Suggestions and Requests

Also, I'm all for removing sources of cheese in the game, like squatting indies or spawnrushing new civs when they vacate. Here's the thing. It's give and take, not take and take.

Newest commit made it impossible to squat Indy city by holding a unit on it ;)
 
I'm against IVC because it's a lot of trouble to spawn cities and then take care of removing them again that is completely unjustified if there is nobody to interact with them.

there was trade between the IVC and Mesopotamia. if I added the IVC (which I would of course) I would make luxury trade between them and Mesopotamia crucial for both the IVC and Babylonian goals.
 
Newest commit made it impossible to squat Indy city by holding a unit on it ;)

I know. My statement was an express reference to it.
People cared about squatting India before because it interfered with too many UHVs or goals.
And also that 3 cities two tiles away from each other was an absolute sin to most people.
But now that India doesn't seem to do as well, and that razing has less of a penalty, the need for the squat is obviated.
So I'm not fretting that squatting is gone.

In order to stamp out exploits, one must find out the reasoning for them.
Addressing the source of the rationale can help fix things.
In the case of newborn civs and flips, the justification for spawnrushing is there.
No one, I guarantee, with the exception of masochists enjoy the unit leak mechanic.
With squatting, the purpose is to cripple civs that get too powerful.
 
there was trade between the IVC and Mesopotamia. if I added the IVC (which I would of course) I would make luxury trade between them and Mesopotamia crucial for both the IVC and Babylonian goals.
Yeah, I was talking about their viability in the game as a scripted spawn and despawn.
 
there was trade between the IVC and Mesopotamia. if I added the IVC (which I would of course) I would make luxury trade between them and Mesopotamia crucial for both the IVC and Babylonian goals.

We have been here many times, and I do see Leo's point. And what you are offering is too much, perhaps. But there sure could be a little compromise between whole new civilization and Marshes.

IVC covered large area. One tile on our map is very big place, which could hold many important cities in different time of history. Perhaps we can find one spot which can be IVC city before certain time, then be renamed into some important Indian city, then to Greek, then to Pakistani. Pick one of those four and never remove, but rename:

indus-valley-civilization-map.jpg
 
Frankly I would do them as a proper civ before doing anything like that.

There is not much interaction to be had with independents. They are in the game for two reasons, we want their cities to be conquered or we want to block certain plots from being settled. None of that is the case here. In fact all proposals include removing them somehow before anyone can conquer their cities or anyone comes even close to settling the area.
 
I also prefer them as a real civ but about independents, you can allow some interaction with them:

you can allow merchants and missionaries into them if not at war (RFCCW has a merchant unit and a merchant ship unit, so there are more than just great merchants). this also makes RFCCW's pilgrim unit more useful.

you could allow trade routes with them (I think, never tried)

my more advanced idea was to allow merchant units to do a trade mission on a resource plot owned by indys, and set up a resource trade that way. you could also just have the indy cities automatically give their resources to nearby powerful civs, all while not at war of course.
 
Tibet has UP which allows that. I like Indys, for me they are ANOTHER type of civilization, life does not revolve around regular civs only.
 
Random Fact: Great Merchants can already enter Independent borders and conduct trade missions in their cities, if you're not at war with the independent civilization in question.
 
I mean .. what would be the point? If we place every city which was around on 600 AD map -- where would we get? Every single Indy city that's getting spawned serves some role. Harrapa would be exception and tell the canonical story that "in the beginning civilizations came around in 4 places: Egypt, Mesopotamia, India and China". But Mecca? We really have to go after the big fish, getting main things right.

345e4768c29b66.jpg
 
Gorbachev used a tech from West to change civics and Soviet Union collapsed. :mischief:

I have a suggestion to make these situations in game seem more realistic/believeable: have the collapse take place over a few turns, lose peripheral cities on the first couple of turns and then fully collapse.

you could also bring back the check on war declarations, but make it set up a conditional that the crisis only takes effect if the cities are lost.
 
Oh, that sounds interesting. But I really only have time for that later on.
 
Brazilian UP currently is having very, very negligible effect on overall Brazil's performance. Comes very little and very late. I suggest power of coffee: Brazilian Coffee valued twice as much as regular lux resource! Meaning when I offer England a Coffee they don't give me a stupid Cow. But Cow and Wheat. Or 24 gpt instead of typical 12.
 
Frankly I would do them as a proper civ before doing anything like that.

There is not much interaction to be had with independents. They are in the game for two reasons, we want their cities to be conquered or we want to block certain plots from being settled. None of that is the case here. In fact all proposals include removing them somehow before anyone can conquer their cities or anyone comes even close to settling the area.

How about we make the IVC the first instance of the Tamil civilization?

There's sizeable evidence of links between the IVC and the Tamils to justify it in terms of historicity and would work from a gameplay perspective:
Keep their core as is, but force them to settle the Indus Valley (out of core) to help along with their instability and we can make them collapse early.
Spawn some additional independent cities in South India for them to flip on their scripted rebirth (which would be their current spawn date), as they won't have access to Settlers.
 
^^I like it
 
Claiming that tamils is the continuation of IVC is like claiming that Scots and Irish are the continuation of Celtiberians. However, we can see them as a prebirth of Mughals.
 
Back
Top Bottom