Suggestions and requests

[VGL]

Yes, this is very good in 600-1200 AD.

The above screenshot was taken 1650 AD.

See the problem?

Oh.I didn't see the year.

 

[VGL]

But in my games,Turks are too powerful,china never reborn(making Korea and Tibet controlling china.),France almost controls Europe in medieval,Incas NEVER collapse,Spain Britain,France and Portugal never settles lots of cities in the new world and Persia and Arabia do not control their historical empire.

EDIT:is there a in game picture taker???

 

[The Diocletian]

But in my games,Turks are too powerful,china never reborn(making Korea and Tibet controlling china.),France almost controls Europe in medieval,Incas NEVER collapse,Spain Britain,France and Portugal never settles lots of cities in the new world and Persia and Arabia do not control their historical empire.

Wow, with the exception of France controlling Europe, I have the EXACT opposite problems.

 

[merijn_v1]

EDIT:is there a in game picture taker???

Print screen

 

[VGL]

Hey guys i have an idea.
What about some civilization start which civics that they don't have the tech (example:Roman republic starting with representation or Persia starting with secularism.)
And sometimes you will receive certain events depending to current year (even if you don't have the certain tech) or sometimes randomly to change your civics (requires the required tech) or face consequences.
A historical example:It is guaranteed the the Nazis will rise and Hitler will come to power.

Option 1: Ban the party
Effects: Unhappiness +2 for 10 turns

Option 2:Let them become power
Effect: Switch to autocracy,totalitarianism,fanaticism,and imperialism.

A random example:The #Countries dominate religion # Are brainwashing are people for us to become from a #current government and religion civics# to a fanaticism theocracy

Option 1:That will be great!
Effect:Change to theocracy and fanaticism.

Option 2:Those people!
Effect:Get two turns anarchy.

Option 3: Punish them by doing the opposite and force them among people.
Effect: Switch too Secularism and totalitarianism.

 

[Leoreth]

I like events where one choice is a civic change, especially to make the AI more willing to change there. But the alternative should never be so prohibitive that you are forced along a specific path.

 

[VGL]

I like events where one choice is a civic change, especially to make the AI more willing to change there. But the alternative should never be so prohibitive that you are forced along a specific path.

Only historical ones are like that
EDIT:Never mind

 

[adhiraj.bose]

Actually it might be a good idea to make 'revolution' a completely automatic thing. Civic changes don't create anarchy unless there is cause for the same. And if you don't change a civic enough number of people want, it would automatically trigger a revolution and make you change to that civic whether the player likes it or not. This will be more challenging to a gamer, than just 'chosing' (like a god ) how the civ will evolve.

 

[DC123456789]

I don't like the idea of forced civic changes (or really forced anything). It's better if you have a choice between a revolution and some malus so that you don't feel arbitrarily forced into stuff (which is rarely liked or a good thing). I think Leoreth's solution is fine.

 

[The Diocletian]

than just 'chosing' (like a god ) how the civ will evolve.

But (for me) that's the fun of the game...

 

[Leoreth]

Actually the most basic template of such an event could be to either receive a civic change for free, or suffer one turn of anarchy to stay in your current civic.

 

[adhiraj.bose]

I like this idea too. Thing is if we're trying to move towards a history simulator, then we should make the idea of civic changes and revolutions more realistic. This idea of your's Leoreth balances both worlds perfectly.

 

[VGL]

Actually the most basic template of such an event could be to either receive a civic change for free, or suffer one turn of anarchy to stay in your current civic.

I think a plus 2 anarchy is better.

 

[Daffy]

America with 1700AD start
viceroy, epic, svn revision 725 or so

infantry and machine guns in 1820's

I assume the AI tech-speed is way too fast, especially on the slower game speeds

I had a similar problem playing argentina..
spain had destroyers and infantry around 1840 there too..
monarch, epic speed

i think it's mostly the dutch, british and spanish are the ones going too fast in the 1700 scenario, probably due to their empires and the great income they receive from them

could the tech rate be modified in some way?

 

[Leoreth]

I'm looking into it.

 

[adhiraj.bose]

I want some help with modding . For my India game, I want to make the Mughal spawn conditional upon the Seljuks controlling Afghanistan. How would I remove the Mughals in case I succeed in keeping the Seljuks out ? Which file do I modify ? Also is there a way to get rid of the forced vassal caps ?

 

[Leoreth]

There's a thread for this kind of question.

 

[adhiraj.bose]

I forgot where the thread is, could you link it please . I haven't been on the DOC thread for a while now.

 

[The Diocletian]

I forgot where the thread is, could you link it please . I haven't been on the DOC thread for a while now.

Modmodding Q&A Thread

 

[Hippo8085]

Now that internet is not expensive and paid by the hour somewhere which is a 25 minute drive away, I will do a little follow-up on this post.

Arabia and other civilizations (Mongolia, China, Byzantium) have too large of cores for what they are meant to control. The change to Current Era +1 actually didn't hurt these ones much but did Europe. My suggestion is to revert to the Current Era +2, but shrink the cores for all civilizations, especially these ones, and have more changing ones (colonial Europe goes from capital to country with Renaissance, will also make it harder to kill off other European civilizations early if the raze penalty is working correctly) and more expanded flip zones. This should probably have more than one mind put into exactly what the best ones would be, from both gameplay (what I would give you) and historical standpoints.

Currently the only surefire way to collapse a civilization is to eliminate their possession of every one of their core cities, which is part of why I think the Seljuks are not doing a good enough job and smaller cores would help increase collapses. They collapse and Arabia just comes right back and takes the lost cities. In either case, they could use a buff when the human is not a Middle Eastern civilization.

As citis pointed out in the Bugs thread, large cores make civilizations immortal. Same with cores which encompass all of the cities for a civilization. I will start a thread on core area reform soon.

Lastly on stability, I think there should be some critical consecutive number of turns or checks at which a civilization that has had collapsing stability should, well, collapse. The same, but a much larger number for unstable.

The numbers for this ought to be different for the AI and the human, simply because AI collapses are an essential part of the game and human ones almost assuredly end it, or at least any sort of fun.

I think something like this would be reasonable:
If stability is below -40: AI collapses after 2 consecutive turns, human after 5.
If stability is below -20: AI collapses after 5 consecutive turns, human after 20.
If stability is below 0: AI collapses after 25 consecutive turns, human after 250.