Suggestions and Requests

[Force44]

Suggestion regarding espionage.

There is a huge difference in cost of espionage points when performing different missions.
Perhaps it would be an idea to let a spy only perform n amount of espionage points towards a specific mission.

That way you need more spies for the more expensive (and generally more desirable) espionagemissions. This in turn would increase the amount of spies on the map that perform missions, thereby increasing the amount of espionage points garnered for generating a great spy. (The only great spies I have received sofar in the 1.16 versions are those given for free upon researching a specific tech, forgot its name , first)

 

[Hickman888]

I feel like I may go to my grave saying this but I'm just going to drop in and say: Civil wars should not result in an automatic game over. Civil wars should be civil wars...

And there should be three different types of civil war:

1. Rebellions/revolts: These would be relatively minor and would constitute a barbarian faction rising up in your land, like a revolt.

2. Separatism: A nation in your empire breaking off.

3. An actual civil war: Somewhere up to 50% of your cities would break off and become independent, leaving you to fight to restore order to your empire.

Also it should be much more random. Like sure having bad stability should make these events more likely, but there should always be a chance that even when your empire is going well you might face stability issues. Similarly maybe sometimes you'll go through a long period of instability and yet you'll just get lucky and not have any problems. That would feel less artificial than it currently is when you have the big negative number that essentially guarantees collapse.

And speaking of, here are some things that should lead to civil wars:

1. Hereditary rule civic. Based on my cursory knowledge of my own country's history I'm aware that it was not at all rare for succession to result in a civil war. Likewise, the same should be true for all countries running hereditary rule. Every 25 years there should be some risk of a civil war event. Because... that's what happened in real life.

2. Changing from the hereditary rule civic. Most monarchs don't go down without a fight and it's likely to take a revolution to overthrow them.

3. Changing any civic that adverse affects one area. So let's say... for example, you have one territory with loads of plantations, and then you move from a civic which prioritises plantations to a civic which prioritises workshops. Well... with that there should be a risk of this territory breaking away. And there could be loads of examples of this. Elective prioritises undeveloped land, so maybe if Russia ran elective because they had loads of unimproved land, you might expect to see St Petersburg break away because they've got lots of improved land which isn't reaping any benefits from civics.

4. Transition to a radical ideology like fascism or communism. This is pretty obvious. Again, there should be a chance that it could happen peacefully, but not a big chance.

5. Religious conversion. Changing religion should probably at least result in revolts and possibly even breaking away. In fact, I think that the process of using missionaries in your own territory could in some sense be replaced with this. So let's imagine that I'm playing as china say... and I decide I want to convert to Christianity. So I convert and then suddenly my name changes to Taiping Heavenly Kingdom and I'm left controlling a small portion of China while the rest of China breaks away as part of the Qing dynasty. I then have to fight to take control of all of China, and then upon winning this civil war, most of China then converts to Christianity and many traditional Chinese religions might even disappear.

6. Religious persecution. Ok so the religious persecutor is cool and all, but the best way to drive out a religion is with soldiers. So I would think that the religious persecutor should be much easier to build than they currently are, but then when they persecute a religion it doesn't simply get rid of them, but rather causes that religion to rise up as a rebellion and then the soldiers have to put down the rebellion, thus removing the religion. I think this would just be more realistic than having one guy who shows up and suddenly there's no more Catholics. Those Catholics would put up a fight.

7. Overexpansion. So right no overexpansion is the number one way that an empire seems to collapse. And frankly... I don't really get it. Because I can't think many empires that could be said to have collapsed because they were too big. Especially when we're talking about European colonialism. In fact I would say that revolts and separatism are a constant for all empires, and what determines the longevity of an empire is their ability to put down those revolts. Thus when an empire has collapsed it's been because their military capacity has been significantly reduced. Spain and Portugal collapsed because the Napoleonic wars made it impossible for them to fight the Latin American revolts. Britain, France, and the Netherlands collapsed because World War Two made it impossible for them to put down revolts. And based on the fact that this is how it happened historically... this should be how it is in real life. If you are Britain and you control all of India... ok... maybe you have some negative stability. That should really just mean that you have revolts to fight and occasionally cities break away. So you need an army that's big enough to capture a few cities and meet weak revolting units out in the field. If you suddenly get pulled into a total war with Germany that reduces your military and industrial capacities going forward, then you would find that you're no longer as able to put down these revolts. And maybe the revolts last a little longer because you can't put them down. And eventually you haven't put down one revolt before another revolt starts. Until eventually you get the prompt saying that your army can no longer keep order in India, and the people are demanding independence, and you would at that point most likely agree to make India independent in exchange for future good relations with them.

I think these changes would substantially improve not just the historical accuracy of the mod, but also the fun of playing the mod. It would be much more fun to have to manage an empire with revolts happening everywhere and having to prioritise how many units you can sacrifice putting down revolts halfway around the world, than it is currently to basically just say, "Whoops my magic stability number went too low... I guess I'm just going to die now."

In my opinion, I think Dawn of Civilization is just too "big picture" to accommodate the amount of rebellions you are suggesting. For example, the average player plays on normal speed, and, if he were to run hereditary rule in your suggestion, this would equate to a rebellion every couple of turns. I already have an aversion to running slavery due to the "slave revolt" event that can occur, and this suggestion would essentially insure that nobody would ever run hereditary rule. I think the turns of anarchy that a civic change causes already does a decent job at showcasing instability within a civilization.

I also don't agree that introducing RNG into empire stability is a good/fun idea... Why should a player, who is doing everything "right" in order to keep his stability in check, be hit with a random rebellion event that could cost him the game? RNG is already controversial enough in Civ 4 without it splitting your empire in two.

I don't want to come across as only disagreeing with you, because I think you also made some good points:

Yes, a flat out collapse due to low stability kinda sucks... It might be necessary for some of the early civilizations to collapse, in order to insure the flow of history that this mod tries to capture (Greece should probably completely collapse, so that Byzantium can take over, for example), but maybe at a certain point in the Medieval/Renaissance eras, a "collapse" can instead lead to a civil war, like you suggested. Currently, several AI civilizations, such as China or Russia, can "go through a period of instability" where all cities outside of their core turn independent. But your idea, of certain cities which benefit from certain civics revolting due to a civic change, is an interesting one. Maybe Spain's colonies began to revolt because Spain switched away from "Colonialism"? It's an interesting idea to explore, for sure. But again, in my opinion, I think something like that should only occur if your empire is already unstable.

 

[jorissimo]

Suggestion for Portugal 3d UHV
I feel like "build 15 colonies" leads to cheesy tactics, and I tend to end up just spamming a bunch of crappy cities in the interior of Africa around the deadline. At the same time, there is no incentive to colonize Brazil and actually develop it, save for the mouth of the Amazon where the spices are, and maybe São Paulo for the coffee. This leads to the ahistorical situation where Brazil is almost empty and underdeveloped around 1700. The first two goals are about Africa and the East, and I think there should be a goal related to the West, e.g. Brazil, as well. The third UHV goal could then be:

Pluricentric empire: control Brazil in 1700, build a palace in Rio by 1808 (this really happened) and prevent the Brazilian spawn in 1822 (meaning being stable around that time, if I understand correctly).

 

[jorissimo]

On a related note regarding the Dutch UHV: settling great merchants in the mid to late game is the most counter-productive thing imaginable. I would change this goal to "experience 16 turns of golden age by [insert merchant deadline]".

 

[Krieger-FS]

Suggestion for Portugal 3d UHV
I feel like "build 15 colonies" leads to cheesy tactics, and I tend to end up just spamming a bunch of crappy cities in the interior of Africa around the deadline. At the same time, there is no incentive to colonize Brazil and actually develop it, save for the mouth of the Amazon where the spices are, and maybe São Paulo for the coffee. This leads to the ahistorical situation where Brazil is almost empty and underdeveloped around 1700. The first two goals are about Africa and the East, and I think there should be a goal related to the West, e.g. Brazil, as well. The third UHV goal could then be:

Pluricentric empire: control Brazil in 1700, build a palace in Rio by 1808 (this really happened) and prevent the Brazilian spawn in 1822 (meaning being stable around that time, if I understand correctly).

I agree that this Portuguese UHV have this issue, perhaps the required number of colonies is just too excessive in the current map. The Portuguese Empire was a thalassocracy more concerned with trade and thus, in reality, did not really developed the inland areas of their colonies. In the particular case of Brazil, the Portuguese Crown was at that time more concerned in controling all the coastal areas between the Plate and Amazon mounths, creating an continuous colony with more defensible borders.

This brings the question of your proposed third UHV. I don't think that is ahistorical the situation that Brazil is almost underveloped around 1700. Truth be told, the colony was really underveloped by then with exception of few coastal areas in the northeast (particularly in Bahia and Pernambuco, where you had the colonial capital and economic center with sugar cane plantations) and near Rio de Janeiro. Just for the sake of an exemple, around 1600 São Paulo was the most inland Portuguese settlement in Brazil, and it is located only 70 km from the coast. The advance to inland areas only really started by early 18th century with the gold rush in present-day Minas Gerais state, which nevertheless is in our current map very close from the coastal areas. The most inland areas of Brazil were only claimed by mid-late 18th century and these claims were forwarded only with the construction of few forts and small towns in remote lands. Even today many of these areas are still underveloped and sparsely inhabited.

Thus, if we change the current 3rd Portugal UHV, I think the goal should still be the founding of colonies (but a smaller number or extending the goal date to 1800) but with an additional requirement of having a certain number of slave plantations. This would represent well the Portuguese involvement in transatlantic slave trade and is also argably focused in the Americas.

Nonetheless, I think that any drastic changes in Portugal UHVs - and to other civs - should be delayed until we have the new map implemented.

 

[jorissimo]

I agree that this Portuguese UHV have this issue, perhaps the required number of colonies is just too excessive in the current map. The Portuguese Empire was a thalassocracy more concerned with trade and thus, in reality, did not really developed the inland areas of their colonies. In the particular case of Brazil, the Portuguese Crown was at that time more concerned in controling all the coastal areas between the Plate and Amazon mounths, creating an continuous colony with more defensible borders.

This brings the question of your proposed third UHV. I don't think that is ahistorical the situation that Brazil is almost underveloped around 1700. Truth be told, the colony was really underveloped by then with exception of few coastal areas in the northeast (particularly in Bahia and Pernambuco, where you had the colonial capital and economic center with sugar cane plantations) and near Rio de Janeiro. Just for the sake of an exemple, around 1600 São Paulo was the most inland Portuguese settlement in Brazil, and it is located only 70 km from the coast. The advance to inland areas only really started by early 18th century with the gold rush in present-day Minas Gerais state, which nevertheless is in our current map very close from the coastal areas. The most inland areas of Brazil were only claimed by mid-late 18th century and these claims were forwarded only with the construction of few forts and small towns in remote lands. Even today many of these areas are still underveloped and sparsely inhabited.

Thus, if we change the current 3rd Portugal UHV, I think the goal should still be the founding of colonies (but a smaller number or extending the goal date to 1800) but with an additional requirement of having a certain number of slave plantations. This would represent well the Portuguese involvement in transatlantic slave trade and is also argably focused in the Americas.

Nonetheless, I think that any drastic changes in Portugal UHVs - and to other civs - should be delayed until we have the new map implemented.

You're right about the underdevelopment of the interior of Brazil until later. However, in RFC logic "control" just means having more cities in a given area than any other civ. This necessarily means controlling the coastal areas to prevent other civs from penetrating further inland. Right now the UHV doesn't require this with the result that the player really only needs to control the north and perhaps spam some random cities in the south as an afterthought just to get the UHV. The first Portuguese settlement in Brazil was São Vicente near São Paulo, founded in 1532, while Rio was founded in 1565, much earlier than the late 1600s when the player will realistically found them. Africa will be much more developed than Brazil by this time and so it's much easier to just spam more cities there rather than in Brazil. This in itself is pretty much a reversal of history.

That said, another major goal of real life Portugal in the late 19th century was to connect its colonies of Angola and Moçambique through an overland connection, the famous pink map, a proposal shot down by the British which created a major political crisis in Portugal eventually leading the fall of the monarchy in 1910. So, another hypothetical UHV goal could be to connect these two colonies through an overland culture connection by 1900 (being prohibited to connect them coastally via South Africa). That way, in combination with the TC resource condition, you would have a much more historical trajectory for Portugal: a focus on trade and resources in the 1500s, followed by a focus on Brazil in the 1600s-early 1800s and then a focus on Africa in the late 1800s.

 

[Leoreth]

Hmm, how about we change the x colonies goal to controlling some number of coast tiles? Brazil and Africa are still enticing open coast areas to found colonies at and cover them, especially because they are historical. The resource goal steers you more to Asia. I don't think it's that much of a problem that it's just small cities, none of the historical Portuguese forts and trading posts were all that large in this time period. It's more of a problem when you go and found random cities in the hinterlands, that feels ahistorical.

 

[Visard]

Some suggestions about improvements:

Roads:
Ancient cities shouldn't get road by default, for example the historical Harappan cities didn't have any roads.
Cities should only get default road in classical era, (or after discovery of wheel, if that is too late).
Workers can build roads on city tiles.
Also railroads on cities shouldn't be free, they can replace roads when you build railway station, or use worker.
Building a Highway on city should give one +.

Ruins:
I don't think all cities should give ruins, they should have enough culture and size for that.
So when ancient city of size 1 with 0 culture is razed, it shouldn't leave anything behind.
Also in late game razed cities should became cottages/hamlets/villages instead of ruins, depending on the culture and size.
Ruins can provide a by default, and +2 with hotel.
Clearing ruins should take 1 of turn, but could provide small amount of hammers (maybe 5), wonders could increase this.

Forts:
Forts could give a by default and another with railroad.
You culture should automatically spread there if it is next to your border, even if it is on fourth ring.

 

[Tratatushki]

I apologize in advance for bad English.
This is google translate
Perhaps I will repeat myself.
1) England.
Add a Viking attack trigger and destroy or become a Viking vassal (Danelaw).
High chance of rebirth (like the Chinese), in case of destruction by the Vikings.
The first UHV move until 1800 AD.
2) Turkey.
For Janissaries, only gunpowder is needed.
Change the starting stack: fewer crossbowmen and lancers, more Janissaries.
Automatic construction of the Kaaba by the Arab AI (in all games, like a ortodox&catolic shrines in 600 AD scenario).
Byzantine AI is more likely to build 3+ wonders in Constantinople.
Turkish AI is more aggressive towards Russia and Poland (control of the Black Sea).
3) Russia
Change starting spot to Kiev or Novgorod?
In the 9th century AD resp barbaric Kazan, Astrakhan, Sevastopol (Kefe or Bakhchisaray) appeared, where the stacks of horse archers would appear. In the future, these cities will be captured by the Mongols and Turks.
An earlier opportunity to build the St. Basil cathedral (firearms, heritage mb?) And changing its properties.
Now this is a very mediocre wonder (mb minus maitentence in every city?).
Add to UP the opportunity to build cities in the tundra and in the marsh?
4) Japan.
Samurai is a useless unit. At a time when it is relevant, Japan accumulates culture and does not fight.
MB change the first UHV? Make neutral Edo and Nagasaki\Kagoshima. The first UHV will be to control the entire territory of Japan + build a Himeji castle + have an army of 20-30 samurai.

 

[Crimean Lord]

I apologize in advance for bad English.
This is google translate
Perhaps I will repeat myself.
1) England.
Add a Viking attack trigger and destroy or become a Viking vassal (Danelaw).
High chance of rebirth (like the Chinese), in case of destruction by the Vikings.
The first UHV move until 1800 AD.
2) Turkey.
For Janissaries, only gunpowder is needed.
Change the starting stack: fewer crossbowmen and lancers, more Janissaries.
Automatic construction of the Kaaba by the Arab AI (in all games, like a ortodox&catolic shrines in 600 AD scenario).
Byzantine AI is more likely to build 3+ wonders in Constantinople.
Turkish AI is more aggressive towards Russia and Poland (control of the Black Sea).
3) Russia
Change starting spot to Kiev or Novgorod?
In the 9th century AD resp barbaric Kazan, Astrakhan, Sevastopol (Kefe or Bakhchisaray) appeared, where the stacks of horse archers would appear. In the future, these cities will be captured by the Mongols and Turks.
An earlier opportunity to build the St. Basil cathedral (firearms, heritage mb?) And changing its properties.
Now this is a very mediocre wonder (mb minus maitentence in every city?).
Add to UP the opportunity to build cities in the tundra and in the marsh?
4) Japan.
Samurai is a useless unit. At a time when it is relevant, Japan accumulates culture and does not fight.
MB change the first UHV? Make neutral Edo and Nagasaki\Kagoshima. The first UHV will be to control the entire territory of Japan + build a Himeji castle + have an army of 20-30 samurai.

Really LIKE pro-Japanese suggestions
P.S. About Russia... You can use mod-mod Сivilizations Reborn by @1SDAN (https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/civilizations-reborn.650169/)
There are early Rus and also late Moscovia (+ even Khazar's as Civ)

 

[Hickman888]

4) Japan.
Samurai is a useless unit. At a time when it is relevant, Japan accumulates culture and does not fight.
MB change the first UHV? Make neutral Edo and Nagasaki\Kagoshima. The first UHV will be to control the entire territory of Japan + build a Himeji castle + have an army of 20-30 samurai.

In my opinion, I don't think it is necessary to change Japan's first historical goal. It is a bit mundane, yes, but it serves an important purpose: It prevents the player from expanding onto the mainland too quickly, and forces him/her to use the culture slider, meaning Japan is behind the technological curve and holding a minimum number of cities, which creates a challenge for the second goal.

I agree with you that the samurai is a bit useless, which is unfortunate because I believe his purpose in having the leadership promotion (+100% experience) is to level up quickly to thus bring in more culture for the Himeji Castle (+1 for each promotion of a fortified unit). But Japan must also keep from owning too many cities, to keep their culture goal attainable.

I think that if Japan only started with one settler, and Edo/Kagoshima spawned in as independent cities, it would give the player a chance to throw his/her samurai into action, giving them a chance to level up, and thus actually be able to use their leadership promotion to help bring in more . Maybe independent Edo would have the copper resource within its borders, forcing the player to capture the city if he/she wanted to speed up the construction of the Himeji Castle (which is a must, anyways).

 

[Leoreth]

Does everyone know that Japanese history did not start in the Sengoku period?

 

[1SDANi]

Does everyone know that Japanese history did not start in the Sengoku period?

I blame Dynasty Warriors.

 

[Hickman888]

Does everyone know that Japanese history did not start in the Sengoku period?

My Japanese history is a bit patchy.

 

[Leoreth]

Here is everything you need to know

 

[Force44]

In defence of the suggestion to use Samurai and cats to accumulate additional experience to, in conjunction with the Himeji Castle great wonder, help reach the first UHV-goal (n number of culture in each city) for Japan sooner/easier.

Perhaps upgrading to any unit with the leadership promotion (by paying gold) should enable the to be upgraded unit to retain all (in stead of some) of its xp. That way some barbarian and/or native and/or independent units in Japan could help achieve thier first UHV-goal a tiny little bit sooner.

Some barbarian/native/independent spawns would also have to be scripted on the Island though. (this would help accumululate xp and thereby culture by itself already, which coincidentally seems to me to be the core of his suggestion)

 

[Tratatushki]

Does everyone know that Japanese history did not start in the Sengoku period?

Japan starts in the 6-7th century AD. This corresponds to the Yamato period (Kofun, Asuka).
At this time, there is an active expansion, including by military methods. Plus the conflict between Shinto and Buddhists, plus destroy ainu, plus invasion in Korea.
Those at that time there was a significant amount of internal conflict.

Now the first UHV is spending 4+ great artists.
The whole game for Japan from the 6th to the 16th century is micro-management. No active actions, no wars, only the rebuilding of cities and the accumulation of culture. This is quite boring.

Personally, I would like to see a civil war or active exploration (this would have varied the gameplay for Japan). In addition, the great people spent on culture greatly slow down technological development. And even UP does not save, because China is always ahead (over the past 10 games, there has not been a single one wherever China is reborn).

 

[Hickman888]

Here is everything you need to know

That's hilarious

Personally, I would like to see a civil war or active exploration (this would have varied the gameplay for Japan). In addition, the great people spent on culture greatly slow down technological development. And even UP does not save, because China is always ahead (over the past 10 games, there has not been a single one wherever China is reborn).

If you are looking for a way go get the first goal done without using artists, I would recommend adopting Conquest and training up as many soldiers as Vassalage allows before incurring gold maintenance. And then build theaters/walls/castles in your 3 cities and turning up the culture slider very high. I've completed the culture goal without running artists at all, and instead running scientists. I'd also recommend waiting till the industrial before beginning your military expansions, because Japan gets a tech bonus for keeping a small empire size, which helps them to race through the tech tree.

 

[Tab911]

Requesting a scripted 2020 plague event for the newest version.

 

[Leoreth]

The game ends that year for a reason.