Suggestions and Requests

need my speed

Rex Omnium Imperarium
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Messages
2,353
Location
European Union (Magna Batavia)
IIRC it's a BtS thing (I haven't played vanilla civ in a while) and I remember somewhere being stated that Electricity unlocks that.
I thought it was Satellites, but, yes, it's a default feature from Beyond the Sword.
 
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
676
Another thing: The Philippines are outside Catholicism's historical area. Whenever I conquer or settle it as an East Asian civ, that religion either doesn't spawn or goes away.

Speaking of which, maybe Catholicism and Protestantism should have a grasp in southern China due to European colonization. But there should definitely be Protestantism in Korea, as nowadays 20% of South Korea's population is Christian and especially Protestant.
 
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
676
I have some issues with certain techs:

-In the base game, first to discover Liberalism gets a free tech, in this mod its equivalents are Civil Liberties and Civil Rights. Shouldn't that bonus go to either of those, Printing Press or Physics?

-Scientific Method does more harm than good to Science unless you're the first to discover it or have a lot of universities. Either Monasteries should obsolete later or there should be a small science bonus for all, like +10% science in all cities.

-As for Representation, usually no one gets the free Statesman because America spawns with that tech. Either they should get a free one if no one has researched it first or the next one to discover it should get the Statesman.
 

freethink

Prince
Joined
Dec 17, 2011
Messages
528
Location
Bamboo Palace
Another thing: The Philippines are outside Catholicism's historical area. Whenever I conquer or settle it as an East Asian civ, that religion either doesn't spawn or goes away.

Speaking of which, maybe Catholicism and Protestantism should have a grasp in southern China due to European colonization. But there should definitely be Protestantism in Korea, as nowadays 20% of South Korea's population is Christian and especially Protestant.

Should it be though?

I think the Spanish conquest was a bit of a fluke, I don't think it was predestined to happen. Honestly I don't think even think it should be in Spain's historic territory as the conquerors events already assures AI Spain will go there. But there is no way in 3000 BC or even 600 AD that the Philippines becoming a Catholic country was a given, due to its location.
 

Cosmos1985

King
Joined
Sep 20, 2008
Messages
712
Location
Aarhus, Denmark
Should it be though?

I think the Spanish conquest was a bit of a fluke, I don't think it was predestined to happen. Honestly I don't think even think it should be in Spain's historic territory as the conquerors events already assures AI Spain will go there. But there is no way in 3000 BC or even 600 AD that the Philippines becoming a Catholic country was a given, due to its location.

This is really quite the can of worms to open. How much of what happened in world history was "predestined to happen"?
 

Leoreth

Blue Period
Moderator
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
36,254
Location
東京藝術大学
To answer the original request, I plan to make regions more granular (including a separate Philippines region that doesn't exist right now) in the new map to be able to be more accurate about religion spread, among other things.

Predestination about religious spread, especially where it was spread through colonial empires, is an interesting topic to cover. I do think the game could be a bit more flexible in that regard. That said, in the case of the Philippines it is mostly a moot point right now, because there is no native civ on the archipelago and nobody else who will settle it besides Spain.
 

Dracosolon

Prince
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
333
Location
France
Leoreth, this is as good as any an opportunity to ask: do you have some sort of general design philosophy over how much historical "railroading" you want in this mod, and how you judge if there's too much/too few of it?
 

Leoreth

Blue Period
Moderator
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
36,254
Location
東京藝術大学
I do, but I am not sure if it is answerable in those terms. Too much or too little cannot really be judged for something that isn't quantifiable. I like to approach this from the perspective of player experience goals. In a historical strategy game the player generally expects two things: first, to play in a world that plausibly reflects real world history, and second, to be able to have influence over the world with the gameplay decision they make.

I want to satisfy both expectations, but they inherently contradict each other: if the player can influence the world, they are theoretically capable of producing a world that does not reflect real world history. Another conflict is between historicity of processes and historicity of outcomes. You can easily force historical things to happen but then the artificiality of these events will be apparent to the player, which in itself is not historical. Conversely, you can accurately reflect some historical processes but they can fail to produce the same outcomes as in real world history, which also feels wrong.

In the best case scenario, game rules and goals are designed in such a way that the player wants to play historically. That is in my opinion the ideal experience for the player: you feel rewarded for sticking to history by positive outcomes, or you don't feel punished for picking optimal strategies by ahistorical outcomes. Around that, you can buffer the freedom of the player by scripting the AI to stick more closely to history, which players usually more readily accept, and by using elastic mechanics like expansion stability that allow you to stray from history to some degree with only small penalties, or to a larger degree only if you are good enough to overcome the penalties. The gradual nature of the penalty, and the sense of accomplishment from overcoming its more serious forms, makes the existence of a penalty that forces you to behave in certain ways less limiting and less frustrating.

Still, sometimes heavyhanded scripting is necessary. I'd like to keep the instances where this is used as infrequent as possible, and instead pick the most high impact situation to apply them. The most prominent examples of this are civ spawns that are guaranteed to happen, or the few big conqueror events that exist. I also usually try to exhaust other, less invasive methods of making certain outcomes happen, before resorting to scripting. And even when scripting is necessary, I try my best to make it context sensitive so it isn't completely jarring.

Two important design principles I have learned over time come to mind in this context. The first is what I call the Inertia Rule, which basically says that consequences of scripted events tend to stick around much longer in the game than they did in actual history, because of the number of years covered by a single turn. The second is that we only know one history (our history) on which to base the design of a historical game. That is important for several "what if" scenarios where railroading needs to be enforced because we know what follows the true course of history, but have no idea what follows all the alternative courses of history, so there is nothing to put into the game for those.

A common example for that is the recurring request to make the spawn of most medieval European civs conditional on the stability and existence of the Roman civilisation. On the surface, this makes sense: historically, these nations only existed because the Roman empire collapsed and various other states started filling its power vacuum. The fact that the game ignores that makes is less historical in process, but there is still not really any other option. European civs would go on to shape the remainder of history not only in Europe but most of the world. If they did not spawn, they would have to be replaced with... what? The only answer is nothing. So will northern Europe remain continually empty? That is also not historically plausible. Even if the Roman empire had not collapsed as it did historically, states and cultures in Europe would have continued to evolve, and e.g. native cultures in the Americas would have continued to evolve without European colonisation, but we don't know how. Any guess how they might have is also inherently ahistorical. Plus, if you imagine the perspective of, let's say, a player starting as Inca or America: they expect Spain and England etc. to be around, otherwise they're not having a historical experience.

One last thing that I didn't mention so far are ahistorical goals: I see those as a good tools to represent civilisations that did not reach their full potential because they fell to foreign domination. In that case, the ahistorical goal is a form of challenge, where the conditions of the civ accurately reflect history and the challenge exists specifically to overcome them as a sign of player skill.
 

DanLT3

Warlord
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
208
Location
Sweden
This is a really good post about your design philosophy of the mod. You should put in the welcome thread.
 

Leoreth

Blue Period
Moderator
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
36,254
Location
東京藝術大学
I'm worried about people picking it apart and using it against me.
 

Mosguito

Chieftain
Joined
Jul 21, 2020
Messages
11
Just wondering is it ok to make “city movement” possible? Sometime settlement distance limit can be disappointing e.g, playing as China from 600bc, having Nanjing and not being able to build Shanghai later.

I guess it would be better if players can move settled city like about 1 tile for some pop and building maybe stability lost, or just simply disband city during peace. It can represent “town-to-city” competition in a small area. Some evolution in human settlement, I think.

Also, is it possible to have some food transportation between cities? This will help a lot in simulating a more modern world.
 

Mosguito

Chieftain
Joined
Jul 21, 2020
Messages
11
Just wondering is it ok to make “city movement” possible? Sometime settlement distance limit can be disappointing e.g, playing as China from 600bc, having Nanjing and not being able to build Shanghai later.

I guess it would be better if players can move settled city like about 1 tile for some pop and building maybe stability lost, or just simply disband city during peace. It can represent “town-to-city” competition in a small area. Some evolution in human settlement, I think.

Also, is it possible to have some food transportation between cities? This will help a lot in simulating a more modern world.
Or just completely remove city distance limit?
 

Leoreth

Blue Period
Moderator
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
36,254
Location
東京藝術大学
No, sorry.
 

Leoreth

Blue Period
Moderator
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
36,254
Location
東京藝術大学
Some of that, like moving cities, would be a lot of work tom implement. But I do not want to have it regardless.
 

Kewlipo

Warlord
Joined
Jun 27, 2015
Messages
117
Hi everyone. I don't know if this is the right place to ask this, but I would like to disable global warming because I find it very annoying (as I probably should hehe...). Where is the code for this? Thank you for your help in advance.

Edit: nevermind I found it lol
 
Last edited:

ThreeBlackSevens

Chieftain
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
65
Location
Canada
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. :D
 

Leoreth

Blue Period
Moderator
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
36,254
Location
東京藝術大学
No, this has been changed. You either need to have a defensive pact or vassal relationship.
 

1SDANi

Brother Lady
Joined
Oct 27, 2014
Messages
2,839
No, this has been changed. You either need to have a defensive pact or vassal relationship.
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?
 

LukeAtmey

Warlord
Joined
May 20, 2016
Messages
115
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?
 
Top Bottom