Suggestions and Requests

[JHLee]

How about more great general points from naval battles for Trafalgar sq. and naval unit production & extra exp for the arsenal?

 

[Zaddy]

Perhaps Mole Antonelliana should require Peak in the city radius? I saw Germany build it in Frankfurt, which has zero Peaks in it's radius. It's sorta annoying seeing an AI waste hammers on a building for very very marginal benefit (denying another civ a wonder?????).

 

[Zaddy]

France builds Tsukiji Fish Market in Bordeaux. Maybe needs to require Buddhism in the city?

 

[JHLee]

A lot of late game wonders dont have religious requirements, I think Leoreth intended them to have diverse distribution for every game.

 

[IIHAAETTEAAHII]

main difference of the Venetian Arsenal was that ships in Genoa were privately owned, while in Venice they were produced by the state in this organized Arsenal and then rented to the Venetians. To simulate this ships produced in Arsenal can give gold to the player or they can have no upkeep, I believe it's very appropriate. IIRC Arsenal was also able to produce a ship every day, so a production bonus can be given too.

What you say really sounds like extra gold per naval unit while at peace - encouraging the player to build up a large navy, even if they are not immediately planning a naval campaign.

 

[Zaddy]

A lot of late game wonders dont have religious requirements, I think Leoreth intended them to have diverse distribution for every game.

Right, I see what you mean. My issue is that, at least in the 1700 AD scenario, Britain, France, or Netherlands will rocket ahead of everyone else and consistently build it before Japan does, regardless of if it's a player or AI Japan. That's not really diverse distribution in my book.

 

[1SDANi]

One thing that's always annoyed me is how if you build a two cities on a small body of water and one of those cities connects the small body to a large body of water, the city that doesn't connect the two cannot build units that require large bodies of water despite having access to one. Would it be possible to implement this into the large body calculations?

I'm torn between posting this here, in bug reports, and modding help, so I just put it here.

 

[TJDowling]

One thing that's always annoyed me is how if you build a two cities on a small body of water and one of those cities connects the small body to a large body of water, the city that doesn't connect the two cannot build units that require large bodies of water despite having access to one. Would it be possible to implement this into the large body calculations?

I'm torn between posting this here, in bug reports, and modding help, so I just put it here.

I mean can Duluth build ocean-going vessels?

 

[1SDANi]

I mean can Duluth build ocean-going vessels?

Can you even get Duluth a connected to the ocean?

 

[merijn_v1]

No, the Great Lakes cannot be connected to the oceans (on the new map).

Can you give an example where you think this should be the case? I cannot find any small body of water that I think city next to it should be able to produce ships. Except the Black Sea maybe, but I'm pretty sure that is large enough for cities next to it to build ships.

What you are suggesting is that every city that could be connected to an ocean, it should be connected if there is a bridge city. I don't think that is desirable. For example, Göteborg can make certain cities in mainland Sweden ocean connected. Or certain cities in the Andes can become ocean connected via Lake Titicaca and a city SW of that lake. Or the African Great Lakes can all become ocean connected.

 

[Enyavar]

Black Sea is large enough.

Bodies of water needed to be at least ten tiles large to count as a ship-worthy ocean, in vanilla. (if I remember correctly, that is).

I found it a good thing that you can already build harbors (for example at the four-tiles Baikal lake) in CoD. Really great! But the water-tile infrastructure stops there.
I'm also against the idea of producing aircraft carriers in Chicago, or producing any ships in inner Africa.

 

[Leoreth]

I don't get what the goal or problem is here. Where does this discussion even come from?

 

[1SDANi]

In that case nevermind. I was under the assumption that the ships required large bodies of water so the AI wouldn't spam units into lakes. It didn't occur to me that it was supposed to prevent the building of ocean going ships in ports with shallow or narrow waterways.

 

[Leoreth]

Well it's both at the same time, isn't it?

 

[1SDANi]

Well it's both at the same time, isn't it?

It is, but the latter notion didn't occur to me. Hence my confusion over why water tiles linked via cities didn't count.

 

[Publicola]

I'm taking a 'Great Courses' class on the history of India, and I was fairly stunned to discovered that Hinduism is generally regarded as a late-developing religion. It's based on ancient Vedic practices in India, of course, but Hinduism as we know it is a synthesis of many traditions (including Buddhism and Jainism) that took form between 500 BC - 300 AD. Per the wiki:

Scholars regard Hinduism as a fusion[note 3] or synthesis[6][note 4] of various Indian cultures and traditions,[7][note 5] with diverse roots[8][note 6] and no founder.[9] This "Hindu synthesis" started to develop between 500 BCE and 300 CE,[10], after the end of the Vedic period (1500 BCE to 500 BCE),[10][11] and flourished in the medieval period, with the decline of Buddhism in India.[12]

In terms of this game, that sounds like Vedic religion should be represented with the default 'pagan temples' and 'no state religion'. Buddhism could be founded by the first Vedic civ (India or Harappa) to build a Vedic temple -- or perhaps require the construction of two temples, or a temple + library in the same city, since founding Hinduism is not longer a prereq). Hinduism itself would be better suited to Ethics or Theology (late classical or early medieval) as its founding tech.

I have no idea how much this would affect the game, such as various UHVs that require an early and widespread Hindu religion, or the Hindu URV that's geared to the ancient world. But Leoreth's been making a lot of changes to make DoC more historically accurate, and this feels like the same sort of thing.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

But Leoreth's been making a lot of changes to make DoC more historically accurate

Wait what? Since when?

 

[Leoreth]

I think the difference between what is called Vedic religion and modern Hinduism is continuous and mostly arbitrary. Please don't make too much of the fact that the Indian pagan religion is called Vedism.

 

[Publicola]

I think the difference between what is called Vedic religion and modern Hinduism is continuous

Agreed -- with the lack of a named founder, and with the considerable borrowing from ancient Vedic practices, the development of Hinduism had quite a bit of continuity.

and mostly arbitrary.

I don't think this is accurate.

Of the Upanishad, only 13 'Principal Upanishads' date from before the synthesis period, and even the oldest of those could not have been written before 800 BC. The other 200 or so 'minor Upanishads' all date from the synthesis period or later.

Of the epics, the Mahabharta was compiled mostly after 400 BC; the Bhagavad Gita dates from roughly 200 BC. The Ramayana dates to 700 BC at the absolute earliest, and was mostly composed between 400 BC - 200 AD. Likewise, the Puranas all date from after 300 AD.

In other words, the primary elements of Hindu theology (not practice, but codified and organized religion) date from the classical and medieval period. Genealogically, the ancient Vedic practices informed the rise of both Jainism and Buddhism, which flourished in ancient India for several centuries. Then the brahman (priestly) caste undercut Jain/Buddhist popular appeal by reforming Vedic religious practice to incorporate their insight and traditions. Both Buddhism and Jainism thus faded from India -- between the rise of Hinduism and the arrival of Islam, Buddhism all but died out in India until its revival in the 1890's (!) -- while Hinduism began to flourish.

I think treating Buddhism and Hinduism as practically prehistoric religions, or treating Buddhism as descended from Hinduism, does a disservice to both.

 

[Steb]

I agree with Publicola, and would like to add to the argument with a gameplay perspective regarding both Hinduism and Zoroastrianism.

Currently, Hinduism and Zoroastrianism almost always appear at the same time as their civilizations (India and Persia). This was a good thing when there were no individual pagan religions, because it gave those civs unique identities that were distinct from their neighbors. But now, it would look perfectly fine to have a Mazdaist Persia or a Vedic India.

Having Hinduism and Zoroastrianism appear on spawn makes these religions glorified pagan religions to some extent. Sure, they can spread to other civilizations. But they remain closely associated to their civs, to the point that they feel like extra features for Persia and India rather than separate phenomena like the other religions. Moreover, founding a religion should be an momentous event in a game, and having religions appear automatically on spawn removes a lot of that. It would also add to diversity if the holy city can vary instead of automatically be the capital.

If Persia's spawn date is changed to 550 BC, it would make sense to spawn Zoroastrianism at the same time, but if it is kept earlier, it would be good to require Persia to do something to found it. As for Hinduism, considering the timeline of the important features of that religion, a spawn date in the Classical era, like Publicola suggests, would be both more accurate and more interesting from a gameplay perspective.

Islam is an exception to the above, in large part because the existence of the Caliphate as a major state is inseparable from the emergence of Islam.