Discussion in 'Rhye's and Fall - Dawn of Civilization' started by Leoreth, Sep 11, 2014.
What's the issue? Are they usually outpaced by cultural defenses?
That's at least one part of it. My impression at least is that as a player, by the time Star Forts are available, you will never be playing a civ where additional city fortifications are necessary. The Star Fort's position on the tech tree coincides with the point in game flow where a player is almost always going to be taking the initiative in war, both offensively (invading) and defensively (destroying stacks in the field). Basically no civ's (UHV) gameplay at this point would require you to turtle in your cities; if you are, you have already lost or are playing for non-victory reasons. Where turtling is necessary, it is very temporary (1 - 2 turns while stacks re-position) and the cultural defenses are sufficient for that (see e.g. Mughal gameplay against British invaders - Mughals are also the only civ I could conceivably see building the Star Fort).
I'll leave off by saying the only time I ever built a Star Fort since it was added was when Metropolitan was busted, and I wanted another +1 commerce in Berlin.
Suggestions for diplomatic texts to Khosrow I:
As Shahanshah of Persia, I have inherited the power and richness of a thousand lands conquered under our vast armies. It is wise to you stand dawn your pride and accept my greatness or be a new acquisition for it.
Greetings / Asking tribute
As your name is the King of Kings, all your emperorship over us connotes that your wise men should be wiser than ours. Either you send us an explanation of this game of chess or send revenue and tribute us. (This one is a historical letter envied to Khosrow by a great king who ruled some territory in indian subcontinent. The quote can be find here.)
The same goes for bunker and nuclear shelter, too, in my experience. For similar reasons; if you need them you are playing a lost game. Though Star Fort is more obvious.
I also seldom need walls and castles either, although they see much more uses if you have aggressive neighbors.
Don't castles give +1 culture with heritage? If not, make it so. Another +1 for castles with Star fort present, another +1 for a castle and Museum combo. A +1 culture for the castle+monastery combo might be over the top, though great.
On another hand, the (old, tighter) city walls were historically an economical problem, so maybe they could receive a malus (-1 commerce in the city plot?) with discovering (macro)economics or with their obsoletion tech. Then, a (wider) Star fort can offset that malus by removing the walls? (same effect with Park, it removes old pesky walls!)
Or the Star fort could get the defense bonus that the walls have, but only against gun powder and cavalry units. If they currently protect against bombardment through air units, that should be removed though, imo. (no idea if that's an issue, I never was attacked by bombers. Ever. I rarely even use them myself because of their high costs and tiny operation range.)
I don't understand your last suggestion. The Star Fort currently provides the equivalent defense of the Walls building against gunpowder units.
I think bunkers and nuke shelters are there to protect AIs against crazy ruthless players....
Suppose we have suggestions for independent city spawns on the new map, what's the best place to put those? Or is that not under consideration at this point?
Okay. I was thinking since the new map has a bit more space in South America it would be cool to represent the Mapuche with an independent or Native settlement possibly from the late 1500s (called Arauca or Bio Bio, or something else if anyone has any ideas). Placement could be one or two tiles below Concepcion, obviously dependent on whether it is settled first. I think there could be a significant Native force scripted in either way to limit expansion into Araucania/Patagonia before the Argentines spawn.
The Mapuche resisted both Inca and Spanish conquest even destroying all Spanish settlements South of Concepcion de Chile. They created networks of forts and settlements and adopted iron tool-making. They used their technological prowess to subdue the indigenous population in (future) Argentine Patagonia and resisted colonization by the newly independent South American nations for a short time. Eventually they were conquered by the technologically superior Argentines and Chileans in the 1880s.
I only realized after looking into this that the Mapuche are in Civ 6.
I have a suggestion about the Limited Resourses System.
Now crop resourses can supply 1 city, seafood can supply 2 cities, luxury can supply 3 cities, and media can supply 10 cities. It's suitable for Classical or Medieval civs, but not enough for Industrial and later. In 19th or 20th century, there're civs with plenty of cities and a large number of pops, 1 resourse supplies 1 city is outdated. In modern society, the development of logistics makes it possible to share resourses in more cities.
My suggestion is to increase the number of cities that shared 1 resourse when get a certain tech. Here is the concrete plan:
Crop resourses(corn, wheat, rice, potato, millet):
+1 city for Crop Rotation, +1 city for Biology, +1 city for Infrastructure.
Seafood and livestocks(clam, crab, fish, deer, cow, pig, sheep):
+1 city for Optics, +1 city for Refrigeration, +1 city for Genetics(maybe Ecology if Genetics is too late).
Commercial crops(olives, spices, wine, banana, cocoa, coffee, cotton, dye, incense, opium, silk, sugar, tea, tobacco):
+1 city for Horticulture, +1 city for Microbiology.
Luxury resourses(fur, ivory, pearls, gems, gold, silver, jade, amber, whale):
+1 city for Heritage, +1 city for Cosumerism, +1 city for Tourism.
Media resourses(football, movies, singles):
+2 city for Television, +3 city after Internet is completed.
The only resourse I can't range to the 5 kinds above is salt, maybe +1 city for Companies, +1 ciy for Infrastructure.
If you have more cities, would you not also control more land and therefore resources?
Yes, certainly a larger civ will get more resourses, but it's still not enough. Especially the crop resourses that supply only 1 city, more than a half city can't share them. Not to mention the resourses transaction.
AGREE Espessially with Suggestion about Crops!
For example in my experience as the U.S. there was not enough CORN for some more late, non-Eastern Coast cities (very strange situation for AMERICA in the mid of XX сеntury and it will be more strange if I will said that L.A. and Texas's Dallas had no CORN's Health because they had found later than other U.S. cities)
Thererefore I will invade to more week Mexican and also Argentina's lands and "push" them to capitulation and of course steal their corn using master-vassal system;
If I am not mistaken I need 8 cornes or even more ones - for getting health' bonus from Corn for majority American Cities (excluding Caribbean, Pacific Ocean and Alaska ones);
And it's not so easy to get so many Crops without pan-American military expansion
Also it's important to remember that my particular story based on current MAP and as I understand in future one this issue will more challenging than nowadays because every civ (and espessially RUSSIA, СANADA, CHINA, U.S.) will bigger!
Larger territory does not necessarily mean more resources of a specific kind. For instance, having only 2-3 cities is only as good as having 20+ if you own only one copy of a certain resource (e.g. Silk) in your territory. The advancement of logistics through the years can be represented by @soul-breathing's suggestion. This would be a small improvement to the current mechanic IMO without getting close to the previous one-for-all mechanic.
For flavor, I have an idea for new introduction text for Kangxi Emperor based on this source
'My fellow ruler, the Middle Kingdom will teach you that your voice is all too important. To serve your subjects, do not mumble, do not hesitate! Speak loudly, clearly, and without fear!
Here is a quote by Tang Taizong
So much in life is a mirror. The mirror of bronze gave me better clothes, the mirror of antiquity showed me the rhyes and fall of my realm, the mirror of friends will show you yourself. I have lost my mirror! Do not lose yours! Do not forget who is dear to you!
Noted, I will include them when I have time. Thanks.
If you recall, several months ago I suggested the implementation of some form of mechanic to allow civs with bad modifiers to ditch them for better ones. The example I used is the old Westernization mechanic in EU4. You said you were open to such a mechanic while not wanting it to literally invoke the term "Westernization", which I 100% agree with. I'm talking about this again, because I am now playing a 1700 AD Mughals game, and I'm being harshly reminded why I dislike these starts. Having captured the cities of the Maratha, I'm suffering from 150% (!!!) inflation, essentially crippling my economy. While I understand that these civs need these modifiers in order to best represent their historical progression, at some point it feels really futile and frustrating to play these civs. There is no feeling of being able to "fix" your country, bring it back from the brink. You know that, no matter how well you play, you just will never compete with the European civs. The outcome is already predetermined.
While I understand you already have probably several thousand higher priorities than a modernization mechanic, I'd like to ask if you could keep it in mind for future updates. Thanks.
I'm pretty sure I've made Indonesia UP suggestions before, but here's another:
Resources obtained through trade count as one more for the purposes of access.
So, if you acquire gold (edit: the resource, not ) through trade, you have 2 gold available. However, probably not stacking—if you acquire 2 gold through trade, you're treated as having 3, not 4.
I think this would better show the significance of trade to the region than the current UP, which occurs very rarely and is underwhelming when it does.
Honestly I feel like Indonesia's current UP is really hard to represent with the current game mechanics without making it really unpredictable. The current UP would work best with Civ 5's Trade Routes, and from what I've heard Civ 4's Trade Routes are so resource intensive that I'm not sure if it'd be a good idea to do anything crazy like checking every trade route for whether it passes through the Core.
Could we stop AI pillaging the improvements of independent cities, especially the fishing boats.
It doesn't really make sense that when AI Germany wants to conquer Poland, they send their navy to pillage the Moroccan fishing boats. They will lose more many to supply costs than what they get from pillaging.
And it makes even less sense to pillage to fishing boat in Baltic sea when they could just do blockade until they have captured Danzig. Especially when the AI don't seem to prioritize building new work boats.
And overall the AI pillages way too much. I only see the value of pillaging strategic improvements.
Too much pillaging makes it difficult for newborn civs to develop.
Another related problem is that AI likes to rebuilt improvements top of existing ones which prevents cottages growing.
They build workshop on top of cottage and then cottage top of workshop,... ad infinitum.
Or even worse, they they do the same thing for deer camp which of course removes the forest.
Separate names with a comma.