Suggestions and Requests

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?)
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:
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?
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?
Maybe instead of calling it a Humanitarian Victory, how about calling it "Ideology Victory" or "Geopolitical Victory"?
The idea was discussed in this old thread (and probably elsewhere too):

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:
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.
Last edited:
liberalism, communism/socialism, and either fascism or a broader "reaction" camp

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.
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.
I'd love to see the great lighthouse in Egypt more often, maybe a no hills in BFC requirement
A big part of the problem is that production in Alexandria is absolutely awful (and alternative cities further east along the Egyptian coast are even worse). Therefore, AI Egypt is very unlikely to manage to build the Great Lighthouse, and AI Greece is very unlikely to build it in Egypt in particular. If you did impose a no-hills requirement, it would have to be in tandem with something that made it realistically buildable in Alexandria without a Great Engineer or it would just never get built at all - perhaps if its hammer cost was very low.
The AI is not equipped to use settlers for the free buildings in later eras. Is it technically feasible to increase the production speed (double or triple) for these buildings in later eras for the AI?
During my gameplays with Tibet and its neighbors civilizations, I noted that its AI doesn't follow well the historical conquests of the civilization and doesn't make any significance in the game besides exist. In order to bring some relevance to Tibet in the game I suggest giving the AI a conqueror event in the Tarim basin and Chang'an. The first to represent the Tibetan Empire conquest over the silk road and the second to represent the constant wars between Tibet and Tang China, more specifically the war in 763 a.C. when the tibetans have conquered the Tang capital of Chang'an and installed a puppet emperor to weaken even more the Tang dynasty (already shaken by the An Lushan Rebellion)

Reasons to do this:

- Relevance: The Tibetan civilization doesn’t have much relevance in the game by the fact that the AI doesn’t do much besides conquer any weakly defended city close to its borders. This suggestion would bring more relevance to the Tibetans and let they interact more in the game, even if for some turns.

- Gameplay: Being some annoyance to the bordering civilizations would make the chinese game more dynamic and the turks more strategical. The chinese would need to protect its supposed safety capital of the tibetan conquerors and the turks would have more difficult to maintain the Tarim basin (since the turks would need to have atention in expanding through Iran and Central Asia and defending its possessions in the Tarim Basin from the conquerors). To the AI, China could finally have its capital in the central plains (representing the changing of the capital from Chang'an to Luoyang and the future Song Dynasty that have its capitals in middle China), if the tibetans succeed in taking Chang’an. Another thing is that the tibetans would have not enough military to protect the Tarim basin from barbarians and that could make China advance further into central asia or Turkestan retake their historical lands, which both are historical.

- History: At its maximum power (between 750 and 790 a.C.), the Tibetan Empire have conquered the Tarim basin from China and the turks khanates several times; northeast and southeast China too have under tibetan control for a brief time, northern afghanistan too has conquered and remained at tibetan control between 801 and 815 a.C. until the successful expansion of the Umayyad Caliphate to the region and the empire have some tributary influence over the Bengal states.


The conqueror event would be composed of a few units and trigged close to Dunhuang and another existent city in the tarim basim and Chang'an in the turn that represents the year 750 a.C.

So, what you think about this?
Wondering out loud there, apologies if this is retreading old ground:

I know straits have been discussed a lot before on this forum, but it seems that the new Lagoon terrain, a land type that superficially looks like Coast, could offer some interesting possibilities for this.

Could a new Strait terrain type with similar properties be used to replace specific water tiles like the Bosphorus, etc; with an indestructible Strait improvement (either invisible or just a couple of rocks and/or boats) on it that acts like a Fort for ship passage?

And could the layer order of the terrain art be so that the connection between two Strait terrain tiles take priorities over other land types?
What do you envision the strait terrain to look like?
By default, exactly like a Lagoon terrain. Testing it in Worldbuilder it doesn't look too shocking even if the slight elevation is noticeable.
I don't think that would look good. Straits are not in locations where that would look appropriate.
this might be/certainly a dumb idea.
maybe making new kind of improvements (modern improvement) that costs gpt and gold to build to create much more yield + pollution, it may simulate the industrial revolution better since at some point new technologies enable such improvements and civilizations would cost a fortune to invest in.
real world:
- a modern farm nowadays produce so much food compared to a medieval farm, same for medieval workshop versus modern industrial complex
- in developed countries, from 75 to 81 percent of population lives in urban area
- israel produces a great deal of food despite its desert land (maybe increase gpt maintenance cost for desert?)
Also the game already cheats by having one abstract population point corresponds to more people in the more recent eras. And even in spite of that, as the game goes on your civ gets insanely more productive because you have so much more infrastructure, so more population would demand a lot of adjustments so that you're not building everything super fast.

I feel like there could eventually be some sort of mechanism to better represent the transfer of food from farm-heavy cities to the more urban ones (Silo building: if the city is in population control mode, the excess food is redirected to your bigger cities), though I guess corporations already represents that to an extent.

It's all a bit academic anyway since the contemporary era is harder to model in Civ terms but also of much less consequences to gameplay.
Is there something that can be done to make online multiplayer enabled for this modmod?

I also have an idea that would make things historically accurate for the founding of some civs. Example: When America is founded, they are immediately at war with England. France, if it exists also immediately declares war on England supposing they weren't already. England does NOT automatically lose military units per turn to America as defectors. In the real war, England hired German mercenaries to fight some of the war. As a result, as soon as the war happens, the England player/ai has the option of spending a certain amount of gold from their treasury (if they have it) to automatically put troops in America to fight the war. Similar to what happens when troops are put in India.

I would support similar mechanics put in place for a lot of new world civs declarining independence since many times they didn't go down without a fight. Would make it feel more authentic. OTOH I feel there isn't really an advantage of these colonies unless going for a unique historical victory because they will just declare independence and going to war to get it back absolutely isn't worth it because of units defecting to fight the enemy.

My understanding is these defections weren't all that historically accurate anyway, at least in some cases.
Last edited:
Top Bottom