Suggestions and Requests

[citis]

About civs: why dynasticism is complitely inferior to theocracy? 2exp and double priest vs 2 unit based happiness is not balanced at all.

Dynasticism is more suitable for larger cities.

 

[citis]

I propose the following renamings:

Steam Power: Rename Thermodynamics, Airships require Thermodynamics instead of Physics. Thermodynamics require scientific method and (replacable part or chemistry).

Railroad: Heat engine meaning External combustion engine. It requires thermodynamics.

Combustion: Combustion engine meaning Internal combustion engine.

Advanced flight: Jet engine. Much better. Advanced flight means nothing in fact.

Refregeration: The name stays the same, but it requires electricity and heat engine.

Satelites: It requires rocketry and radio.

Apollo program: It is renamed to Space Program. It requires radio and rocketry. (I can't imagine something else )

 

[calad]

I really wonder do we play same game at all. Happiness very rarely is a problem and often every city has tons of extra happiness.

 

[citis]

I really wonder do we play same game at all. Happiness very rarely is a problem and often every city has tons of extra happiness.

We play different game. Except if you use the culture slider to accomodate your cities, which is lost beakers.

 

[Power_of_Beer]

I really wonder do we play same game at all. Happiness very rarely is a problem and often every city has tons of extra happiness.

Depends on the civ, really. Play a game as Prussia, and happiness is the biggest issue you will face. Especially now that trading for happiness resources is not worth it (if you cannot offer any in exchange).

 

[borhap88]

In my recent games, Empire of Nicea survives too long after the fall of Constantinople.

 

[Vectors]

Depends on the civ, really. Play a game as Prussia, and happiness is the biggest issue you will face. Especially now that trading for happiness resources is not worth it (if you cannot offer any in exchange).

Oh you want one of my [happiness resources]? I'll be happy to trade it for 78 gpt and your only iron

 

[citis]

Seeing a documentary on ancient military units, it seems what I leant in Civ is wrong . Well, I knew this isn't meant to be historically accurate but that's what I found:

Phalanx formation (which is represented by spearmen):
Phalanx formation is very strong against other unorganised units (i.e. warriors or axes), but it is weak against flank attacks (i.e. chariots and horse archers).

Maniple (which is represented by axes):
A unorganised formation for surprise attacks and hilly ground.

Conhort (which is represented by swordmen):
It is dedicated in fighting large armies.

Thus I propose the following changes:


Spearman: Strength 4, -25% strength on hills, +5% (caped to 25%) per spearman in stack
Axeman: Strength 4, +25% on attack, +25% on hills (if not city)/forest.

Swordman: Strength 6, -25% city attack

Chariot: +25% chance of withdraw against spearman

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Golly gee, if only someone else had already proposed a revamp of classical unit balance.

Oh wait, I did:

How about increasing the strength of the Musketman to 10 and decreasing that of Infantry to 18? Lastly add a new unit: Modern Infantry / Squad Infantry with strength 24, +25% City Combat available at Plastics. It never made much sense to me that after Robotics you can suddenly draft mechanized vehicles.

Also can we please please please nerf Axes or revamp them entirely? How does it make sense that a bunch of thugs armed with axes can consistently wipe out an orderly formation armed with spears, which is what Spearmen represent? It should be the other way around. Axes should be good in forests and cities, spears on open fields and hills. Also Horse Archers don't work as they really did either. Historically they could run literal circles around infantry formations (yes with spears), harassing them with arrows and galloping away before the enemy could so much as scratch them. The best way to deal with them was with archers, which ironically are about the worst unit to use in the game for that purpose.

Proposal for new classical unit balance:

Axeman: 30 Hammers (instead of 35), 4 Strength, 1 Move, +25% Forest, +25% City Strength, requires Copper or Iron
Spearman: 35 Hammers, 4 Strength, 1 Move, +25% vs. Melee, +50% vs. Mounted
Archer: 25 Hammers, 3 Strength, 1 Move, +25% Hills Defense, +50% City Defense, +50% vs. Mounted

Also remove Immunity against first strikes of Horse Archers, heck maybe all mounted units except maybe uniques, they have easy access to Flanking 2 which provides it anyway so it's redundant.

Edit:
Oh and Pikes and Heavy Footmen! Give the former +25% vs. Melee and +50% vs. Mounted and half the latter's bonus vs. Melee to 25% instead of 50.

 

[citis]

Golly gee, if only someone else had already proposed a revamp of classical unit balance.

Oh wait, I did:

I don't agree with the traits. For example fomration (spearmen) was an easy target for flank attacks. It should recieve malus against chariots, not bonus.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

I don't agree with the traits. For example fomration (spearmen) was an easy target for flank attacks. It should recieve malus against chariots, not bonus.

Alright, fine, how about this then:

Axeman: 4 Strength, +25% Strength in Forests, Hills and Cities
Spearman: 4 Strength, +25% Strength vs. Melee
Archer: 3 Strength, 1 First Strike, +25% Strength in Hills and Cities, +25% Strength vs. Mounted
Chariot: 4 Strength, +25% Strength vs. Melee, 20% Withdrawal Chance
Swordsman: 6 Strength
Horse Archer: 6 Strength, 1 First Strike, 30% Withdrawal Chance

Btw the Chariot should only have 1 move. Early horses weren't strong enough to pull a chariot and be any noticeably quicker than footsoldiers. Horse Archers meanwhile should stay at 2 moves.

No mounted unit apart from some unique ones is immune to first strikes any more.

 

[citis]

Rename units and something simpler:

Phalanx: (renamed spearman) 4, +10% strength per phalanx in stack in plains (caped at 50%)

The trait resembles that the power of phalanx is the dense formation of units, and it's inability to form in abnormal terrain.


Maniple: (renamed axeman) 4, +25% on attack
These units can cause a lot of problems if not countered quickly.

Horseman: (renamed horse archer)


As for the chariot the 2 movement is required for withdrawal to work properly.


Maybe the terrain defence bonus shouldn't apply to all units, but it should be unit trait. For example, melee units shouldn't recieve +25% bonus on hills. It should be a trait of archery units only.

 

[citis]

Romes spawns with 4 settlers but Carthage spawns with 2. A common result is Rome controlling Iberia. I propose to make the opposite.

Rome spawns with two settlers. (AI) Phoencia spawns with 4 to colonise mediterranean. In this scenario Rome should recieve conquerors in Iberia.

 

[saddam_who_sane]

Would it be worth presenting Russian civ in this mod not as pan-East-Slavic civ, but as Muscovy? Historically, it seems more fair. Especially, if it would be a split to Kievan Rus' and Muscovy
For example: Muscovy starts in 1380 and have new UP "of Continental Superpower" (UP "of Aspatial Culture"): Troops can claim vacant land close to continental borders (tiles should be added to the territory by simply putting troops to any tile next to continental border for at least 1 turn, remain 0% russian and be lost if nearby russian city is captured or if tile is culturally annexed). If you consider to imply something like this, I think it would be also great to add 25%-100% chance of native people uprising in the tile, annexed by russians with this UP, and add more resources in Siberia
What do you think?

 

[Shadow Warlord]

Would it be worth presenting Russian civ in this mod not as pan-East-Slavic civ, but as Muscovy? Historically, it seems more fair. Especially, if it would be a split to Kievan Rus' and Muscovy
For example: Muscovy starts in 1380 and have new UP "of Continental Superpower" (UP "of Aspatial Culture"): Troops can claim vacant land close to continental borders (tiles should be added to the territory by simply putting troops to any tile next to continental border for at least 1 turn, remain 0% russian and be lost if nearby russian city is captured or if tile is culturally annexed). If you consider to imply something like this, I think it would be also great to add 25%-100% chance of native people uprising in the tile, annexed by russians with this UP, and add more resources in Siberia
What do you think?

What's the point of this UP? I think Russia expands well enough through settler spam ( the AI just needs to do a better job of settling more resource rich areas rather than northern Siberia).

The Russian civilization could go like this:
-Spawn at Kiev. Moscow is either settled by them later or auto spawns at a certain date.
-If they survive Mongols, Capital moves to Moscow at certain date. If they are collapsed by Mongols, respawn with Moscow as capital.

I'd also think it'd be cool if their capital switched to St Petersburg (if built) for 1700-1800s. I don't think Maintenance costs would be too much if they're developed enough by then.

 

[Genghis_Khaiser]

I may come up with more ideas since I am not organized right now but here they are:
1. As I said before, making Indochina fatter so Thailand and Cambodia can exist at the same time (I am rather asking for an opinion here).
2. Adding more cities in the 1700 AD scenario. And an additional UHV for the civilizations that started before that date, like Japan, Spain, England, etc.
3. Adding city names for Aztecs settling in northern Mexico, and Korean names in case they settle in Manchuria or Mongolia, which the AI often does in my games.
4. How about some independent pre-built Scottish and Irish cities in 600 AD.

 

[The Diocletian]

1. As I said before, making Indochina fatter so Thailand and Cambodia can exist at the same time (I am rather asking for an opinion here).

Already been done in the beta versions of the game.

 

[ales_]

What do you mean by "beta versions"?

 

[Fresol]

Development versions, the SVN versions.

 

[Leoreth]

Already been done in the beta versions of the game.

Although Thailand and Khmer still cannot coexist, given that Ayutthaya and Angkor exist on neighboring tiles.