Suggestions and Requests

Created my very first pull request with realistic Uranium distribution. This was more fun and less complicated than I had imagined :goodjob: Git ist gut!

I researched different sites but used this one and my main logic was to represent top 10 reserves with Australia staying with 2 current :nuke: sources to reflect her huge reserves. Currently there are 12 sources, I am proposing 11. 5 of them left to be in the current positions: Australia(2), Russia, USA, Canada. I erased 7 sources, randomly placed by Rhye I think: Scandinavia, France, Congo, Madagascar, Algiers, Ukraine, Turkey. Added 6: Kazakhstan, Brazil, South Africa, Namibia, Niger, China(in Tibet).

This can change late games a bit, because with Ukrainian mine AI Russia would start nuking her neighbors too easily. Now they will be encouraged to develop that Siberian resource, maybe even settle there, for a change. Run away Ottomans won't be nuking anyone, I hope. South America will finally get it's Nuclear power source. America most likely will complete Manhattan project if unless Dutch don't get nerfed and get there first. Sometimes I am tempted to view late Dutch as South Africa, basically :lol: Finally Germany might develop nukes with that mine in their Historical Namibia. Or human German player can get sinister and get Uranium without risking his stability. Finally China can become a nuclear power like she is.

 
Created my very first pull request with realistic Uranium distribution. This was more fun and less complicated than I had imagined :goodjob: Git ist gut!
Nice!

Git may seem intimidating but I encourage everyone to try it. You initially need to wrap your head around its way of thinking but once you did things are really easy.

I researched different sites but used this one and my main logic was to represent top 10 reserves with Australia staying with 2 current :nuke: sources to reflect her huge reserves. Currently there are 12 sources, I am proposing 11. 5 of them left to be in the current positions: Australia(2), Russia, USA, Canada. I erased 7 sources, randomly placed by Rhye I think: Scandinavia, France, Congo, Madagascar, Algiers, Ukraine, Turkey. Added 6: Kazakhstan, Brazil, South Africa, Namibia, Niger, China(in Tibet).

This can change late games a bit, because with Ukrainian mine AI Russia would start nuking her neighbors too easily. Now they will be encouraged to develop that Siberian resource, maybe even settle there, for a change. Run away Ottomans won't be nuking anyone, I hope. South America will finally get it's Nuclear power source. America most likely will complete Manhattan project if unless Dutch don't get nerfed and get there first. Sometimes I am tempted to view late Dutch as South Africa, basically :lol: Finally Germany might develop nukes with that mine in their Historical Namibia. Or human German player can get sinister and get Uranium without risking his stability. Finally China can become a nuclear power like she is.

Looks good. I agree that there does not seem to be a lot of rhyme and reason in Rhye's resource placement and we can safely revert it. Also, thanks for including the source map you used. However, I think besides resource output we should also consider which civs historically use a lot of nuclear power or have nuclear weapons. Your changes already go in the right direction here, but I am still concerned about France, England and India.

Therefore I think we should keep the uranium in France. Modern France gets most of its uranium from West Africa, so the Niger source makes sense, but for the AI that is not feasible currently. Not sure what the most important source for the modern UK is though. You could argue they can get their uranium from South Africa or Australia though. There also should be a source on the Indian subcontinent, preferably also accessible to Pakistan.

I will look into your currently proposed changes too in the game, and leave more detailed feedback in the pull request if necessary.
 
Okay, I guess it makes sense then to have them either import it or extract it from Canada/Australia themselves.

I found this for India. Pakistan does not seem to have deposits worth representing.
 
I know your reasoning for India and Pakistan. I wanted to be methodical and for the scale of this map include just top 10. As you see India is included in that map with lighter shade as well as Uzbekistan, Mongolia, Jordan, and Ukraine. Our current map has 12 resources, my changes propose 11. I guess for the sake of gameplay we can give India "first runner up" prize of Uranium in Jharkhand. Which most likely to be used by British by the way anyway...
 
Last edited:
I know your reasoning for India and Pakistan. I wanted to be methodical and for the scale of this map include just top 10. As you see India is included in that map with lighter shade as well as Uzbekistan, Mongolia, Jordan, and Ukraine. Our current map has 12 resources, my changes propose 11. I guess for the sake of gameplay we can give India "first runner up" prize of Uranium in Kerala. Which most likely to be used by British by the way anyway...
Yeah, but that's fine. These decisions are usually a balance between accurate representation and desired outcomes.

Just asking does now buildings give any stability effect?
Jails and Courthouses reduce the penalty from expanding into non-core territory. Other buildings may indirectly contribute to stability by increasing happiness, economic output etc.
 
So I think I posted about this before but I want talk a bit about resources, colonialism and trade.

Problem: resources are everything, thanks to them you can grow you cities larger, witch means more :commerce:,:hammers: and thanks to that more :gold:,:science:, buildings and units.
Problem 2: Trading resources is useless, if you are larger empire (so always) trading demands are ridiculous. No I will not give you 8 of mine resources +:gold:, for single of yours just because I have 20 cities and AI has 3. I will rather conquer or colonise to get access to those.
Problem 3: I cannot trade even if I wanted for animal and seafood resources before refrigeration. Again I need to conquer or colonise.

Those three taken together mean that there is never reason to decolonise or grant independence. Loss of :c5happy:/:health: means that my cities productivity will fall sharply and with it all of my civ efforts.

Solution:
1)A lot more resources should obsolete, especially around industrial era, and in they place there should be buildings witch grant flat bonuses to :health:/:c5happy:. This will allow me to let go of colonies at some date to improve my :gold: and :science:. I guess higher instability and upkeep in colonies wouldn't hurt either.
Example: dyes obsolete at chemistry - artificial dyes. Sugar obsoletes at biology - beet sugar. Spices obsoletes at refrigeration - no need to mask spoiled food taste.

2) Here solution is simple. Improve trade, I'm perfectly willing to pay 2-3 of my surplus resources for single needed one. This will of course also need improvements to AI to be willing to trade and stop building cottages, workshops or farms on its resources.

3) Also not complicated solution: allow trade of those resources as any other. If I can as Rome trade for rice with China in classical era I can as well trade those.
 
Hm, what does current granting independence do again? Respawn a dead civ, give cities to another living civ and/or turn them into Independents? If it's the first or the last option there should be some advantage to granting independence voluntarily instead of waiting for collapse or holding on indefinitely, like the respawned civ starting as your vassal or the "independent" cities continuing to deliver their resources to you as well as counting for trade routes.
I mean, look at the current state of the world and tell me that former colonial empires aren't still exploiting their former colonies to this day. Africa is still basically one giant resource extraction facility for the West, de jure independence or not.
If anything the world is now more dependent on global trade than ever, for in addition to raw resources even the production of finished goods and to some extent providing of services have been outsourced to the global south.
 
Modern day trade links are impossible to portray in civ4 engine. Take coffee and tea for example, whole world is drinking them but in DoC there isn't enough of those resources to export. That is the cause with almost all of resources, everybody has access to precious metals, exotic fruits or spices thanks to modern international trade.
 
Modern day trade links are impossible to portray in civ4 engine. Take coffee and tea for example, whole world is drinking them but in DoC there isn't enough of those resources to export. That is the cause with almost all of resources, everybody has access to precious metals, exotic fruits or spices thanks to modern international trade.
How about we add a bunch of new buildings that require a given resource in the BFC and then provide that resource themselves as well, effectively doubling the amount of resources available for trade without taking away precious real estate? These buildings would simulate greater efficiency in harvesting/mining resources brought about by technological progress.
 
Would it not be simpler to go civ5 route and make it that resource deposit can deliver more than one resource? Then you could have say 5 x tea in India on single title.
 
I researched different sites but used this one and my main logic was to represent top 10 reserves with Australia staying with 2 current :nuke: sources to reflect her huge reserves. Currently there are 12 sources, I am proposing 11. 5 of them left to be in the current positions: Australia(2), Russia, USA, Canada. I erased 7 sources, randomly placed by Rhye I think: Scandinavia, France, Congo, Madagascar, Algiers, Ukraine, Turkey. Added 6: Kazakhstan, Brazil, South Africa, Namibia, Niger, China(in Tibet).

This can change late games a bit, because with Ukrainian mine AI Russia would start nuking her neighbors too easily. Now they will be encouraged to develop that Siberian resource, maybe even settle there, for a change. Run away Ottomans won't be nuking anyone, I hope. South America will finally get it's Nuclear power source. America most likely will complete Manhattan project if unless Dutch don't get nerfed and get there first. Sometimes I am tempted to view late Dutch as South Africa, basically :lol: Finally Germany might develop nukes with that mine in their Historical Namibia. Or human German player can get sinister and get Uranium without risking his stability. Finally China can become a nuclear power like she is.

This is a great idea! Here are my comments.

You seem to be using mostly current/future uranium sources as a basis for the distribution, and therefore ignoring historical sources. This strikes me as an odd choice for a history-based game. For instance, you propose to remove the Congo uranium resource, but there was actually an important uranium mine there from 1921 to 2004—an important enough mine that it supplied the ore used for the Manhattan project!

Another important historical source is the Czech Republic, which is the birthplace of industrial uranium mining, and which still has uranium production to this day. In-game, it would be an interesting strategic resource that can be fought for by the various central European civs.

I also don't understand why you want to limit the uranium sources to 11: why this number more than any other? I think it would be nice if a few civs had access to enough uranium that they can export some. Since the USA and Canada have dominated uranium production for a long time, perhaps a 3rd source in North America would make sense too. (Although it's unclear to me whether a non-vassal AI will ever accept to export uranium—when I was playtesting Israel, the only way I could get uranium was to settle an oasis city in the Sahara desert.)

I agree with Leoreth about the France and India uranium. So, overall I would add to your changes:
- keep uranium in France
- keep uranium in the DR Congo
- add uranium to India
- add uranium to Czech Republic
- add uranium to USA or Canada
- (maybe keep uranium in Ukraine)
- (maybe remove uranium from Brazil—despite its uranium reserves, it doesn't seem like there ever was significant mining in Brazil, and it doesn't have nuclear weapons)
 
Jails and Courthouses reduce the penalty from expanding into non-core territory. Other buildings may indirectly contribute to stability by increasing happiness, economic output etc.
I think this will give you grey hairs but whole expansion stability would make more sense if it is related on buildings as well.

This needs more thinking, but cities with zero or very little buildings should have lower changes to cede because they are underdog in every way. Also if you have super cities on your core this shoul increase how much you can expand or reduce possibility of secession.
 
I actually thought about this too, maybe instead of the core population multiplier increasing by era, it could be increased with buildings (I could think of Monuments, Civic Squares etc.) and the periphery population multiplier depending on buildings could be expanded to something like Constabulary, Security Agency and so on. Since these buildings are enabled rather even across eras it would have a similar effect but give you more active control.
 
Would those buildings (monument) meant to be to either reduce penalty or increase stability?

If reduce, you will build it in every non core city every time which can be undesired.
If to increase, then you will always build it everywhere.

I think there should be three categories: buildings that reduce and increases stability (like library in foreign core city), buildings that always increases stability (barracks and monuments) and buildings that increases stability in historical and core cities (like market).

Then UB can make exceptions, like Romes Forum.
 
Would it not be simpler to go civ5 route and make it that resource deposit can deliver more than one resource? Then you could have say 5 x tea in India on single title.
Yes, possibly. Also I really would like to see Civ4Reimagined's resource system implemented.
 
This is a great idea! Here are my comments.

You seem to be using mostly current/future uranium sources as a basis for the distribution, and therefore ignoring historical sources. This strikes me as an odd choice for a history-based game. For instance, you propose to remove the Congo uranium resource, but there was actually an important uranium mine there from 1921 to 2004—an important enough mine that it supplied the ore used for the Manhattan project!

I though all about this and seriously considered focusing on historical production instead of natural reserves. But there are some factors I want us to consider as well. Yes, we have historical mod but we leave it to be an open ended project. We encourage civs and human player to behave loosely historically, but we don't have to force them too much. Most history books of the past explain everything based on events and people, but in reality history is driven by geography more than anything else and this is the view that current science holds. When discussing the development of any civilization -- Environment and pre-history must be considered before anything else. How would civs behave if we place them in geographically and geologically accurate environment? We need to obviously find some compromises between the gameplay, actual history and actual geography and geology. And yes, given the size of the map we need to draw line somewhere. I simply suggested to draw the line with Top ten reserves, when talking about Uranium. We cannot operate by principle -- give Uranium to every current nuclear power, Iron to everyone, Coal to the most, Oil to the few, etc. Before we place civs on the map we need the map itself, which needs to be more or less accurate. For example New Guinea is larger island than Britania, but in our mod it is reversed for a good reason. Things will absolutely be no fun if we faithfully recreate everything. But when we can reflect geological and geographical realities -- it is more fun to do it. Yes, Brazil did not do much about their Uranium. But it is because our history was one single run, so to speak. But given the same geography who is there to say things would always turn the same if we could run our history again and again like with this mod? At least give South America an opportunity to challenge others in the nuclear age.

For example I just rolled the start for your own country -- Canada-- from year 3000 BC. India was number 1 civ. Is that bad? No. It is not inconceivable for India subcontinent, which developed food production and urban centers so early in history to dominate the world in 1860s. In this mod they did it despite all the historical troubles Leoreth send to their way. Rich land helped them nevertheless.
 
Your comment confuses me. I very much agree that the mod should be open and allow many different (not necessarily historical) outcomes. But I'm not proposing that every nuclear power should get a free source of uranium, or more generally that we place uranium in a way that ignores geography.

Rather, my point is that "top ten uranium reserves as of 2010" (the date of your map) is not a very good line to draw, in part because it ignores uranium sources that were historically relevant but just happen to be depleted now; and in part because "top ten" is an arbitrary number that seems too small to me. "Places where uranium has been or is currently being mined industrially" sounds like a better rule to me.

Sure, Brazil should get a source of uranium, since there is some there. But the DR Congo, India, Ukraine and Czech Republic should also get a source of uranium, since there was/is some there and it was/is being exploited. The amount left in the ground as of 2010 is mostly irrelevant.

France is a little harder to justify, but there has actually been uranium mined in Metropolitan France throughout the 20th century, albeit at a smaller scale than the other countries mentioned.
 
I agree with Steb.
 
Top Bottom