this definitely isn't part of the scope of 1.16. Here I only want to get the map to the point where everyone can access it and we can start discussing city names and stability maps from the same baseline map. Balance comes much later.
Crimean Lord
Warlord
As I think the next version will be really AMAZING: Make OTTOMANS GREAT AGAIN
Also there are a lot messages which promote an idea to DIVIDE Kievan Rus on the one hand and Moscovia (Russia) on the other hand
P.S. by the way Germany/Prussia and Khmer/Thais already had such mechanics
Also there are a lot messages which promote an idea to DIVIDE Kievan Rus on the one hand and Moscovia (Russia) on the other hand
P.S. by the way Germany/Prussia and Khmer/Thais already had such mechanics
1SDANi
The Fading Memory
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2014
- Messages
- 3,075
I'm guessing they're referring to Turkic Civs in general, as in point 1. Turkic Civilization.
