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. McMickeroo1

    McMickeroo1 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2015
    Messages:
    29
    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.
     
  2. Zaddy

    Zaddy Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2018
    Messages:
    181
    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?
     
    Krieger-FS and Leoreth like this.
  3. Force44

    Force44 Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2015
    Messages:
    569
    Location:
    The Low Countries
    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)
     
  4. KeeperOT7Keys

    KeeperOT7Keys did nothing wrong

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2013
    Messages:
    310
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mugla, Turkey
    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.
     
    borhap88 likes this.
  5. Hickman888

    Hickman888 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2019
    Messages:
    96
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    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 :health: 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 :food: on every tile that provides at least 2 :food:
    2. +25% :food: 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?
     
  6. bluepotato

    bluepotato Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2018
    Messages:
    189
    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).
     
    1SDAN and DarkLunaPhantom like this.
  7. Rodnok

    Rodnok Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Messages:
    305
    Location:
    Prague, Holy Roman Empire
    Is there any real reason to pursue Stability if you are not close to collapse or risking a respawn of another civilization? After playing a small civ, I've been actually thinking about it. I didn't have to consider various +2 -2 stability factors... didn't even know about all of them (I gotta print the list some day). Used outdated civics for some time.
    Maybe the commerce or culture could be a little higher with Solid/Stable stability (business likes it)?
     
  8. JDPElGrillo

    JDPElGrillo Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2015
    Messages:
    72
    I find that while there's no specific benefit from having a high overall stability rating, the value is in being able to trade off high stability in one category against a planned low stability in another. Common examples I see in my games are using +2 per vassal while running Tributary in order to support overexpansion or running outdated civics, or stacking bonuses from civic combinations to counter the penalty from foreign relations in lategame wars. Also, the economic modifier for growth/recession can be very finicky, especially if you use binary research, so having some buffer there is nice too.
     
    1SDAN and Rodnok like this.
  9. Leoreth

    Leoreth 心の怪盗団 Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    33,722
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Leblanc
    Note that high stability levels function as buffer once your stability worsens for some reason. Sometimes bad economy can quickly turn against you.
     
    1SDAN and Rodnok like this.
  10. Lord Ainsbirth

    Lord Ainsbirth Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2004
    Messages:
    59
    Location:
    Farallon del Cuervo
    Hello Leoreth, first of all, thanks a lot for your incredible work. It is a great game: I've been playing Civ from the Civ 2 m and I have to say that you mod is the only one I am actually playing. Thanks for all.

    As a suggestion, I would like to propose a couple of ideas:
    1) It's quite common to lose battles when you have +90% win (I'm losing battles with even 99%!!). I understand it's a problem of the 'IA' but is it possible to automatically retreat when losing a battle with a 90% win option? It would be less frustating...
    2) Stability: I've seen that collapse happens when stability is -12... is it possible to increase it?

    Once again, thanks a lot y un saludo!
     
    1SDAN and Leoreth like this.
  11. Leoreth

    Leoreth 心の怪盗団 Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    33,722
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Leblanc
    It's not a question of AI, that's just how probability works.

    What do you mean in point (2), increase what?
     
    1SDAN and need my speed like this.
  12. Rodnok

    Rodnok Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Messages:
    305
    Location:
    Prague, Holy Roman Empire
    If I am not mistaken, some modmod(s) around have something like that, but I do not like it. It means you can't lose your super-strong unit with GG attached. And that is bad for the game. With 90% win, he will lose 1 battle out of ten, on average. And die.
     
    1SDAN and Imp. Knoedel like this.
  13. Imp. Knoedel

    Imp. Knoedel Properly Paranoid Proletarian

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2011
    Messages:
    8,684
    Location:
    The cooler Germany
    Both my and 1SDAN's modmods have that feature.
     
    1SDAN likes this.
  14. Leoreth

    Leoreth 心の怪盗団 Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    33,722
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Leblanc
     
  15. 1SDAN

    1SDAN Brother Lady

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    Messages:
    2,556
    Unless you're outnumbered.
     
  16. Imp. Knoedel

    Imp. Knoedel Properly Paranoid Proletarian

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2011
    Messages:
    8,684
    Location:
    The cooler Germany
    The cost of using a Settler to rebuild "free" buildings in an already existing city should somewhat scale with the number of buildings it adds. I suggest two options:
    1. Using a Settler to rebuild costs a lump sum of money, scaling with the production cost and/or number of added buildings.
    2. Using a Settler to rebuild causes a revolt in the affected city ("Those darn immigrants are taking our jobs!!!111"), with the length of that revolt scaling with the production cost and/or number of added buildings.
     
  17. Leoreth

    Leoreth 心の怪盗団 Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    33,722
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Leblanc
    I considered this, but there is really no further benefit this adds compared to founding a new city on a free tile, so I don't think additional costs or restrictions are necessary.
     
    Crimean Lord, 1SDAN and Imp. Knoedel like this.
  18. LAF1994

    LAF1994 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2009
    Messages:
    38
    I've been trying the new map, and a problem is that Harrapa always pinches the Pyramids before Egypt can build it. I'd suggest making it so that the Pyramids and Great Sphinx require the Monarchy/Redistribution/Deification civic combo.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2020
  19. Steb

    Steb King

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    749
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Montréal
    While there is some discussion about how to display religious requirements for wonders in the Questions about wonders thread, I'd like to suggest/request an overhaul of these religious requirements.

    As it stands, most wonders in the early to mid game require a state religion. This, I believe, is intended to make the wonders appear in the areas they were actually built, and also provide coherence: if a wonder is a Christian church, it makes no sense to build it in a place where there are no Christians. There is also the advantage that civs belonging to different cultural spheres provide a different game experience.

    But there are unfortunate consequences:
    • Often, there is very little competition for wonders. We lose the classic feeling of needing to race the construction of a useful wonder to get its effects.
      • In the extreme case of this, some religions are restricted to very few civilizations: Zoroastrianism (Persia), Confucianism and Taoism (China and rarely Korea, and functionally identical for wonders), Hinduism (India, Tamils, rarely some SE Asian civs). This means that the wonders associated with these religions are almost like additional, guaranteed unique powers for these civilizations.
    • Religions are unequal in wonder availability, so sometimes you might be tempted to switch just to build more wonders (or a specific wonder that you want), even though it doesn't really make sense otherwise (because of diplomacy, religious unity, roleplaying, etc.).
    • Some wonders rarely get built because no civ is around with the appropriate religion (e.g., Zoroastrian wonders if Persia has collapsed, Bamiyan Buddhas if no Buddhist civ is in central Asia).
    • Some wonders require that a religion be present in the city, regardless of the state religion (Jewish wonders are like this). Some have a state religion requirement and a city religion requirement. It is often difficult to communicate this information, and it also feels arbitrary.
    • There are also coherence issues:
      • If you have a minority religion in a city, you can order the city to build temples, monasteries or cathedrals of that religion. But why not a wonder?
      • While some wonders are actual religious buildings, many are not. Why couldn't a non-Protestant civ create the Amsterdam Bourse?
      • In the late game, most wonders have no religious or regional requirements and we seem fine with this. We can say it is because the modern world is more globalized, but why the double standard?
      • Except for corn and rice, which are used for the regionalization of a few pagan wonders, no wonder has a resource requirement, even though some were clearly made of a particular resource (marble, stone, gold, etc.). Instead, the use of the resource is represented through construction speed bonuses. Why are religious requirements more stringent than resource requirements?
    All in all, I think the system has more drawbacks that advantages. However, I don't recommend getting rid of it altogether: seeing the wonders in the correct regions most of the time is important.

    What I think is this: we should remove all state religion requirements (some exceptions may apply, but I can't think of any), and replace them all with city religion requirements.

    Since religions spread in a broadly historical fashion, this would still ensure that wonders are built mostly in the correct regions. It would simplify the communication of religious requirements in the pedia. It would be more in line with the requirements for regular religious buildings. And it would allow e.g. Greece to build the Great Mausoleum when it captures a Zoroastrian city without converting (and losing its capacity to build pagan wonders).

    There is still some value in having a link between state religion and wonders. After all, it is more plausible for a polity to build a great tribute to Buddha or Christ when its government is Buddhist or Christian. So why not use the same system as for resources? Wonders that are actually religiously themed (temples, tombs, religious schools, religious monuments) could have a 25% or 50% speed construction bonus when you have the appropriate state religion (base costs would need to be adjusted to take this into account). Then there would still be an incentive to convert in some cases.

    I'm not sure what to do with pagan wonders. They could be available to all but have a speed bonus when you don't have a state religion, or become unavailable when you convert, as is the case now.
     
  20. TJDowling

    TJDowling King

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    638
    Here's a suggestion, not sure if it's feasible but would make the interface just a tad more user-friendly. So, when we are plotting a route for embarked units to take that combines sea and land it would be nice if the game would automatically suggest the fastest combined (sea and land) route for the land units.

    For example, right now I'm trying to send several units on cogs to Persia from the Western Mediterranean. I'm trying to think whether it would be best to send them all the way to Jerusalem by sea and then by land the rest of the way or whether it's best to disembark somewhere on the coast of North Africa as there are some spots of Roman Roads along the coast.

    If sea/land routes could be easily calculated for embarked units, that would be handy in solving this dilemma.
     
    Crimean Lord likes this.

Share This Page