Suggestions and requests

Speaking of expanding core areas...

Japan's stability map is a little odd. I can accept Hokkaido not being core, I suppose. But China, Indochina, and Indonesia being foreign core while Korea and Manchuria are Contested is just plain odd.

Therefore, can I either suggest Hokkaido being upgraded to core (perhaps dynamically), or that the aforementioned areas are made contested?
 
Well I'd argue that Japan had a much more solid control over Korea than China and Indonesia.
 
The problem is that if Japan gets its whole main island as core, and much of China as historical, it will be to easy for it to expand too much without penalties.
 
Well I'd argue that Japan had a much more solid control over Korea than China and Indonesia.
I agree. Korea has been a Japanese vassal, Manchuria was a puppet state. Japanese control over mainland China and Indonesia didn't go beyond military occupation.
 
Speaking of expanding core areas...

Japan's stability map is a little odd. I can accept Hokkaido not being core, I suppose. But China, Indochina, and Indonesia being foreign core while Korea and Manchuria are Contested is just plain odd.

Therefore, can I either suggest Hokkaido being upgraded to core (perhaps dynamically), or that the aforementioned areas are made contested?

Honestly, this is how I'd do it:

CORE: Honshu, Shikoku, Kyushu, Hokkaido
HISTORICAL: Ryukyu, Manchuria, Hawaii
CONTESTED: Corea, Liaodong
REMOVED: West Coast, Taiwan

China proper save for Liaodong, Phillippines and Indonesia don't make sense; they were short-lived and heavily resisted occupations.
Rationale for Taiwan is that it is strange to see Japan settle it when either the Dutch or China settling it first makes much more sense.
If it were relevant enough, I'd advocate a conqueror event, but it isn't.
The West Coast is a relic of some serious Shadowrun issues and Rhye favoritism.
I've said time and time again I don't oppose an immigrant representation,
but it has to be fairly distributed and the one that best makes sense for Japan is Hawaii.
 
I think Japan settling Taiwan is not that unrealistic as an alternate history scenario and should remain possible (it's not as if it happens often). Not sure about an alt-hist colonization of the American west coast.
 
True, and it's one of the ones (Taiwan) I'm less adamant about, but merely pointing out the suggestion.

I honestly think though that Hokkaido should be Core (similarly to how south of the Yangtze should be Core for China) and that the West Coast historical territory be moved to Hawaii.
 
Purely out of curiosity, why should length of control matter when designing stability maps?

Because that was the universally agreed upon criteria (as well as stability of control) during vanilla RFC.
See for yourself:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=313398

We have exceptions of course because of the inertia rule even if they pass the 30-100 year stable control criteria (like no Lanfang Republic for China to name one)
The stable part is more important though; and we see that clearly with the Mongol stability map.
 
Rather than strictly disallow specific units no ability to cross Jungle, etc.. how about instead give them ability to cross all terrain but some terrain got heavy health penalty?

e.g.: -50% health every time passing a Jungle. So a unit with 8 health, after walking through 1 jungle the health become 4, then 2, then 1, then 0.5 etc. Instantly death if the health is lesser than x. Can't heal while in the Jungle or Marshes. (only apply to unit that's currently can't pass Jungle or Marshes)

Units that by default doesn't affected by Jungle/Marshes have no effects.
IMO this would made some civilization game more interesting and strategic.
 
My answer consists of two letters, you can guess which ones.
 
Oh, sorry. The answer is AI.
 
On Marathon, civilizations advance way too quick after around 1880. Also, artillery is very hard to discover to counter machine guns. I suggest pushing back machine guns to a later tech, and making technologies past railroad cost more beakers. Our marathon game nearly has a finished tech tree at 1928. Things were pretty in sync until 1880, where science just pushed through all the techs.
 
On Marathon, civilizations advance way too quick after around 1880. Also, artillery is very hard to discover to counter machine guns. I suggest pushing back machine guns to a later tech, and making technologies past railroad cost more beakers. Our marathon game nearly has a finished tech tree at 1928. Things were pretty in sync until 1880, where science just pushed through all the techs.

Macine guns are valnerable vs cavalry which is good, because else cavalry would be almost useless (rifles +50% vs mounted). However, it is true that the tech rate is high in late game. I purpose to insert a system that makes sure that certain bottlenech techs will not be discovered earlier. This way no need for rebalancing modifiers or beakers of all techs.
 
It'd still be nice to have science, at least in Marathon, made harder to discover to reduce the HUGE discovery rate between 1880-1920.
 
I'm considering spreading out the Industrial era things over more additional techs. Good to see there's leeway for additional beakers ;)
 
Units before artillery, stealth bombers and jet fighers, machine guns, destroyers, and tanks would really smooth things out. Also, para shooters as they are now, late in the game, are worthless. If I remember correctly, they don't even have a move after they parashoot somewhere?
 
Not sure about adding actual units, but spacing out the new units with more techs seems like a good idea in either case.
 
Top Bottom