Suggestions and Requests
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
Mosguito
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2020
- Messages
- 11
It's for programming or gaming reason? Just asking.
ThreeBlackSevens
Warlord
Were rebasing rules changed in either RFC or DOC? It seems to be the case that you have to have a defensive pact as well instead of just open borders to rebase to another civ's territory, which makes sense, but it is a little odd that you can't rebase to a vassal of a civ you have a defensive pact with, even with friendly relations, open borders, and having had a defensive pact just a few turns previously. If that is the change and I'm not just forgetting how regular civ 4 works, I'd suggest that you should be able to rebase to a vassal of a civ you have a defensive pact with, provided you have open borders with the vassal. 
1SDANi
The Fading Memory
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2014
- Messages
- 3,059
What about a defensive pact with a nation's superior state aka you have a defensive pact with X whose vassal is Y, can you rebase to a city owned by Y?
I'd like to suggest a change for Multilateralism/Defensive Pacts:
As we all know, late game is often riddled with constant warfare on a global scale due to how Defensive Pacts tend to construct a very complex web. The downside to this is the huge amount of negative stability you gain from running Multilateralism and being dragged in to those huge wars through Defensive Pacts. The AI especially struggles with this, as it wants to both sign a lot of Defensive Pacts and run Multilateralism. I honestly see a couple of options here: Either change Multilateralism's bonus in a way that it no longer requires you to sign Defensive Pacts in order to gain the full value of the civic or just change how Defensive Pacts work later on in the game (or both!).
My first suggestions is that instead of a Defensive Pact giving the 100% income bonus, the bonus in Multilateralism would be tied to having Friendly relations with another civilization. I feel this would still be in line with Multilateralism representing a goverment willing to co-operate with other nations while not requiring you to sign those Defensive Pacts. It would also promote a "peaceful, non warring and welfare civilization" -type of play. Imo you can easily be a Multilateral country even if you don't agree to go full on war every single time any nation happens to calls for it.
And as I mentioned, my other proposal is in regard to how Defensive Pacts work. The current way Defensive Pacts work if I understand correctly, is a left over from original RFC. I do like how RFC/DOC -style Defensive Pacts work for the WW1/WW2 era, and I think they help a lot in creating those global scale wars. And don't get me wrong, I DO ENJOY having a WW1 and WW2, but once time moves on and the game is "past that point", I feel something should change so as to prevent a full on global world war beginning again and again every few turns until the end of time. Perhaps the construction of the United Nations or some bill passed in it could change how Defensive Pacts work from that point on for ex. returning the Defensive Pact rules to vanilla BtS rules or something of the sorts?
As we all know, late game is often riddled with constant warfare on a global scale due to how Defensive Pacts tend to construct a very complex web. The downside to this is the huge amount of negative stability you gain from running Multilateralism and being dragged in to those huge wars through Defensive Pacts. The AI especially struggles with this, as it wants to both sign a lot of Defensive Pacts and run Multilateralism. I honestly see a couple of options here: Either change Multilateralism's bonus in a way that it no longer requires you to sign Defensive Pacts in order to gain the full value of the civic or just change how Defensive Pacts work later on in the game (or both!).
My first suggestions is that instead of a Defensive Pact giving the 100% income bonus, the bonus in Multilateralism would be tied to having Friendly relations with another civilization. I feel this would still be in line with Multilateralism representing a goverment willing to co-operate with other nations while not requiring you to sign those Defensive Pacts. It would also promote a "peaceful, non warring and welfare civilization" -type of play. Imo you can easily be a Multilateral country even if you don't agree to go full on war every single time any nation happens to calls for it.
And as I mentioned, my other proposal is in regard to how Defensive Pacts work. The current way Defensive Pacts work if I understand correctly, is a left over from original RFC. I do like how RFC/DOC -style Defensive Pacts work for the WW1/WW2 era, and I think they help a lot in creating those global scale wars. And don't get me wrong, I DO ENJOY having a WW1 and WW2, but once time moves on and the game is "past that point", I feel something should change so as to prevent a full on global world war beginning again and again every few turns until the end of time. Perhaps the construction of the United Nations or some bill passed in it could change how Defensive Pacts work from that point on for ex. returning the Defensive Pact rules to vanilla BtS rules or something of the sorts?
FraggleJock
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2017
- Messages
- 134
It would be nice if La Mezquita had a No Desert tile in BFC cross requirement. so the Moors don't get a game over 6 turns in when the Arabs build it.
I think the real problem is the AI's poor threat assessment when it comes to potential enemies who are in Defensive Pacts. The AI doesn't seem to take into account that they will suddenly be at war with eight other civs by declaring war on one civ (and, conversely, doesn't seem to take into account their own allies, either). If AIs were less inclined to declare war on civs that had multiple Defensive Pact partners, with the chances dropping further the more Defensive Pacts they had (ideally scaling based on strength of the partners), it might mitigate some of the enormous wars and more accurately reflect the Cold War era where out-and-out warfare became much less frequent because the two blocs were just too big and threatening to each other for warfare to be practical (maybe a little less reflective of the modern era but of course warfare has dropped even further from the Cold War until now).
I think instability from bad relations should also ignore civs you are at war with, and Multilateralism should likewise not have a stability penalty for being at war with someone who your Defensive Pact partners are also at war with (i.e., you want to be Multilateral with your partners, so be at war with the same civs and at peace with the same civs).
caketastydelish
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2008
- Messages
- 9,710
I would recommend making "barbarian" civs playable. Primarily meaning civs that don't start off with settlers or cities but an army. an example being the huns. Or maybe play as native Americans with the goal of preventing Americans and Europeans from taking the content and wiping you out. Both the Huns and native American tribes, as examples had formal diplomatic relations with other countries/empires so this is legitimate to make them civs in their own right.
Last edited:
Dracosolon
Emperor
Revisiting ideas mentioned in old threads, just fun thought experiments:
French UP - Power of Revolutions:
-Temporary additional drafting available after adopting new* Civics.
-*As in, never adopted before and not available at the beginning of the game.
-Cumulative with regular drafting (like from Nationhood).
-Maybe lessened anarchy (as in shorter and with less impact on stability)?
I'd seen discussions of something similar before but centered on the specific French Revolution, but that's a bit too unique for a UP. I think it can easily be extended to the numerous political troubles that characterized French history before and after.
French UHV2 - [insert name here]:
-Control or vassalize 40% of Europe and North America in 1810 AD and 40% of Africa, South Asia* and Polynesia in 1935.
-*Including South East Asia.
-Not sure on the name.
-The 40% is an exageration, especially in South Asia where you'll have to get both Indochina and a bigger part of India than the real life French enclaves, and makes it the partially ahistorical goal.
-Not sure on the name, something to do with both eras would be best. Maybe just a pithy Napoleon quote or something.
Mostly just to give the player more opportunities to use the aforementioned UP, and to make the 19th century slightly more interesting, since you just have to beeline for the Eiffel Tower and the Metropolitain otherwise.
National Wonder - Schismatic Shrine:
-Must be built by Great Prophet, requires that you do not control (at construction) your State Religion's Holy City.
-Provides Shrine income from your and your vassals' cities with your State Religion.
-Should probably not stack with regular HC Shrine income if you do acquire it later, you just get HC income then.
-Maybe mild diplomatic malus from other civs with the same religion?
The idea comes from the discussion over Shia Islam and the idea that it's not worth implementing as a full-fledged religion, but the logic is extended to other religions where Civs developped variants of their own - Church of England, maybe Buddhist schools?
French UP - Power of Revolutions:
-Temporary additional drafting available after adopting new* Civics.
-*As in, never adopted before and not available at the beginning of the game.
-Cumulative with regular drafting (like from Nationhood).
-Maybe lessened anarchy (as in shorter and with less impact on stability)?
I'd seen discussions of something similar before but centered on the specific French Revolution, but that's a bit too unique for a UP. I think it can easily be extended to the numerous political troubles that characterized French history before and after.
French UHV2 - [insert name here]:
-Control or vassalize 40% of Europe and North America in 1810 AD and 40% of Africa, South Asia* and Polynesia in 1935.
-*Including South East Asia.
-Not sure on the name.
-The 40% is an exageration, especially in South Asia where you'll have to get both Indochina and a bigger part of India than the real life French enclaves, and makes it the partially ahistorical goal.
-Not sure on the name, something to do with both eras would be best. Maybe just a pithy Napoleon quote or something.
Mostly just to give the player more opportunities to use the aforementioned UP, and to make the 19th century slightly more interesting, since you just have to beeline for the Eiffel Tower and the Metropolitain otherwise.
National Wonder - Schismatic Shrine:
-Must be built by Great Prophet, requires that you do not control (at construction) your State Religion's Holy City.
-Provides Shrine income from your and your vassals' cities with your State Religion.
-Should probably not stack with regular HC Shrine income if you do acquire it later, you just get HC income then.
-Maybe mild diplomatic malus from other civs with the same religion?
The idea comes from the discussion over Shia Islam and the idea that it's not worth implementing as a full-fledged religion, but the logic is extended to other religions where Civs developped variants of their own - Church of England, maybe Buddhist schools?
Last edited:
Genghis Khaiser
King
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2012
- Messages
- 763
Actually that French UP you propose would fit greatly for Mexico.
France's diplomacy bonus fits it overall although it could have a little improvement, and that would only represent the 19th and 20th centuries out of its roughly 1500 years of history, while Mexico's first 100 years or more as an independent country consisted of constant revolts and foreign invasions.
France's diplomacy bonus fits it overall although it could have a little improvement, and that would only represent the 19th and 20th centuries out of its roughly 1500 years of history, while Mexico's first 100 years or more as an independent country consisted of constant revolts and foreign invasions.
Darnokthemage
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2017
- Messages
- 138
There should be a way to secure defense organizations, or even Vassalisations with less powerful civs as a superpower. Look at what China is doing in Africa today, or America has been doing for the last 70 years. Things like the Marshall plan, or constructing infrastructure in other civs.
Is there any chance of having something akin to a humanitarian victory that similarly has a set of three victory goal like URVs and UHVs? I'd like to see something centered around:
-Promoting world peace (Stopping wars via diplomacy/United Nations/Maintaining world peace for a set number of turns)
-Advancing technology, science and culture around the world (Gifting techs/Gold/Resources/whatever to poorer civilizations or making sure no civilization in the world is behind in Eras. Ensuring civilizations get and maintain control of cities in their Core Areas)
-Preventing global warming (Building and promoting clean energy. This could even be spiced up by having new UN resolutions introduced such as banning coal plants and limiting or banning logging of rain forests or jungles. Building and having a set number of forest preserves and National parks in the world) <-- The Global warming thing is especially one of my favorite things to look into: In Vanilla game it was just a nuisance and something you wish wouldn't even exist in the game but with some tweaking I feel we could get something cool out of it! I feel it has potential for so much more.
-Advocating for democratic civics (through UN or diplomacy having every or some set number of civilization run the last tier civics: Democracy, Constitution, Egalitarianism, Public Welfare, Secularism, Multilateralism. Maybe running Multilateralism could even be the trigger for unlocking the objective goals?)
-Promoting world peace (Stopping wars via diplomacy/United Nations/Maintaining world peace for a set number of turns)
-Advancing technology, science and culture around the world (Gifting techs/Gold/Resources/whatever to poorer civilizations or making sure no civilization in the world is behind in Eras. Ensuring civilizations get and maintain control of cities in their Core Areas)
-Preventing global warming (Building and promoting clean energy. This could even be spiced up by having new UN resolutions introduced such as banning coal plants and limiting or banning logging of rain forests or jungles. Building and having a set number of forest preserves and National parks in the world) <-- The Global warming thing is especially one of my favorite things to look into: In Vanilla game it was just a nuisance and something you wish wouldn't even exist in the game but with some tweaking I feel we could get something cool out of it! I feel it has potential for so much more.
-Advocating for democratic civics (through UN or diplomacy having every or some set number of civilization run the last tier civics: Democracy, Constitution, Egalitarianism, Public Welfare, Secularism, Multilateralism. Maybe running Multilateralism could even be the trigger for unlocking the objective goals?)
Publicola
King
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2014
- Messages
- 759
This might be an alternative to the Diplomacy Victory, to treat it like a URV with two baseline victory conditions and one that changes depending on your government civic?
Gritzeldrei
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2020
- Messages
- 152
Maybe instead of calling it a Humanitarian Victory, how about calling it "Ideology Victory" or "Geopolitical Victory"?
Dracosolon
Emperor
The idea was discussed in this old thread (and probably elsewhere too): https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/ideologies-and-unique-ideological-victories.567460/
I think the idea has merit though that could implemented into a wider overhaul of ideologies beyond just dynamic names.
There's also the issue that it's a bit hard to think of unique goals that would be:
1) sufficiently differentiated from each other, from other victory types and from UHVs,
2) with the right difficulty (we're presumably talking about 20th century ideologies, and at this point in the game the player can be in very, very different situations),
3) not too controversial (good luck with fascism's goals in particular) and
4) capable of being represented in the game ("dictatorship of the proletariat" is too abstract for the kind of scale Civ operates at, but quick mass industrialisation could be a decent communist goal, etc).
One shared goal between all ideologies could simply be spreading it (encouraging diplomacy and espionage), with a percentage of all civs sharing the right civics, a good place on the scoreboard (especially economically) and maybe some additional things like defensive pacts. Though that already echoes America's UHV a little bit.
I'm not sure if more "humanitarian" goals like happiness or fighting global warming should be implemented within that framework, rather than being a wholly different victory type. Feels like that would look biased.
I think the idea has merit though that could implemented into a wider overhaul of ideologies beyond just dynamic names.
There's also the issue that it's a bit hard to think of unique goals that would be:
1) sufficiently differentiated from each other, from other victory types and from UHVs,
2) with the right difficulty (we're presumably talking about 20th century ideologies, and at this point in the game the player can be in very, very different situations),
3) not too controversial (good luck with fascism's goals in particular) and
4) capable of being represented in the game ("dictatorship of the proletariat" is too abstract for the kind of scale Civ operates at, but quick mass industrialisation could be a decent communist goal, etc).
One shared goal between all ideologies could simply be spreading it (encouraging diplomacy and espionage), with a percentage of all civs sharing the right civics, a good place on the scoreboard (especially economically) and maybe some additional things like defensive pacts. Though that already echoes America's UHV a little bit.
I'm not sure if more "humanitarian" goals like happiness or fighting global warming should be implemented within that framework, rather than being a wholly different victory type. Feels like that would look biased.
Last edited:
Dracosolon
Emperor
I thought a little more about ideologies and how they might be represented in the game.
1) Ideologies get a similar role to religions in earlier eras: diplomacy, (un)happiness, possibly wonders, etc. Accordingly, they have some mechanical similarities: they spread to cities to represent a receptive population, they have missionary-type units ("militants"/"propagandists"), persecutor-type units, they can be spread by Great Statesmen the same way Great Prophets do. However, some differences exist: no equivalent for temples, cathedrals, holy cities. Something like a monastery might exist (with a bonus to espionage instead of science?), or militants might be trained in some other way.
- If we want to complicate things further, the spread could also be attracted by specific buildings like factories, news corps, etc. though that might be unnecessarily granular.
- Some civics like Democracy or State Party might further influence how militants and ideological spreading happen.
2) You can't adopt a particular state ideology since that would be redundant with civics. Instead, you have a score for each ideology over how much your civics match it. So Central Planning might give you a big communist score, etc. It's possible to have a very high score in a single ideology, or moderate ones in two or three.
- Diplomatically, you receive a bonus with another civ for each ideological score that is close, and a malus for those that have a greater difference ("+2 You have liberal civics."). Instead of its leader's favorite civic, an AI might ask you to adopt new civics that get your score closer to their.
- The presence of an ideology in a city also reacts to your particular civics, through (un)happiness modifiers, possibly some other effects on buildings, etc.
- Ideally, it should be just as viable to fully commit to an ideology or be moderate between two of them.
3) As to which ideology should be included, I think we should avoid unnecessary granularity and stick to the big three (liberalism, communism/socialism, and either fascism or a broader "reaction" camp), with older more traditional ideologies like conservative monarchism simply being represented by the absence of those three, with the appropriate diplomacy modifiers.
- Reaction or fascism? I'm inclined toward the former name because it's a much broader umbrella term across modern history, but it's a bit harder to pinpoint what tech should start it. It could be reaction as an ideology, but still keep fascist dynamic names and particular benefits if you adopt Totalitarianism.
- Each ideology could have some minor aspects unique to them. As an example, I'm thinking in particular that reaction could have lesser positive diplomatic modifiers with civs that do not share the same religion/secularism civic, and positive ones with civs that have the same religion and are reactionary or merely conservative.
EDIT: Thinking back on it, there may be a fourth ideology that did have enough geopolitical impact to be worth including: third worldism/decolonization/anti-imperialism/whatever name isn't too unwieldy. That one might be a bit less dependant on civics (though obviously some like Colonialism, Tributaries, etc. would still be impactful) and instead get entirely different modifiers:
- Having vassals vs being a vassal,
- Having territory outside of your historical one and especially inside another civ's core, vs the opposite, having another civ in your core,
- Diplomatic tributes of resources, etc.
- Maybe something to do with lagging in techs?
That one might produce a more organic shrinking of the huge colonial empires by putting pressures on them through unhappy population and diplomatic penalties against the smaller civs.
1) Ideologies get a similar role to religions in earlier eras: diplomacy, (un)happiness, possibly wonders, etc. Accordingly, they have some mechanical similarities: they spread to cities to represent a receptive population, they have missionary-type units ("militants"/"propagandists"), persecutor-type units, they can be spread by Great Statesmen the same way Great Prophets do. However, some differences exist: no equivalent for temples, cathedrals, holy cities. Something like a monastery might exist (with a bonus to espionage instead of science?), or militants might be trained in some other way.
- If we want to complicate things further, the spread could also be attracted by specific buildings like factories, news corps, etc. though that might be unnecessarily granular.
- Some civics like Democracy or State Party might further influence how militants and ideological spreading happen.
2) You can't adopt a particular state ideology since that would be redundant with civics. Instead, you have a score for each ideology over how much your civics match it. So Central Planning might give you a big communist score, etc. It's possible to have a very high score in a single ideology, or moderate ones in two or three.
- Diplomatically, you receive a bonus with another civ for each ideological score that is close, and a malus for those that have a greater difference ("+2 You have liberal civics."). Instead of its leader's favorite civic, an AI might ask you to adopt new civics that get your score closer to their.
- The presence of an ideology in a city also reacts to your particular civics, through (un)happiness modifiers, possibly some other effects on buildings, etc.
- Ideally, it should be just as viable to fully commit to an ideology or be moderate between two of them.
3) As to which ideology should be included, I think we should avoid unnecessary granularity and stick to the big three (liberalism, communism/socialism, and either fascism or a broader "reaction" camp), with older more traditional ideologies like conservative monarchism simply being represented by the absence of those three, with the appropriate diplomacy modifiers.
- Reaction or fascism? I'm inclined toward the former name because it's a much broader umbrella term across modern history, but it's a bit harder to pinpoint what tech should start it. It could be reaction as an ideology, but still keep fascist dynamic names and particular benefits if you adopt Totalitarianism.
- Each ideology could have some minor aspects unique to them. As an example, I'm thinking in particular that reaction could have lesser positive diplomatic modifiers with civs that do not share the same religion/secularism civic, and positive ones with civs that have the same religion and are reactionary or merely conservative.
EDIT: Thinking back on it, there may be a fourth ideology that did have enough geopolitical impact to be worth including: third worldism/decolonization/anti-imperialism/whatever name isn't too unwieldy. That one might be a bit less dependant on civics (though obviously some like Colonialism, Tributaries, etc. would still be impactful) and instead get entirely different modifiers:
- Having vassals vs being a vassal,
- Having territory outside of your historical one and especially inside another civ's core, vs the opposite, having another civ in your core,
- Diplomatic tributes of resources, etc.
- Maybe something to do with lagging in techs?
That one might produce a more organic shrinking of the huge colonial empires by putting pressures on them through unhappy population and diplomatic penalties against the smaller civs.
Last edited:
Joij21
🔥Deny, Defend, Depose!🔥
Communism/socialism would be Marxism since that is the parent ideology of both if one wanted to merge them together as a single ideology for simplicity's sake. Fasicsm could simply be named autocracy, due to the fact that there are a lot of ethno-nationalist/monarchist ideologies that aren't exactly like fascism but nonetheless similar. I would also prefer a fourth ideology called fundamentalism, since extremist religious views are another albeit different reactionary ideology compared to fascism/ethno-nationalist/monarchist movements.
DC123456789
Deity
Currently there's a gap in the Tamil dynamic names, where after the Tamils exit the classical era they're not longer eligible for the Chola/Chera/Pandya dynamic names, but they're not advanced enough to get the Vijayanagara name, so you just get the extremely generic "Tamil Kingdom/Empire". It would probably make sense to keep the Chola/Chera/Pandya names right until the Tamils switch to Vijayanagara, since the Chola and Pandya were at their height during the medieval era anyways.
