Suggestions and Requests

[Mxzs]

Publicola wrote this in the China UHV Guide, and I liked it enough that I wanted to make sure it got stuck in the official suggestions thread:

What are the religion spread-rates for [other religions] into China? During the Tang Dynasty, Chang'an was known as one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the world, with thriving Muslim and Christian (Nestorian, at least) communities, along with a hugely significant Buddhist population. These faiths spread largely thanks to the Silk Road -- would it be possible to tie religious spread to the Silk Road corporation, or to the same attraction criteria used by the Silk Road?

 

[Steb]

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:

• 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).

This creates an incentive to wait until a religion spreads across a civilization before converting to it. I think this would be an improvement in realism: it makes little sense that a large polytheistic civilization converts to Christianity immediately after that religion appears in a small city on the fringes of the empire. The unhappiness caused by the new religion before conversion still provides an incentive to convert eventually — you could offset it by building a church or pagoda, but then you'd lose the free repurposing when you do actually convert!

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.

 

[1SDANi]

Also, IIRC URVs like India's are impossible since there's a religion in 100% of their cities on the first turn.

 

[Imperator 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]

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]

How about decrease japan's resaerch modifier?Because it is too hard for finish japan's 3rd uhv.Maybe 100 is fine?

 

[FIRST FIRE]

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 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.

 

[GuitarDemon]

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

 

[Leoreth]

That's not really how the stability is calculated, so it's not possible to have tooltips for individual diplomatic actions like that.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Maybe Latin American civs shouldn't be called "Colony of X" if their master is also (Latin) American?

 

[mikke]

Hello! I just installed 1.16 and found out that 1.15 games saved can't load. Also when I start a new game in a 1.15 map created with worldbuilder i lose straight away. Is there anyting that can be done to fix these?

 

[Leoreth]

Hey, unfortunately different versions of the mod are not compatible with each other.

 

[mikke]

Hey, unfortunately different versions of the mod are not compatible with each other.

Ok, thanks!

 

[GuitarDemon]

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

 

[McMickeroo1]

Open borders as a tribute?

Pretty simple. Often times I don't want to go to war with somebody, but I have to in order to get through their territory to attack somebody else. When you have a big army it's simply easier to crush them underfoot. However, it would be more realistic if I was able to demand open borders as a tribute. You could even make it so it's only temporary--lasting for as long as the peace treaty. Or whatever else. Just sometimes playing as the UK I get tired of having to crush the Ottomans just so I can move my army back from crusading in the Middle East to Counter-counter-Reform against the Spanish.

 

[Zaddy]

In the 600 AD scenario, the Jetavanaramaya wonder is absent from the map. Presumably this is because there's no city placed in Sri Lanka. Perhaps having Anuradhapura built along with the wonder would be a good idea?

 

[Force44]

Could the oracle go obsolete?

Right now it gives a permanent handicap after its construction (city able to build one less wonder) compared to the wonders that do go obsolete.

Perhaps it could go obsolete with ethics (the arrival of christianity/orthodoxy in the mod)

And maybe another benefit could be added to the wonder for the duration on its nonobsolescency ( <- Sorry, I might just coined a new english word right there) eg +1 to relations for civs with the same religion (or civics)

 

[KeeperOT7Keys]

Open borders as a tribute?

Pretty simple. Often times I don't want to go to war with somebody, but I have to in order to get through their territory to attack somebody else. When you have a big army it's simply easier to crush them underfoot. However, it would be more realistic if I was able to demand open borders as a tribute. You could even make it so it's only temporary--lasting for as long as the peace treaty. Or whatever else. Just sometimes playing as the UK I get tired of having to crush the Ottomans just so I can move my army back from crusading in the Middle East to Counter-counter-Reform against the Spanish.

I think we need a capitulation option in the historical sense instead of just another type of vassalization. In the historical sense it should allow us to have a one-way open borders with a faction, which we can use their trade routes but not vice versa and the same regarding land passage.
At least this was the main type of exploitation between the independent but weak states and the europeans, e.g. ottomans could not tax the imports from the europeans and could not prosecute their merchants but reverse was not implied.

 

[Hickman888]

I recently played through a historical Rome game, and I have a couple of points of feedback.

First, I never felt the need to build the Aqua Appia (+2 in all cities), as all of my cities were plenty healthy. So I thought I'd brainstorm a few potential changes to the wonder, to make it more appealing to a Rome player, especially one going for a historical victory.

1. +1 on every tile that provides at least 2
2. +25% in the city in which it is built
3. Free aqueduct in every city

Second, in my game I allowed the Byzantine flip to occur, and I thought we would be able to tag-team it out these last few turns while I research the last of the technologies. Unfortunately, the Byzantines very quickly became annoyed with me, due to "-8: Our close borders spark tensions." Could some sort of diplomatic bonus be given to these two civilizations, so that they are at least pleased with each other?

 

[bluepotato]

I think we need a capitulation option in the historical sense instead of just another type of vassalization. In the historical sense it should allow us to have a one-way open borders with a faction, which we can use their trade routes but not vice versa and the same regarding land passage.
At least this was the main type of exploitation between the independent but weak states and the europeans, e.g. ottomans could not tax the imports from the europeans and could not prosecute their merchants but reverse was not implied.

I may be misunderstanding you but I think that's pretty much how vassalization works in base BtS. At least I believe you can enter your vassals' territory even without open borders (not sure about trade routes).