1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Suggestions and Requests

Discussion in 'Rhye's and Fall - Dawn of Civilization' started by Leoreth, Sep 11, 2014.

  1. Leoreth

    Leoreth Prince of Blood Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    34,513
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    House of Hades
    Coming up with a more useful Indonesian UP is on the low prio part of my to do list, I will keep this idea in mind for it.

    I think you raise three mostly independent action items here:
    - Stop the AI from pillaging independents: that makes sense all around and is easily implemented
    - Reduce overall AI propensity to pillage: might be less easy to change, but I am not familiar with the related code at all. Maybe there is one part of the AI that is responsible for the indiscriminate pillaging that I can limit/disable.
    - Stop the AI from constant improvement replacement: I am really not sure what is causing this because I did not touch the code besides adding values for new improvement effects (such as health/happiness), which shouldn't have an impact on the replace behaviour. I encountered this "bug" before and it's really hard to track down what is responsible for it. In general the AI should be able to decide that it wants a different improvement that is regarded as more useful, but I feel like it should be less willing to replace a grown improvement, and apparently the algorithm has issues where the currently present improvement always is worse than some other leading to constant replacement. I tried before to put an end to that but without much success. Maybe the only or at least better way to go here is to start using the K-Mod improvement AI.
     
  2. star15389

    star15389 Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    481
    Vanilla Civ4 has always had a problem with the AI constantly replacing improvements unfortunately
     
  3. TJDowling

    TJDowling King

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    681
    Why mess with the values of the Limited Resource System? We can just add more resource spawns in areas where civs settle in the industrial/post-industrial game, Siberia, Africa, North and South America, Australia. Currently there are (if I'm not mistaken) ZERO resource spawns in Africa. The predominant reason for increased access to resources in the industrial and post-industrial era is colonialism.
     
    1SDAN and Crimean Lord like this.
  4. Lokki242

    Lokki242 That One Guy

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Messages:
    1,001
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    Nah, I prefer soul-breathing's suggestions; it seems more accurste to the development of resource management and avoids cluttering the map
     
  5. Visard

    Visard Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2009
    Messages:
    204
    Protecting independent improvements is the main issue, so its great if it can be fixed :)

    About the improvement replacements:
    Maybe the workshop/cottage cycle can't be stopped, but maybe there could be some forced rules to help the situation.
    Forbidding cottages and workshops on top resources would help AI.
    Also discouraging workshops in core area would help AI with stability.
     
    Crimean Lord, 1SDAN and Leoreth like this.
  6. Force44

    Force44 Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2015
    Messages:
    587
    Location:
    The Low Countries
    Question: How does the changing of the Phoenician core into the Carthaginian core work?
    I managed to almost complete a game as Phoenicia after an Egyptian start but the core is still the Phoenician one. (I founded an Egyptian city on the spot of Carthage and conquered it)

    i also noted that the possibility of liberating cities to a civilization you are at war with makes your relations with that civ very good,
     
  7. merijn_v1

    merijn_v1 Black Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,813
    Location:
    The city of the original vlaai
    The core switches when you FOUND Carthage. It doesn't switch when you conquer it.
     
    Crimean Lord likes this.
  8. Ivan Preuss

    Ivan Preuss Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2018
    Messages:
    33
    Gender:
    Male
    May I make some suggestions?

    I just came here after playing the mod for a second time, and I have to say that it really got me hooked, and impressed with the finesse and completeness of its state. The last and first time I played was when there was no Judaism; instead, it was substituted for Zoroastrianism. It felt kinda senseless, because Zoroastrianism is not that much of a major religion either, to justify substituting Judaism. That, along with many of the new mechanics which I felt were limiting (like the bounding of wonders to religions and civis), made me prefer the old RFC.

    But now, I became quite a fan of the mod. Been playing it for some months, at the very least.

    There are some things, though, that I would like to suggest or ask; because I don't know if someone has already suggested them, or what is the current state of features planned to be added in the next updates.

    That said, immediate things come to mind, like adding South Africa and Australia, which would improve late game a lot. Also, adding WWI tanks, since we currently have WWI planes, and the first tanks we get are WWII-looking ones.

    But what I would most strongly suggest is changing a little the core, historical and contested areas for some civilizations, because that is easy to do (or at least seems easy to me) and hugely affects gameplay. Of course, pondering this issue begs the question of what such areas are supposed to mean, that is, what are they supposed to represent as computerized reductions of real world vicissitudes.

    If we were to adopt a strict definition of "core area" for the Latin civilization, for instance, we would, in a serious discussion, almost certainly arrive at the conclusion that only the Latium region should be first considered its core; since it was the region that was first inhabited by the ancient Latin tribes. But that, of course, would not be good. Rome, as represented in the game, would never be able to control all the regions comprising the Roman Empire if we only assigned Latium as their core area, because then the empire would have collapsed way before that due to stability issues. In other words: the game mechanics would not allow the existence of the Roman Empire in the first place.

    Rome.png

    Unless, of course, we increase the limit so that Rome can control much larger areas and populations with a reduced core; or, alternatively, we change the expansion limit to allow for certain civilizations to control a relative non-core population. In other words: we make it so that certain civilizations will be able to control large populations with a small core population, while other civilizations will need a larger core population to control these same, non-core, just-as-large populations; which is also a valid measure.

    But, since none of the possibilities above are in the game anyway, one must assume that what "core areas" are supposed to represent is something else quite different. Similarly, the French case also bears considerable resemblance to the Latin one. It is well known that, before Parisian French became the frame with which French, as the national language of the french people, became spoken in all parts of France, other Romance languages were standard languages in most regions of France. Yet, France's core area comprises basically the whole of France

    France.png

    Without delving too much, let us just conclude by stating that "core areas" are apparently and strongly defined by the consummation of the phenomenon known as national states, over certain areas of the globe. As such, France's core are came to be France itself, and Rome's came to be the Italian peninsula - which seems, to me, a consideration based more on modern factors than ancient ones. There doesn't seem to be much ground to support that northern Italy (which was inhabited by Celts) was somehow considered "more Roman" than, say, the Basque country or Portugal.

    A second point appears self evident to me as well. The core areas of a civilization are apparently relative to their total expansion, that is, when they reach the apex of their empires; as there also would be no sense in having any major civilization be entirely comprised of core areas and no historical or contested areas. Therefore, a balance, a proportion between such areas (and a proportion in which "balance" is a certain mean between maximum and minimum historical expansion) should be the case; and a measure for judging which areas are going to be considered "core areas" (because, as we've seen, "core areas" are somewhat of an arbitrary category); "historical areas" (which translates into "areas that have been long controlled by a certain civilization, but that are not its core) and "contested areas" (areas that are disputed by civilizations); the maps, furthermore, for France and Rome, all appear to be quite balanced to me.

    As such, there are some imbalances - or just imprecisions - that I would like to point out, and argue for a correction as I present them.

    First, Brazil.

    Areas for Brazil

    Brazil.png

    What I would say about this is map that it is entirely wrong. No Brazilian would ever agree with this allocation of core and historical areas. I must be vehement, because Brazilian history and demographics strongly suggests a different set of core, historical and contested areas.

    First argument: Brazilian colonization began in the northeast region, and such used to be one of the most populated and economically developed areas of the colony until sugar processing became a less profitable activity, and the colony's capital was moved from there to Rio de Janeiro.

    Second argument: a small deal of the areas considered on this map to be "core areas", were actually occupied practically exclusively by american natives by the time Brazil became an independent nation. How can they be core areas, counting for core population score, if such population is not even Brazilian in the first place?

    Here is a map indicating the predominant ethnic group in any given region of Brazil, as it constituted itself demographically by the late 19th century:



    Where brown represents white people; green, mixed race (black-white); purple, mixed race (white-native american) or just plain native americans.

    Also, it should be noted that most purple areas amounted to an empty wilderness inhabited by natives back then. Most people are, still to this date, and have always been, living in the coastal areas.

    Third argument: Uruguay and the Brazilian state of Acre should be contested areas, and not whatever they are represented with in the current map. Uruguay used to be part of the Empire of Brazil until it revolted, and the 1828 treaty of Montevideo, signed by Brazil and Argentina, recognized the independence of Uruguay. However, since Uruguay is not a civilization currently in the mod, it should remain an area of attrition between the civilizations of Brazil and Argentina. The state of Acre was bought from Bolivia after the region was settled by Brazilians and revolted into its own independent government, which was subsequently annexed by the Brazilian government. The government of Brazil, however, decided to resort to diplomacy and bought it from Bolivia. Bolivia, in turn, had difficulties managing the territories invaded by Brazilian settlers, due to the geographical barrier of the Andes, while Brazilian troops only needed the region's rivers to reach and aid such settlers. Due to this inherently competitive nature of the issue, it should thus be a contested area.

    All in all, a map which accounts for such qualities of Brazilian history should look more or less like this:

    Brazil.png

    Second, Argentina.

    How Argentina's map currently looks:

    Argentina.png

    As for Argentina, I would like to argue for two minor changes:

    I. To include Uruguay as a core area, since Argentina's core area should represent, in my view, the core areas of the Spanish provinces of Rio de la Plata.

    II. To remove Patagonia from the core and make it instead a historical area. Just as it was with Brazil, most of Patagonia was still inhabited by natives when it became independent. The flip zone, however, should remain the same.

    Such as Argentina's map would look more like this:

    arg2.jpg

    That's all. Thank you for reading, I know it's quite a wall of text, and I would be glad if it provoked some thoughts among you, as I would be interested in discussing the matter further if you'd like.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2018
    Publicola, Enyavar and Leoreth like this.
  9. Enyavar

    Enyavar Prince

    Joined:
    May 16, 2015
    Messages:
    422
    Welcome to the forums, then! What I value most about this mod is the ongoing, strong modding community around a game that many less fanatic players have long since abandoned. Civ IV is not dead until DoC stops, and I think the mod is in its prime.

    That's a deep one. I'm not involved in testing the upcoming but still far away 1.16 release. Instead, I'm stuck playing the 1.15 release, just like I assume you also do.

    As far as I know, the next version will provide a completely new (bigger) world map which will replace and abandon the previous map that you also refer to. That means, it will probably be independently balanced from the current map; and the current stability maps will also be redrawn. Currently, the entire map is still very much open for discusion, look here: Map discussion (terrain placement); Map discussion (city placement); Map discussion (resource placement). The stability maps are not on the table yet, although I hear some playtesters already experiment with it. I think, Leoreth might think about your suggestion once the dev version is far enough.

    When I played the game, I always felt that the stability maps were just fine to provide a challenge, but I haven't played Brazil or Argentina, yet. I'm planning to do so though.
    Have you tested your changes to the stability maps already? I was ecstatic when I found that I could simply edit the stability map for a current game in the World Editor. In several games, I won the UHV and then played beyond the UHV. In those cases, I made subtle+reasonable changes to the stability maps because I felt entitled to some territories: When I held foreign territories for many centuries, not in any other civs foreign core or even disputed areas, I declared 1-3 "foreign" city locations to be "core" and tested what that did for my stability...

    The change you suggest for Argentina looks, to me, as just giving up on some core plots and taking others instead. I think that is just reasonable.
    The change you suggest for Brazil looks, to my first glance, as if it's going to make Brazil a super-power. Such a large and food-rich core area (while the borders are historically justified, I agree) makes it possible to hold a lot more foreign territories than the current mod allows for Brazil. The AI would be super-stable at the very least; the human player could hold all of South America plus all strategic positions of another continent, like Australia or Africa.
     
    Jarlaxe Baenre likes this.
  10. DC123456789

    DC123456789 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2012
    Messages:
    3,106
    Location:
    Canada
    Contested areas are simply the overlap of historical areas with foreign cores, so it's unlikely that it would actually have the effect you're looking for.
     
    Imp. Knoedel likes this.
  11. Ivan Preuss

    Ivan Preuss Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2018
    Messages:
    33
    Gender:
    Male
    Thank you! I also agree on that, the mod seems to be indeed in its prime. It was precisely such near-completeness, or simply the refinement of its state that changed my opinions on it.

    I've seen some of the discussion on stability maps, and people really have a point in complaining about some small things that are wrong or strange-looking, but these generally are just small things. Some people might complain about China's core area being slightly wrong, but overall the map is mostly correct and/or simply functional, so that China will be able to hold what it historically did and not so much on top of that. Brazil's and Argentina's map, however, are the only cases in my view that are largely incorrect. Argentina's core is historically wrong, and being historically wrong, it is also too big for a country that never constituted an empire, and cannot even take the Falklands from the British while it is sitting right at their side.

    About testing, I haven't. I didn't know you could do that with the editor, but now that you've said it, it's something I could do.

    That can be tweaked. I believe Brazil's core should be reduced, and not at all increased. My main concern, though, was historical accuracy. If you look at that demographic map I posted, it demonstrates a solution to this possible problem, since purple areas are mainly inhabited; and green ones represent the main center of colonial activity.

    Empire_of_Brazil_ethnic_groups_(edit).png
     
  12. Ivan Preuss

    Ivan Preuss Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2018
    Messages:
    33
    Gender:
    Male
    Although that seems to be what it is for most of the cases, that is not a rule. I've checked the maps, and Sicily is both a contested and a historical area for many civs, while it is a core to none.
     
  13. DC123456789

    DC123456789 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2012
    Messages:
    3,106
    Location:
    Canada
    It's part of Italy's expanded core.
     
  14. Ivan Preuss

    Ivan Preuss Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2018
    Messages:
    33
    Gender:
    Male
    Right. Then Acre can be a historical area, if that is the case. Makes more sense than a foreign one.
     
  15. Leoreth

    Leoreth Prince of Blood Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    34,513
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    House of Hades
    I think your premise on core areas is slightly flawed in the sense that it assumes that core areas need to reflect some historical starting point instead of a more generalised view on what territory a civilisation controlled throughout history. For example, by the modern era you can factually consider the French core as what it is in the game. Likewise, during the Roman Empire the Italian peninsula even actually had special status within the empire and it makes a lot of sense to consider it the Roman core.

    Overall however the stability considerations are more important than accuracy, as you concluded, so it does not always make sense to look for consistency between civilisations.
     
  16. Orbii

    Orbii Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2012
    Messages:
    202
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Edmonton
    For your proposals for these two South American civs, I'm in agreement with the other posters that they wouldn't have the gameplay objectives you've contemplated. Your proposed Brazilian map in particular would put every single Brazilian city, but for inner Amazon 'colonies' and Brasilia, as Core. Currently, Brazil fits three cities comfortably in its core (Sao Paolo, Rio de Janiero, Brasilia), and gets a pretty good core population out of it (~50 is achievable, which multiplies up to ~300 - ~400 in Brazil's tech eras). The changes to have the entire Brazilian coast as Core essentially substitutes Brasilia for Recife and Belem, at least on the current 1700 AD scenario. Both of these cities have considerably higher growth potential than Brasilia, particularly if one is aiming for the UHV, as Brasilia (your likely National Park capital) will not have the option of clearing out the rainforests/jungles around it for food. The result is you take a civ that is already very stable, and make it incredibly stable, as you now have what is likely to be at least ~60 core population to work off of. This is better than several contemporary civs which have conquest UHV's: all European civs, Japan, and Gran Colombia. Only the three civs which are arguably intended to be superpowers - USA, Russia, and China - will have greater Core populations at that point.

    Now one could argue that Brazil might reach that point in the future, but at least for the timeframe of the mod, Brazil has firmly been a regional power at best, and its current three city Core reflects that reach.

    Likewise, your proposal for Argentina's core actually defeats the objective you've stated: that Argentina is a 'weak' empire that couldn't even win the Falklands. Argentina's current core fits two cities comfortably: Buenos Aires and Viedma. Buenos Aires reaches size 18 - 20 comfortably, and Viedma about size 10. If we replace Viedma with Montevideo, then we're adding a very considerable amount to Argentina's core calculation, as Montevideo reaches populations just under Buenos Aires (15 - 17 is typical). What we therefore have is actually a stronger Argentina from your proposed map.

    Lastly, while it's great you took so much effort into typing this out, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with the discussions about France and Rome's cores. Personally I think it's very intuitive that Rome's core - where its support base is and where you would argue the civilization would (and did) 'end' with the loss of the Italian peninsula for Rome and with all of France proper for France. Rome could suffer incredible losses of territory (see the Crisis of the Third Century and the later Empire) while maintaining its Italian core, and still subsist as an entity. Likewise, France lost Paris and all of northern and western France during the middle-ish stages of the Hundred Years War, and continued onwards nonetheless to win the war from what would be Marseilles in DoC's map. Vichy France in WW2 fits better as a vassal rather than a completely collapsed civ, and it likewise only lost half of what is core on the map.
     
  17. Ivan Preuss

    Ivan Preuss Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2018
    Messages:
    33
    Gender:
    Male
    Think about it semantically. Does not "core" suggests a "starting point", even if just kind of? What does "core" even mean to you, if not precisely that which is elementary? that which is most fundamental; here, an area in geographical space just as much as a population, which comes to be nothing less than the peoples who set the tone for a state's very own tempo? What is a "core", in this sense, if not this most tactile and demonstrable concept? I just do not see how this counter-argument makes any sense.

    Of course, by the modern era you can say that France is the core of itself; but has it always been like that? The answer is, quite evidently, no: it wasn't. It wasn't til the late 19th century that it began to be shaped like so. As for the Roman Empire - if we are being strictly historical here -, there is simply not much pertinence to think of it as having a "core area". Foreign elites were incorporated into the Roman elites ever since Rome started to expand, and thus it was a multi-ethnic empire since the very beginning. Here you have a point, because the primeval expansion of Rome was founded over the alliance of Rome with other Italic peoples, but, again, there was no real reason for a Roman back then to think of Italic Romans as any more Roman than lusitanian Romans. If anything, social class would probably play a greater role in defining "who's more Roman", since poor inhabitants of the western parts of the Roman Empire spoke vulgar Latin, which was full of linguistic impregnation arriving from stigmatized dialects just as native languages.
     
  18. Ivan Preuss

    Ivan Preuss Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2018
    Messages:
    33
    Gender:
    Male
    I understand your concerns, but you have not accounted for the fact that we can still change the core areas to increase historical accuracy, while at the same time preserving the old proportion. I presume we all agree that we must balance the game's functionality with historical accuracy, favoring the first, if necessary. However, accounting for the aforementioned imbalances, what seems licit to me is to remove São Paulo and Brasília from the core areas, and, instead, add two cities in the northeast region - as you've mentioned - to make up for the former. The northeast region is arid, and while it does not have jungles such as the ones near Brasília, its cities should still fail to grow as much as São Paulo; and, that way, we maintain balance. See the demographic map I posted before for reference. I conclude from this, that your observation that two cities in the northeast region would surpass Brasília and São Paulo is incorrect; and in any case, it most certainly can be done without allowing those cities to surpass the former: it's just a matter of where and how many tiles are core ones.

    Again, that is incorrect. Montevideo, being too close to Buenos Aires in one side, and the Brazilian border at another, cannot work many tiles and grow too much, without resorting to water tiles for food. The same is valid for Viedma. The desert around Viedma won't allow much food or productivity, so it needs water tiles for food just as well. It is not at all that different.

    I was getting to this: core areas. What are they? apparently, the issue was underneath your nose the whole time, but you didn't see.

    You are mixing real-world (and for that matter incredibly more complex) political, social and cultural vicissitudes with simple game mechanics. One thing does not perfectly corresponds to the other.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2018
  19. Ivan Preuss

    Ivan Preuss Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2018
    Messages:
    33
    Gender:
    Male
    I've checked the amount of food for Viedma and Montevideo. Without accounting for what could go for Buenos Aires, Montevideo gets some 5 or 6 population levels more than Viedma. Still more accurate, though, as it promotes larger populations in regions were they did, in fact, occur. You win some, you lose some.
     
  20. Enyavar

    Enyavar Prince

    Joined:
    May 16, 2015
    Messages:
    422
    As I said, these suggestions can be tested by yourself, with the world editor, but are unlikely to find a direct way into the mod as I think that Leoreth has currently other priorities.

    The stability maps are not only determined by real world history, but also gameplay/balance concerns. Even adding a tiny desert oasis plot to a core can allow for an additional core pop of 6, and results in allowing +40 noncore population right away.

    For example, adding Hawaii to the Polynesian core area looks historically correct but allows the human player to settle and hold the entirety of Australia...
     
    Orbii and Jarlaxe Baenre like this.

Share This Page