Suggestions and Requests

[Leoreth]

Why are your vassals collapsing?

 

[Chep]

because they lost a war.

Every time I get someone to capitulate it means that they lost all their cities except for 1-2 to me, I then often liberate most of those that are in their core/historic areas (basically back to the status they had before the war) but that doesn't change their status from collapsing/unstable to anything else.

Of course there are civs like the Inca that are just designed to be unstable, but the Aztecs, Moors and other civs are also always collapsing by the time they are willing to capitulate.
I gather they have a high military stability malus plus some problems in other columns due to the war they lost to me.
In my last games I had always stopped to try and vasallize someone because that would just lower my own stability (I can deal with the malus for overextension but I can't counter the foreign stability for having an unstable vasall) and instead just destroyed the civ, because that was better for my stability. However that just feels rather weird to me and also is often quite annoying.

That's why I think this might help counter this temporary stability malus these civs have after losing a war.

 

[citis]

Make conquerors unable to spawn in jungles OR let my units to attack them in jungle. It is weird to be Indonesia, able to beat the Netherlands' conquerors, but you have to pay them tribute to end the war.

 

[Leoreth]

The conquerors will only spawn on jungle when there is no other place for them to spawn.

 

[citis]

The conquerors will only spawn on jungle when there is no other place for them to spawn.

Then I should avoid founding this city. But I founded it centuries ago and I din't have any clue.

 

[Leoreth]

I think a better solution would be to allow attacks on jungle tiles without being able to enter them.

 

[citis]

I think a better solution would be to allow attacks on jungle tiles without being able to enter them.

Yes, that's a very good solution.

 

[Tigranes]

Canada still flips St. John's...

 

[Sgt. Bears]

Just a few mods that would be awesome to merge.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12830216&postcount=802
This mod could show when settlers receive the extra buildings and population.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12999261&postcount=1174
This could give the new world civilizations a unique new world pantheon civic for wonders instead of having classical pantheon + corn.

two ways to increase the value of having more than one strategic resource.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12851573&postcount=874
So that more strategic resources means more possible troops.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12841673&postcount=833
More strategic resources means more experienced troops.

Makes Vassals more useful.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=13188969&postcount=1393

Makes Spies more interesting.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=439060

Makes Great Generals more interesting.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=352036

 

[Leoreth]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12999261&postcount=1174
This could give the new world civilizations a unique new world pantheon civic for wonders instead of having classical pantheon + corn.

I actually have plans for something like that, although for a different purpose.

 

[Panopticon]

The biggest value of multiple strategic resources is denying your neighbour the strategic resource.

 

[Leoreth]

Actually I'm not against encouraging acquiring multiple resources in general, because it would also balance out the human advantage of being more efficient at acquiring happiness from trade.

For strategic resources, I could imagine a benefit for upkeep costs for units requiring them.

 

[Shadow Merc]

because they lost a war.

Every time I get someone to capitulate it means that they lost all their cities except for 1-2 to me, I then often liberate most of those that are in their core/historic areas (basically back to the status they had before the war) but that doesn't change their status from collapsing/unstable to anything else.

Of course there are civs like the Inca that are just designed to be unstable, but the Aztecs, Moors and other civs are also always collapsing by the time they are willing to capitulate.
I gather they have a high military stability malus plus some problems in other columns due to the war they lost to me.
In my last games I had always stopped to try and vasallize someone because that would just lower my own stability (I can deal with the malus for overextension but I can't counter the foreign stability for having an unstable vasall) and instead just destroyed the civ, because that was better for my stability. However that just feels rather weird to me and also is often quite annoying.

That's why I think this might help counter this temporary stability malus these civs have after losing a war.

I've also seen some situations where a civ will collapse immediately after capitulating to someone during a war. Idk if this has already been addressed, but generally if a civ is capitulating they shouldn't just disintegrate.

 

[Leoreth]

Yes, I recently reverted the vassalization rules to the old behavior. Vassalization does not trigger a stability check anymore (so no collapse right under your eyes), and their stability level will increase to shaky if lower.

 

[Chep]

I cant help but feel that this is quite inferior to the mechanic I proposed.
Now Mongolia will probably vasallize China (just to mention 1 example) leaving the civ and all their "juicy" techs in the game, causing the wellknown troubles of a China that didn't collapse.
But then I guess it was easier to implement.

 

[ezzlar]

The modmodmod RFCE++ has a few very interesting mechanics. If a civ demands a resource or a tech and you refuse they might declare war on the fly. They also occasionally cancel open border deals. None of this has never happened to me in DoC. It would be great if you could implement it!

 

[Leoreth]

The modmodmod RFCE++ has a few very interesting mechanics. If a civ demands a resource or a tech and you refuse they might declare war on the fly. They also occasionally cancel open border deals. None of this has never happened to me in DoC. It would be great if you could implement it!

Yeah, it would be cool if that happened more, maybe I can give it a look.

 

[ImNotHere]

Yeah, I don't know how the AI actually works at a code level, but the AI is pretty dumb. Anything to make it more... intelligent/more engaging in realpolitik is a good thing.

That brings me to another idea: is it possible to have peace treaties involve concessions from both sides? I've always hated the winner takes all aspect of peace treaties, when often throughout history peace treaties involved some concessions by the "victor" (although, they almost always took more than they gave). This mostly would involve border changes I think, basically offloading crappy cities onto the loser or maybe restoring their core in exchange for capitulation. Another option might be if the two sides are close after a long drawn out war, there could be a status quo ante bellum type thing, where the map doesn't change.

I know the whole city trade idea has been floating around for a while, and I don't know what (if any) ruling was made on this, but if this was implemented I think it would be a big improvement for gameplay and the relations between wars and colonies changing hands.

 

[Leoreth]

This is just Pandora's box for AI exploits. There is a reason that even Europa Universalis doesn't allow this.

 

[Fresol]

I would suggest that Iron desert hill in city's BFC be covered by city culture with culture <= 100. Rules should be adjusted to allow this to happen. Otherwise it's pointless to play as civs such as the Moors.