Suggestions and Requests
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
Enyavar
Prince
- Joined
- May 16, 2015
- Messages
- 510
Cool, I tested that now, it's really easy. In general, I try to use as little of the WB as possible to avoid cheating. Changing the stability myself, on a whim "because I already won" IS cheating. But, if I give myself clear limits, I might just be able to justify it.
With regards to some colonial powers like Spain, I think the proposal was leading towards "after winning, your civ can never fall", as Colombia is marked as "only spawn if parent civ is unstable", and with all the historical spanish colonies as a new core... ah, just forget it, the idea was stupid. You can tell I'm new to this mod.
Hm. Huh. Shouldn't several other civs also only spawn once "controlling civ become unstable"? At least in the stable 1.15, civ spawn dates seem to be tied to dates, not conditions.
I think I considered that when designing the new tech tree and buildings, but I decided it's important that you get two slots relatively early in the game. It's not that easy to go all in on one specialist type in that stage of the game but it should definitely be possible. Not having that option screws with the possible strategies for certain constrained UHV so it's better to have it.
soul-breathing
King
I have a question that last for years, but I haven't mentioned it before. Why every civ in 1700ad scenario doesn't have any workers at the beginning? It's very odd, because in 600ad scenario, China and Byzantine have workers at the beginning.
soul-breathing
King
So, is it possible to add some workers for every 1700ad scenerio civs? The number could be linked to the number of every civ.
Also I feel the initial worker of America is too few. There is much land to develop and only 4 workers. Maybe 6-8 workers is suitable.
Jarlaxe Baenre
Emperor
I implemented a couple different versions of a new Maya UP based on what was discussed a while ago.
+2
in city-adjacent tiles was good, but the lack of food due to crowding the Yucatan with cities was bad, so I tried +1 
+1 , and that's working quite well. The old UP is still in effect, but Maya research modifiers would have to be changed anyways if the UP were changed.
I can see it becoming overpowered by the late game, and think the +1 can be dropped, but I think it's pretty good.
A possible modification could be to prevent it from stacking because of nearby cities, in which case the +1 should probably be kept. But I don't know how to code that.
+2
in city-adjacent tiles was good, but the lack of food due to crowding the Yucatan with cities was bad, so I tried +1 +1 , and that's working quite well. The old UP is still in effect, but Maya research modifiers would have to be changed anyways if the UP were changed.I can see it becoming overpowered by the late game, and think the +1
can be dropped, but I think it's pretty good.A possible modification could be to prevent it from stacking because of nearby cities, in which case the +1
should probably be kept. But I don't know how to code that.Attachments
Rodnok
Prince
Hi, why lumbermills decrease the defensive bonus of hill/forest? Hill/forest has 75% defense normally, but when lumbermill is built, it drops suddenly to 25 % like no forest exists there. A hill without any other defense is pretty vulnerable against longbowmen...
Request: change the democratic dynamic name of Canada from "Commonwealth of Canada" to "Canadian Federation".
Neither of them is an official name for the country ("Canada" is), but the latter is at least recognizable by Canadians. As far as I know, the word commonwealth has never been used to refer to the country.
I am translating some of the dynamic names so I can easily make the change.
Neither of them is an official name for the country ("Canada" is), but the latter is at least recognizable by Canadians. As far as I know, the word commonwealth has never been used to refer to the country.
I am translating some of the dynamic names so I can easily make the change.
DC123456789
Deity
Would "Canadian Confederation/Confederation of Canada" be better? Confederation is much more closely associated with the country, even if using the word like that is technically a misnomer.
Yeah, I thought of that. But I think "confederation" is only associated with the actual event of uniting the colonies in 1867. In my experience, no one ever refers to the country as a confederation, but people do talk of the "Canadian federation" occasionally.
DC123456789
Deity
I would beg to differ - Confederation (as a proper noun, not the word itself) definitely does get sometimes used to metonymically describe the country, like when we speak of "joining Confederation" or "Fathers of Confederation". Certainly more than "federation", which is really just a description of a certain part of the political system than anything else.
Good point about "joining Confederation". It's true, if nothing else, that "confederation" has a more special Canadian meaning. Does anyone else have an opinion?
As another Canadian, I will second Confederation based on the "joining Confederation" point and the obvious historical use of the term. I don't believe "federation" is ever used to describe us, and our federal division of powers is so decentralized we might as well match up with the polisci meaning of a confederation anyways.
Lokki242
Emperor
I third Confederation as our resident British Columbian.
MechatronicJazz
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2007
- Messages
- 316
Yeah, Canadian Confederation for sure.
Similar threads
