Imperator Knoedel
Currently obsessed with The Owl House
Food for thought: Britain's colonization UHV could also include controlling X number of railroaded tiles by the year 1900.
Suggestions and Requests
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
Imperator Knoedel
Currently obsessed with The Owl House
The colonization deadline should be moved into the 19th century anyway, it's ludicrous how you have to colonize the world a century before the real British Empire did.
Genghis Khaiser
King
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2012
- Messages
- 771
I agree with Knoedel. 1730 AD is too soon for England's UHV.
On another subject, I still see no way for Brazil to get 10 Slaves. Pombo/Impi raids should be intensified so France, Congo and Portugal have some to trade.
On another subject, I still see no way for Brazil to get 10 Slaves. Pombo/Impi raids should be intensified so France, Congo and Portugal have some to trade.
Imperator Knoedel
Currently obsessed with The Owl House
It just randomly occurred to me yesterday that Legends of Revolution has a better Franz Josef leaderhead than the current one. Maybe someone should look into that?
Imperator Knoedel
Currently obsessed with The Owl House
As both an Austrian and a historian, I'm like 90% sure Austria only had emperors named Franz Josef.
Jarlaxe Baenre
Emperor
Could the Maya be moved from 60 CE to between 500 and 1000 BCE? There were numerous Maya polities in those times, and an earlier start would allow the Maya to actually expand to historical levels by the time of their current spawn. Monte Albán could appear around 1000 BCE as San José Mogote, to prevent the Maya from heading that way too soon.
That actually gives me an idea: Have some "fun"/"sandbox" options included in the game setup.
- Instant Start. No matter what civ you pick you start out at 3000 BC and can build and grow without hidden modifiers. Could end up with situations like the Sunset Invasion DLC in Crusader Kings II where the Aztecs conquer Europe.
- All areas are core areas (or historical).
- Random Civs. All the spawn dates and hidden modifiers and core areas etc. are all the same except any civ could spawn in place of another.
Just some stuff like that. Definitely don't think it should be a priority, and may be more trouble than it's worth (And obviously isn't helping to make DoC a more historical game), but I think that could be a neat, different thing to try out.
- Instant Start. No matter what civ you pick you start out at 3000 BC and can build and grow without hidden modifiers. Could end up with situations like the Sunset Invasion DLC in Crusader Kings II where the Aztecs conquer Europe.
- All areas are core areas (or historical).
- Random Civs. All the spawn dates and hidden modifiers and core areas etc. are all the same except any civ could spawn in place of another.
Just some stuff like that. Definitely don't think it should be a priority, and may be more trouble than it's worth (And obviously isn't helping to make DoC a more historical game), but I think that could be a neat, different thing to try out.
@Leoreth
In most of my games now I've seen Brazil become one of the top 5 strongest powers in the game behind Russia, America, and often 1 European power. Sometimes it even takes control of some cities in Africa. I think their tech progress should be slowed down a little or maybe more jungle should be added to Brazil.
If any South America civ should grow in an ahistorical way it should be Argentina given that it was the 7th richest country in the world in 1929. Maybe make Brazil the south american russia in terms of tech + size while argentina has a european tech rate but is smaller? I think that could work better.
In most of my games now I've seen Brazil become one of the top 5 strongest powers in the game behind Russia, America, and often 1 European power. Sometimes it even takes control of some cities in Africa. I think their tech progress should be slowed down a little or maybe more jungle should be added to Brazil.
If any South America civ should grow in an ahistorical way it should be Argentina given that it was the 7th richest country in the world in 1929. Maybe make Brazil the south american russia in terms of tech + size while argentina has a european tech rate but is smaller? I think that could work better.
Ogi123
The End is the Beginning is the End
Ideas about resource distribution looks interesting.Does this mean that resources will wary in quantity? Anyway sometime ago I promised analysis of unit list, so I guess here it is.
Main problems as I see it are that unit list and they distribution in tech tree are still feel very unfinished. I will try to point what I think are problems, why I thought that and possible fixes. For start some parts of unit list are crowded so units get little use because they are obsoleted very quickly, some are really unhistorical and others simply useless or OP.
-Light sword: this unit is rather useless despite
cost reduction, it's replaced by swordsman really fast and it's utility is questionable. +25% attack vs spear is situational at best. Solution: either remove this unit completely or make bonus more relevant +50% 
vs. spear?
-War elephant: with reduction of spear bonus to 75% this unit become utter terror on battlefield, there is no viable counter until horse archer and this only on open ground. Solution: 8 no bonuses or penalties, cost reduced to 55. If no changes to spear or horse then 7.
-Catapult: still to strong in non siege situations, probably even stronger than vanilla thanks to withdrawal chance. Solution: 3 and +100% city attack.
-Horseman: to weak without flanking. Solution 6 +25% open terrain attack.
-Spearman: should return to +100%vs heavy cav if changes to horseman will be implemented.
-Horse archer: my main problem is that even empires that don't have access to steppe tribes can produce this unit. Would it be possible to limit this unit to owners of some provinces only?
-Overall light/heavy cav split it's very unsatisfying currently. They are basically same units that you will build interchangeably, only light cav is stronger because it's need not to fear counter. There must be some better way to differentiate them.
-No more axeman even as barbarian! Just replace them with sword... please?
- Heavy swordsman, and swordsman I guess, should get city attack bonus. HS should loose melee mod. This would perhaps lead to some players building them instead going full cav + skirmish route.
-Some unit between bombard and cannon,
-Musketman loses terribly to cuirassier on open terrain. Perhaps some mod against cavalry would be warranted here(+25%?)?
-Artillery and Howitzer are to close together.
-Cavalry destroying rifleman on open terrain make me twitch, this is not how second half of 19th century looked...
-Perhaps Tank/modern armour could utilise same mechanics as heavy cav? Less but open terrain attack str.
And some other thing that I probably forgot. Thoughts, opinions, criticisms?
Main problems as I see it are that unit list and they distribution in tech tree are still feel very unfinished. I will try to point what I think are problems, why I thought that and possible fixes. For start some parts of unit list are crowded so units get little use because they are obsoleted very quickly, some are really unhistorical and others simply useless or OP.
-Light sword: this unit is rather useless despite
cost reduction, it's replaced by swordsman really fast and it's utility is questionable. +25% attack vs spear is situational at best. Solution: either remove this unit completely or make bonus more relevant +50% vs. spear?-War elephant: with reduction of spear bonus to 75% this unit become utter terror on battlefield, there is no viable counter until horse archer and this only on open ground. Solution: 8
no bonuses or penalties, cost reduced to 55. If no changes to spear or horse then 7.-Catapult: still to strong in non siege situations, probably even stronger than vanilla thanks to withdrawal chance. Solution: 3
and +100% city attack.-Horseman: to weak without flanking. Solution 6
+25% open terrain attack.-Spearman: should return to +100%vs heavy cav if changes to horseman will be implemented.
-Horse archer: my main problem is that even empires that don't have access to steppe tribes can produce this unit. Would it be possible to limit this unit to owners of some provinces only?
-Overall light/heavy cav split it's very unsatisfying currently. They are basically same units that you will build interchangeably, only light cav is stronger because it's need not to fear counter. There must be some better way to differentiate them.
-No more axeman even as barbarian! Just replace them with sword... please?
- Heavy swordsman, and swordsman I guess, should get city attack bonus. HS should loose melee mod. This would perhaps lead to some players building them instead going full cav + skirmish route.
-Some unit between bombard and cannon,
-Musketman loses terribly to cuirassier on open terrain. Perhaps some mod against cavalry would be warranted here(+25%?)?
-Artillery and Howitzer are to close together.
-Cavalry destroying rifleman on open terrain make me twitch, this is not how second half of 19th century looked...
-Perhaps Tank/modern armour could utilise same mechanics as heavy cav? Less
but open terrain attack str.And some other thing that I probably forgot. Thoughts, opinions, criticisms?
1SDANi
The Fading Memory
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2014
- Messages
- 3,081
I've always wondered what the game would be like if it was designed around seige units only being able to attack when they're the only seige unit on the tile and getting cities to 0% defense is not necessary to take them or time effective.
Honestly I feel the idea that a single stack of Catapults can take a city's defense to zero removes much of the viability of reinforcements. I haven't played late game games so I'm not sure if it's any better, but I have always been interested in the idea of a city being surrounded on all sides, and while 1 unit per tile setups are sure fire ways to a bad AI, I've wondered if limiting it to a single unit type and only restricting attacks and defense to the number on the tile would be effective.
This is less of a suggestion and more of a thinking out loud, TBH.
Honestly I feel the idea that a single stack of Catapults can take a city's defense to zero removes much of the viability of reinforcements. I haven't played late game games so I'm not sure if it's any better, but I have always been interested in the idea of a city being surrounded on all sides, and while 1 unit per tile setups are sure fire ways to a bad AI, I've wondered if limiting it to a single unit type and only restricting attacks and defense to the number on the tile would be effective.
This is less of a suggestion and more of a thinking out loud, TBH.
1SDANi
The Fading Memory
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2014
- Messages
- 3,081
On the topic of giving units collateral damage, shouldn't Archers also deal CD?
NerfCothons
Warlord
Thoughts after a game sprawling colonial game on civics:
I think the society, economic, and religion trees are in a really good place with the most recent batch of changes. I was playing with the -1 trade route on regulated trade and realized it was a net detriment, but now without that I will be interested to try it.
Government
-Depotism is still king, but that's probably unavoidable. Whipping is just central to so much of the game. The happiness penalties are harsh though, and they should be. However, I found I was still dealing with whipping penalties hundreds (on marathon) of turns after the whipping.
-I'm not really sure what Elective is supposed to represent but I really don't know what purpose it's supposed to serve. It has to have some benefit that's going to outweigh despotism and I don't see it. I like the idea of the maintenance buff, and while -50% was probably excessive that might still work. I guess the only constructive thing I can say on this one is that in its current form I can't envision a situation I would use it, so I think it needs a buff.
Legitimacy
- Citizenship is SO good. I like the way it allows early civs to get basic buildings built allowing them to do more interesting things but it is better than all the other alternatives for so much of the game. I would suggest moving the happiness buff to vassalage, which still feels week.
- I don't like what meritocracy was turned into. While I'm not saying bring back the food buffs, I look at meritocracy and all I see is a civic that China is supposed to want to run and that's about it. The fact that the science buff is capital constricted it weird because it's basically a weaker version of another buff that's already in the tree (centralism) feels redundant. My suggestion would be some sort of industrial improvement buff (it does make sense that windmills and watermills, the embodiment of non-urban industry, would run more effectively in a meritocratic society) or the reduced maintenance that was just stripped out of elective (it seems reasonable that a meritocracy would reduce waste/corruption). I also don't get the paddy bonus except for being a neon sign from the dev to China players to run the civic.
Territory
- Colonialism was weaker than tributaries for my very colonial empire. Maybe that's an anomaly but with slaves being more of an intrinsic tradeoff with happiness colonialism doesn't do much. Perhaps this would be a good place for a fishing boats buff (one hammer?).
I think the society, economic, and religion trees are in a really good place with the most recent batch of changes. I was playing with the -1 trade route on regulated trade and realized it was a net detriment, but now without that I will be interested to try it.
Government
-Depotism is still king, but that's probably unavoidable. Whipping is just central to so much of the game. The happiness penalties are harsh though, and they should be. However, I found I was still dealing with whipping penalties hundreds (on marathon) of turns after the whipping.
-I'm not really sure what Elective is supposed to represent but I really don't know what purpose it's supposed to serve. It has to have some benefit that's going to outweigh despotism and I don't see it. I like the idea of the maintenance buff, and while -50% was probably excessive that might still work. I guess the only constructive thing I can say on this one is that in its current form I can't envision a situation I would use it, so I think it needs a buff.
Legitimacy
- Citizenship is SO good. I like the way it allows early civs to get basic buildings built allowing them to do more interesting things but it is better than all the other alternatives for so much of the game. I would suggest moving the happiness buff to vassalage, which still feels week.
- I don't like what meritocracy was turned into. While I'm not saying bring back the food buffs, I look at meritocracy and all I see is a civic that China is supposed to want to run and that's about it. The fact that the science buff is capital constricted it weird because it's basically a weaker version of another buff that's already in the tree (centralism) feels redundant. My suggestion would be some sort of industrial improvement buff (it does make sense that windmills and watermills, the embodiment of non-urban industry, would run more effectively in a meritocratic society) or the reduced maintenance that was just stripped out of elective (it seems reasonable that a meritocracy would reduce waste/corruption). I also don't get the paddy bonus except for being a neon sign from the dev to China players to run the civic.
Territory
- Colonialism was weaker than tributaries for my very colonial empire. Maybe that's an anomaly but with slaves being more of an intrinsic tradeoff with happiness colonialism doesn't do much. Perhaps this would be a good place for a fishing boats buff (one hammer?).
Similar threads
