Suggestions and Requests

[Pavel Chichikov]

Speaking of "Vikings", could the standard name be changed something like "Scandinavia" with a "Norse" adjective? Getting constant reminders of "Vikings has discovered Liberalism!" and "Netherlands has made peace with Vikings!" gets pretty old.
Ditto for changing "Arabian" to "Arab".

 

[Ogi123]

1) Most sugar is still from sugarcane, spices aren't for masking spoiled food taste and they are still valuable.

3) Dried rice ships fairly well, seafood and meats don't ship very well

Not in Europe, and China rice was chosen because in classical era it's absurd to be able ship enough rice at that distance. Yet you can do it while you cannot import animal food resources. Anyway this was mostly gameplay proposition to dis-incentivise rampart conquest, witch is current MO, and allow for decolonisation.

 

[Tigranes]

Two requests based on this screenshot. In lieu of Vienna, HRE kept Frankfurt as their capital depriving nascent Prussia from it's super important city. I know in the past I was the champion of the idea that Prussia should unify Germany with Blut und Eisen instead of getting free Frankfurt and Hamburg, but I moved on from that idea. Now, ironically, I request to teleport Austrian capital to Lintz and give Prussians their Frankfurt as early as 1706. New sheriff in town needs his productive heartland.

The second request is to teach British, which are at war with Brenus, but ignore that Militia defended Ireland, how to land in the land of St. Patrick and make it theirs. Perhaps special rules governing Celtia prevents normal civ like England to wage the actual and not the phony war with those Celts and secure her base before colonizing the world! I think some kind of bug is responsible for 18th century Celtia.

 

[calad]

With crises removed it's sort of a moot point.

I think we are just miscommunicating. What I propose is more flexible system instead of to core or completely collapse. Python is very flexible language and it would be shame not to expand system.

So, what do you mean by crises?

 

[Leoreth]

What you suuggested has already been in the game, called a crisis. I have just removed it.

 

[pole475]

I'm not as well versed in the stability system as most of you are, but here are some things I've noticed on my recent game. I'm playing as Japan and going for the UHV, one of the goals requires control of Japan, Korea, Manchuria, China, Indochina, Indonesia, and the Philippines in 1940. I was able to conquer Korea no problem after they collapsed, but I think the stability system is making this much more difficult than it could be. When I went to invade China, they were solid stability-wise. I declared war on them and went to try and take their capital. Normally, I'd understand why losing a capital would make you collapse, but they went from solid and then collapsed before I even started bombarding the city.

When I tried to invade Thailand, I wanted to make them a vassal, since my own stability was suffering with the new cities I had in China. But I took one city and they collapsed, again going from solid before the war, to a collapse in a couple of turns. Considering there's no way I can directly control all of the required areas without collapsing, I'm not sure how the stability system makes this achievable.

 

[Leoreth]

Is that from the latest Git? If so do you still have saves for these situations?

 

[pole475]

Is that from the latest Git? If so do you still have saves for these situations?

Not the latest Git, but the one before that. This save is the only one I have from around then, it seems like it would have been a few turns before I declared war. Also, China aren't solid anymore, so I got that wrong, but they were solid a few turns before and I don't have a save unfortunately.

 

[Finbros]

Speaking of "Vikings", could the standard name be changed something like "Scandinavia" with a "Norse" adjective? Getting constant reminders of "Vikings has discovered Liberalism!" and "Netherlands has made peace with Vikings!" gets pretty old.

Norsemen/Normans?

 

[calad]

What you suuggested has already been in the game, called a crisis. I have just removed it.

Why?

 

[Leoreth]

In my experience they were either nuisances or excessive punishments that didn't fulfill a clear purpose. The goal of the stability system is to confine the player to a broadly historical gameplay, and to remove AIs from the map that aren't appropriate for the time period. Additional crises really don't help with this goal. Ruining your stability so that you have to face collapse and elimination should be the main worry of the player, with crises you constantly had to worry about even going to shaky because that could mean losing a city etc. Now you can freely go up and down and stability levels are there to give you a buffer in case something bad happens.

Some of the ideas behind these crisis effects are nice, and I might bring them back in another way later. For example, it would work much better if there was a series of actual events that could occur if you are unstable and lower and have a negative score in an associated section. Then you would have the player choose between various options with different consequences (or even the opportunity to avoid bad effects if you happen to have the right solution on hand). In general that would be less arbitrary and frustrating.

 

[Tigranes]

Vanila BTS has a Leader trait that requires 25% less experience for the next level up. This is a very neat effect which is not present in our mod but can come very handy when engaged in compagnies and need to take advantage from easier level up for healing units and making them stronger while on the march in enemy territory. I suggest to replace Conquest civic's +2 EXP for units with this effect or give this effect to Nationhood. This way the civic will reward actively fighting units of civilization that has adopted Conquest lifestyle, instead of passively provide them +2 experience just for being trained.

 

[KeeperOT7Keys]

Ruining your stability so that you have to face collapse and elimination should be the main worry of the player, with crises you constantly had to worry about even going to shaky because that could mean losing a city etc.

I think the only annoying thing about the crises was the expansion related one where you lost cities, I believe other effects were fair and nice, on the other hand losing cities is annoying only because recapturing a city means a lot of buildings get destroyed.
I think to solve this we should get rid of the destruction of the buildings upon conquest altogether, it really takes away the joy of feeling like a rapid conqueror or an unifier (at least for me).
However since that might break the game balance completely, maybe preventing building destruction if the city's owner was barbarian or independent could be enough for now. Or maybe we can tie this abiliy to a civic, like conquest or totalitarianism, which you also keep buildings upon conquest.

Usually as a player I just want to crush these rebels and I actually enjoy it since it feels very authoritarian and powerful, but thinking of demolished buildings always makes me sad and I enjoy the game less at this point, but otherwise dealing with rebellions is not that bad.

Also rebellions could be even more enjoyable if these rebels could get protection from foreign powers, so we couldn't crush them so easily. Without promise/support/protection/approval from other foreign powers it is hard to make a working rebellion, both historically and the game mechanic wise. For example it would really feel exciting to see Belgrade seceding from Ottomans, but instead of getting crushed in 2-3 turns it gets recognized/protected by Austria and Russia which discourages an Ottoman intervention etc. It seems very distant with DoC's current independent civ system but just a dream for the future.

 

[Rodnok]

Usually as a player I just want to crush these rebels and I actually enjoy it since it feels very authoritarian and powerful, but thinking of demolished buildings always makes me sad and I enjoy the game less at this point, but otherwise dealing with rebellions is not that bad.

+1 here. I played a lot of RevolutionDCM and its modmods (Legends of Revolution) and fighting rebels was very enjoyable. They declared as another civs with their forces and you had to crush them. Or accept their independence. Fighting rebels and a foreign invasion at the same time... well, those were memories.

 

[1SDANi]

Vanila BTS has a Leader trait that requires 25% less experience for the next level up. This is a very neat effect which is not present in our mod but can come very handy when engaged in compagnies and need to take advantage from easier level up for healing units and making them stronger while on the march in enemy territory. I suggest to replace Conquest civic's +2 EXP for units with this effect or give this effect to Nationhood. This way the civic will reward actively fighting units of civilization that has adopted Conquest lifestyle, instead of passively provide them +2 experience just for being trained.

I think this would be an amazing addition. Conquest's +2 EXP on build never really felt better than [insert civic name that I forgot here]'s +50% Gold from Capturing Cities. One rewards building units with a tiny bit of EXP, meaning it's only ever going to be useful if you don't have a standing army or are expecting massive losses. The other rewards war by funding your army. As long as you're not in Asia, you should be able to fund any army you need with it with little regard for unit costs.

-25% level up EXP is the best of both current effects. It gives you a bonus in war instead of a bonus in victory, thus increasing your army's strength, and it has an effect that rewards players for war in general. Instead of asking "Are you at war vs Are you preparing for war", like our current civics do, this asks "Do you need money vs Do you need more power", or put another way, "Are you strong vs Are you average"

I feel like the effect of less EXP to level up is far more interesting than 2 EXP at build, if not because it's more useful than for the fact that it conflicts with [civic]'s effect. Regardless of whether or not such a strategy is a good idea, the obvious strategy when looking at these civics is to use Conquest when preparing for war and [civic] when waging war. -EXP to level however presents two conflicting obvious strategies that are better in different areas.

 

[Finbros]

However since that might break the game balance completely, maybe preventing building destruction if the city's owner was barbarian or independent could be enough for now. Or maybe we can tie this abiliy to a civic, like conquest or totalitarianism, which you also keep buildings upon conquest.

Less amount of buildings destroyed after conquering core/historical city?

 

[Tigranes]

Less amount of buildings destroyed after conquering core/historical city?

I think the only annoying thing about the crises was the expansion related one where you lost cities, I believe other effects were fair and nice, on the other hand losing cities is annoying only because recapturing a city means a lot of buildings get destroyed.
I think to solve this we should get rid of the destruction of the buildings upon conquest altogether, it really takes away the joy of feeling like a rapid conqueror or an unifier (at least for me).

+1 here. I played a lot of RevolutionDCM and its modmods (Legends of Revolution) and fighting rebels was very enjoyable. They declared as another civs with their forces and you had to crush them. Or accept their independence. Fighting rebels and a foreign invasion at the same time... well, those were memories.

"First in the World Civic"-related mergers
​

Imagine AI or you play Britain and you were first in the world to adopt, let's say, Democracy after a turn of vicious anarchy. A message pops up -- "Congratulations! Britain was first in the world to adopt Democracy after overcoming stubborn internal opposition to this new civic. Inspired by the the following Indy/Native/Barbarian cities want to join our Empire." The game then runs checks similar to those it does when it determines which cities can be claimed via Congress minus cities belonging to major civs. And then AI or you can chose one city to become yours simply because Indy city in your Historical/Contested region is inspired by the new introduced form of government and experiencing "civic-flip", instead of more familiar culture flip.

This suggestion would allow, in a way, to also celebrate/commemorate our wonderful civics and announce major landmarks in human development on this planet: first monarchy, first meritocracy, first state with communist or fascist ideology, etc. There are numerous examples in history when civil war and anarchy is over, and new state becomes an attractive living example of some change which now has internal support and creates copycat reaction around. This proposed mechanic will also account for the historical fact that some territories joined the mother country peacefully or at least without direct conquest or Congress/Apostolic Palace decision.

 

[Tigranes]

​

The city of Memphis (its Ancient Egyptian name was Inbu-Hedj), capital of Old Egyptian Kingdom, is 20 km (12 mi) south of Cairo. But we use Thebes (Newt Rst) in 3000 BC start, which was the capital of Egypt mainly during the Middle Kingdom and the New Kingdom. I wonder, why?

Not only Memphis can be easily replaced (renamed after spread of Islam) by Cairo, but also the history of Memphis is closely linked to that of the Ancient Egypt itself. Its eventual downfall is believed to be due to the loss of its economic significance in late antiquity, following the rise of coastal Alexandria. Pyramid complex at Giza (and Sphinx) is near Memphis, not Thebes. Memphis remained the second city of Egypt (after Alexandria) until the establishment of Fustat (or Fostat) in 641 AD. Working that Wheat can be a very good break for AI Egypt player, which often is very weak opponent to human Greece, who can use unhistorical early rush. The funny thing is that 600 AD and 1700 AD maps use Memphis and Cairo! All we have to do is move Egyptian start 2N.

And while we at this, please add Spinx to 600 AD Memphis. 1700 AD Cairo has it.

 

[Leoreth]

I think it's better to do this with the larger map.

 

[1SDANi]

Imperialism is certainly not a good thing for our modern world, but it is something that happened in history, and so I see no reason why a civ game shouldn't be about that. What I would like to see however is some sort of mechanic that makes large empires optimal early game and untenable late game following the advent of modern media and especially the internet and war profitable early game and costly late game following nuclear weapons.

I certainly believe that saying Imperialism should not be the main mechanic for the majority of Civilization's playthrough is ignoring the fact that it worked for thousands of years. If not for nuclear weapons and modern media, we may still be having major wars and India may still be a colony of England.

Another thing that Civ does poorly is represent PTSD. There's a reason it became so commonplace following World War 1: PTSD is far more prevalent with modern weaponry than it was with Ancient, Classical, etc. Soldiers used to be able to sleep soundly at night, as no one could fight in the dark. Now with flashlights soldiers can fight all night. It used to be that if you were killed, it was by an opponent that took time to kill you. They'd have to draw and fire their arrow, load and fire a crossbow bolt, impale you with their pike, it gave soldiers a feeling of control. Now if you poke your head out of a bad corner you could die, and your allies will never know who did it. There's explosions going on 24/7 from guns, artillery, bombs, etc. If we wanted to talk about contributing factors to the fall of imperialism being added to civ to represent our modern age, then PTSD is absolutely necessary.

The above quote is from a comment I made on the Cree discussion page over on Civ 6's forum. I'm wondering if mechanics could be added to media technologies that contributes to the loss of colonies. I propose that the advent of modern media was a major enough contributor to empirical decline that it should be represented in game. I'm not sure what exactly these mechanics should be, though.