Suggestions and Requests

[Leoreth]

Yeah, makes sense. The reason this is inconsistent is mostly that different control goals are implemented separately, and I didn't think of taking vassals into account every time.

 

[freethink]

I would ask for the trading company events for European civs to be changed.

Consistently as I have played rfc games as an Asian or mid east civ there seems to be a foregone conclusion that Europeans will dominate the world technologically/economically without question. The tech penalties against Asia and automatic boon Europeans have reduces the fun of game play and could be argued to be inaccurate.

Outside of Europe most old civilizations historically fell behind due to the conservative decisions of leaders, however the option should be open to change history if such leaders take a different path.
- therefore the Rhyes and fall penalty for techs in the Renaissance and modern eras should be removed or nerved, to give these areas a better chance

- On trading companies
It reduces the diversity of gameplay when it is certain a European power will try to take over a specific area at a a certain time. I think instead the four/first five civs to reach a tech (whether it be economics or something else) and have at least one port city should have a choice of areas to colonize for trade. However I can see difficulties when one of the choices could be an area already owned by the player.

That might be too hard to implement, and I appreciate what you do here, but I think the status quo has destiny thrown at us every time in a way that reduces gameplay and historical options.

 

[Leoreth]

Point taken, but what is it that you are frustrated by exactly? That it's always the same Europeans who get the conquerors, or that you cannot get the conquerors?

 

[Lokki242]

I actually think there should potentially be a "disable tech penalties" in the world builder, either for just the player for everyone, if that's at all possible.

 

[freethink]

Same Europeans taking over the same places

And there should be a chance for highly advanced non European civs

 

[Safetycat]

Australia confirmed for Civ 6 - maybe it's a sign

 

[AbsintheRed]

Yeah, a clear sign of Civ VI being doomed for eternity.

 

[Canned Ham]

Hey, I was wondering. There is 3000 BC start, for the beginning of civilization, a 600 BC start, for the Dark Age, and a 1700 start, for the Imperialist Age.
So why not a 2000 start? Or, if that's a little too modern, a 1900 start? I often find myself starting a game and then playing for a while, but I usually don't get to the 1900's, much less the 2000's. We could represent all the civs not in the game with it's closest (culturally and proximity) neighbor or maybe just have independent civs. A case like this would be Bangladesh being represented by the Mughals as Pakistan, or Phoenicia as Syria and Palestine/Israel. Does this sound like a good thing?

 

[Leoreth]

Well there are two questions in your post, why not more scenarios and why not 1900/2000 AD.

As for the first part, it's just a lot of work to make another scenario, especially if it is later in history. Creating the 1700 AD scenario probably took ten times the work that 600 AD did, because there are more civs, cities, units to place, techs to assign etc. Also every scenario added increases maintenance burden: if I decide to change something, I need to do it for all scenarios (in most cases), so every additional scenario makes that more time consuming.

Whenever I'm changing something about the game I'm trying to make it easier to create and edit scenarios but that's still not at a point where it becomes easy.

I'd like to have 1-2 additional scenarios in the mod, but I don't think those will be later than 1700. In my opinion, this game is about the rise and fall of civilisation, and the alternate history that arises during gameplay, either while actually playing or during autoplay. 1700 was added in part because we had Brazil (or maybe Canada already) which took ages to load, but they're fine to reach through 1700 AD autoplay. Also, I don't think the modern game is very balanced and fun, so having a scenario for that timeframe would expose those problems more.

Actually if I add another scenario, it'll probably be around 1500 AD, being later than 1700 AD but not having European expansion across the world hard coded in.

 

[Canned Ham]

Well there are two questions in your post, why not more scenarios and why not 1900/2000 AD.

As for the first part, it's just a lot of work to make another scenario, especially if it is later in history. Creating the 1700 AD scenario probably took ten times the work that 600 AD did, because there are more civs, cities, units to place, techs to assign etc. Also every scenario added increases maintenance burden: if I decide to change something, I need to do it for all scenarios (in most cases), so every additional scenario makes that more time consuming.

Whenever I'm changing something about the game I'm trying to make it easier to create and edit scenarios but that's still not at a point where it becomes easy.

I'd like to have 1-2 additional scenarios in the mod, but I don't think those will be later than 1700. In my opinion, this game is about the rise and fall of civilisation, and the alternate history that arises during gameplay, either while actually playing or during autoplay. 1700 was added in part because we had Brazil (or maybe Canada already) which took ages to load, but they're fine to reach through 1700 AD autoplay. Also, I don't think the modern game is very balanced and fun, so having a scenario for that timeframe would expose those problems more.

Actually if I add another scenario, it'll probably be around 1500 AD, being later than 1700 AD but not having European expansion across the world hard coded in.

Well, if not 1900/2000, then one additional scenario (if I could suggest one) could be 1060 (because getting 1066 would be a pain in the ass), considering it was the birth of one of the most influential civilizations in history, and also cited as the fall of the Vikings. But also 1066 could be a nice inbetween for 600 and 1700. Or, if you truly want a middle point, you could for 1150. If you implement 1500 first, a middle point you could go for is 1050.

Just a thought.

 

[Leoreth]

I'd need to do more research for an adequate point between 600 and 1500, I mean there also was stuff going on outside of Europe.

 

[inthesomeday]

I would be in favor of a 1900 and would be willing to help with making it if it was a simple matter of research and worldbuilder

 

[Lokki242]

If we were to have a 1900 scenario, I think it would be better saved for the distant future, when there are more civs that potentially exist as playable respawns after that period. Right now, it's going to be slow and less than fun for a lot of players, especially comparative to the necessary effort.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Imo 1700AD should really have been 1800AD all along, set at the start of real modernity, right between the political upheaval of the French and American revolutions and the productive explosion of the industrial revolution. From that point it's really not that far to the 20th century, and it would also give more room for a 1200AD or a 1500AD scenario, both of which have more merit than anything set later than the early 19th century.

 

[Leoreth]

Imo 1700AD should really have been 1800AD all along, set at the start of real modernity, right between the political upheaval of the French and American revolutions and the productive explosion of the industrial revolution. From that point it's really not that far to the 20th century, and it would also give more room for a 1200AD or a 1500AD scenario, both of which have more merit than anything set later than the early 19th century.

With those criteria you're setting maybe, but not with the ones outlined above.

Not to mention that a literal 1800 AD is problematic for a variety of reasons, especially the Napoleonic Empire. Congress of Vienna might make for a good bookmark though. Personally I'd go with 1848 (1850) from a European perspective though.

 

[Emperor Hirohito]

Leoreth, In DoC does gunpowder units have first strike over the melee units.
I tried to attack musketeer with an ax men and seems that ax men attacked first.

Is there a way to fix this?

 

[Leoreth]

Gunpowder units generally do not have first strikes.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Gunpowder units generally do not have first strikes.

Logically speaking they should have, and they do in my modmod.

 

[Emperor Hirohito]

I also think that they should have first strike. If sombodey attack me with knife, axe or stick i'll defenetly shoot to kill

 

[Hydrok9]

I don't know if anyone's said this before, but there really needs to be one or two native north american civs, an australian civ, and probably a south african civ too.