Suggestions and Requests

Brainstorming about how to improve the Civilization Screen. I thought about how to simplify the hard to understand Trade, Production, Culture, Growth and Starting Situation information. Is it based on historical victories?, normal victories?, hidden modifiers?, terrain?, all of the above?
So how about just two 1-5 stars with Beginner Difficulty and Normal Difficulty.

The Beginner difficulty would be so new players will know which civilizations are easy, good to learn with and don't have to many surprises (England). It will also help them avoid the ones with lots of surprises (Arabs).
The Normal Difficulty would be just a general idea of how difficult a civilization is.
Both difficulties should be based on Monarch difficulty and normal speed. Beginner difficulty should take into account surprises (Seljuks), normal difficulty shouldn't.

You could just have one, call in difficulty and base it on beginner difficulty.
 
All of the above? My rankings aren't based on any objective criteria, it's mostly gut judgment, and as far as I can tell so are Rhye's.

Edit: thinking about it some more, I've never actually paid much attention to these categories when playing RFC and neither did I when developing DoC. They were mostly an afterthought and something that just had to be done when including a new civ. I agree that they are mostly meaningless and don't offer much help.

Maybe it's a good idea to rank the challenges or game play elements you can expect from a civilization? Like, expansion, military, culture, city development?
 
Hey Leoreth :)

I have a suggestion about the New World. I think that certain religions (mostly Catholicism and Protestantism) shouldn't get a priority spreading to the new world.

Here's whats happening in my game: I'm playing a game as France, attempting an Orthodox victory. I spread Orthodoxy to basically every civ and every city in Europe, so no Catholicism anywhere in mainland Europe. But Brazil, a Portuguese colony, ONLY has Catholicism. Not a single Orthodox city in Brazil until I spread Orthodoxy to a few cities myself.

As far as I know, it was the Portugese government and missionaries that spread Catholicism there in real life. Maybe cities in the New World should have the same religion as their master?
 
I'm aware of this problem, the current situation was just a temporary solution to the previous situation (no religions in the New World at all).

It'll be part of my religion overhaul.
 
Thanks :) And another suggestion, I don't know if its just me or:

The Colombian UHV is very hard for Regent/Normal, especially for a new player like me. The Colombian starting situation isn't the best, you are forced with Bogota and sometimes have the odd Incan city between Bogota and Tucume that is just terrible.

Guyana and sometimes Peru is easy to clean out by 1870. A declining Spanish empire helps out a lot. But Central America and the Caribbean is a different story; Getting enough naval and land units in your cities just seems to difficult by then.

I was hoping you could do some things to Colombia:
- Give more starting units, even if they don't spawn at war with another civ (5 Albion legions is too little)
- Let the Albion legions cross through rainforests. Less naval units needed for uniting Gran Colombia.
- Remove the Caribbean from the 1870 goal. It seems like too much IMO.

Thanks for reading!
 
Leoreth said:
For the Incans that is actually the case. Other than that I don't want to dimish the value of the Polynesian UP though.
Click to expand...

I have been thinking about this. An implementation would encourage historical expansion and deter unhistorical expansion but not forbidding it. It would also make it easier for colonized civs. In current game taking new land is as difficult as it is for the native/newborn civ.

As compensation Polynesia could get a new UP.
 
Okinawa should be turned into the Island feature now.

Islands should be added east of Greece. They should also be added between Sweden and Denmark.
 
Victory_Bear said:
Thanks :) And another suggestion, I don't know if its just me or:

The Colombian UHV is very hard for Regent/Normal, especially for a new player like me. The Colombian starting situation isn't the best, you are forced with Bogota and sometimes have the odd Incan city between Bogota and Tucume that is just terrible.

Guyana and sometimes Peru is easy to clean out by 1870. A declining Spanish empire helps out a lot. But Central America and the Caribbean is a different story; Getting enough naval and land units in your cities just seems to difficult by then.

I was hoping you could do some things to Colombia:
- Give more starting units, even if they don't spawn at war with another civ (5 Albion legions is too little)
- Let the Albion legions cross through rainforests. Less naval units needed for uniting Gran Colombia.
- Remove the Caribbean from the 1870 goal. It seems like too much IMO.

Thanks for reading!
Click to expand...
Have you tried them from the 1700 AD scenario?
 
Royal Tenenbaum said:
Islands should be added east of Greece.
Click to expand...

Yes. All sea tiles between greece, Anatolia and Crete should be only islands. The first greek civilisation was developped in these islands.
 
The Industrial and Modern era have the same soundtrack for everyone right now.
 
citis said:
Even better add them for all.
Click to expand...
Even better add lots of other things to the mod!

Oh right that's what I'm doing right now
 
I was trying to catch up with the posts, but it is a long read from the beginning, and since I don't play SVN, I'm not up to date with the developments.
Anyway, one thing I liked in Civ III were the colony improvements. Translating this to Civ IV, with some interpretation from Civ V's citadel, I'd suggest, that forts would have 3x3 territory around them (with prerequisite like being in a renaissance era?), when built on a unclaimed historical tile. These forts could also have a small chance of developing into proper cities in time (in Americas) or when flipping. For example: France builds a fort over Detroit tile in 1670. In 1770, random event triggers "settler increase" to the fort, allowing it to become a city - Fort Detroit. Alternately, no such event occurs and later on, American culture would consume the French fort leading to two possible outcomes: fort becomes regular fort improvement, or it runs a chance of becoming a city of Detroit. Also, if this fort improvement with culture tile hosts an unit, it could resist conversion to new culture until revolt (mutiny).
Now, this leads to possibility of creating a new civilization, for example - The Navajo, that would evolve to Native American tribes later on. It could start in Chaco Canyon 1400 AD. Navajo city population cap could be 1 (up until direct western contact). This civ could build cities only in core areas (up until a tech or era) like Sioux Falls to represent Sioux, New York (Manhattan) for Montauk, Quebec for Iroquois and so on. Navajo Scout units could create Tribal Camp improvements (consumed in process) to replace forts, that would create units like Mounted Braves occasionally.
When western civilization reaches a Native-American city for the first time, the specific city's level cap could be removed, it's population to increase to 2 (to allow conquest) instantly and plague could hit it as well. Western civ could then have 3 options:
1) Say hello - peace
2) Buy the contacted city - peace + lose amount of gold and gain a new city
3) Conquest - declare war and spawn, for example, 2 musketmen and 1 bombard for a fee.
This option should be available only once per western civilization.
Since on first contact the Natives would be in bronze age, it's most prominent UP could be like "Watch and learn": learn a tech, known by 2 contacted nations on successful city attack or maybe to use Navajo Scouts (UU) to steal technology on specific terms. Maybe even open borders could increase tech inflow up to industrial era?
As UHV goals I'd suggest:
1) Control xx% of territory in North America in 1500 AD - Emphasis on Native American Tribes.
2) Reach industrial era by 1900 - Actually anything tech related, cause it's a challenge.
3) Control 3 cities in Great Basin area in 1900 - This would be more Navajo specific.
When AI would be playing Navajo, I'd see it normally as a one-tile vassal of USA, named dynamically Navajo Nation :P

Just few thoughts :)
 
I like the idea of a fort that has a 3x3 culture area. ROM-AND does that. If I remember correctly, they balanced it by requiring your culture on or adjacent to a tile for a fort to be built there. Something similar could be done with culture/historical area here. They're good for controlling territory where you don't necessarily want a city.

I don't like the idea of a homogeneous "Native American" civ, which is what MinuteOfDecay's Navajo idea sounds like to me. It could work well to start with to get an idea for how to balance North American civs, but I think the goal should be to add a few distinct nations to the map, probably concentrated in the east of the continent. I think that has the most potential for both historical and game play elements. There are a lot of different ways that could be done though.
 
I already disliked the idea of a fort with 1x1 culture outside of city radius that we had for a while until recently.
 
Earlier I was thinking of how would a native-american civ work, and among other loosely developed ideas I thought that it would be nice if a native-american city could become a "reserve" upon conquest and/or cultural absorption. These reserves would perhaps generate no bonus for the US city that engulfed them (ie: no hammers, coins or bread), but removing them would generate unhappiness or some other malus. Reserves could also have some probability of generating enemy units and causing small raids/rebellions under particular civics and conditions.

Just some thoughts :)
 
I've been doing a bit of reading and research into ancient Mesopotamia, and came across some interesting references to the Indus Valley (or Harappan) Civilization, that was in frequent contact with Sumer, Akkad and Babylon and was in fact part of that extended trading network. Given their early collapse and lack of impact on world history, I don't expect or suggest adding a Harappan civilization. I do, however, wonder why we couldn't model that civ's early influence by adding an independent city-state somewhere in the northern stretches of the Indus River -- perhaps on the same tile that would later be the site of Lahore (or a different tile to the south and/or west). I envision it functioning much like Shush, in providing fodder for early conquest and expansion, as well as an obstacle for early trade and movement.

My other question relates to the in-game geography of the Indus River -- I'd never thought to ask, but is there a reason the lower stretches of the river are primarily marsh and/or desert? From what I'm reading, the region was actually quite comparable to the river valleys of the Tigris/Euphrates and the Nile, which are represented in-game with flood plains? Of course, the regional climate may (and no doubt has) changed between then and now, but I wonder if it's really changed so radically to be essentially uninhabitable.
 
Considering that the IVC was not an obstacle to but active participant in trade, and has never been conquered but collapsed because of an economic/ecological crisis, I don't think an independent city makes sense to represent them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Nikas Kunitz
Russia and Rus civilizations thread: suggestions and discussion.
Replies
7
Views
2K
Apple111111
A
Leoreth
New Map City Names Development Thread
2
Replies
27
Views
5K
Leoreth
Leoreth
L
A Proposal to improve Crete
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
SultanRedSnake
SultanRedSnake
Hickman888
The Phoenicia Thread
Replies
6
Views
1K
1SDANi
1SDANi
T
Religious Victory Thread
Replies
9
Views
1K
Si No Hay Paz
Si No Hay Paz
Back
Top Bottom