Suggestions and Requests

[Dracosolon]

How would this be phrased though, and for what wonder?

I feel like the Pyramids could do with a new effect since the one they have isn't that useful (and has the annoying quirk of making Egypt's city spamming problem even worse), but I'm not sure one could come up with an effect that would both fit whatyou propose while also being useful for Egypt proper.

 

[freethink]

Starving or whipping the periphery cities is the standard unimaginative technique used by human players to improve their stability. Obviously, there should be a price to pay and, at the very minimum, there's a price for whipping : long lasting unhappiness that will contribute to instability in domestic category. But intentionally starved city just see their population dying every turn and does not feel angry about it. I propose that every population point lost due to the negative food balance at the end of the turn will result in one angry face lasting for 10 turns on normal speed. "Your rule brought us misery and starvation" tooltip reads.

I am not sure how the code can be made to recognize intentional starvation unless this would applied to every starving city unconditionally.
If somehow this could be done this should also cause a diplomatic penalty with civs that have the democracy and/or egalitarian civics.

But I also think overall the contrasting civics should cause a diplomatic penalty.

 

[1SDANi]

I am not sure how the code can be made to recognize intentional starvation unless this would applied to every starving city unconditionally.
If somehow this could be done this should also cause a diplomatic penalty with civs that have the democracy and/or egalitarian civics.

But I also think overall the contrasting civics should cause a diplomatic penalty.

Could do it like economic stability.

 

[smileywalk]

Perhaps this was mentioned before... The concept of population migration between cities is missing from the game, unless I'm missing something. I suppose it was left out to keep the challenge of growing cities on less fertile sites, which is a gameplay reason but not realistic. Suppose we have an infertile site with a luxury resource, such as gold. History shows that a massive migration will take place, such as the California gold rush. Even if there's no reason for voluntary migration, forced relocations took place worldwide until most recent times. I don't think that allowing a settler to join a city would be appropriate. As I see it, the settler is not just 1 population but also includes all the resources needed for founding a city. Another argument is that both the settler and worker don't subtract population, so they shouldn't add any. So I propose a new unit: the migrant costing 1 population. Real migrants don't have resources, so the migrant should cost just a few hammers. Real migrants are also unhappy, so I'd make the migrant unhappy upon joining a city for X turns, so a city would gain one temporarily unhappy citizen. This one unhappiness could also be interpreted in another way: the immigrants cause temporary unrest among the city population until they are assimilated. You could relocate angry citizens, giving you another way of dealing with overpopulation. You might reconsider your preferred site for expansion. Colonization would be way more dynamic. The ability to move populations would be quite a power trip, which is what Civ is all about. Thanks for considering!

 

[Dracosolon]

You're right that there isn't as much food transfer in Civ as in real life. As far as I understand it, the only ways the game currently simulates that is with food corporations (and indirectly with food resources increasing your health). Current immigrant mechanic increases a city's population but not its food, so the city has a tendency to shrink if it's close to its limit.

DoC tends to "cheat" by giving real life major cities better food terrain and resources. I think this is mostly a sufficient solution, though one could imagine something more simulationist:

- Buildings that consume food but gives you access to a cathedral-style building that provides food (Silos)?
- Immigration adding an Immigrant specialist that provides +1 Food (and maybe something else too).
- Buildings that provide additional food from resources and corporations, favoring major cities.

All of this is contingent on whether the current solution of "cheating" with the map is insufficient though. I'm not sure it is.

 

[Gen1_]

Another problem is the link between food and population, logical in early eras, but not in late eras.
Cities like Lagos cannot grow too much without starving (logical) and decreasing population (not logical).

I think that for a more realistic approach there needs to be two concepts : births and deaths.

Both would be high in early eras.

Food decreases deaths, and starvation increases it.
When your country enters industrial Era, deaths decreases but not births.
Births would only decrease while entering future Era.

It would correctly simulate demographic transition.

 

[Hickman888]

You're right that there isn't as much food transfer in Civ as in real life. As far as I understand it, the only ways the game currently simulates that is with food corporations (and indirectly with food resources increasing your health). Current immigrant mechanic increases a city's population but not its food, so the city has a tendency to shrink if it's close to its limit.

DoC tends to "cheat" by giving real life major cities better food terrain and resources. I think this is mostly a sufficient solution, though one could imagine something more simulationist:

- Buildings that consume food but gives you access to a cathedral-style building that provides food (Silos)?
- Immigration adding an Immigrant specialist that provides +1 Food (and maybe something else too).
- Buildings that provide additional food from resources and corporations, favoring major cities.

All of this is contingent on whether the current solution of "cheating" with the map is insufficient though. I'm not sure it is.

The region that immediately comes to mind is the American Southwest. Major cities, such as Phoenix or Las Vegas, or just not possible in the current map. You can get them up to size 2, max. I think a feature that represents the advent of air conditioning should have a place in the mod, although I’m not sure how it would be represented.

 

[AOS9001]

Air Conditioner Factory: Unlocks with Electronics, +1 and +1 per desert tile

This also causes the local aquifer to be depleted within 100 turns, starting a water crisis that can only be resolved by the player building a national project to reroute fresh water from another location to the alleged desert paradise...

 

[freethink]

Air Conditioner Factory: Unlocks with Electronics, +1 and +1 per desert tile

This also causes the local aquifer to be depleted within 100 turns, starting a water crisis that can only be resolved by the player building a national project to reroute fresh water from another location to the alleged desert paradise...

In the current rules of the game this will accelerate global warming I think.
Wonder how AI would play with it.
In a similar vein, I want to ask if planting a forest as a worker action is on the table

 

[freethink]

Also this is more of a comment than a suggestion, but I hate deforestation in the game, even at the cost of temporary gains I never demolish a forest unless there is a resource on top of it, but I never deforest for its sake. I prefer lumber mills --> natural parks later. Does anyone else play like this?

 

[FishFishFish]

Swap the current Congo's leader portrait with this one.

 

[Tigranes]

Also this is more of a comment than a suggestion, but I hate deforestation in the game, even at the cost of temporary gains I never demolish a forest unless there is a resource on top of it, but I never deforest for its sake. I prefer lumber mills --> natural parks later. Does anyone else play like this?

I share your sentiment but sometimes you just need those hammers.

 

[Dracosolon]

I generally keep lumbermills unless the terrain is sufficiently hilly that production is no big deal (like China). In the late game they're often replaced if possible with Central Planning Watermills though.

 

[1SDANi]

Perhaps this was mentioned before... The concept of population migration between cities is missing from the game, unless I'm missing something. I suppose it was left out to keep the challenge of growing cities on less fertile sites, which is a gameplay reason but not realistic. Suppose we have an infertile site with a luxury resource, such as gold. History shows that a massive migration will take place, such as the California gold rush. Even if there's no reason for voluntary migration, forced relocations took place worldwide until most recent times. I don't think that allowing a settler to join a city would be appropriate. As I see it, the settler is not just 1 population but also includes all the resources needed for founding a city. Another argument is that both the settler and worker don't subtract population, so they shouldn't add any. So I propose a new unit: the migrant costing 1 population. Real migrants don't have resources, so the migrant should cost just a few hammers. Real migrants are also unhappy, so I'd make the migrant unhappy upon joining a city for X turns, so a city would gain one temporarily unhappy citizen. This one unhappiness could also be interpreted in another way: the immigrants cause temporary unrest among the city population until they are assimilated. You could relocate angry citizens, giving you another way of dealing with overpopulation. You might reconsider your preferred site for expansion. Colonization would be way more dynamic. The ability to move populations would be quite a power trip, which is what Civ is all about. Thanks for considering!

I've always been partial to splitting Health and Food Resources and reworking how Trade Routes work. Keep medicinal and preservative resources like Salt (salting meats) and Tea (boiling water) giving Health while food resources like Wheat and Cows give both Food and Unhealthiness (Wheat representing its domination of diets leading to worse nutrition and Cows representing cross-species diseases and the like), with Trade Routes moving resources in addition to generating Commerce in both cities based on the total Commerce that each city produces each turn (not Commerce per turn, but Culture + Science + Espionage + Gold, real world examples of each contributing to commercial trade being Hollywood, Silicon Valley, the CIA's drug smuggling venture, and Stock Brokering), maybe with all but the 5 wealthiest cities being willing to trade their last copy of a given resource, as well as spreading a little of each cities' culture output to each other as the owner of the other city's culture and, if it's foreign, giving both civs espionage on the other based on the espionage output of their respective cities, as well as a little progress towards all techs that the other civ has already discovered. Would be a massive change tho, and like, trade routes already are some of the main contributors of turn times from what I've heard, so unless it can be super optimized I'm not sure if it'd be worth it. Would be super cool to give Culture more of a use and Open Borders more of a reason to not be an auto-accept/propose tho.

 

[smileywalk]

Religious persecution exists ever since religion appeared. Jews were persecuted in Egypt. Christians were persecuted in Rome. In my opinion, the persecutor appears way too late. I would situate him soon after the first religions appear, for example within the technology Law.

 

[freethink]

Religious persecution exists ever since religion appeared. Jews were persecuted in Egypt. Christians were persecuted in Rome. In my opinion, the persecutor appears way too late. I would situate him soon after the first religions appear, for example within the technology Law.

I think this makes sense. Persecution took a more advanced form with organized Monethesic and Dharamic religions. For instance, historians agree that the Nicean Christians were more comprehensive in their persecution of Greek Polyothesists. Hence, except for a few revival groups historical Polyothesists don't really exist anymore. However, I did propose a while back making a special multiple-choice BTS event where a pagan player can choose to persecute religion in his cities to have a few more turns to build classical wonders or achieve a religion UHV. The text was designed to be pretty generic.

 

[Dracosolon]

Speaking of which, I've been wondering if there would be interest in discussing possible new pagan URVs? The two generic goals aren't very fun and could be combined into something simple like "control seven pagan temples" while introducing a second custom goal. OTOH there are so many pagan religions by now that coming up with a second interesting goal for all of them might be too difficult.

 

[trexeric]

Speaking of pagans and persecution, I've been wondering for a long time if there was a way to stop the Vikings from converting to Catholicism so early. They seem to always convert as soon as Catholicism spreads to one of their cities, which is often before you even meet them as other civs, frequently as early as the 8th century. You could make the historical argument that Catholicism was spread to Viking cities in the 9th century (see Ansgar), but nothing really stuck until the 10th century (see Harald Bluetooth). And even then, it was regional, and I don't think an all-encompassing Vikings civ should be converting until around the year 1000, which theoretically should make them better antagonists for the rest of Europe. I get that organized religions should generally be preferrable to pagan religions, but the Christianization of Scandinavia was contentious and filled with back and forth, persecution on both sides, and a single Catholic city ought not a Catholic civ make.

 

[Dracosolon]

Speaking of pagans and persecution, I've been wondering for a long time if there was a way to stop the Vikings from converting to Catholicism so early. They seem to always convert as soon as Catholicism spreads to one of their cities, which is often before you even meet them as other civs, frequently as early as the 8th century. You could make the historical argument that Catholicism was spread to Viking cities in the 9th century (see Ansgar), but nothing really stuck until the 10th century (see Harald Bluetooth). And even then, it was regional, and I don't think an all-encompassing Vikings civ should be converting until around the year 1000, which theoretically should make them better antagonists for the rest of Europe. I get that organized religions should generally be preferrable to pagan religions, but the Christianization of Scandinavia was contentious and filled with back and forth, persecution on both sides, and a single Catholic city ought not a Catholic civ make.

Do the AIs have different thresholds for converting away from paganism? In my experience most civs very quickly do it. If yes, the Vikings could be higher.

I guess the alternative would be meddling with the religion map but once you do that that opens up a whole can of worms over doing it for everybody to ensure historical spread.

 

[1SDANi]

I usually convert ASAP when playing so it's also kinda a problem on the player end too, maybe a Pagan Viking-era Wonder or making their UP require a Pagan State Religion? I'd personally go with the latter if we want them to convert around the 10th century, as the Viking raids massively fell off after the 1066 CE Battle of Stamford Bridge