Suggestions and Requests

[strijder20]

Why? Stacks don't really have a relationships to cities. I think cities are more of a problem because currently they are a defensive liability rather than asset, considering that the easiest way to stack attack bonuses are city attack promotions. That might be feasible in BtS where you can abandon your first ring of cities an then mount a counterattack, but in DoC many civs only have one ring of cities.

The problem here is that cities in Civ 4 are the only strategic interest worth pursuing, as you can't occupy enemy land by standing on it alone. Therefore cities are bound to play a major part in warfare. In Civ5 cities are still the major part of warfare, but the UPT forces you to fight at least some battles outside of them.

Another workaround I have seen in other mods is 'Improved castles' (which I'm pretty sure is a mod comp), with castles forcing cultural control, damaging the enemy and improving garrisoning archers and musketeers. However, it is not the ultimate solution to the problem as long as cities remain the only assets gainable in war.

Another solution for this might be to allow you to occupy enemy land.

 

[ezzlar]

TD: I still dont see why the fort is worth building even if it would give a better tile yield. I would just wait for the AI to occupy a flat tile and then SoD them.

+75% is maybe a little bit too high. But todays bonus of +25% on a grassland or plains makes it a lot simpler to just move on to a hill or forest. Or even a city.

If forts gave ZoC like the old Civ-series then they might really become useful for defense. This could be added with cultural control.

 

[merijn_v1]

One thing I forgot to mention regarding the RI happiness buildings. Some buildings (probably all) give a small bonus (+1 or 2%) when you have access to the resources. (E.g. the fashion designer gives +2% for fur and +3% silk) So it's not only happiness they provide.

 

[Leoreth]

You can read an old post of mine to improve defense here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=13483256&postcount=206

Thanks for linking this post, I haven't forgotten about it and would have needed to dig it up again.

I'm not ignoring the rest of your post, but let me address some of its points in a separate thread without excessive quote walls.

Edit: here it is.

The problem here is that cities in Civ 4 are the only strategic interest worth pursuing, as you can't occupy enemy land by standing on it alone. Therefore cities are bound to play a major part in warfare. In Civ5 cities are still the major part of warfare, but the UPT forces you to fight at least some battles outside of them.

Okay I get that, but when facing an enemy stack in the field at least becomes more favorable to you compared to attacking it inside a city, some of that would change.

One thing I forgot to mention regarding the RI happiness buildings. Some buildings (probably all) give a small bonus (+1 or 2%) when you have access to the resources. (E.g. the fashion designer gives +2% for fur and +3% silk) So it's not only happiness they provide.

I'm not too much of a fan of these small modifiers that aren't multiples of 5%.

 

[merijn_v1]

I'm not too much of a fan of these small modifiers that aren't multiples of 5%.

Me neither. But I wanted to say the buildings do a bit more than providing happiness.

However, if all resources would provide a 5% bonus, civs with a large diversity of resources get a huge modifier. I think that's the reason why RI chose to use small modifiers. If you would add up all modifiers you will get about 20-30% increase of commerce. (Raw guess)

Alternatively, some buildings could increase the commerce output of a resource tile, like some UB (Like the Brazilian) does. (Extra commerce on fur and silk tiles in BFC)

Just throwing out some ideas in case buildings that only provides happiness with resources would be too lame.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

I think we ought to buff the Industrial Park a little.

 

[calad]

Would it make sense to Rome has professional army civ on start and Carthage navy dominance civ on start?

 

[Leoreth]

No, they don't have the technologies for it.

 

[Manuss]

I was thinking... shouldn't the Meditation tech be changed with something more world related, more general? Like Prayer, or something like that. Meditation is more Asia-Related IMO.

 

[calad]

No, they don't have the technologies for it.

It could well be part of UP as well. Atleast Rome had professional army.

 

[Leoreth]

I was thinking... shouldn't the Meditation tech be changed with something more world related, more general? Like Prayer, or something like that. Meditation is more Asia-Related IMO.

Not really, Christian monastic culture also practices meditation for instance.

It could well be part of UP as well. Atleast Rome had professional army.

But that would be very unrelated to their current UP. Also, I see Professional Army more in the sense of what emerged during the European early modern period.

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

TD: I still dont see why the fort is worth building even if it would give a better tile yield. I would just wait for the AI to occupy a flat tile and then SoD them.

A Fort would actually be useful if it actively hampered nearby enemies in some way, which it doesn't currently by virtue of existing.

In Civ5, Citadels (requires a sacrifice of a GG to build) damage all adjacent units, much like the Russian UP.
Something like this would cause a player to put priority on a fort, as it is actively hampering the advance, without having to move and be mobile as Civ4 so often demands.

A fort in Anatolia to beat back the Seljuks or one in Inner Mongolia to ward off the Mongols would be prime areas to place forts.
They wouldn't need to choke points to be useful like now, they'd be great across any front where traffic is expected.

If a Fort does become valuable though, they need to be rendered into limited improvements.
Multiple forts in a similar vicinity would be a nightmare to punch through.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

If a Fort does become valuable though, they need to be rendered into limited improvements.
Multiple forts in a similar vicinity would be a nightmare to punch through.

Maginot Line anyone?

 

[Leoreth]

The Maginot Line worked.

 

[ezzlar]

Like someone said, make the ZoC obsolete by blitz.

 

[Leoreth]

I'd say Commando. Using enemy roads is way too powerful on the DoC map scale for military units anyway.

 

[ezzlar]

Change Blitz to "ignores zoc" instead of current effect.

 

[Leoreth]

I think it's a good idea to include ZoC first

 

[Acmeandco]

I think you should make it so that you cannot build forts in spaces adjacent to each other or to cities. Because if they are adjacent, and enemies are in a third square adjacent to both, then they cannot conquer either, because attacking one violates the others' ZoC. That would be easy to abuse and mess up the AI. I think ZoC's should be able to overlap (forts two spaces away from each other) but not have adjacent forts. This also makes people be more thoughtful on where to put them rather then spam them on all plots not being worked by cities.

 

[CaterpillarKing]

Or how about, at a certain number, forts begin to cost money, and a lot. Forts are government-owned, and thus you can't forts coming out the wazoo.