Suggestions and requests

[blizzrd]

That's one of the downsides of IDW in my opinion because it never really made sense to me.

What exactly doesn't make sense?

I think that it fairly accurately reflects the panic/desertion element within a city's population when that city is losing a war. To a point, the city holds out. But after enough military losses, attitudes change.

 

[civ_king]

Have you considered tweaking the late game a little? I think it would be good to have towns add a food with combustion to represent suburbia and the global population boom.

 

[Leoreth]

That's an interesting definition of "a little".

 

[civ_king]

That's an interesting definition of "a little".

Well, the late game really does need to be improved, a lot.

 

[dmitrytrue]

Suggestion on Prussia:
How about to move oil resourse closer to their core area, or maybe even move it right on Berlin spot.
Why? For example I have never seen Prussia with panzers.
Area with oil near Budapest is always (in my games) belongs to Turks, or (if I play as Russia) oil covered with Krakow's culture or with Constantinopol' culture, or with Austrian culture. With any other civilization culture, but not Prussian.
And also, trained starting army ( at least 2 xp), I always see how they loosing starting units in attempts to conquer neighbouring independent cities.

 

[Tigranes]

Well, the late game really does need to be improved, a lot.

I thought Corporations are there to represent late game exponential population boom, and many people feel they are too powerful. Supercities receive fair amount of criticism and discouragement. Most arguments go against the food, not for it.

 

[UnholyMudcrab]

I thought Corporations are there to represent late game exponential population boom, and many people feel they are too powerful. Supercities receive fair amount of criticism and discouragement. Most arguments go against the food, not for it.

The way Civ models city growth makes it really hard to represent the modern population boom. Cities grow quickly at first, and then stagnate in the modern era, whereas the opposite was true in reality. Corporations would need to be a lot more powerful than they currently are to represent that correctly. I'm fine with the way they are now.

 

[Royal Tenenbaum]

I suggest that in Japan, Nagasaki should have the gold resource on it, and the forest should be where Kagoshima is. Because of this, the whale could be moved to be in proximity to Nagasaki.

Also, the uranium in Libya should be moved one up, and a hill there as well.

The jungle and banana in Bangladesh should be moved one up or to the left.

Alaska's deer should be moved one to the right, and that tile should be a tundra. The crab should be moved one to the left for aesthetic reasons (I hate when things line up. I've avoided optimal city placement for this reason). The mountains right above Anchorage should be made a hill with a snow forest on it.

Greenland should be opened up as having tundra on the west side and a fish resource.

The sheep off of Rome and the wine off of Athens should be improved for the 600 map.

 

[Tigranes]

Is there any specific reason why Slaves cannot improve terrain with, say, half of the efficiency of regular Worker? I mean .. they were brought specifically for that purpose, settling them in cities was secondary effect...

Also wouldn't you agree that Switching from forced labor needs some additional polishing? Is it fair that all your Slaves simply disappear when you switch to Market Economy? Is it even realistic to suggest so? Is it even ethical to represent Emancipation with the help of such mechanics? Former slaves don't become part of the new society, they just disappear, for the lack of the better solution from the Author?

Those settled ones could become population points, those in the field can become Workers. Imagine you settled Jamaica and have 1 regular population point and 5 settled Slaves. They will make Kingston population 6 city after Emancipation (would be nice if we could implant Congo culture in that city with 5:1 ratio, but that could be too much to ask).

On the other side, what do I suppose to do with Slaves which i captured after I switched from Forced Labor? Nobody is willing to buy them, I cannot settle them, they don't improve land, I can only order them to suicide so I don't waste money on their maintenance. Is that what you want us to do?

 

[Leoreth]

Expect the slave/civic relationship to change with the new civics.

 

[MinuteOfDecay]

On the other side, what do I suppose to do with Slaves which i captured after I switched from Forced Labor? Nobody is willing to buy them, I cannot settle them, they don't improve land, I can only order them to suicide so I don't waste money on their maintenance. Is that what you want us to do?

Why not to offer them refugee? This could result in +1 pop gain and temp. +1 unhappiness from immigration and/or temp. +1 unhappiness from discrimination.

This leads me to the idea of refugee unit. If your war weariness gets too high, you may lose a pop. point in one unhappy city and a refugee unit would appear in neighboring civ's borders. The neighboring civ should be at peace and have emancipation civic. Refugee unit could make you need to decide:
1) to keep the refugee unit and pay high maintance.
2) to build a Refugee Camp improvement that connects the possible resource, but yields in +1 unhealthiness. Refugee camp could be disbanded after being worked by city for certain amount of turns.
3) to settle the refugee and gain a pop point,+ 1 unhappiness from immigration + some neighboring culture. Nationalist civic could double the unhappiness gained.
4) to delete refugee (slave) unit giving you a genocide penalty from other leaders not following a form of totalitarian regime. The genocide penalty could be also triggered when you kill your enemies refugee unit or pillage any Refugee Camp.
5) send the refugee unit back, resulting in some stability loss since you don't live up to your emancipation values. When you resettle your own (domestic) refugee you shouldn't receive any additional penalties.

Refugee units could be also triggered from religious persecution giving the refugee unit to nearest civ with free religion civic or to a civ with the appropriate state religion.
Refugee units could be created in collapse. Some refugee units could appear to a neigbouring civ, but if it is your own civ collapsing, some refugees could appear in your capital as domestic refugees giving you no unhappiness penalties
Refugee units could be also triggered by combination of unhappiness and bad economy. Also, vassal states should have higher chance to create a refugee unit to their master.

This leads to America, where it's UP would be receiving Refugee units occasionally, like it gets pop points today. Also, instead of +1 , settling refugee in America could result in extra commerce or all refugees could be treated as domestic, yielding just +1 pop point.

 

[Lansa]

to my first request about Vienna:

Yes it was the false spot. But why we dont change that now? Or renamed the "false spot" with another cityname? By the way it is stupid, that you can flip at start a wrong city, which you cant raze... (besides using worldbuilder)


And can we decrease egypts respawn zone? Its unlogical, that you lose your city Tunis/Carthago when egypts foreign ruler gets unstable.. You have solid stability, but lose a city because another foreign territory is unstable. Its senseless when you playing the Moors and lose this city spot to egypt (and you cant disagree this flip?!)

 

[blizzrd]

And can we decrease egypts respawn zone? Its unlogical, that you lose your city Tunis/Carthago when egypts foreign ruler gets unstable.. You have solid stability, but lose a city because another foreign territory is unstable. Its senseless when you playing the Moors and lose this city spot to egypt (and you cant disagree this flip?!)

The solution to that problem as Moors is to take control of Egypt's area for yourself.

 

[Akbarthegreat]

Perhaps decrease the stability loss from liberating small faraway cities to your vassals?

 

[mrrandomplayer]

This probably won't be done for a while, but do you think that you could make things a little bit easier for an OCC? Just a few little things, like changing the amount of National Wonders allowed to 4 in the capital and 2 everywhere else, or maybe making the requirement to build stuff like the Opera House much less stringent?

 

[luckeitor]

This probably won't be done for a while, but do you think that you could make things a little bit easier for an OCC? Just a few little things, like changing the amount of National Wonders allowed to 4 in the capital and 2 everywhere else, or maybe making the requirement to build stuff like the Opera House much less stringent?

For the unhappiness, you may WB Islam to your city so you can build the Blue Mosque

 

[iOnlySignIn]

Re: Dynamic Civ Names

I think the isEmpire threshold should be set to 5 cities at default instead of 6. Otherwise both AI and Human China spend too much time being "Middle Kingdom of China" because isEmpire is false. Or it could be due to some other reasons too - I've seen late game China (AI and Human) with 8 or more cities named "Middle Kingdom of China" for some reason.

For Rome though this threshold should be set to 7 or 8 - the Roman Republic was pretty huge by the end (Julius Caesar).

For Persia, I've never seen the Parthian name used with its current trigger condition (if iGreece in lPreviousOwners). Maybe set it to trigger after a certain year (250 BC, or any time just after AI Greece gets its conquerors) instead? Otherwise this name (a very nice name too) is wasted.

 

[FinalLegendZero]

I seem to recall mention of a planned change in the Moors' UHV. Has that been abandoned, or is it just on hold until a later version?

Also, I'm not sure whether this has been mentioned yet, but Arabia's UHV might warrant a second look. The tech goal and the religion goal are fine, but should it really still have the 'control the Maghreb and Spain' goal now that the Moors exist?

 

[Lennon789]

I seem to recall mention of a planned change in the Moors' UHV. Has that been abandoned, or is it just on hold until a later version?

Also, I'm not sure whether this has been mentioned yet, but Arabia's UHV might warrant a second look. The tech goal and the religion goal are fine, but should it really still have the 'control the Maghreb and Spain' goal now that the Moors exist?

Yeah, I definitely agree that Arabia's expansion UHV can use some readjusting. Usually most civilizations have either 3 historical goals or 2 historical goals and one ahistorical goal, but this is not the case for the Arabs. The Abbassid Caliphate collapsed after years of shrinking in 1258, so both of the goals that require the Arabs to survive to 1300 are ahistorical. Also, in my experience, I manage to get the third goal (convert 40% of the world to Islam) a while before 1300, meaning I miss out on the UHV golden age.

So here are my ideas:
1. Replace Spain and the Maghreb with East Africa and India.
2. Move the dates for the scientific advancement UHV and the conquest UHV to 1200. This way, the India portion of the conquest UHV doesn't conflict with the Mughal spawn.
3. Change the third UHV to "Convert 40% of the world's cities to Islam in 1300" so that Arabia still has to defeat the Mongols to win a historical victory.

 

[mrrandomplayer]

If AI Arabia and the Arabia UHV goals are changed to include India and Arabia actually invades, maybe the Mughal spawn should be conditional, where it wouldn't spawn if Arabia didn't control Northwest India or if Arabia controlled Northwest India but had Solid or higher stability. It's kind of weird when the Islamic Mughals magically appear out of nowhere with no Muslim presence in the area, where in reality, there had been Islam in India since the 900s.