Suggestions and Requests

[Panopticon]

Canada starts with Organised Religion. Is there a case that this multicultural nation of the 19th century should have Free Religion instead?

 

[Tigranes]

No, Catholic Church played important role up until the post war reforms. It is totally appropriate, but should not be Catholic all the time, rather depend on the religion of Montreal/core.

 

[DC123456789]

No, Catholic Church played important role up until the post war reforms. It is totally appropriate, but should not be Catholic all the time, rather depend on the religion of Montreal/core.

Only in Quebec though. The mere idea of the Catholic Church exerting its control over any of the other provinces would have been horrifying to the Protestant majority in the most of the other provinces.

 

[Panopticon]

This discussion is an excellent explanation of why Canada needs to not have a single state religion.

 

[Shadow Merc]

circumnavigation is indeed something I care about (unless I play the mongols, ottomans or someone like them), the +1 to workboats alone makes it worthwhile. 3-move-workboats can get you access to sea resources a turn earlier in most cases.

Not just the workboats, but having your ships move faster is great too. With Spain's UP, you can have 9 movement galleons that can reach North America and the Caribbean in practically 1 turn.

 

[Tigranes]

Many countries have experienced many civil wars during their history, but very often there is one defining the Civil War. Roman Civil War, Russian Civil War, American Civil War, Spanish Civil War.

I propose Generic Civil War Civilization which can become active only 1 time per given game/autorun and gets a dynamic name and dynamic leader's name depending on which civilization it affects.

"The Civil War of the game" can only affect one of the scoreboard leaders and only triggered by civic/religion changes (Anarchy). Each civilization has its own trigger "anarchy " situation. Like Hereditary Rule Russia switching to Republic while being in top 3 on the score table and less than solid. Core stays Republican and keeps troops there. The rest of Russia is traded to Generic Civ which gets the name White Russia, who stay HR, and starts with the war against the core. This new civilization is legitimate major civilization, which can conduct diplomacy and try to win the game, but has no UU or UB and can never make a peace with the core.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Yeah, having real civil wars is always a demand with people in such games, although having it triggered by specific triggers would probably just discourage these civic changes. ALso, it sounds very hard to code, although of course, it's theoretically doable.

 

[ezzlar]

Tigranes: Cool idea. Maybe a formula like: If the civ is among the 3-5 top civs. Or if it has accumulated a lot of points over the last 30-40 turns (and ended up in a high position). Multiplied by a stability factor. It would be somewhat random then!

Of course, this is a punishment for success.

 

[citis]

Many countries have experienced many civil wars during their history, but very often there is one defining the Civil War. Roman Civil War, Russian Civil War, American Civil War, Spanish Civil War.

Adding a mechanism, so that there are two sides in civil wars, diplomatically and militarily. It is an interesting idea, but it will be really frustrating . Some ideas on that:
*This civ can only be at war with the other side, so noone else can steal your cities.
*Capturing a city doesn't destroy any building, doesn't have any city resistence and citizents do not "yearn to join our motherland".

 

[ezzlar]

Adding a mechanism, so that there are two sides in civil wars, diplomatically and militarily. It is an interesting idea, but it will be really frustrating . Some ideas on that:
*This civ can only be at war with the other side, so noone else can steal your cities.
*Capturing a city doesn't destroy any building, doesn't have any city resistence and citizents do not "yearn to join our motherland".

It should be Total war forever, no peace. A spawn of units for the AI versus human.

But I think other civs could join in. Germany used the Russian civil war to grab some land. But at least they could start at peace with all other civs. France also helped the North during the US Civil war.

The last point is good. If doable.

 

[Leoreth]

Many countries have experienced many civil wars during their history, but very often there is one defining the Civil War. Roman Civil War, Russian Civil War, American Civil War, Spanish Civil War.

I propose Generic Civil War Civilization which can become active only 1 time per given game/autorun and gets a dynamic name and dynamic leader's name depending on which civilization it affects.

The problem with this is that to make such a civ viable, they have to be given war maps, maybe settler maps and modifiers that match the era they are supposed to appear in. All of these things are currently tied to slots and therefore impossible to make dynamic. So I won't be able to do this until I have untied all modifiers and maps from slots.

 

[Fresol]

Increase Islam spread chance in West Africa, especially inside Mali's core. Currently Islam spreads way too slowly in their cities, and they don't have time to build missionaries.

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

Dedicated civil wars for this mod make me feel like this:

Not to mention the thought of player leader punishment is kind of off-putting for me.
The research penalty and catch-up mechanics are already enough rubberbanding as it is.
Do we really want to turn DoC into Mario Kart?

The current AI is super unstable and going through constant civil wars with breakaway cities.
In my last Persia game, my spies in the east revealed that Corea was constantly losing it's northern cities,
Japan was losing Nagasaki all the time and China kept losing Shanghai and Beijing.
Ethiopia would dissolve to just two cities and lose over half their empire.

And participating/interfering in civil wars is something we can already do.
Just run in and snag independent cities before the home civ can do anything about it.
When your own cities break off, you can fight to get it back.
The only thing we are not addressing here is the diplomacy which is negligible.

In my mind, this is adequate. First and foremost, I think reducing bloat should be a priority for the mod.
If the performance thread was any indication, I think it's entirely possible this mod might one day be unplayable for a wider majority of regulars.

EDIT: I'm sorry if I appear as a fun-sucker but these are things to consider here.

 

[The Diocletian]

-snip-

As always, eloquently and clearly put. I second this. Adding a civil war mechanic when we already have seceding cities and the anarchy mechanic makes for a copious amount of redundancy.

 

[mrrandomplayer]

Dedicated civil wars for this mod make me feel like this:

Not to mention the thought of player leader punishment is kind of off-putting for me.
The research penalty and catch-up mechanics are already enough rubberbanding as it is.
Do we really want to turn DoC into Mario Kart?

The current AI is super unstable and going through constant civil wars with breakaway cities.
In my last Persia game, my spies in the east revealed that Corea was constantly losing it's northern cities,
Japan was losing Nagasaki all the time and China kept losing Shanghai and Beijing.
Ethiopia would dissolve to just two cities and lose over half their empire.

And participating/interfering in civil wars is something we can already do.
Just run in and snag independent cities before the home civ can do anything about it.
When your own cities break off, you can fight to get it back.
The only thing we are not addressing here is the diplomacy which is negligible.

In my mind, this is adequate. First and foremost, I think reducing bloat should be a priority for the mod.
If the performance thread was any indication, I think it's entirely possible this mod might one day be unplayable for a wider majority of regulars.

EDIT: I'm sorry if I appear as a fun-sucker but these are things to consider here.

^This.

The current stability system is already extremely punishing for both the human and the AI, even to the point of ahistoricity. Civil wars would simply make the mod ridiculously unplayable, unless they were used to somehow replace the current negative aspects of the stability system.

Also, if this became too much like Mario Kart, the stability system would become a metaphor to this:

Destroying friendships and ruining the fun of the game.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Originally Posted by Tomorrow's Dawn
Dedicated civil wars for this mod make me feel like this:

Originally Posted by The Diocletian
Adding a civil war mechanic when we already have seceding cities and the anarchy mechanic makes for a copious amount of redundancy.

I am under impression that they are suggested as an alternative to some aspects of current stability system, as opposed to simply slapping them on the current one. The main problem with them is the difficulty in implementation.

 

[Tigranes]

The current AI is super unstable and going through constant civil wars with breakaway cities.
In my last Persia game, my spies in the east revealed that Corea was constantly losing it's northern cities,
Japan was losing Nagasaki all the time and China kept losing Shanghai and Beijing.
Ethiopia would dissolve to just two cities and lose over half their empire.

Civil War is the way to reset stability. Every particle has an anti particle. Every great civilization had an anti-civilization. Similar, and yet so diametrically different they would annihilate each other. Republican and Imperial Rome. Nationalist and Communist China. Northern and Southern American States. White and Red Russia. They did not loose cities to faceless independents. They all followed the same formula: Major Instability-Anarchy-Civil War-New Stability.

There are 2 basic approaches to modding: make vanila "larger" and make vanila "deeper". More eras, units, techs, civs, resources, promotions="larger". Dynamic Rise and Fall, stability, better AI, Congresses, lost contacts = "deeper".

Proposed Civil War mechanics meant to add depth to the mod, and not to make it like the car in your cartoon. The idea is not to punish the unstable leader, but on the contrary, create the catharsis moment: basically reset the stability by winning a bloody war against half of your former cities/units.

Many mods have something similar. In PAE, for example, a stack of 20+ units, especially lead by a GG, can revolt (become barbarian) and cause some serious rebellion. But barbarians are enemies of all, they have always war mode against all. I was proposing to design a special civ that is "barbarian" only in relation to the target civ. A civ which has "Vendetta" or "Always War" mindset against the target, but acts normal (just like target civ) with others.

I know it is hard to implement but this is how the ideal final result works. Say you are playing as a big, leading but unstable civ (China) and want to change civics. This triggers one-time only Major Civil War. A generic civ, as an evil twin, copies your war and settler maps, gets assigned to your UU, UB, UP, only different in leader and has an old civic as favorite one (Old China). Half of your units and cities (randomly chosen, so you can't prepare in advance) stay loyal to you (New China), the other (Old China) acts like a China for others, but as "Always War" Civ against you. Your stability gets reset to default, all your old penalties disappear, it is almost like you are experiencing a respawn right after collapse. But this comes with a price: you have to face your evil AI twin.

Basically human player can face his AI reflection at some point in his long game as a special challenge.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Well, collapse already resets stability, and no one considers collapse to be a blessing

 

[Tigranes]

Because you collapse to your single city capital (or core) with unpredictable amount of units (possibly less than half). And your cities go two shades of grey, and everyone fights grey.

Civil Wars are like Plagues, no one likes them but they happen in real life and in the game.

 

[Shadow Merc]

Civil War is the way to reset stability. Every particle has an anti particle. Every great civilization had an anti-civilization. Similar, and yet so diametrically different they would annihilate each other. Republican and Imperial Rome. Nationalist and Communist China. Northern and Southern American States. White and Red Russia. They did not loose cities to faceless independents. They all followed the same formula: Major Instability-Anarchy-Civil War-New Stability.

There are 2 basic approaches to modding: make vanila "larger" and make vanila "deeper". More eras, units, techs, civs, resources, promotions="larger". Dynamic Rise and Fall, stability, better AI, Congresses, lost contacts = "deeper".

Proposed Civil War mechanics meant to add depth to the mod, and not to make it like the car in your cartoon. The idea is not to punish the unstable leader, but on the contrary, create the catharsis moment: basically reset the stability by winning a bloody war against half of your former cities/units.

Many mods have something similar. In PAE, for example, a stack of 20+ units, especially lead by a GG, can revolt (become barbarian) and cause some serious rebellion. But barbarians are enemies of all, they have always war mode against all. I was proposing to design a special civ that is "barbarian" only in relation to the target civ. A civ which has "Vendetta" or "Always War" mindset against the target, but acts normal (just like target civ) with others.

I know it is hard to implement but this is how the ideal final result works. Say you are playing as a big, leading but unstable civ (China) and want to change civics. This triggers one-time only Major Civil War. A generic civ, as an evil twin, copies your war and settler maps, gets assigned to your UU, UB, UP, only different in leader and has an old civic as favorite one (Old China). Half of your units and cities (randomly chosen, so you can't prepare in advance) stay loyal to you (New China), the other (Old China) acts like a China for others, but as "Always War" Civ against you. Your stability gets reset to default, all your old penalties disappear, it is almost like you are experiencing a respawn right after collapse. But this comes with a price: you have to face your evil AI twin.

Basically human player can face his AI reflection at some point in his long game as a special challenge.

I think the best implementation of a "Civil War" mechanic is the Roman Civil War in Classical World. If Rome becomes too unstable somewhere between 1/4th-3/4ths of their cities turn over to a special AI that acts as a rebelling Roman civ. Once most of the cities are retaken, the rest return to Rome and the rebelling AI is destroyed. With this method though it takes up a civ slot, so that means to represent every civil war we'd need a special slot for each rebel.

I agree with many of the above posts though that we need to reduce bloat, otherwise we risk many current svn versions being unplayable (I'm currently waiting for the new culture mechanic to become somewhat stable before I upgrade…as well as for Canada to be more fleshed out and balanced).

Well, collapse already resets stability, and no one considers collapse to be a blessing

I think currently collapse means total collapse and defeat for the player. I know there's collapse to core if your expansion stability is too low, but I've never had that problem.

I do miss the days where collapse meant just losing most of your cities but generally keeping your capital. It was fun to rebirth your civ/fight to take back your empire, which we can only do now through intentionally screwing over expansion stability.