Suggestions and Requests
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
merijn_v1
Black Belt
Here it is.
Shadow Warlord
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2014
- Messages
- 272
Here's a suggestion: shouldn't all the pre-placed 1700AD civs start with workers as opposed to needing to build them?
ezzlar
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Messages
- 1,844
I would like some more war related events connected to civic choices. In DoC civics are mostly just a matter of which bonuses you prefer. There was a discussion earlier about more civic events which is good but they should also be connected to war.
The most extreme version is in Civ2 where you could end up with "The senate meets behind your back and signs a peace treaty". Annoying but somewhat realistic. I was thinking along the lines that a Democracy that has adopted Egalitarianism should be somewhat displeased with for example:
- Razing cities
- Keeping colonies
- Declaring war on a weak opponent
- Declaring war on a democracy/egalitarianism
Penalties could be unhappiness, war weariness, city unrest, forced peace(?) etc. To compensate they can be given more commerce or something. That should make tech costs higher but that is fine since then the more conflict seeking civics would fall behind a bit techwise (so there is a cost to be aggressor). I dont know if the AI could handle all of this so human only is acceptable.
The most extreme version is in Civ2 where you could end up with "The senate meets behind your back and signs a peace treaty". Annoying but somewhat realistic. I was thinking along the lines that a Democracy that has adopted Egalitarianism should be somewhat displeased with for example:
- Razing cities
- Keeping colonies
- Declaring war on a weak opponent
- Declaring war on a democracy/egalitarianism
Penalties could be unhappiness, war weariness, city unrest, forced peace(?) etc. To compensate they can be given more commerce or something. That should make tech costs higher but that is fine since then the more conflict seeking civics would fall behind a bit techwise (so there is a cost to be aggressor). I dont know if the AI could handle all of this so human only is acceptable.
Imperator Knoedel
Currently obsessed with The Owl House
Well who says we can't reintroduce them?
Tigranes
Armenian
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
- Messages
- 10,414
I am suggesting to add a Marsh tile 1SW from Charles Town (SC) on 1700 map (and on the rest of the maps), roughly representing Mobile, Alabama. I understand that the scale of the map is too small to represent southern states properly but still one should not be able to get into Gulf of Mexico from South Carolina! This way Florida will be represented by 3 tiles only (Jacksonville, Tallahassee, Miami), while the tile 1S will look more like Georgia, while right now it looks like part of Florida peninsula and one can ask -- where is the tile for Georgia?
I dont know any mod who has complitely internal politics. Maybe civ4 simply cant represent them very well. There are some good examples like rise of mankind has an independent/revolt bar in every city and if it goes over too many times a new civ is borned. Im hoping something similar would someday be in DoC as well.
Lone Wolf
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 9,908
When I think of the "the senate meets behind your back and signs a peace treaty" mechanics, "internal politics" are not the words that come to my mind.
Representing internal politics properly is always a hassle for 4x strategy games, and civ4 peacetime gameplay is actually more engaging than EUIV peacetime, for example.
Representing internal politics properly is always a hassle for 4x strategy games, and civ4 peacetime gameplay is actually more engaging than EUIV peacetime, for example.
Tomorrow's Dawn
Heroes Never Die
I'll second that. I really, really don't understand the insistence of the inclusion of these micro aspects of history. This is still a 4X game after all, not an RPG or a kitchen sink mod.
And tech costs going up during wartime is asinine; if anything, history and the military-industrial complex has proved that tech innovation comes up specifically because wartime needs are greater.
There are already a couple of events that are essentially "internal politics". They don't come up frequently enough to be annoying or a center piece of the game which I think is appropriate. I guess you could expand on this principle by adding a greater variety (and civics-dependence) to these events without increasing their frequency.
Stability is another thing that essentially represents internal politics. I've toyed with the idea of making its effects more interactive, for instance by replacing crises where you can prevent a further decline in stability by making some concessions. For example, for a severe domestic crisis, the people could demand that you change civics in several categories and your civilizations only descends into anarchy if you decline.
But that would require a couple of other changes first.
Stability is another thing that essentially represents internal politics. I've toyed with the idea of making its effects more interactive, for instance by replacing crises where you can prevent a further decline in stability by making some concessions. For example, for a severe domestic crisis, the people could demand that you change civics in several categories and your civilizations only descends into anarchy if you decline.
But that would require a couple of other changes first.
Tomorrow's Dawn
Heroes Never Die
Regarding the war suggestion, my opposition to it mostly stems from the fact that
while civics are a matter of choice, war in Civ4 is a tool,
which I'd rather not see as conditional to external whims.
while civics are a matter of choice, war in Civ4 is a tool,
which I'd rather not see as conditional to external whims.
Royal Tenenbaum
Write your Own History
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2012
- Messages
- 2,749
I second this.
Yeah, it's a good point, sorry that I did not comment on it. But addressing it through the game speed modifier is not the right approach.
Tech balancing is the next "big thing" on my agenda, so I will get to it soon. This includes:
- removing time based tech cost changes, because they are confusing and arbitrary
- balancing tech costs based on era (classical era and late game need to be slower it seems)
- displaying all modifiers in the game
- smoothing out modifiers to multiples of five to have reasonable tech costs
- rebalancing some civ modifiers
- maybe better rubber banding and catch up mechanics
Tech balancing is the next "big thing" on my agenda, so I will get to it soon. This includes:
- removing time based tech cost changes, because they are confusing and arbitrary
- balancing tech costs based on era (classical era and late game need to be slower it seems)
- displaying all modifiers in the game
- smoothing out modifiers to multiples of five to have reasonable tech costs
- rebalancing some civ modifiers
- maybe better rubber banding and catch up mechanics
Tomorrow's Dawn
Heroes Never Die
Depends on your definition of "better".
Because if it's anything like I think it is, the implementation is going to feel like this:
And exacerbate the current situation by making the lower places catch up too fast.
The rubber banding is causing most of the troubles in the first place, thanks to the mechanic that diffuses tech to non-tech leaders.
Similar threads
