Like errr, didn't I just answer this....?Message 3684Rhye said:
Rhye's of Civilization - the fastest loading mod Expanded
- Thread starter Rhye
- Start date
- Status
Blasphemous
Graulich
Well, they would be given big bonuses to compensate. Also you could make all wonders tagged only to one trait so no civ can recieve a GA from just one wonder. That would at least slightly balance the problem.Rhye said:
I just think this unelegant solution will do more good than harm, though I don't deny there will be harm and it will take a while to balance it right.
Asclepius said:
Yes you did but Onedreamer said it can be 1, too.
So I want to be sure of this
Blasphemous said:
excuse but isn't one tag enough to trigger a GA? Are you sure of this?
Let's say a militaristic only wonder (Tower of Pisa)...shouldn't it be able to trigger (sometimes) a GA for every militaristic civ?
Blasphemous
Graulich
It's a max of 2, min of 1, in C3C iirc. Used to be just 1 at all times before C3C I think.
onedreamer, have you actualy played RoC? The game length is shorter, and the optimal number of cities is far smaller than an ordinary game of Civ. All of these elements mean the severity of the anarchy period has more effect on the game. 7-8 turns is simply too long to try out many of the different governments.
Well if you want to learn more try this thread: GOTM threadRhye said:
Blasphemous
Graulich
A single tag can only trigger a GA if the civ has that trait and has also built a wonder with its other trait's tag. So if a mil+sci nation has built a scientific wonder and then builds a militaristic wonder, they will get a GA. If they build a sci+mil wonder that's an instant GA.Rhye said:
Oh, I see. The editor help wasn't clear at all.
And what does it happen when a civ has 3 traits? I suppose the same, let's hope.
What would you give to the new religious trait?
And what does it happen when a civ has 3 traits? I suppose the same, let's hope.
What would you give to the new religious trait?
Blasphemous said:
Do you know anything about regent and monarch levels?
Blasphemous
Graulich
As I said, the trait would have to give its bonuses using an ERA_NONE tech required for bonus techs throughout the ages (the bonus techs would cost 1 beaker, essentially free.) There should be one that requires nothing in the ancient age that gives a special temple-type thing, very cheap and at least 1 culture per turn (dunno about other benefits.) There should be one that requires theology and gives either some unit, or some improvement, or even a special specialist that would give 1 content face and one research or commerce or something. Or two of those three options or all three. The ancient age tech could also give some special specialist or some "shaman" unit that say, has 1.1.1 and a nice defensive bombard.
You could also make different bonuses for religious civs of different religions. You could then have the bonus tech require that age's religious tech, since anyone with the ERA_NONE tech for being religious for that religion would also have that religion's regular ERA_NONE tech.
EDIT: And you can always give religious civs their own special gov't/s. Like say Despotic Theocracy in an ancient age bonus tech, which would be like despotism only with a tiny bit less corruption or something. A slightly better gov't than despotism very early on can be a major balacing tool in favour of the religious trait.
You could also make different bonuses for religious civs of different religions. You could then have the bonus tech require that age's religious tech, since anyone with the ERA_NONE tech for being religious for that religion would also have that religion's regular ERA_NONE tech.
EDIT: And you can always give religious civs their own special gov't/s. Like say Despotic Theocracy in an ancient age bonus tech, which would be like despotism only with a tiny bit less corruption or something. A slightly better gov't than despotism very early on can be a major balacing tool in favour of the religious trait.
Blasphemous
Graulich
I don't think difficulty level affects the religious trait's bonus for the human player. I'm not sure though, I never really looked into how the difficulty levels work (beyond the cost factor for the AI and the citizens born content.)Rhye said:
Aeon221
Lord of the Cheese Helmet
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,995
Where did I get my timeline? I made it up based on my knowledge of Anglo-Celtic history and the governments available in-game. No its not exact, but it was good enough for the use I had intended it for.
And I am well aware that 5-8 turns is a different amount of relative time at different periods... its not like I have never played the game before ;p
However, it is the same amount of absolute time: five to eight turns, a crippling delay!
Yes, it did indeed take that long... if you ignore the fact that there were governments in between, and that the rulers were what we would today call despots and warlords... but sure, believe if you want that there was no organization or development in the lower middle ages... or what the ignorant refer to as the Dark ages...
Total crap. The social revolution as a concept did not even enter the arena seriously until the late 18th- early 19th period (known today as the Age of Revolutions). Even then, it did not become seriously thought of until the communist revolutions, which WERE a result of a strong desire for social change. On the great timeline of history, they are a brief blip grabbing onto the end; it only happened twice. AND unless you want to argue that the people, and not the Politburo, controlled the state, it lasted for as long as the fighting did... which was not much longer than ten to twenty years at the outermost.
Hitler's changing of Germany from the Weimar Republic to the Facist 3rd Reich was accomplished without long periods of anarchy; it took a few years, five or six at the outermost. Or do you want to tell me that they were unable to produce soldiers during WWII? Same with Mussolini, and again with our friends the Memshoviks (the element that had control in Revolutionary Russia prior to the Bolsheviks), despite being in the midst of what you would have us call anarchy because of what I (again) declare to be the arbitrary decision of a group of programmers: the length of time between the decision to change a government and the implementation of that change.
Prior to that period, almost every revolution occurred as I described above: as the result of a minority capitalizing on a pre-existing situation to bring about their own control, through either the degeneration of a previous government or as a military uprising. eg: Hiero in Syracuse, Caesar in Rome, Augustus in Rome, Cao Cao in China's Warring States period.
How about Lycurgus of Sparta? HE changed the state of Sparta without any bloodshed at all. Same with William and Mary of England! Or how about Cosimo de Medici of Florence? There was some violence in Florence during his changing of the government, but this was inherent to the city; it was a violent place throughout its history, but this did not prevent it from becoming the center of the Renaissance's cultural and financial explosion! Just to make sure you understand, Cosimo was working AGAINST the wishes of the people.
I have about eight million more examples I can give you off the top of my head, but by now it should be obvious that a certain trend is expressed in what I like to refer to as 'the real world'.
Maybe you should go look up some stuff about governmental theory (and history), because you are about as wrong as you can be.
Rhye, I apologize for the serious hijack! It was clearly my fault, as I am almost OCD when people say things that are obviously wrong! Especially when that person is me ;p
I promise not to say anything more about the historical aspects of this subject ;p
OD, your ideas on how to deal with this are pretty worthless. I suggested changing the length without using the religious trait many pages ago, but it is a hardcoded value (as Rhye discovered).
And, echoing Asclepius, have you even bothered to play the mod? Or are you just spouting?
As to what Blas has to say about changes, I agree pretty much with what he has there, except about giving them a special unit. That seems a bit excessive. Giving them a better starting government sounds like a very good idea (Egypt anyone? Sumeria? Babylon and the Priest-Kings?)!
...crap, there goes that promise haha
And I am well aware that 5-8 turns is a different amount of relative time at different periods... its not like I have never played the game before ;p
However, it is the same amount of absolute time: five to eight turns, a crippling delay!
Yes, it did indeed take that long... if you ignore the fact that there were governments in between, and that the rulers were what we would today call despots and warlords... but sure, believe if you want that there was no organization or development in the lower middle ages... or what the ignorant refer to as the Dark ages...
Total crap. The social revolution as a concept did not even enter the arena seriously until the late 18th- early 19th period (known today as the Age of Revolutions). Even then, it did not become seriously thought of until the communist revolutions, which WERE a result of a strong desire for social change. On the great timeline of history, they are a brief blip grabbing onto the end; it only happened twice. AND unless you want to argue that the people, and not the Politburo, controlled the state, it lasted for as long as the fighting did... which was not much longer than ten to twenty years at the outermost.
Hitler's changing of Germany from the Weimar Republic to the Facist 3rd Reich was accomplished without long periods of anarchy; it took a few years, five or six at the outermost. Or do you want to tell me that they were unable to produce soldiers during WWII? Same with Mussolini, and again with our friends the Memshoviks (the element that had control in Revolutionary Russia prior to the Bolsheviks), despite being in the midst of what you would have us call anarchy because of what I (again) declare to be the arbitrary decision of a group of programmers: the length of time between the decision to change a government and the implementation of that change.
Prior to that period, almost every revolution occurred as I described above: as the result of a minority capitalizing on a pre-existing situation to bring about their own control, through either the degeneration of a previous government or as a military uprising. eg: Hiero in Syracuse, Caesar in Rome, Augustus in Rome, Cao Cao in China's Warring States period.
How about Lycurgus of Sparta? HE changed the state of Sparta without any bloodshed at all. Same with William and Mary of England! Or how about Cosimo de Medici of Florence? There was some violence in Florence during his changing of the government, but this was inherent to the city; it was a violent place throughout its history, but this did not prevent it from becoming the center of the Renaissance's cultural and financial explosion! Just to make sure you understand, Cosimo was working AGAINST the wishes of the people.
I have about eight million more examples I can give you off the top of my head, but by now it should be obvious that a certain trend is expressed in what I like to refer to as 'the real world'.
Maybe you should go look up some stuff about governmental theory (and history), because you are about as wrong as you can be.
Rhye, I apologize for the serious hijack! It was clearly my fault, as I am almost OCD when people say things that are obviously wrong! Especially when that person is me ;p
I promise not to say anything more about the historical aspects of this subject ;p
OD, your ideas on how to deal with this are pretty worthless. I suggested changing the length without using the religious trait many pages ago, but it is a hardcoded value (as Rhye discovered).
And, echoing Asclepius, have you even bothered to play the mod? Or are you just spouting?
As to what Blas has to say about changes, I agree pretty much with what he has there, except about giving them a special unit. That seems a bit excessive. Giving them a better starting government sounds like a very good idea (Egypt anyone? Sumeria? Babylon and the Priest-Kings?)!
...crap, there goes that promise haha
Asclepius, my mailbox seems OK. Try to send something smaller
about the religious thing: I have to try, because I foresee some problems (what will the "special tech" allow? For example if I give a special Mysticism which allows free temples, then I must check that the path to the Polytheism/Pagan etc. is still correct. That tech has mysticism as prerequisite, and if I add an alternative "Pagan Cults" then it wouldn't contain any wonder, as a wonder is allowed by only one tech).
The government thing was interesting but I'd create silly names for that govs with silly settings (there wouldn't be much difference with standard govs).
The units...mmm. Only the missionary comes in my mind, but it's only Christian, and I don't think an added unit is correct for a trait. A trait should affect gameplay all the game long.
The government thing was interesting but I'd create silly names for that govs with silly settings (there wouldn't be much difference with standard govs).
The units...mmm. Only the missionary comes in my mind, but it's only Christian, and I don't think an added unit is correct for a trait. A trait should affect gameplay all the game long.
Aeon221
Lord of the Cheese Helmet
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,995
Monestary? Many religions (not sure how many ;p) did have them. Dunno exactly what you would do with it; maybe have it serve as a granary/library
A small wonder that increases tax or knowledge output or increases happiness or production (Egyptian style!)...
a giant statue of Ba'al which doubles pop growth ;p
Go look for a picture of the statues Ba'al had and you will def understand that! hahaha
Maybe a unit that upgrades over time from some base unit at the beginning to some kind of advanced thing... if thats not vague enough ;p
I cannot really think of anything... maybe we should give them new traits to replace the religious one, and just give it up for a bad job haha
A small wonder that increases tax or knowledge output or increases happiness or production (Egyptian style!)...
a giant statue of Ba'al which doubles pop growth ;p
Go look for a picture of the statues Ba'al had and you will def understand that! hahaha
Maybe a unit that upgrades over time from some base unit at the beginning to some kind of advanced thing... if thats not vague enough ;p
I cannot really think of anything... maybe we should give them new traits to replace the religious one, and just give it up for a bad job haha
Khift
Prince
I like the specialist solution, where a religious civ can make Priest specialist citizens that add one happiness and one or two science. It's like an entertainer on steroids, and it makes a little sense, seeing how for the longest time religion and science were joined at the hip.
Aeon221
Lord of the Cheese Helmet
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,995
I like the idea of a priest specialist, but how about revenue instead of science? Cash makes more sense, considering how Priestly classes from Egypt to the Catholic Church have acted as bureaucrats and tax collectors?
Besides, fundamentalists today... not very science friendly haha
Besides, fundamentalists today... not very science friendly haha
Blasphemous
Graulich
I don't think the bonustech should replace Mysticism, it should require mysticism and give an additional building. Or you could make it so Mysticism is required for that bonustech and also a bonustech for the non-religious civs, so then the bonustech would give a regular temple (or better call that one Shrine) to non-religious civs, and a more powerful or cheaper Temple for the religious civs. It would be tough to do the same thing with the Cathedral/Mosque/Synagogue/Monestary because those each come with a different tech and then you'd have to have two special techs for the religious civs and two special techs for the non-religious civs and that makes the total more than 4 so it can't be done the same way.Rhye said:
I suppose gov'ts are the thing that would serve best to affect the game on the long term. For the ancient age you should have as I said, Despotic Theocracy. Stats:
Corruption: Rampant
Support: 3/4/2 (or 3/4/1 or 2/4/1 or something), 1/unit
Rate Cap: 7
Worker Rate: 2
Assimilation: 1
Draft: 2
Military Police: 3
Hurrying: Forced
War Weariness: None
Standard Tile Penalty OFF
Xenophobic ON
Forced Resettlement ON
So, what you get is a slightly happier empire (moer military police), better production due to no tile penalty, slightly better support for your cities but lower than despotism for you metropoli (to make sure people don't use it in later ages). It's basically Despotism leaning a tiny bit towards Theocratic Monarchy. Not a huge difference but it's worth the two turns of anarchy. But make the bonustech for it require some first- or second-tier ancient age techs so it doesn't come in TOO early.
For the middle ages the only thing I can think of is a Caliphate, and I don't know enough about that to suggest stats. I don't think the later ages should have religious bonus gov'ts.
I like the priest thing, I think that's really what we were looking for.
I'd like to add no-mantenience on temples, and an alternative Throcratic Monarchy that instead works much better (if you look at history, many of the civs marked as religious has a working theocratic government. Think about the Aztecs or Egypt).
But these last 2 things cause problems, as already said. Another government needs another tech and I would be forced to make monarchy non-tradeable.
One more thing I could do is add an improvement or a wonder that requires the hidden tech + theocratic monarchy. In this way if this is a good improvement, religious civs have more incentive to adopt that government.
I don't know what the name could be, I fear some ridundance.
What do you think of "monument"? An obelisk that can be built in any city and produces 1 culture per turn.
We could even make it buildable without the government to have a more important effect.
With a powerful citizen and the obelisk thing I can say that the religious revolution is complete!
I'd like to add no-mantenience on temples, and an alternative Throcratic Monarchy that instead works much better (if you look at history, many of the civs marked as religious has a working theocratic government. Think about the Aztecs or Egypt).
But these last 2 things cause problems, as already said. Another government needs another tech and I would be forced to make monarchy non-tradeable.
One more thing I could do is add an improvement or a wonder that requires the hidden tech + theocratic monarchy. In this way if this is a good improvement, religious civs have more incentive to adopt that government.
I don't know what the name could be, I fear some ridundance.
What do you think of "monument"? An obelisk that can be built in any city and produces 1 culture per turn.
We could even make it buildable without the government to have a more important effect.
With a powerful citizen and the obelisk thing I can say that the religious revolution is complete!
- Status
