Suggestions and Requests
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
JDPElGrillo
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2015
- Messages
- 72
You're right, somehow I missed the article for "Stability Influence Factors" right below "Stability". Thanks! I do still think a more direct representation could be helpful, at least in the Tech adviser screen:
Admittedly, it would be trickier to place the ones that become outdated by Era instead of by tech.
Admittedly, it would be trickier to place the ones that become outdated by Era instead of by tech.
JDPElGrillo
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2015
- Messages
- 72
Sounds good, I'll just make those changes on a local copy for personal reference. Definitely agree that the tech tooltips can grow a bit clunky.
So I was thinking about Conqueror Events recently—daydreaming, basically—and wound up with an idea for a new way of handling them.
Is this a serious suggestion? I don't know. It would be a big change. Pretend I'm just fantasizing out loud.
The idea I had was to replace the current Conqueror Events with a new category of events: Unique Conqueror Events (UCEs). What are these?
They would be like the Unique Historical Victories (UHVs) in the sense that each civilization would have one. Like UHVs, they would have triggering conditions and victory conditions to be met within a deadline. Like Conqueror Events, they would create a stack of units. They would also bestow on the triggering civilization a short-duration Unique Power.
They would differ mainly from the current Conqueror events in two ways. First, they would be conditional rather than scripted. (A corollary difference: a canny human player would know how to forestall an AI civilization from triggering its UCE, unlike in the current game, where the AI civilization has to be destroyed to prevent its conqueror stack from spawning.) Second, they would apply to both player- and AI-managed civilizations.
Basically, they would be challenges, like the Quests, that would grant a reward (a Triumph) if completed but no penalty if failed. And if pursued, they would replicate real-world historical events, at least in part.
Here's an example:
Babylonian UCE: The Assyrian Empire
Trigger
(1) Build the Hanging Gardens, Ishtar Gate, and Great Ziggurat** by 1300 BC.
(2) Be the first to discover Bloomery.
(3) Build Ninua by turn 910 BC.
** New Wonder: 120 hammers. Prerequisite: Construction. Confers a free ziggurat in every city; +8 culture points; +3 Great Prophet points.
Stack
On completing the above, the Babylonian player (human or AI) receives 4 Swordsmen and 2 Siege Towers***.
*** New unit: 97 hammers. Strength: 4. City Attack: +50%. Bombard: -8%.
Unique Conquest Power
Existing Swordsmen receive City Raider I and II promotions.
Victory Conditions
(1) Raze Susa.
(2) Conquer Syria (Sur and Urushalim).
(3) Control Egypt (have more cities in Egyptian Core than Egypt does).
All goals must be achieved by 595 BC.
Triumph
(1) An 8-turn Golden Age; (2) a Great Person of choice; (3) the ability to build Siege Towers.
Discussion
The trigger would in each case be a three-fold set, similar to the UHVs, and for each civilization it would be relatively easy to achieve it. That's desirable because each UCE would be modeled on some analogue in the history of the civilization in question, and there should be a bias toward its happening. That being said, there would in most cases be a strong likelihood against the AI triggering the UCE; so where a high likelihood of an AI trigger is wanted, the trigger would be defined in a way that makes it very likely the AI would stumble into it.
The victory conditions would basically be the real world victory conditions, or slightly harder versions of them. In most cases, the Triumph would consist of a Golden Age plus a Great Person of choice, plus a third reward that would be civ-specific.
Is this a serious suggestion? I don't know. It would be a big change. Pretend I'm just fantasizing out loud.
The idea I had was to replace the current Conqueror Events with a new category of events: Unique Conqueror Events (UCEs). What are these?
They would be like the Unique Historical Victories (UHVs) in the sense that each civilization would have one. Like UHVs, they would have triggering conditions and victory conditions to be met within a deadline. Like Conqueror Events, they would create a stack of units. They would also bestow on the triggering civilization a short-duration Unique Power.
They would differ mainly from the current Conqueror events in two ways. First, they would be conditional rather than scripted. (A corollary difference: a canny human player would know how to forestall an AI civilization from triggering its UCE, unlike in the current game, where the AI civilization has to be destroyed to prevent its conqueror stack from spawning.) Second, they would apply to both player- and AI-managed civilizations.
Basically, they would be challenges, like the Quests, that would grant a reward (a Triumph) if completed but no penalty if failed. And if pursued, they would replicate real-world historical events, at least in part.
Here's an example:
Babylonian UCE: The Assyrian Empire
Trigger
(1) Build the Hanging Gardens, Ishtar Gate, and Great Ziggurat** by 1300 BC.
(2) Be the first to discover Bloomery.
(3) Build Ninua by turn 910 BC.
** New Wonder: 120 hammers. Prerequisite: Construction. Confers a free ziggurat in every city; +8 culture points; +3 Great Prophet points.
Stack
On completing the above, the Babylonian player (human or AI) receives 4 Swordsmen and 2 Siege Towers***.
*** New unit: 97 hammers. Strength: 4. City Attack: +50%. Bombard: -8%.
Unique Conquest Power
Existing Swordsmen receive City Raider I and II promotions.
Victory Conditions
(1) Raze Susa.
(2) Conquer Syria (Sur and Urushalim).
(3) Control Egypt (have more cities in Egyptian Core than Egypt does).
All goals must be achieved by 595 BC.
Triumph
(1) An 8-turn Golden Age; (2) a Great Person of choice; (3) the ability to build Siege Towers.
Discussion
The trigger would in each case be a three-fold set, similar to the UHVs, and for each civilization it would be relatively easy to achieve it. That's desirable because each UCE would be modeled on some analogue in the history of the civilization in question, and there should be a bias toward its happening. That being said, there would in most cases be a strong likelihood against the AI triggering the UCE; so where a high likelihood of an AI trigger is wanted, the trigger would be defined in a way that makes it very likely the AI would stumble into it.
The victory conditions would basically be the real world victory conditions, or slightly harder versions of them. In most cases, the Triumph would consist of a Golden Age plus a Great Person of choice, plus a third reward that would be civ-specific.
JHLee
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2013
- Messages
- 580
I also had some thoughts about civilization-specific 'sub-quests' in the game,
but I'm afraid that would be actually helpful for the players only,
making it harder to balance civs (so that UHV isn't too easy for the players and AI civs are not too weak).
but I'm afraid that would be actually helpful for the players only,
making it harder to balance civs (so that UHV isn't too easy for the players and AI civs are not too weak).
After my post on the Egyptian Pagan URV, I thought some more about pagan temples and the interaction between paganism and major religions.
The current design feels unsatisfactory to me. When a major religion (except Judaism) spreads to a city with a pagan temple, the temple disappears automatically. If the city was building a pagan temple, construction gets halted. Since there is no way to prevent the spread or remove a major religion from a city in the early game, it basically means that a city can, outside of any control by the player, forever lose its pagan status and any benefits of a pagan temple. The player also loses any production invested in the construction of temples (whether completed or not). From a gameplay perspective, this waste of hammers is annoying. It also disincentives building these temples, especially when you know a religion is likely to spread soon (e.g. in early China). The fact that pagan temples can be repurposed into temples of the new religion is neat — but it requires previous conversion to that religion, and therefore at least one city with the religion, and therefore losing the pagan temple in that city if there is one.
I also don't think this mechanic very realistic. For instance, Christianity took about three centuries to replace polytheism in the Roman empire. During that time, there were Christian minorities in major cities, but the official Greco-Roman religion was still prevalent and there were still pagan temples all over the Roman world. In East Asia, the "pagan temples" (ancestor shrines, Shinto shrines, etc.) still coexist with Buddhism and Confucianism and Taoism.
My suggestion is thus that major religions do not destroy pagan temples at spread. Rather, I suggest that the following happens when the civ converts to a major religion:
Also, these rules would remove the need for a specific exception for Judaism (so, more elegance!).
In closing, I reiterate that I think pagan temples should have a priest slot.
The current design feels unsatisfactory to me. When a major religion (except Judaism) spreads to a city with a pagan temple, the temple disappears automatically. If the city was building a pagan temple, construction gets halted. Since there is no way to prevent the spread or remove a major religion from a city in the early game, it basically means that a city can, outside of any control by the player, forever lose its pagan status and any benefits of a pagan temple. The player also loses any production invested in the construction of temples (whether completed or not). From a gameplay perspective, this waste of hammers is annoying. It also disincentives building these temples, especially when you know a religion is likely to spread soon (e.g. in early China). The fact that pagan temples can be repurposed into temples of the new religion is neat — but it requires previous conversion to that religion, and therefore at least one city with the religion, and therefore losing the pagan temple in that city if there is one.
I also don't think this mechanic very realistic. For instance, Christianity took about three centuries to replace polytheism in the Roman empire. During that time, there were Christian minorities in major cities, but the official Greco-Roman religion was still prevalent and there were still pagan temples all over the Roman world. In East Asia, the "pagan temples" (ancestor shrines, Shinto shrines, etc.) still coexist with Buddhism and Confucianism and Taoism.
My suggestion is thus that major religions do not destroy pagan temples at spread. Rather, I suggest that the following happens when the civ converts to a major religion:
- Pagan temples in cities with the new religion get repurposed into temples of the new religion.
- If a city has both a new religion temple and a pagan temple, the pagan temple is destroyed.
- Pagan temples in cities without the religion are destroyed (abstractly, because of the loss of state support for the old pagan religion).
Also, these rules would remove the need for a specific exception for Judaism (so, more elegance!).
In closing, I reiterate that I think pagan temples should have a priest slot.
Imperator Knoedel
Simperator Knoedel
I'll just point out that in my modmod Pagan Temples do have a Priest slot and can coexist with all religions except Christianity, Islam, and the Secularism civic.
Zaddy
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2018
- Messages
- 341
I've found repeatedly that using Tributaries makes more sense economically than using Colonialism in colonial empires. The low maintenance and increased trade routes are pretty powerful. Colonialism is nice, but often provides less commerce overall with greater maintenance. I feel perhaps Colonialism could provide reduced maintenance cost from distance to Palace (from cities on different continents) instead of +1 commerce per colony?
FIRST FIRE
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2017
- Messages
- 17
How about decrease japan's resaerch modifier?Because it is too hard for finish japan's 3rd uhv.Maybe 100 is fine?
Last edited:
FIRST FIRE
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2017
- Messages
- 17
And there are some considers and suggestions that i feel they are interesting
1.Change Canada's Mounted Police to uu,but not ub.Because when you play as Canada,you always prefer to not declear war to other civs.So the ship uu is so useless(if america declear war to you ,it cant help you at all
).Mounted Police as a ub,will cost a lot of
.My suggestion is that the unit Mounted Police can offer
just like monarchy civic.
2.Australia's up(if possible):even you export you resources ,thay still can be counted into the company's resource number.
3.Vietnam's up(if possible)when you attck enemy in your core tile,they dont deserve any defent bounes.Vietnam's uu can be ulock with firesman,start with jungel I.
1.Change Canada's Mounted Police to uu,but not ub.Because when you play as Canada,you always prefer to not declear war to other civs.So the ship uu is so useless(if america declear war to you ,it cant help you at all
).Mounted Police as a ub,will cost a lot of.My suggestion is that the unit Mounted Police can offerjust like monarchy civic.2.Australia's up(if possible):even you export you resources ,thay still can be counted into the company's resource number.
3.Vietnam's up(if possible)when you attck enemy in your core tile,they dont deserve any defent bounes.Vietnam's uu can be ulock with firesman,start with jungel I.
Last edited:
GuitarDemon
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2014
- Messages
- 120
I suggest more tool tips for stability. Keep full on collapsing way more than I use to in previous versions. Using the latest 1.16 version currently.
Getting -5 unhappiness and unable to tell where it’s coming, building as many happiness buildings as possible doesn’t seem to help any.
Foreign relations I’m usually at -9 to -15 all the time despide gifting as many techs as possible and agreeing to all requests. Some request like “declare war on ____” and “stop trade with ____” seem counterintuitive since it will ruin relations with that other civ so not sure if denying these requests will affect my foreign relation stability. Maybe a tool tip under these requests would be nice to have. Deny request will result in -1 stability or something like this
Getting -5 unhappiness and unable to tell where it’s coming, building as many happiness buildings as possible doesn’t seem to help any.
Foreign relations I’m usually at -9 to -15 all the time despide gifting as many techs as possible and agreeing to all requests. Some request like “declare war on ____” and “stop trade with ____” seem counterintuitive since it will ruin relations with that other civ so not sure if denying these requests will affect my foreign relation stability. Maybe a tool tip under these requests would be nice to have. Deny request will result in -1 stability or something like this
Imperator Knoedel
Simperator Knoedel
Maybe Latin American civs shouldn't be called "Colony of X" if their master is also (Latin) American?
Ok, thanks!
GuitarDemon
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2014
- Messages
- 120
I feel like the Roman unique power is not working right in my game. I build in my capital but I don’t see the build rate go down in of my cities. Would be nice to see a blue highlight saying “30% faster because building exists in capital” or something to the effect. Sort of like what we have for certain civics (citizenship and redistribution)
Edit: using version 1.16
Edit: using version 1.16
Similar threads
