Discussion in 'Rhye's and Fall - Dawn of Civilization' started by Leoreth, Sep 11, 2014.
But how can there be seasons if turns are in year increments or more?
Yeah. It sounds like a bit of gimmick for this mod. I don't think it would be a lot more fun. Plus, very unhistorical (this isn't westeros with 100 year winters)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
turn x => summer 1000 AD
turn x+1 => summer 1004 AD
turn x+2 => summer 1008 AD
turn x+3 => summer 1012 AD
turn x+4 => winter 1016 AD
turn x+5 => winter 1020 AD
turn x+6 => winter 1024 AD
turn x+7 => winter 1028 AD
turn x+8 => summer 1032 etc.
As for (possible) implications:
(or why I don't view this as a gimmick)
In winter (food)squares can be made less productive.
possible foodshortage could be ameliorated by a new ability for a granary. Starvation only costs half the food of the food stored before growth.
Certain units could gain bonuses on certain terrain (eg. finnish winterinfantry, I don't know the proper term, but the guys with the ski's from civ2)
All units without the winterhardened upgrade (an upgrade not yet available) suffer a little damage (lets say one third point of strength) each turn (until a certain level, lets say 80% of Original strength) when in winterlands.
Possible Russian Unique Ability with winterlands.
Russian units (all start with the winterhardened upgrade) and do double damage to enemy units in winterlands. Or alternatively: All units receive double damage in combat in winterlands (to represent increased vulnerability due to the extreme environment) except for Russian units.
I see a lot of possibilities (there can also be rainy seasons in tropical areas and dry seasons in the Savannah areas). Disclosure: I do not know a lot about programming and ai. But these changes feel like something to me the ai could cope with quite well because they introduce no new variables for deciding when to do combat or not (for the ai)
But it's not really intuitive to basically have four turn long winters when several years pass in one turn. I would personally find it quite immersion breaking.
This is a cool idea for a different setting where turns would proceed at a slower pace, but I don't think it fits with DoC. Now a GoT mod on the other hand
Boy do I know that feeling! I am still hoping one day Christianity will be split in Catholicism, Orhtodoxy and Protestantism, or that Agrarianism isn't doing your empire more harm than good!
Seriously though, are you playing the release version? I personally added a forest in the Amsterdam tile weeks ago and had it incorporated by Leoreth, along with some other resource additions.
Edit: As for the winter thingy, have you ever played Road to War? There they have that feature, but turns are months, not decades or years.
I understand your case. Also, all four seasons are incorporated in the tiles as they are.
Originally I thought the seasons should switch each turn. But that would kind of defy the purpose of designating a tile as (eg) grassland (might as well change all tiles every turn then)
Then I noticed that it was the same date every tile everywhere.
Increasing the winter to four turns seemed a way to focus on an (by necessity) unrealistic (but fun) aspect of the game to increase the possibility for interesting new opportunities.
I for myself experience a battle at a certain tile not as a campaign (series of battles) through the entire year (or era right at the start of the game) but rather as a single battle fought somewhere in said timeframe.
The idea of series of turns focussing on a part of the year came kind of naturally after that to me.
The decrease of autonomy over my environment ups the ante for when I can give shape to my desires. This actually increases the immersion for me.
It is too bad that up until now you (Leoreth) perceive to experience the opposite. And I am afraid that this elaboration on my part will not suffice to change your views.
(But even that is in a way a good thing. Decisions and rationale alien to me result in design I will experience as, though foreign, nevertheless new and surprising. And to experience pleasant new and surprising things, I like that. For which by these words my thanks.)
I think you just have a more operations based strategic mindset that I think generally cannot be adequately reflected in a Civ game that as the same time covers the whole world and the entire timeline of human history. At some point you have to choose between scope and granularity.
I also appreciate your point of view, but I also have to stick to the design decisions I have made for DoC (and those inherited from RFC), and in this case I don't think those two are compatible.
Thanks for the constructive level of discussion too by the way, especially in contrast to what happened earlier in this thread.
I have never commented on here before, but I love DOC, and Ive been on a long quest to win as every civilization (after several years, Im only a little over halfway there). But I came up with an idea, so I wanted to share. I apologize if this something like this has been implemented and I dont know about it; I havent updated my install in a while (worried that those abandoned saved games where Im so very close to completing my UHV, that I hope to go back and win someday, will not be compatible).
Anyway, my idea was that after nationalism, when a faction collapses, it collapses as if it were a human playernamely, back to its core. Without being destroyed.
I feel that this would be realistic. After the concept of nationalism, nation states havent really gone away. After the empire of Napoleonic France collapsed, there is still a France. After the Ottoman Empire collapsed, there is still a Republic of Turkey. These empires lost their imperial lands, but their core (both in a real sense, and in a gameplay sense) remained. Likewise, after WWII, all the European colonial empires essentially collapsed. But we still have England, the Netherlands, etc, as countries. The Soviet Union collapsed, but there still exists a somewhat reduced Russia.
I feel like this would not only enhance the game in terms of historical accuracy, but also in terms of gameplay. Collapsing civilization being eliminated is useful for making room for new civilizations. The Western Roman Empire collapses to make room for the Western European countries (also, the Western Roman Empire was really destroyed); the Ancient Persians tend to collapse to make room for the Arabs, and the Arabs in turn for the Turks. But after nationalism there are few new civilizations, and those that exist are mainly colonial (e.g. United States, Argentina, Brazil), and thus far from any other civilizations core. You dont need to get rid of old empires to make room for new ones in the same way as earlier in the game.
This would also make it harder to destroy civilizations (though not impossible; if at war with a collapsed civ, it shouldnt be too hard to score the coup-de-grace and take their now-isolated capital). I think this is important. In games that I have played that have made it to the 20th century, the map, especially of Europe, never looks like it did historically. And while this is in some sense good (I dont want everything to unfold historically), the reason is many of the large European colonial empires collapse, meaning games with no Spain, or no France, or no Portugal. And the Ottomans always seem to collapse, so there is never an independent Turkey.
Thoughts? Is this possible?
I agree with your observations. Currently there already is a "collapse to core" mechanic, but it mostly works as a weaker counterpart of collapses for slightly more stable civs. It's true that complete collapses don't seem realistic in most cases, and also are undesirable in the way the leave major regions only controlled by minors. On the other hand, as you mentioned complete collapses are sometimes necessary to get an old civ out of the way to make room for history to progress.
I have plans for stability changes already and have also thought about this problem. I've never managed to come up with a good way to determine when which kind of collapse is required but your idea of simply using Nationalism as the determining factor is actually quite simple and elegant. I will keep it in mind, thanks.
-Iran has an awkward-looking leader that is apparently a copy of Tokugawa of Japan. But I know you said that his look cannot be changed. This is a little flaw in your mod. But if it cannot be changed, it is okay!
-The religious persecutor is apparently an Orthodox/ Christian one even for Asian nations like China who is having an Asian religion as her state religion. Again, a little imperfection.
-I know nothing about editing a mod. I wonder if you can add the following elements that I and other players may long for:
Cultural influence: you know in history we have hellenization by Greeks in Central Asia and India. We also have Japan, Korea and Vietnam incorporated into themselves Chinese cultures. Recently, Korean culture is also very popular in Asia. The above cultural influences are not totally the same as the cultural border we have in Civ 4--that is actually a territorial border. The cultural influence I mean here is the influence that does not necessarily occupy a foreign city.
I have this in mind: say, if Greeks culture is very influential, this may affect the building styles of some cities in a foreign civilization that welcomes/ incorporates its culture. The influence may also affect the diplomatic relation of Greece with this foreign nation positively. I mean, the influence may increase the relation score of the foreign nation with Greece. For example: "+2: Your civ's culture is very popular in my nation." And if a civilization is very backward towards a more advanced civilization, or if a civilization has triggered wars with a foreign civilization, these may reduce the relation score. For example: "-4: we disdain your backward unimportant culture" or "-3: our people are resisting your civ's culture".
Also, cultural influence-wise, I always think of a unit like a "scholar". Like how Japanese people sent a lot of scholars to China in Tang Dynasty to learn her culture, technologies and systems, and how China sent students to study the Western technologies in Japan. I think this is quite an important element in the course of history--we are mutually learning from/ influencing each other. I think some unit like a "scholar" can be created. The scholar can be sent by a civilization to a foreign civilization's capital and learn the latter's advanced technologies and cultures. After learning an advanced technology, the less advanced civ will discover that technology. Or After studying a culture in a foreign civ, building styles, religions and change of diplomatic relations may be resulted. Actually, not just building styles can be influenced. Perhaps we see Japan builds "Taixue-Chinese Examination Hall" in their country.
Of course, you may say that, we can also trade technologies in our existing game. But, that is just a "trade", not "learning".
Of course, to be perfect, I hope to see that each civilization has its own unique features (can be any pre-existing thing or a newly created thing by you). They can be ideology, religion, civics, intangible stuff or tangible stuff like the Taixue I have just mentioned. You can create something like American movies, Bollywood films, Chinese poems, Japanese drama, Korean music, etc. And a unique feature of a civ can be seen in any form anywhere in a foreign civ as an influence.
May be my suggestion is a little too ideal. I don't know. But I think "cultural influence" is quite an underdeveloped bit in Civ games. I think you are the only person who can do this magic.
For the minor stuff:
- the Abbas art can of course be changed, I just don't have any better art on hand. If that changes we can see.
- religion based art for persecutors is complicated. Civ based art is easier, however again I would need someone to actually create that art first.
Cultural influence: I also think that culture is represented very one-dimensionally in the game. I've also had some ideas before how it could have a greater effect but changing these things upsets other aspects of game design so it's not that easy. It's definitely a big change so I won't be able to tackle it very soon.
Glad that you do consider about the cultural thing. Looking forward to seeing this included in your later version.
"Civilizations" is already a great game. But I don't think the official developers will pay too much attention to individual ideas that can further refine the game (at least they would not talk to us directly like you would, wouldn't they?). It is really happy to have you as the very one who can make the game that interesting.
I think you can collaborate with Rhyes or the official game developer to make your mod another expansion of Civ 4. Actually I think Rhyes should have done so for his game, too. It is because RFC and DOC have just improved a lot of boring and one-dimensional features of the normal game.
Soren Johnson, the lead designer for Civ4, actually talks quite a lot about his work on the game in interviews and podcasts, I suggest you give them a listen. He really is one of the best game designers to learn from.
I think there is a big difference between the goals of a commercial game development team and hobby modders. The latter have more time individually, and no deadlines or financial considerations so they actually have the ability to focus on small details they consider important.
RFC already is as endorsed by Firaxis as any mod can be, it is packaged with BtS after all. At this point the company has already moved on to the next iteration of the series though.
You don't make a DOC for Civ 5 because you don't like Civ 5. But why you don't like Civ 5? For me, I don't like it because it has no vassal system.
I wonder is it because Civ 5 is more difficult for your modding or what? But in case you do that, it will be a very big reason and excuse for me to buy Civ 5. If not, I will just continue to play your Civ 4 DOC mod among all other Civilization series I have and look forward to seeing the release of Civ 6.
You do know there are mods that add vassal states in Civ5? Really, this should be the least of your worries.
Incidentally Civ5 really is worse to mod than Civ4, even though it needs modding to be fun in the first place.
Civ5 is less modding friendly than Civ4 but the reasons I dislike it have more to do with its game design. Incidentally I also don't like it aesthetically but that's not the main point.
Does anyone ever build smokehouse? So far it's been fairly useless for me.
Wouldn't it be better if it worked more like granary? How about if it stored 20% after the growth for sheep, pig, deer and cow. Granary the same for wheat, corn and rice.
yea... Let's just say that when you are in the late classical and early middle ages, situated on flood plains, with an overpopulated, no longer historically significant cities...
Ok when you own Babylon, they are slightly better than the aqueduct.
I build the smokehouse... in my modmod.
I`ve played and liked this mod for a long time. As the Art of the Leaders was recently discussed and Leoreth said there were not really any better Art to fit those Leaders, I wanted o make some suggestion. Should you, Leoreth, like some/ all of the suggested new art, I would be willing, to make a pull request (It can't be that hard. ). I don't want to imply that the current Art is bad, only that there mightbe better and fittingArt:
Abbas the Great:
The Art of this Leader is an obvious copy of the Oda (Tokuava) art with only slght changes:
As a replacement, I propose this Art taken from the Mod Swords of Islam. (Although I am not sure whether you are allowed to take it. As I normaly only use the files locally, this has not been a problem for me yet.)
An comparision image:
Barbarossa and Henrigue Alfonso have reskins of the same Leaderhead as Art:
I propose this Art taken from the Download-segment of the Civfanatics-page:
Alfred the Great:
The Art used for Alfred the Great is very similar to Ragnar they also have the same animations:
I propose this Art taken form the Downloads-page: He is meat to be William the Conqueror, but I always thoughthe looked more like Alfred the Great:
Separate names with a comma.