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. Visard

    Visard Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2009
    Messages:
    203
    Some building balance suggestions.

    Sewer and Park has same :hammers: cost and while Park provides 2:health:+2:), Sewer only gives 2:health:.
    To balance buildings, Park should give one :health: less and Sewer one :health: more, but since we already have many 3:health:buildings. I would suggest this:
    Sewer: 2:health:+:)
    Park: :health:+2:)
    This feels also more logical.

    Since this would decrease available :health: I would suggest to add it to Warehouse, (since now it is identical to Bank) and move the merchant slot to bank (since there aren´t many famous warehousemen compared to bankers/economists).
    Warehouse: :health:+25%:gold:.
    Bank: Two merchant slots+25%:gold:
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2019
    Crimean Lord, Enyavar, Orbii and 3 others like this.
  2. KeeperOT7Keys

    KeeperOT7Keys did nothing wrong

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2013
    Messages:
    337
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mugla, Turkey
    doesn't sewer give an additional population like in HR?
     
  3. JHLee

    JHLee Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    497
    Also, levees are far more powerful in RFC than they are in vanilla,
    just because there are so many rivers on the map.
    I propose that their hammer cost be further increased.
    Also Brooklyn Bridge should also get a cost increase proportional to the levee.
     
    Crimean Lord likes this.
  4. Enyavar

    Enyavar Prince

    Joined:
    May 16, 2015
    Messages:
    422
    I like to have Levees even in cities that only have two or three river tiles. Your suggestion would mean that Levees can never regain the considerable investment in them. Counter-proposal: Variable-cost levees that cost X hammers per river tile in the BFC of a city. Brooklyn Bridge is already a very costly wonder, btw, and it is late enough that most cities will already have levees unless you start as one of the late-game american civs.

    To paraphrase Leo, DoC isn't about parallel world fantasies. My 2cents: The Aztecs have no business having a special "Jaguar Tank" with +25 jungle defense. The Mongolians don't get "Keshik Helicopters" with +2 move. And the Romans don't get "Marine Legions" capable of laying highways.

    Sounds great. Although warehouses should only provide health when there is preservation, and the refrigeration tech is another two columns later. Hm. Maybe the warehouse just gets nerfed (no additional merchant at first), but it is the requirement for a +2 health supermarket (in addition to +10% food) ?
     
    cmakk1012, Krieger-FS, ozqar and 3 others like this.
  5. JHLee

    JHLee Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    497
    Levee costs the same amount of hammers as factory, and in DoC the former is often better than the latter in terms of hammer boost. (Before you get power)
    Why would you build levees in cities with 2-3 river tiles? You have workshops for that.

    Fair enough.
     
  6. catacau

    catacau Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2012
    Messages:
    73
    I think the "Send inquisition" option in the Apostolic Palace should expel religions from certain Civ or city(ies), and not gain espionage points toward a Civ. The Inquisitor is too expensive, it can only be built one at a time, the AI doesn't build it and even if you give one to the AI he won't use it.
     
    1SDAN likes this.
  7. SultanRedSnake

    SultanRedSnake Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2012
    Messages:
    37
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    I'd first like to qualify my upcoming suggestion by stating that I did my best to search for previous posts of a similar nature did not find any, but I'll still apologize in advance if this has been covered. I should also thank Leoreth for doing this whole thing.

    Future Portugal UHVs:

    Before I make any suggestions, allow me to first acknowledge that I (think) I recall hearing Leoreth stating that these will be changed in future version but that's it's not all that high on the list of priorities, which I fully understand. I'm not personally unhappy with the current goals as they are (not that my feelings matter), but I think that they're objectively due for a revamp. I'll do my best to state my case.

    UHV 1: Have Open Borders Agreements with 14 Civilizations by 1550 AD.

    I'm guessing this one is inspired by Portugal's having established the first global empire based on trade. I get where its coming from. However, I think I can argue against both on historical and gameplay grounds. Historically speaking, the Open Borders requirement always struck me as a bit of ironic comedy. When Portugal entered the Indian Ocean it pursued a determined policy of forcibly closing off "borders"; namely, all access points to the Indian Ocean (Red Sea, Persian Gulf, Straights of Malacca) in order to force the movement of goods along the Cape route over which they held a monopoly. This was not a nation of "free traders".

    Historical pedantry aside, I think most players would agree this goal has never added up to much of a challenge. It's always been a freebie to me.

    UHV 2: Control 12 Trading Company Resources by 1650 AD.

    Alright now we're talking. Yeah sure there's the stereotype that the Crown had tunnel vision for spices, but once the Indian Ocean trading networks were firmly under control, the Portuguese set about moving just about everything they could for a profit (Hormuz ended up as their main factory for selling Arabian/Persian horses to Indian magnates). I think this one is a winner, but I'd suggest upping the number to 14-15 since more goods have been placed on the map over the past few versions (EDIT: New map coming. Duh. Forget the number suggestion for now).

    UHV 3: Settle 15 Colonies in Africa, Asia, and Brazil by 1700 AD.

    Mostly spot on but not specific enough. Something more along the lines of England's requirement would be more suitable and challenging. One could go even further and throw in a North African requirement to recall the Portuguese crown's crusading obsession with Morocco.

    What I haven't offered yet is a replacement for UHV 1. I'm floating a few ideas. Maybe the African settlement goal could be separated and moved up to recall the Portuguese "string of bases?" Throw in a "first to settle/circumnavigate" the Cape? Include India in some way as a territorial requirement (Casa de India!)?

    In conclusion, thanks again to Leoreth for making this whole thing happen. Portugal has always been my favorite civ to play (in this mod as well as EU IV and even RFC Europe).
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2019
  8. JHLee

    JHLee Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    497
    How about changing the UHV1 to something like 'Have N trade routes with other civs by 1550AD'?
     
  9. JHLee

    JHLee Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    497
    One thing about the Turks: What is the reason behind their UP changing between peacetime and wartime?
    It is so strange to declare war on a faraway civ that you'll probably never actually engage in battle,
    only so that you can capture Barbarian horse archers roaming around Central Asia.
    Wouldn't it be more intuitive to merge the UP so that they would keep the 'capture barb cav' ability both in peace and war?
     
  10. BaneFire

    BaneFire Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    238
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    I mean I guess the theory is you're a "nomadic kingdom" when not at war so they don't attack fellow nomads, but then rally to the call of conquest and land when needed.
    But yes in reality I just declared war on Ethiopia/Tamils to have the permabonus because it's always useful.
     
    JHLee likes this.
  11. catacau

    catacau Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2012
    Messages:
    73
    'Have N OVERSEA trade routes with other civs by 1550AD', sounds more challenging and suitable
     
    JHLee and 1SDAN like this.
  12. makka

    makka Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    23
    Don't know if this has already been mentioned or discussed, but I find it annoying (or balance breaking, or whatever you might call it) that the player gains a significant advantage when not starting to play as a certain civ right from the start menu after auto-play, but instead plays as another civ before and then switches to the actual civ intended to be played, because you get all the additional units for the AI.
    Therefore, I'd suggest to make those additional units spawn only during flip turn, so the AI gets 'em exclusively (as intended).

    Also (once again, I apologise if this has been covered, I'm just too time-restricted right now to scour all the discussion that took place since my last attendance here), the ITER wonder needs to be nerfed down severely, in a large empire with many cities (e.g. Russia) it even causes an overflow error because of the ridiculous amount of commerce it produces.
    A simple cap (as with shrines; at 100, maybe?) would do, I guess.
     
  13. BaneFire

    BaneFire Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    238
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    Suggestion for both the new and current map:
    Tibetan mountains should open up to Kashgar when Tibet spawns. Currently (and yes this is more an issue with the current map, but still), you're forced to awkwardly eek around into India or through Xi'an which isn't historically realistic, considering the historic Tibetan Empire did control Kashgaria and the Tarim Basin/Hexi Corridor region. This is especially annoying in the current version because as Tibet, a realistic 5 city empire would be something like Lhasa, Shillong, Pagan, Dunhuang and Kashgar - all areas historically controlled by Tibet (although Pagan is a little far south). Being able to actually reach and reinforced Kashgar/Dunhuang rather than hope China is feeling nice would be good.
     
    canexpthat, Krieger-FS and ozqar like this.
  14. JHLee

    JHLee Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    497
    This would enable Turkish Oghuz and barbarian cavalry to enter Tibet and personally I don't think Tibet needs another horde of barbs coming to raid them.
    They are very weak already and it is not hard to see them collapsing due to barbarian swordmen.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2019
  15. BaneFire

    BaneFire Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    238
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    True, there is probably a fix to this. Firstly I reckon the Khampa could be reworked to instead of having open terrain and city attack, to have hills defence and anti-light cavalry role. This means you could camp it out in strategic mountain overpasses and slaughter barbarian cavalry.
    Secondly, the Tibetan barbarian swordsmen don't even make any sense. This isn't like India where your lack of native strategic threats (other than the Tamils) means you need something to prevent you from non-stop steamrolling. This is a small mountain kingdom that unified its internal borders and real threats are massive empires to the South and East respectively. There's no need for repeated barbarian spawns in the way that China and India get.
     
  16. Enyavar

    Enyavar Prince

    Joined:
    May 16, 2015
    Messages:
    422
    First, about opening Mongolia to Tibet and the other way around: why would you do this? The regions of Mongolia and Tibet had not too much military contacts. Cultural ones, probably, but as far as I know there was never an invasion of Tibet from the North(west) in pre-modern times. Keshiks and other cavalrya hordes advancing on Lhasa is not historical.
    Probably, a route could be opened in the year 1800 or so, and not only from North, but also from South.

    The barbarian swordsmen are probably there for several reasons, I would suppose: In a gameplay sense, they hold Tibet in check, because otherwise, the human player wouldn't need to fortify Lhasa and concentrate all their power on the conquest side of the mountains. In a historical sense, they would represent other, native groups that challenged the Tibetans.
     
  17. 1SDAN

    1SDAN Brother Lady

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    Messages:
    2,681
    The main problem is that historically Tibet was only able to attain their conquests during a period when China was going through a massive bout of instability. Since Tibet spawns so close to 600AD China is rarely in any condition for Tibet to be able to sign an open borders for their mutual safety from each other. If civs could start scenarios with certain pre-existing stability levels and statuses I feel the Tibetan game could be made to be more possible to conquer their historical territory. That is of course assuming that AI are more likely to sign open borders and accept demands when they're unstable.
     
  18. Genghis Khaiser

    Genghis Khaiser Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2012
    Messages:
    558
    It doesn't make sense that Scientific Method slows down science. It obsoletes Monasteries so it is only helpful if you're the first in researching it or have enough hammers in any city and you are ready to build your National College. It should have a scientific benefit for all, like +10% Science in all cities, +10% science per Library and University or +1 Science per Scientist.
    In the base game, there was the free tech bonus of Liberalism, which is not present in DOC. It should be available with another technology, like Civil Liberties, Printing, Physics, or Electricity.
     
  19. JHLee

    JHLee Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    497
    Yeah, the most annoying thing I think about SM in DoC is that it obsoletes monasteries and there is no way to enable cities (that you didnt buils monasteries earlier) to build missionaries, unless you select Tolerance which is enabled by a tech that is on a totally different branch.
    This is especially annoying when you are a colonizing civ and the only way to spread your religion to colonies is to build your missionaries at home (which is already busy building other stuff) and ship them over which often takes like 5 turns.
     
    canexpthat likes this.
  20. Genghis Khaiser

    Genghis Khaiser Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2012
    Messages:
    558
    OR monasteries should obsolete with a later tech, like Civil Rights or Civil Liberties. With either of them you would lose them but would have either Tolerance to compensate for their need for building missionaries or Secularism if you want to take back their science or at least part of it.
     

Share This Page