Proposal for More Conditional Spawns and slightly different starting conditions

[BaneFire]

I made this post first here but I decided to do some thinking again, especially as we move closer to the new map. Because we're moving to the new map things like starting unit spawns, starting cities and starting areas will all need to be redone. This means that the "operating area" of civs will be back into question and hopefully we can get them modified. What I mean is that for example as Arabia you basically can realistically in your starting time conquer North Africa, Iran and Central Asia, but historically they went further than this. Similarly China was pushing into Central Asia and Vietnam historically, but you'd be hard pressed to venture into those areas in DOC.

But that is a matter for the balancing which will have to come after the map. However once that balancing and the map is done I think we can take a look at how spawns happen, and make them slightly more scripted. There are a few scripted spawns but my favourite so far is the Byzantine one - if Rome is shaky after a certain date, then Byzantium has a chance to spawn. This means a human player can avoid a Byzantium spawn not by spamming units to kill the Byzantines when they spawn but rather by achieving the specific historic goals of their country.

This in my opinion is great for gameplay. It means players actually think like their historic counterparts - when my Roman Empire which is close to UHV briefly goes shaky, my thoughts are how can I stabilise it, which is what Romans thought historically. Romans historically didn't think "uh oh, in 10 turns Byzantium will spawn, I better move all my units to Byzantium to kill it off!", they thought "inflation and overextension are destroying our empire, we must fix them or break in two". I accept this makes the game easier in some ways, as players will be able to avoid some crucial spawns, but I argue that this is already not an issue. eg, as China I already know the Mongols will spawn so I just build 30 firecrackers. Boom, entire Mongol army dead and the Mongol spawn didn't happen anyway. My making the proposal more about stability and other factors it means the game becomes a bit more interesting to play with the mechanics rather than just rely on deathstack or WB, while still increasing immersion.

These currently are in game as:
Byzantium: Greece dead, Rome alive, human Rome must not be solid.
Argentina, Brazil: Owner must not be solid.
Italy: Rome dead, independent city in Italy.
Thailand: Khmer dead, or human Khmer is not solid.

These proposals include how the spawns can be scripted, along with some suggestions regarding their starting condition.

Unlisted civs I propose no changes. They are: Babylonians, Chinese, Congolese, Egyptians, English, Ethiopians, Greeks, Harappans, Indians, Indonesians, Iranians, Italians, Japanese, Khmer, Koreans, Mandinka, Maya, Persians, Phonecians, Polish, Tamils, Thais, Tibetans, Turks, Vikings.

A few notes on the proposals I've made. Most of them are based on already occuring events (eg, it's very often that Spain or Britain will be shaky, that the Roman empire will fall ), so at worse they will end up spawning a little later than their original spawn date, but also possibly earlier. Yes, the player can avoid some spawns in my proposal - that's the point. The game could then be tweaked to make some choices harder to make, eg convert to Protestantism as France to avoid Netherlands spawn, but then face significant religious instability.

Note that the phrase "Can spawn in their core zone [once ANY civ has researched tech and] their owner is shaky or worse." also includes independent and barbarian cities, who can always assumed to be "shake or worse".

---

The Americans
Can spawn in their core zone once ANY civ has researched Civil Liberties and their owner is shaky or worse. Start with a wider area and some units around Toronto/Quebec so that they have a chance of taking Canada.

Reasoning: As we all know the American experiment was formed out of the rise of enlightenment democracy and liberalism in Europe, which then spread to the experimental communities of North America. This reflects that a bit better.

---

The Arabs
Automatically spawn in their core zone once ANY civ researches Theology and automatically founds Islam. Gets more conquerors in North Africa and Persia, both closer to the border at their spawn too.

Reasoning: As stated to spread Islam a bit further as it was historically. The Arab conquests were absurd IRL. Also makes the Arab spawn a little bit less reliable for a Byzantine player. Personally I would like them to only spawn in their core zone and get conquerors in Egypt and the Levant to reflect their conquests a bit more, but that's fine if they don't since the speed at which they conquered the territory is basically equivalent to a flip anyway.

---

The Aztecs
Independent Mesoamerican cities spawn around 1150 (slightly before current Aztec spawn date).

Can spawn in their core zone once any city has more than 5 population, and their owner is shaky or worse. Gets conquerors on spawn.

Reasoning: Reflects the history of the Aztecs as a rising power among independent city states in the Mexican Basin that conquered other city-states and formed an empire just before the Spanish attacked.

---

The Argentinians, Brazilians, Colombians and Mexicans
Can spawn in their core zone once ANY civ has researched Nationalism and their owner is shaky or worse.

Reasoning: Just as the rise of nationalism in Europe was causing old powers to be challenged, nationalism was creating nations in South America. This reflects that a bit better.

---

The Canadians
Can spawn in their core zone once ANY civ has researched Civil Rights and their owner is shaky or worse. Spawns as a vassal of their owner (unless they're coming from independent states).

Reasoning: While Canada still saw itself part as Britain it still desired an independent identity, which is reflected as it becoming a vassal. This could even be an event, Britain accepts to release Canada as a vassal, or they refuse and get unhappiness permanently in Canada, perhaps.

---

The Dutch
Make Amsterdam either an independent city or far more attractive to settle before Dutch Spawn.
Can spawn in their core zone once Protestantism has been founded and spread to Amsterdam, and their owner is shaky or worse.

Reasoning: The Dutch Republic arose out of conflict between the Protestant Dutch and Catholic Spanish. This reflects that a bit more.

---

The French
Spawn slightly earlier and with more units representing the Franks.
Can spawn in their core zone once ANY civ has researched Generalship and their owner is shaky or worse.

Reasoning: France was founded by the Franks, a group of Barbarians who conquered France proper then much of Europe itself. They could have an earlier and stronger spawn to clear up Europe of antiquity powers and prepare it for the Germans and Spanish.

---

The Germans
Can spawn in their core zone once ANY civ has researched Nobility and their owner is shaky or worse.

Reasoning: The Germans were a group that existed for centuries as various ethnic groups, but Germany in DOC reflects the HRE created after the split between West and East Francia. I say just make Germany reflect a generic German civ, and only have it spawn as the elective HRE if it spawns from France conquering Rome and then becoming shaky, but that's probably excessive.

---

The Inca
Independent Peruvian cities spawn around 1000 (slightly before current Inca spawn date). (Don't they already?)

Can spawn in their core zone once any city has more than 4 population, and their owner is shaky or worse. Gets conquerors on spawn.

Reasoning: Much like the Aztecs, reflects the domination of a particular city-state among local city-states into a rising local empire. Personally I dislike the Civilisations Reborn idea of all the other city-states being civs, they're fine as independents.

---

The Mongols
Ulan Batuur spawns slightly earlier as an independent city.

Can spawn in their core zone once ANY civ has researched Feudalism and is shaky or worse. However does not immediately declare war on China/Persia, instead gets their conquest event units when they spawn their first great general (mostly just by killing barbarians at first).

Reasoning: Mongolia still existed before Genghis Khan although obviously not as a significant power. They definitely warrant an independent city-state. The Great General thing adds a bit of interaction and build-up for the player before they totally streamroll Asia.

---

The Moors
Can spawn in their core zone once ANY civ has researched Architecture, any city in their core zone has Islam, and their owner is shaky or worse.

Reasoning: The Moors were formed partially as a result of the Arab aristocracy conquering Berber North Africa, but also the collapse of the Abassids. This reflects that a bit better - hopefully with a stronger Arab spawn it will be more common to see the Arabs conquer North Africa and Morocco spawn as a result of that, rather than just in a bunch of independent cities.

---

The Mughals
Turks get conquerors in the Punjab and Afghanistan as well as in Persia, Anatolia and the Levant.

Can spawn in their core zone once ANY civ has researched Gunpowder and their owner shaky or worse, and if either Turks or Barbarians have taken a city in their core zone.

Reasoning: The Mughal Empire was the last in a series of endeavours by Islamic Turks conquering into India. Much like how a player Byzantium or Arabia seek to defeat the Seljuks to prevent a future Otto spawn, the India player should seek to defeat the Seljuks to prevent a future Mughal spawn.

---

The Ottomans
Can spawn in their core zone once ANY civ has researched Gunpowder and their owner shaky or worse, and if either Turks or Barbarians have taken a city in their core zone.

Reasoning: Isn't this already what the Ottomans do? If it isn't then I think it makes sense, and I've been playing Byzantium wrong.

---

The Portuguese
Moors are more likely to found/start with Lisboa.

Can spawn in their core zone once ANY civ has researched Feudalism, if any city in it has Christianity and their owner is shaky or worse, and NOT a Christian civ.

Reasoning: The Iberian peninsula was a lot more fragmented and dynamic than DOC presents it. I would like to see the Romans/Moors found Lisboa a bit more often. As designed this would mean that Spain could try snipe Lisboa to prevent Portugal from spawning. I think it's entirely plausible that Portugal might never have become a civ IRL, and just another domain of the Spanish crown, like Aragon and Leon.

---

The Prussians
Can spawn in their core zone once ANY civ has researched statecraft and either Protestantism is present in the majority of their core cities but the owner is Catholic, or the owner is elective, or the owner has a majority of cities outside of their core, and their owner is shaky or worse.

Reasoning: That was a complex set of ands and ors, but basically means that as long as Austria either remains Catholic, conquers the Balkans or remains as the HRE, Germany will spawn. If Austria does not do these things, well then what you've got is a German civilisation anyway!

---

The Russians
Either include the Kievan Rus' as a civ, or have Muscovy and Novgorod spawn as independent cities shortly after Kiev does.

Can spawn in their core zone once ANY civ has researched Nobility, and if their owner is shaky or worse, and if either the Mongols or Barbarians have taken a city in their core zone.

Reasoning: Personally I would like to see the Kievan Rus', I think it's entirely plausible that if the Mongols had failed to conquer parts of Russia the Kievan Rus' would be the one to unite the Rus people rather than the Muscovites. This reflects the "Russian" civ as more of the "Great Russian" civ as the Muscovite empire. You could potentially include something like if Russia spawns in Novogorod instead, it starts with elective republic.

---

The Spanish
Can spawn in their core zone once ANY civ has researched Nobility, if any city in it has Christianity and their owner is shaky or worse, and NOT a Christian civ.

Reasoning: Reflects how Spain was formed as a result of Christian identity unified in the reconquista. Could be made slightly more complex eg they spawn as Asturias then get conquerors repeatedly against the Moors, but this probably isn't necessary.

---

The Tibetans
Lhasa spawns as an indepenent city slightly earlier.

Can spawn in their core zone, if any city in it has Buddhism and their owner is shaky or worse, and NOT a Buddhist civ.

Reasoning: Reflects Tibet as a march that repeatedly flipped between Chinese suzerainty and independent Tibetan rule, kind of.

---

Having typed that all up I think my proposals can kind of fall into these categories:

The Civilisations: Represent an ethnic group which unified and developed into statehood and a unified polity, often later forming an empire. As such, they can usually spawn with a city or two, settlers and units, as well as good growth modifiers. What we think of as traditional civ gameplay, with UHVs that often include lasting a long time, founding lots of cities and generally balanced gameplay. Expect to reach turn 500. eg, Chinese, Indians, Persians, English, Romans. No surprise that these are all civs you'd find in every vanilla civilisation game.

The Conquerors: Represent an ethnic group which unified and developed into statehood and a unified polity, but quickly and rapidly forged an if not multiple empires. Usually spawn on the border of a "The Civilisation" type, with a conqueror event and UHV, and of course military-based gameplay. Don't be surprised if you collapse 2 turns after a UHV. eg, Mongols, Turks, Arabs, Romans, Vikings, Ottomans, Mughals. Friedrick Nietzsche described these as the "conqueror races" and the "Aryan type".

The Unifiers: Represent polities which arose out of a disunited ethnic group, but were forged through this disunity. Spawn often after another empire has collapsed, surrounded by independents or near a weaker neighbour. Their UHVs don't require conquering their nearby victims but necessitate the good land and expansion. eg, Aztecs, Inca, Spain, France.

The Revolters: Represent polities that came about due to some political shift in their overlord, often precipitating the downfall of the overland and representing a new alignment in the world order. However, unlike the Conquerors, they are not particularly about restoring the empire they revolted from, and often just flip a zone and that's about it. eg, Dutch, Americans, Argentinians

---

Ok now I gotta learn how to code in python and xml if these aren't gonna be added. lol

 

[ShinobiHus92]

I support this!

 

[merijn_v1]

But that is a matter for the balancing which will have to come after the map. However once that balancing and the map is done I think we can take a look at how spawns happen, and make them slightly more scripted. There are a few scripted spawns but my favourite so far is the Byzantine one - if Rome is shaky after a certain date, then Byzantium has a chance to spawn. This means a human player can avoid a Byzantium spawn not by spamming units to kill the Byzantines when they spawn but rather by achieving the specific historic goals of their country.

This in my opinion is great for gameplay. It means players actually think like their historic counterparts - when my Roman Empire which is close to UHV briefly goes shaky, my thoughts are how can I stabilise it, which is what Romans thought historically. Romans historically didn't think "uh oh, in 10 turns Byzantium will spawn, I better move all my units to Byzantium to kill it off!", they thought "inflation and overextension are destroying our empire, we must fix them or break in two".

There is a big difference between the spawn of Byzantium and the spawn of other civs. Byzantium doesn't actually "spawn", but the split apart from another empire. Here it makes sense that they won't split up if you are stable. The conditions that prevent these civs from spawning occur if you play historically. But if you "play good" and are stable you can prevent them from spawning.

Other civs do not split of another empire, but are a new rising empire. (They "spawn") IMO it is bad if these civs do not spawn. Civs not spawning has a huge (negative) impact on the game and influences the game too much to suffice spawn conditions. A game without (some) European civs because Rome was stable is not desirable. The conditions that would prevent them from spawning would only occur if you play ahistorically. This would lead to either ahistorical tactics to exploit a civ from not spawn (this should be discouraged) or to a historical situation where the conditions are (almost) always met (than the conditions have no use).

EDIT:
See post below by Leoreth. I wanted to say that as well but couldn't come up with the right words.

I accept this makes the game easier in some ways, as players will be able to avoid some crucial spawns, but I argue that this is already not an issue. eg, as China I already know the Mongols will spawn so I just build 30 firecrackers. Boom, entire Mongol army dead and the Mongol spawn didn't happen anyway. My making the proposal more about stability and other factors it means the game becomes a bit more interesting to play with the mechanics rather than just rely on deathstack or WB, while still increasing immersion.

I disagree with this. The ability to prevent civs from spawning can be hugely exploited (and it happened in the past) and should be discouraged. That there is another possibility to achieve a similar exploit is not a good argument to allow it. Instead, that other exploit should be fixed. In the past, people made huge efforts to exploit the spawn mechanics as much as possible. This is not desirable, although some results were very funny.

A few notes on the proposals I've made. Most of them are based on already occuring events (eg, it's very often that Spain or Britain will be shaky, that the Roman empire will fall ), so at worse they will end up spawning a little later than their original spawn date, but also possibly earlier. Yes, the player can avoid some spawns in my proposal - that's the point. The game could then be tweaked to make some choices harder to make, eg convert to Protestantism as France to avoid Netherlands spawn, but then face significant religious instability.

Note that the phrase "Can spawn in their core zone [once ANY civ has researched tech and] their owner is shaky or worse." also includes independent and barbarian cities, who can always assumed to be "shaky or worse".

The bolded sentence contains to distinct elements which we should be considered seperately. The first element is WHEN the civ spawns. Currently civs spawns based on a fixed date. What you are suggesting is changing that fixed date to an event. (In most examples you provide that event is the discovery of a tech.) Personally, I prefer the fixed date, because I like that civs spawn at their historical date and not a(lt)historically early/late.

But your suggestion is better for allowing alt-historical situations. Take your American example for example. It does makes sense that the American Revolution (and thus their spawn) would be earlier or later because of the of the ideas reflected by the Civil Liberties tech are discovered earlier or later. I do think that if an event-based spawn is adopted, the starting techs (and units) should also be more dynamic, to avoid the spawning civ being too advanced or too much behind because of their starting techs.

Maybe it could be a game option to let spawns depend on a fixed date (current system) or by an event.

I do think that human spawns should be based that because of the UHV. Spawning too late can really ruin your UHV progress and spawning too early can make it too easy.

The second elements is the condition to spawn. As I mentioned above, this is good for "splitting off" spawns, but IMO not good for the other spawns. One thing I would like to add as a condition for the ex-colony civs is that their should be at least 1 city in the core (or maybe extend it to the historical area). It doesn't make much sense if Brasil spawns when that area has never been colonized.

I do agree that the spawn situation of some civs could be changed, like having you to conquer you initial cities instead of them flipping to you. I do disagree about most of the conditions that can prevent them from spawning. And as I mentioned, I prefer the fixed spawn date, but I do see merit in the event-based spawn.

The Aztecs
Independent Mesoamerican cities spawn around 1150 (slightly before current Aztec spawn date).

Can spawn in their core zone once any city has more than 5 population, and their owner is shaky or worse. Gets conquerors on spawn.

Reasoning: Reflects the history of the Aztecs as a rising power among independent city states in the Mexican Basin that conquered other city-states and formed an empire just before the Spanish attacked.

I think it is a bit strange that you want to reflect the rise of the Aztecs by making it dependent on the growth of an independent civ. This would emphasize the growing power of independent city states instead of the growing power of the Aztecs. A growing Aztec Tenochtitlan does a much better job representing the rise of the Aztecs than a growing independent city. I'm not opposed to a pre-placed independent Tenochtitlan, but I don't think it is a good idea to make the spawn of the Aztecs depend on the size of this city.

 

[Leoreth]

Isn't it also a very cart before the horse way of having "dynamic" spawns if those spawns then depend on meticulously creating the conditions of the spawn via scripting, such as placing independent cities to make it true?

 

[TJDowling]

I think the scripted indie cities was probably the part of the proposal I liked the most. I usually tend to be more on the side of not historical railroading but I'm not a huge fan of conditional spawns generally. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure why the current conditional spawns ARE conditional but not the others. I think the risk of expanding the conditional spawns is parts of the map won't get filled. For example, if Portugal doesn't spawn then most of Brazil isn't settled but in real life someone else would've settled Brazil. Conditional spawns don't account for the effects of that civ not existing by encouragin other civs to settle that civs historical areas. I guess that's why Ottoman's are conditional? Because they are a conquering not settling civ, all those places will still exist with or without them. I do however like the idea of Lisbon and Amsterdam existing before Portuguese or Dutch spawn. I say we forget the horse and just implement the cart!

 

[Leoreth]

Henry Ford be like

 

[BaneFire]

Thank you Merjin. I think this comes down to two different philosophies and approaches to the game. I would say that your approach is defined by the player's goals, whereas mine is defined by the player's experiences. Understand I am not trying to say that I am outright "superior", both our views are valid, but I think that in the long run mine is preferable.
When I say you see it as defined by player goals, this means that things like gameplay focused around UHVs, players being able to predict things that they know will happen, and generally a sense of stability and continuity is good. Meanwhile when I say player experiences, I mean things like ahistorical outcomes, unpredictable challenges to the player and more roleplay-focused gameplay. I accept fully that maybe on this forum people favour the first but I challenge that - RFC and DOC first should be about the history, and the min-max style of UHV gameplay came out of the years of those who remained. I don't think that just because we're the last men standing (and I say we because as you can see in my bio, I also love UHV min-max gameplay).

Anyway just some thoughts on the specific points you made:

On Byzantium:
I think that's kind of an arbitrary point you made and TJDowling was right in that the lines are already pretty blurry. Yes historically Byzantium represented the split of Rome into two, but in the wider realm of civ it more represents a post-Greek Eastern imperial civilisation. If Byzantium was a split and not a spawn, should it not spawn if there are just independents?

On preventing civs to spawn:
Players are always always always going to try stopping spawns, and I think saying that it should not be allowed is silly. The design of RFC was always that a spawn was a temporary disruption and that you could halt it with sufficient preparation, imo. If we want the American example, I think we should take inspiration from history: if the UK successfully defeated the Americans in the war of independence, I think it's entirely legitimate that America wouldn't exist today as we know it. In my China example, if the Tang Empire had a massive army of musketmen when the Mongols invaded, I don't think the Mongols would have got far. Yes players are exceptional but that should be embraced, not denied to them. I think it's very good gameplay that I know I can take on additional challenges to keep my empire alive as well as the UHV if I push things to the limit.

On options:
I think this is a great idea, though I'm sure where in the loading screen UI it would happen, I guess before or after you choose a civ. Something like:
* All conditional
* Human date based
* All date based
Could be the options.

On spawns:
I am in agreement that something like that should be added. Quite often as someone like France I deliberately gimp Britain to ensure I have an easier time settling North America. If no one ever settles those areas it seems weird that the civs wouldn't spawn. Perhaps you could have one or two independent colonies spring up or alternatively make it easier for Sweden, Italy, Prussia to colonise North America so we are still likely to get those colonial civs.

On the Aztecs:
Yeah it was probably a bit overboard. They could just spawn like the Inca do now, in 1100AD surrounded by independents and also have to conquer them.

---

In response to Leoreth:
I think what you say is right and a good criticism. However I don't think what I've proposed is "meticulously creating", there are already independent cities that spring up throughout the game to represent different minor factions - eg there's a Hungarian city, in an old version I recall there being a Celtic Dublin, if you look at Civilisations Reborn Edinburgh spawns as independent, in Asia you've got Pagan and barbarian Shenyang. These cities all play a role in some spawns too. In the Andes, much of the Inca empire also spawn as independents.
So I don't think ensuring that Lisbon, Amsterdam, the Mesoamerican cities, Ulan-batuur (maybe as a barbarian?) spawn a few hundred years before their civ is meticulous planning.

I've written enough about this that I think it's worth trying to start working on it, can I ask you where the Byzantine and other conditional spawn code is found? If I look at that I can try replicate it for some of my proposals here, start a branch and start experimenting with this stuff. Thanks in advance

 

[Joij21]

Well I mean if that feature was added then logic would say pretty much every European civ except the old Mediterranean and Celtic cultures would have a conditional spawn. The exceptions being Germans, Norse, and Slavic cultures since they historically have been far from the reaches of the Roman Empire. Most of Europe's nations come from barbarian descent and formed after migrating into former Roman Territory, so everyone from France to Spain would require spawning only at their spawn date if their core is barbarian.

This creates several problems as Europe is one of the few regions of the Earth where most countries around today come from migratory people's (at least the most recent circa the 3rd to 5th centuries, as everyone comes from migratory cultures). Places like Asia for instance are mostly the same since they migrated into the region over 100,000 years earlier. Ever since then only the Mongols would be at odds to this yet they never replaced most of the ethnic makeup like in Europe. So Europe would be the most impacted by this where as other regions would not.

Then we also have potentially more complicated spawns like England. First they would require the Vikings to Spawn. Then they would require the French to spawn. Next a conqueror event of the Vikings in northern France would take place and capture Normandy to represent Rollo. Then Normandy would flip from the Vikings to England, then called the Duchy of Normandy. It would be a vassal of France until it renounces France's protection in 1066 and spawns a conqueror event in southern England to represent William the Conqueror. Once London is captured from the barbarians (who would represent the Saxons) their name would change to the Kingdom of England and their capital would insta flip from Normandy to London. Then in the early 1300s an auto war event representing the hundred years war would begin so England can lose it's French territory back to France.

As you can see if any of the above like France not spawning because Rome still owns Gaul, then England would never be able to form in the game because a mix of French and Norse culture is required to create the English cultural identity. Also if London isn't barbarian but somehow remains a junta of Rome then England would remain as the Duchy of Normandy, assuming Rome lost Gaul to the barbarians and therefore spawning France. This is because Anglo Saxon culture is required to advance English culture beyond simply being french speaking vassals of France.

Now with all that considered in the game all of this would be hard to implement and this also would open up the possibility of creating chain no spawn events whereby eliminating England's existence you also eliminate America from spawning. The only way this feature would be useful is if you are a hardcore Roman player that hates all the European nations spawning in your borders after you fend off the barbarians and also just wants spacefaring Romans going to Mars (because this is a stereotype that so called Roman bois think would happen if Rome never fell and they'd be doing it 100s of years before us).

 

[merijn_v1]

Thank you Merjin. I think this comes down to two different philosophies and approaches to the game. I would say that your approach is defined by the player's goals, whereas mine is defined by the player's experiences. Understand I am not trying to say that I am outright "superior", both our views are valid, but I think that in the long run mine is preferable.
When I say you see it as defined by player goals, this means that things like gameplay focused around UHVs, players being able to predict things that they know will happen, and generally a sense of stability and continuity is good. Meanwhile when I say player experiences, I mean things like ahistorical outcomes, unpredictable challenges to the player and more roleplay-focused gameplay. I accept fully that maybe on this forum people favour the first but I challenge that - RFC and DOC first should be about the history, and the min-max style of UHV gameplay came out of the years of those who remained. I don't think that just because we're the last men standing (and I say we because as you can see in my bio, I also love UHV min-max gameplay).

I think you mistunderstood me. I tried to evaluate your suggestion and how it does influences the game. I tried to think of all changes that would result from conditional spawns. My first concern is that it would change the player experience, but IMO in a negative way. The potential that some important civs do not spawn is IMO not good for game experience. I agree with you the player experience should be the ground for new suggestions. But I disagree that conditional spawns provide the best experience.

What you describe as player goals is not how I think the conditional spawn mechanic design should be approached. The player goals are an element that changes when a mechanics like this is changed. I tried to analyze the result of your suggestion. I think that your suggestion will encourage certain gameplay I think shouldn't be encourage at all. Even more, I think those new player goals should even be discouraged.

Anyway just some thoughts on the specific points you made:

On Byzantium:
I think that's kind of an arbitrary point you made and TJDowling was right in that the lines are already pretty blurry. Yes historically Byzantium represented the split of Rome into two, but in the wider realm of civ it more represents a post-Greek Eastern imperial civilisation. If Byzantium was a split and not a spawn, should it not spawn if there are just independents?

This is not my point. My point is not what Byzantium (or the ex-colonies) represent, but how they came to be. This is different than the other civs and is IMO nicely represented by them having conditional spawns while the other regular civs don't.

On preventing civs to spawn:
Players are always always always going to try stopping spawns, and I think saying that it should not be allowed is silly. The design of RFC was always that a spawn was a temporary disruption and that you could halt it with sufficient preparation, imo. If we want the American example, I think we should take inspiration from history: if the UK successfully defeated the Americans in the war of independence, I think it's entirely legitimate that America wouldn't exist today as we know it. In my China example, if the Tang Empire had a massive army of musketmen when the Mongols invaded, I don't think the Mongols would have got far. Yes players are exceptional but that should be embraced, not denied to them. I think it's very good gameplay that I know I can take on additional challenges to keep my empire alive as well as the UHV if I push things to the limit.

I agree that it shouldn't be forbidden for the player to try to stop a civ from spawning. But I think that it should be discouraged. If the player does a huge effort and succeeds in preventing a spawn I'm fine with that. However I don't think that spawn prevention should be achievable by gimmicky exploits, which conditional spawns does allow. Spawn prevention should be doable by effort, not by exploits.

In response to Leoreth:
I think what you say is right and a good criticism. However I don't think what I've proposed is "meticulously creating", there are already independent cities that spring up throughout the game to represent different minor factions - eg there's a Hungarian city, in an old version I recall there being a Celtic Dublin, if you look at Civilisations Reborn Edinburgh spawns as independent, in Asia you've got Pagan and barbarian Shenyang. These cities all play a role in some spawns too. In the Andes, much of the Inca empire also spawn as independents.
So I don't think ensuring that Lisbon, Amsterdam, the Mesoamerican cities, Ulan-batuur (maybe as a barbarian?) spawn a few hundred years before their civ is meticulous planning.

I agree with Leoreth that placing cities just before the spawn to fulfill the spawn conditions would be the cart before the horse situation. I do agree that some cities could spawn earlier as independents. But only if those cities were also historically significant (long) before the spawn of the civ. On top of my head this only applies to Lisbon and Amsterdam. The other cities are not historically significant enough for me to justify them spawning earlier than the civ they belong to. No city in Mongolia had much significance before the Mongol spawn, or at least were not significant enough to me to justify them earlier spawning independent cities.

I've written enough about this that I think it's worth trying to start working on it, can I ask you where the Byzantine and other conditional spawn code is found? If I look at that I can try replicate it for some of my proposals here, start a branch and start experimenting with this stuff. Thanks in advance

RiseAndFall.py

 

[Sarius1997]

I definitly agree that a more conditional spawn makes sense for many civilizations, but I'd use different conditions in some cases.

For the civs in the "Revolters" category a conditional spawn in the way you described it is perfect. They should depend on instability on the side of their overlords and their independence should pose a constant threat for a certain time period (so, the check if they could become independent shouldn't just be on a certain tech, but every X turns for Y turns after the discovery of the tech(or possibly up to the end of the game)).

For the Inca and Aztec I like the idea of giving them some independent cities to conquer, but with the current set of civs existing in the Americas they don't really need to be conditional. There is no other civ that could really influence the conditions in which they come to be, so they might as well have a static spawn.

"Invaders" like the French, the Mughals or the Mongols don't really make sense as a conditional spawn or atleast not as one dependent on the stability of the civ controlling the core. Maybe changing their strength depending on certain conditions could be better in this case.

 

[BaneFire]

I agree that it shouldn't be forbidden for the player to try to stop a civ from spawning. But I think that it should be discouraged. If the player does a huge effort and succeeds in preventing a spawn I'm fine with that. However I don't think that spawn prevention should be achievable by gimmicky exploits, which conditional spawns does allow. Spawn prevention should be doable by effort, not by exploits.

The line between an exploit and effort is a thin one and mostly based on what the rules are. Building up a huge army in many ways is an exploit, as you are exploiting the meta-knowledge of when a civ will spawn to kill it off. On the other hand, ensuring you have solid stability as Rome to ensure Byzantium does not spawn is hardly worthy of being called an exploit. Referring to my previous examples, I certainly feel like I am exploiting the game more when I build 30 firecrackers as China and station them on a fort with a hill and kill the entire Mongolian army in 2 turns, rather than when I play as Rome and attempt to remain solid.

I don't see why that wouldn't carry over with my proposals: staying solid as Rome to ensure France doesn't spawn, or staying solid as Britain to ensure America doesn't spawn hardly seems like 'exploiting' the game. Indeed I think if you're saying that my proposals count as exploiting, then I would argue that you're seeing the stability mechanic as a means to be exploited. I don't and I think as it's a pretty core mechanic to DOC it should be what determines whether your empire loses territory, rather than predetermined spawns.

This is not my point. My point is not what Byzantium (or the ex-colonies) represent, but how they came to be. This is different than the other civs and is IMO nicely represented by them having conditional spawns while the other regular civs don't.

Sure, but there are also other spawns. Looking at them the Thai and Italy ones seem fairly arbitrary, especially the Thai one. Why is Thailand a conditional spawn but not Mughals, for example? I'd say keep Thailand as conditional and make the Mughals conditional.

---

joji21 (I didn't quote your post because it's quite concise), I disagree with your assessment. Yes, it's possible that the scenario you described could happen, but I see it as a moot point. In 999/1000 games Rome will collapse and ensure that in my proposal France and others can spawn, that the Turks will conquer parts of Persia and Anatolia to ensure the Ottomans can spawn. The cases where it won't happen are either the player caused it too - good, the player should be rewarded for striving to change history - or the AI has achieved the impossible, also good, the biggest thread on this forum is the look what the AI did thread - people like seeing these scenarios occur.

Also your point about England requiring some obscenely complex spawning conditions is inaccurate. Civilisations in DOC don't just represent the single polity that they often take the name of but the historical ethno-cultural population bounded to a territory. "England" represents the inhabitants of the British Isles. England could and should spawn regardless of events in Europe, whether it represents a Celtic Druidic polity, a Romanised Celtic Christian one, an Anglo-Saxon chiefdom or a Norman kingdom. I deliberately kept my proposals short and simple to ensure they represent the abstract "civilisation" rather than England or France specifically.

 

[Leoreth]

The Thais are conditional because their appearence deletes the Khmer. They are mutually exclusive.

 

[merijn_v1]

The line between an exploit and effort is a thin one and mostly based on what the rules are. Building up a huge army in many ways is an exploit, as you are exploiting the meta-knowledge of when a civ will spawn to kill it off. On the other hand, ensuring you have solid stability as Rome to ensure Byzantium does not spawn is hardly worthy of being called an exploit. Referring to my previous examples, I certainly feel like I am exploiting the game more when I build 30 firecrackers as China and station them on a fort with a hill and kill the entire Mongolian army in 2 turns, rather than when I play as Rome and attempt to remain solid.

I do consider building a huge army to prevent a spawn an exploit too and that should be discouraged too. The unit defecting mechanics were introduced just to counter these exploits. We can't prevent the human player from having meta-knowledge. But we can try to prevent the player from being able to exploit this knowledge. Conditional spawns gives the player another tool to exploit their meta-knowledge.

I agree with you that preventing Byzantium while being stable as Rome is not an exploit. I never said I disagreed with this. It works great for Byzantium, but applying a very similar conditional spawn based on stability will not work for other civs. (Except the ex-colonies)

Let me give a few examples of exploit tactics that will be possible if your conditional spawn is implemented. The are based on tactics that people did used in the past when it was possible to prevent a civ from spawning.
- As any European civ, prevent the Dutch from spawning by controlling Amsterdam.
- As Spain or Moors, you can prevent Portugal from spawning by controlling Lisbon.
- As Phoenicia, you can prevent Rome from spawning by settling Rome yourself.
- As Indonesia, settle Angkor and prevent the Khmer from appearing.
Yes, you do need to be stable as well. But in most cases it is not hard to be stable when the other civs spawns. (Usually this is close to your own spawn, when the negative stability modifiers had no time do kick in)

Aside from the exploits that would be possible, I think that having some civ not being present (not even because of their own doing, but because someone else prevented them from spawing) is not good for the game on the long run. Having a civ not present is IMO that bad it justifies means that these civs is forced to spawn. (Thus forgoing conditional spawns)

I do agree it makes sense that when you are stable, it very plausible a new civ doesn't emerge. But that also means it is not present on the long run. I think having a civ not present is not a good idea and

I don't see why that wouldn't carry over with my proposals: staying solid as Rome to ensure France doesn't spawn, or staying solid as Britain to ensure America doesn't spawn hardly seems like 'exploiting' the game. Indeed I think if you're saying that my proposals count as exploiting, then I would argue that you're seeing the stability mechanic as a means to be exploited. I don't and I think as it's a pretty core mechanic to DOC it should be what determines whether your empire loses territory, rather than predetermined spawns.

Because conditional spawns as a mechanic as a mechanic is what can be exploited, regardless if it is tied to stability or not. Stability is only a condition, but the conditions are not the things that are exploited, the overlying mechanic is. You can exploit conditional spawns by doing strange things in order to make the condition fail. I don't consider being stable as Rome to prevent Byzantium as an exploit, because you don't need to to strange things. You need to play normally and make sure you are stable. For other civs, you do need to do strange things, see the examples I mentioned above.

Sure, but there are also other spawns. Looking at them the Thai and Italy ones seem fairly arbitrary, especially the Thai one. Why is Thailand a conditional spawn but not Mughals, for example? I'd say keep Thailand as conditional and make the Mughals conditional.

Italy and Rome represent the same people. We don't need both present at the same time. Hence the the condition.

I agree that Thailand seems arbitrary. This condition is included not by design, but because of limitations we currently have. There is simply not enough room on the current map to have them coexist. On the new map there is enough room and this condition will be removed.