Suggestions and Requests

[Enyavar]

Great idea, have you included an exit mechanic with it?

I was more thinking that sometimes, civs dont agree on the shared civics, which strains the relationships. Like that time when Britain decided to go from multilateralism to isolationism. But really, It's also like fascist Spain and Portugal not benefitting from the wonder, until their switch to democracy.

Maybe the trade bonus could be tied to have the same civics as the wonder owner.

 

[cmakk1012]

Speaking of civics, is there any way to make vassals favor the same civics as their overlords? Because it might help a player keep their vassals stable

 

[Publicola]

Speaking of civics, is there any way to make vassals favor the same civics as their overlords? Because it might help a player keep their vassals stable

...Just had a crazy idea. How about, after you capitulate another civ, a screen pops up that allows you to pick and choose the civics for your new vassal?

 

[Leoreth]

Can't you ask them to adopt your civics via diplomacy?

 

[cmakk1012]

Can't you ask them to adopt your civics via diplomacy?

Trouble is they inevitably switch back to their usual favorite civics and the anarchy they accrue doing it just makes them even less stable.

 

[Tigranes]

It would be better if Mayan Long Count UP give them same amount of beakers as it gives food now. Everything Mayan is about food -- UU, Temple, etc. Being rewarded by beakers just feels more interesting and useful.

 

[Oblivionyx]

Aside from being historical, I feel that a civ's UU, UP, UB, and the wonders they built in real life should contribute something towards the UHV. Of course not all of them, but some.

It might be obvious already, but I'm saying it anyway.

 

[bluepotato]

It'd also be nice if my vassals would stop attacking the indies, last game my aztec vassals had a -24 stability expansion penalty after they decided to eat every single independent city in southern north america. Their capital was size 4, maybe the AI should prioritize growth in there when they have an expansion stability penalty. Or maybe you should be able to gift your vassals' cities to the indies?
Also it's really weird that when I have defensive pacts, I keep automatically declaring on the indies because my defensive pact partner did, too. Is this a bug?

 

[Leoreth]

Yes, I don't think defensive pacts should affect independents.

 

[Tigranes]

It would be better if Mayan Long Count UP give them same amount of beakers as it gives food now. Everything Mayan is about food -- UU, Temple, etc. Being rewarded by beakers just feels more interesting and useful.

Or better yet -- just allow to settle in Rainforest/Jungle. Mayan cities are surrounded by Jungles.

 

[Tigranes]

I also suggest documenting somewhere in Pedia Turkic Oguz (barbarian Oguz). Things are pretty confusing they way they are now. If you don't play Turkic civ you can see 2 unit names who look the same and even have the same barbarian flag -- (Barbarian) Turkic Oguz and (Turkic) Oguz with hidden nationality. But because the names are different -- human player can always tell if he is dealing with barbarians or Turkic civ and it decreases the immersion yet also leaves human player with the question -- do this barbarian Turkic Oguz units have the same stats as Turkic civ's UU?

I hope we all agree that one should expect every single unit that appears in game to have Pedia entry, that includes barbarians and even identical units like Oguz and Turkic Oguz. Another option is to rename (Barbarian) Turkic Oguz into Kimeks. There were many Turkic people in the region and we can reflect infighting with less confusing nomenclature.

 

[Leoreth]

They are the same unit.

 

[Jarlaxe Baenre]

Or better yet -- just allow to settle in Rainforest/Jungle. Mayan cities are surrounded by Jungles.

The jungle/rainforest distinction is pretty much just to control where civs can settle. They wouldn't really gain any benefit. That'd be even worse than the Egyptian UP.

 

[JHLee]

I propose that the civilopedia entries for civics show when they become outdated, and the stability synergies they have with each other.

 

[Enyavar]

I propose that the civilopedia entries for civics show when they become outdated, and the stability synergies they have with each other.

Compatibility can be seen interactively in the F3 tab: If you highlight a civic, other civics are highlighted in green (synergy) and red (incompatibility).

The civilopedia has already one big single entry about combinations of ages/techs/civics, that even states actual numbers: Concepts --> Stability Influence Factors (huge wall of paragraphs; you're searching for the middle part of it with the heading "Civics"). Since compatibility and outdatedness only have influence on stability, this is the best place to handle the part, I assume.

Of course, this section could be linked from each civic entry.

Just a bythought: actual synergies would be an additional effect that is only available when both civics are selected. For example: Combining Isolationism with Theocracy reduces Theocracy's civic upkeep to "low". Or: Citizenship only has reduced costs for Markets, if combined with Merchant Trade. Or: Citizenship with Republic produces a free statesman in the capital. (The agony of which combinations to choose at any given point might drive players crazy).

 

[Tigranes]

None of the Uzbek cities in 1700 scenario is located on Turkic core. Can we please expand the core to at least include Khiva?

 

[Tigranes]

Am I the only one who thinks that effects of the default ("do nothing") city capture are too drastic, especially before the era of big cities? Typical medieval city is population 4-5. Maybe 2-3 buildings inside. Sacking will make it population 1, no buildings and pay extra gold (city cannot shrink more than 1). Doing nothing again will leave you with no buildings and same population 1. But no extra gold. Perhaps random element must be included in this case. Each turn city will have 50-50 chance to lose a building and population point if player chose the default option?

 

[Leoreth]

Does it? Building damage is directly proportional to the buildings already in the city, and it should be impossible to lose all of them. I'll look into the population formula but again iirc it should be something like 1 + population/5 which wouldn't be too drastic for small cities (1-2 population lost).

 

[Tigranes]

Only Republic civic currently allows spending gold to finish production of the unit. I know many spears were broken over this issue, and we parted with ill functioning mercenary system, but the simple ability to hire a gun or a spear was one of the most consistent abilities of most rulers for as long as rulers exist. Material girls and guys shaped the course of history. Republic in now way unique to this. Kings and tyrants and current governments I suggest allowing spies, scouts and explorers to bribe units -- any unit, in case of spies even in the enemy city, even a great person.

Every man has a price, every army has a price. Barbarians about to loot your city? Ransom it and make them change sides! Need particular Great Person -- offer him enough to switch loyalties. And if Nietzsche is right and gold alone is not enough for someone to change allegiance -- combine and in case of the civilized unit and just for barbarian unit.

Purse is mightier than a pen. Or a spear. New rules about sacking cities hint the possibility of the war feeding itself -- attack the city, loose troops, sack the city, raise money, hire more troops and repeat. Byzantine UP can be modified to pay the half of what every one else pays, kind of like Phoenician UP works in Republic.

 

[JHLee]

Sacking seems a bit OP now IMO. Gives bunch of gold, spreads your culture, kills pop (useful if non-core). Seems like there's no real downside to it.