Uncle Paul
Bittereinder
Bringing back this old idea. I think it would be a really nice way to add some more uniqueness to religions. (I thought quoting it here would be better than bumping a 9 year old thread)
Suggestions and Requests
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
ThreeBlackSevens
Warlord
I think one thing that sticks out is that Hinduism's first bonus would have to be different now that Prambanan is a thing, +100% food kept on growth would be a little busted. I'm thinking maybe something related to the significance of the Ganges possibly? My first thought was +1 happiness as a yield on all tiles adjacent to a river that is also adjacent to the Hindu holy city, but that would be both localized and most likely only benefit India. Perhaps, and forgive the rather convoluted wording, +1 happiness in all cities per great wonder in cities adjacent to the river with the most adjacent legitimate city plots that is also adjacent to the Hindu holy city. The point of that weird stipulation is just so that you don't end up with a random river in Tibet also counting as the Ganges. Perhaps there should also be either a maximum number or it should be per x wonders rounded up on the Ganges to keep it from being too overpowered.
Dracosolon
Emperor
Maybe just something to do with core tiles or core cities then.
I don't know if this has been mentioned before but there is something that's been bugging me a bit with the old map for years now.
So Leoreth, I was wondering for the new map - is there any chance that you would adjust resources and tile yields to more accurately reflect realistic population densities in some parts of the world (like this was done next to Pataliputra and Los Angeles on the old map)? There are places with reasonably high populations (like Johannesburg, Lagos, Casablanca etc.) that in game simply don't have enough food to grow to such sizes.
Conversely, there are some coastal cities (St.John's in Newfoundland being the most obvious one) that can grow to very impressive population (St. John's can easily grow to a larger population than Moskva for example), far exceeding what they have in the real world. I don't know if reducing the food of coastal tiles to provide 0 food by default and 1 with Harbor is a good solution though...
So Leoreth, I was wondering for the new map - is there any chance that you would adjust resources and tile yields to more accurately reflect realistic population densities in some parts of the world (like this was done next to Pataliputra and Los Angeles on the old map)? There are places with reasonably high populations (like Johannesburg, Lagos, Casablanca etc.) that in game simply don't have enough food to grow to such sizes.
Conversely, there are some coastal cities (St.John's in Newfoundland being the most obvious one) that can grow to very impressive population (St. John's can easily grow to a larger population than Moskva for example), far exceeding what they have in the real world. I don't know if reducing the food of coastal tiles to provide 0 food by default and 1 with Harbor is a good solution though...
Last edited:
Uncle Paul
Bittereinder
I do think that perhaps adding some more flood plains to areas like China, India, the Midwestern US, and possibly some parts of Central Europe might be good. Not covering every river with flood plains, just a few strategically placed ones here and there near large, populous cities.
Yeah, that is roughly what I had in mind. Or not even adding floodplains, simply increasing the food providing content of the tile as was done in the Ganges region.
Dracosolon
Emperor
One thing to keep in mind is that city size in Civ games isn't really about simulating real life population growth, but what capacity is best for gameplay. This is why the modern era doesn't see your cities explode in size to the same extent as what happened in the 20th century. If that was properly reflected 
and 
costs in the modern era would have to be truly enormous, else you'd end up with everything being completed in a few turns.
and costs in the modern era would have to be truly enormous, else you'd end up with everything being completed in a few turns.
Genghis Khaiser
King
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2012
- Messages
- 771
There are some wonders that require a certain civic: WTC - Free Enterprise. Motherland Calls - Central Planning, Triumphal Arch - Constitution, Statue of Liberty - Democracy, Berlaymont - Multilateralism).
Should we add/restrict wonders to more civics or is it good as it is?
Should we add/restrict wonders to more civics or is it good as it is?
freethink
King
The main point is that the game remains balanced especially for modern civics. If there are too many constitutions or free enterprise wonders the AI sill have even less of an incentive to establish, totalitarian/non-democratic systems which would actually be counter-intuitive. This actually makes me think of another point, in UN elections civs should not easily vote for global civics/free trade that contradicts their own societies. At the very least a dictatorial regime should be defying some resolutions.
Genghis Khaiser
King
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2012
- Messages
- 771
Agree. I agree that there should not be many wonders per civic, only one that is associated with the civic. For example, Versailles is a monument to absolute monarchy so it should have either Monarchy or Centralism as its requirement. Himeji Castle makes sense to be restricted by Vassalage. I'm thinking that these civics need a wonder: Elective, Colonialism, Nationhood, State Party, Totalitarianism, Revolutionism, Public Welfare.
As for UN, it does not make sense either for the last civic in the row to be always the global one. There should be an option to either have that or the General Secretary's civic.
Dominus the Mentat
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2018
- Messages
- 301
The tibetan swordsman that spawn regularly after the rise of tibet should be removed after its rise and replaced to spawn at the begining of the 9th century, ending in 1240, when Tibet was conquered by the Mongol Empire. If Tibet was united as an empire, why they still have enemies armies in their core land? Also, historically, the absence of enemies in the tibetan plateau was one of the motivations for the tibetans to expand into China, southern and central asia. My suggestion is to replace the barbarian spawns to the early years of 9th century is because at this time the Era of Fragmentation begins in Tibet. Its last emperor was assassinated and a civil war have begun between regional warlords, with many revolts that occured in the provinces of the empire, making it be fragmented into small kingdoms and tribes. This age of unrest was only ended with the conquest of Tibet by the Yuan dynasty in 1240, uniting Tibet under the khan's control.
Since this event is too much dependant of external factores, another suggestion, more close to its own society is the unification of Tibet by the Dalai Lamas, which would put the ending of the swordsman spawns to the begining of the 18th century.
For gameplay purposes, it would give Tibet a more easy start, since sometimes Lhasa is overrun by barbarian swordsman, which destroy every improvement the player builds and Tibet only begin with a few units that the player need to make survive at all costs or risk doom the entire gameplay. Also, would allow the player to have more work to build earlier missionaries and have more chances to win the second UHV goal. Also, the mid and late game would have more challenge for the player.
Since this event is too much dependant of external factores, another suggestion, more close to its own society is the unification of Tibet by the Dalai Lamas, which would put the ending of the swordsman spawns to the begining of the 18th century.
For gameplay purposes, it would give Tibet a more easy start, since sometimes Lhasa is overrun by barbarian swordsman, which destroy every improvement the player builds and Tibet only begin with a few units that the player need to make survive at all costs or risk doom the entire gameplay. Also, would allow the player to have more work to build earlier missionaries and have more chances to win the second UHV goal. Also, the mid and late game would have more challenge for the player.
Publicola
King
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2014
- Messages
- 760
Pretty sure the 'Monarchy' civic refers to more ancient kings than early modern 'absolutism'. Definitely inclined to say 'Centralism' for Versailles.
Which tech/column unlocks 'Elective' and 'Revolutionism'? I'm forgetting when those become available.
Colonialism : El Escorial seems like the obvious choice here
Nationhood: possibly Triumphal Arch, or Brandenburg Gate? 'Motherland Calls' might also be a good fit.
State Party or Totalitarianism: Lubyanka fits with either.
(Alternately, a while ago someone suggested the never-built Volkshalle as a wonder; that might fit well with Totalitarianism. Or the Ryugyong Hotel in North Korea might work as well. But neither of these are existing wonders)
Public Welfare: not really sure... maybe 'Gardens by the Bay'?
freethink
King
Do you think the Itaipu Dam goes with Public Welfare or State Party?
Genghis Khaiser
King
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2012
- Messages
- 771
Was Brazil a one-party state or having a high-taxes/high-spending economy when they built it?
Elective I think is unlocked by Politics, while Revolutionism is unlocked by Journalism. "Elective" is mostly represented by the HRE and Mongols, maybe Silver Tree Fountain could suit.
El Escorial doesn't mean a big deal for colonies, but gameplay-wise it is so I agree with locking it with Colonialism. In real life, it is to king Phillip II (Spain's most powerful monarch ever) what Versailles was to Louis XIV.
I agree about the other choices. I'm looking at Lubyanka and even its Civilopedia article states that it was a building that was repurposed to be the seat of the KGB. It would suit State Party but it would make it so a civic that gives +3 Espionage per specialist unlocks a wonder with the same effect so it would be OP espionage-wise.
Triumphal Arch makes no sense to me requiring Constitution, but Nationhood or Revolutionism could do. Napoleon's empire started it and restored Bourbons finished it. Both were absolute monarchies so it should be either of those two civics. One wonder that could make sense to require Constitution is Westminster, more or less. The UK does not have one single codified constitution but it works like a constitutional system. Also, Westminster is the seat of the Parliament, something that would not make sense in a country without a significative legislative body.
Speaking of requirements. I don't see any reason for Mole Antonelliana to be a Catholic Wonder. Both Wikipedia and Civilopedia state that it was originally built as a synagogue until the Jewish community changed its mind about it so it got repurposed to a secular, completely different thing.
I've also been thinking about something encouraging Latin American wonders (Chapultepec, Salt Cathedral, Cristo Redentor, etc.) to be built by Latin American civs or regions. For example, Guadalupe is required to be on a different continent than the Catholic holy city, while "developed" civs tend to snatch these wonders from their rightful builders. I remember a long time ago saying that Oxford should also have a similar requirement (pretty much locking it to England. Not my brightest idea though). So I have thought of maybe them being built next to certain features or resources, like jungles, mountains, hills, coasts, Bananas, Tobacco or Coffee.
Last edited:
need my speed
Rex Omnium Imperarium
It strikes me that, indeed, the game uses many requirements to make sure a wonder goes to a certain (subset of) civilisations, such as how requiring Corn ensures the wonder is built in the Americas... Why not implement a 'requires continent'-tag, and use that one? Allow it to have 'or'-optons, and it should work nicely?
Dracosolon
Emperor
Versailles would make sense for Centralism, but it's already a pretty good civic so I'm not sure that it needs the boost.
El Escorial for colonialism is an obvious fit.
Elective + Silk for the Silver Tree Fountain would do a good job at effectively restricting it to the Mongols (or Turkestan), though it seems to me that Despotism would still be vastly superior for them given the absurd non-core population they get otherwise.
Lubyanka should probably boost Totalitarianism more than State Party, which is already one of the strongest civics in the game.
Revolutionism needs the Triumphal Arc more than Nationhood does, but if it's supposed to be a stand-in for various similar buildings then Nationhood might be a better thematic fit.
Mole Antonelliana requiring the presence of Judaism instead of Catholicism could work, though it's worth noting that some religious requirements seem to just represent a particular cultural heritage so a Catholic requirement can still make sense even if the Wonder has nothing to do with Catholicism.
El Escorial for colonialism is an obvious fit.
Elective + Silk for the Silver Tree Fountain would do a good job at effectively restricting it to the Mongols (or Turkestan), though it seems to me that Despotism would still be vastly superior for them given the absurd non-core population they get otherwise.
Lubyanka should probably boost Totalitarianism more than State Party, which is already one of the strongest civics in the game.
Revolutionism needs the Triumphal Arc more than Nationhood does, but if it's supposed to be a stand-in for various similar buildings then Nationhood might be a better thematic fit.
Mole Antonelliana requiring the presence of Judaism instead of Catholicism could work, though it's worth noting that some religious requirements seem to just represent a particular cultural heritage so a Catholic requirement can still make sense even if the Wonder has nothing to do with Catholicism.
Krieger-FS
Warlord
Brazil was a Military Dictatorship when built it. Wasn't a one-party state but it did have a high spending economy based in the developmentalist and industrialist policies, but it is hard to say that was a Public Welfare, since it was, you know, a dictatorship (with censorship, repression, and torture) and a period of major increase in social inequality.
Last edited:
Similar threads
