Suggestions and Requests

[Leoreth]

I haven't had the opportunity to attempt anything, but if I have already implemented a way to change unit appearance why not use it in other cases as well.

 

[ezzlar]

Independent cities often spawn without defenders. They should get an archer or two. Gallic cities, sanaa, pagan etc.

 

[narvego]

Hurry production of "work boat" need a mercenaries civic. This is not a military unit, the same as worker or settler, so maybe a capitalism civic should be enough to can hurry them?

 

[cudfather]

Also Slavery.

 

[Leoreth]

Hurry production of "work boat" need a mercenaries civic. This is not a military unit, the same as worker or settler, so maybe a capitalism civic should be enough to can hurry them?

This should already the case?

 

[Fresol]

There's also missionary and spy. Last time I checked, they can't be hurried by either Capitalism or Mercenary.

 

[Leoreth]

Yeah, which makes sense in my opinion. Only units that benefit from increased military production can be hurried with Mercenaries. That should exclude Work Boats.

 

[ozqar]

I have a couple of suggestions. First, I think that Hainan could be taken off the map and increase SouthEast Asia's land one tile east. Hainan is (sorry, China) not that important and the region that represents Thailand, Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia could really do with those extra tiles.

Also, I think that upon Khmer collapse, the Khmer capital, if it has build the Angkor Wat wonder, could become a "city ruins-like" tile improvement that generates commerce and culture for the Thai capital. You could use the already included artwork for city ruins. This way, we can keep the wonder in the game and not regret having to lose a now-abandoned Khmer city.

I know that historically this might not make a lot of sense before the 1800s, as ancient ruins were most often ignored and not regarded as a source of culture or interest before that time, but starting with some technology, they could either start or at least increase their wealth & culture generation. The founding of the UN could also give these ancient wonders a boost (representing UNESCO's work).

This system could also be used in other regions, for example, if the Celts are added and they have built Stonehenge, but now we need them gone to make room for England's cities; perhaps upon Mexico's respawn (and in the 1700 scenario) to replace Chichen Itza with mexican cities Mérida or Campeche; Babylon usually has some wonders that would be nice to keep while the city itself should be replaced by Baghdad, this could help; perhaps Greek cities that built classical wonders in Anatolia and now face destruction by the Turks or Persians; etc.

Btw, I'm very excited about the possibility of seeing the Celts, Uzbeks, Swahili, and Polynesians in the game. I know nothing's been promised, and it might all be fan speculation, but they would all be amazing.

 

[Leoreth]

I have a couple of suggestions. First, I think that Hainan could be taken off the map and increase SouthEast Asia's land one tile east. Hainan is (sorry, China) not that important and the region that represents Thailand, Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia could really do with those extra tiles.

That's an interesting option I have never considered. I agree that SEA needs more space and Hainan is comparatively unimportant. Plus we have the islands feature to represent it now.

Also, I think that upon Khmer collapse, the Khmer capital, if it has build the Angkor Wat wonder, could become a "city ruins-like" tile improvement that generates commerce and culture for the Thai capital. You could use the already included artwork for city ruins. This way, we can keep the wonder in the game and not regret having to lose a now-abandoned Khmer city.

Currently Angkor will flip to Thailand and become Bangkok if it has a wonder so it doesn't get erased.

I know that historically this might not make a lot of sense before the 1800s, as ancient ruins were most often ignored and not regarded as a source of culture or interest before that time, but starting with some technology, they could either start or at least increase their wealth & culture generation. The founding of the UN could also give these ancient wonders a boost (representing UNESCO's work).

This system could also be used in other regions, for example, if the Celts are added and they have built Stonehenge, but now we need them gone to make room for England's cities; perhaps upon Mexico's respawn (and in the 1700 scenario) to replace Chichen Itza with mexican cities Mérida or Campeche; Babylon usually has some wonders that would be nice to keep while the city itself should be replaced by Baghdad, this could help; perhaps Greek cities that built classical wonders in Anatolia and now face destruction by the Turks or Persians; etc.

I'm already thinking about some kind of tourism mechanic that would also tie in outdated wonders, but I'm currently not sure in what way to include it (trade? culture? buildings?) and how to let it fit in with the rest of the game. Having it reflected in the UN is a nice idea though, I could easily imagine a "Declare X world heritage site" for obsolete wonders which could bring culture, trade routes or even a short golden age for the civ that controls it.

Btw, I'm very excited about the possibility of seeing the Celts, Uzbeks, Swahili, and Polynesians in the game. I know nothing's been promised, and it might all be fan speculation, but they would all be amazing.

I agree.

However, we are approaching the point where it may not be a good idea to add more civilizations haphazardly. And unlike some commenters, I don't mean that from a perspective of gameplay experience, but rather performance. We are approaching 50 slots right now and that is really the limit of where I want to take the game.

So we have to be smart about it and use our slots more economically. Most of them are currently hogged by dead civilizations which is quite the waste. This is another case where I have ideas at the back of my head that will be implemented much later. The basic concept is to undo the strict coupling of certain civilizations to certain slots so that slots can be reused. This will require a major rewrite of most RFC mechanics because they all run on this assumption. I think we can scale back to 40 slots with such a change which should give the game an additional speed boost as well.

This is also one of the cases where if I have to recreate everything from scratch, I want to do it right, so I plan to use the opportunity to include some cool features and remove clutter from the mechanics (special rules for conditional and exclusive spawns, the tedious system that scripted respawns currently use ...).

So this is a lot of work and most new civs will have to wait until after that point.

 

[need my speed]

Something I just thought of; why only have one special improvement per resource?

You can use bananas for food, or for commerce / export (banana republics ). You can use horses for production (draft animals and such, I guess the English term is?), food (eat them), or commerce (horse races and such).

Maybe resources could be biased towards a yield, because simply +1 food, +1 production, or +1 commerce sounds boring. Perhaps it'd be a bit bland anyway, but it's just a suggestion that randomly came to me. You don't even need additional graphics for it, but I have no idea if I'd implement it, so do with it what you want.

 

[ales_]

However, we are approaching the point where it may not be a good idea to add more civilizations haphazardly. And unlike some commenters, I don't mean that from a perspective of gameplay experience, but rather performance. We are approaching 50 slots right now and that is really the limit of where I want to take the game.

So we have to be smart about it and use our slots more economically. Most of them are currently hogged by dead civilizations which is quite the waste. This is another case where I have ideas at the back of my head that will be implemented much later. The basic concept is to undo the strict coupling of certain civilizations to certain slots so that slots can be reused. This will require a major rewrite of most RFC mechanics because they all run on this assumption. I think we can scale back to 40 slots with such a change which should give the game an additional speed boost as well.

So, you want to say that even a dead civ affects performance, don't you?

 

[Leoreth]

That's the problem, yes.

 

[mrrandomplayer]

So, you want to say that even a dead civ affects performance, don't you?

Yeah, from what I've seen in the code, there are still a lot of checks being performed even for dead civs that really slow down the game.

 

[FinalLegendZero]

Something needs to be done about AI Portugal's slow tech rate. It's 1610 in an Indonesia game for me and Portugal demanded Singapore from me via Trading Company. When I refused, their stack consisted of Crossbowmen and Trebuchets, as they had yet to get even the Civil Service tech.

 

[Atreju]

Great Britain declared war to a vassal of Russia. I had a defensive treaty with Russia but good relation with Great Britain and it's vassal Congo. I think it's not right that I get the diplomatic penalty "-3 You declared war to us" since this defensive treaty is public and GB was the aggressor in this case. They knew that they also will be at war with me. Does AI even reconsider declaring wars if the target has some defensive treaties with important civs?
What speaks against removing the diplomatic penalty for declaring war because of a defensive treaty?

 

[Leoreth]

They hate you because you are their enemy, I think this is fair in any situation. And yes the AI does take DPs into account (it's just sometimes rather reckless in general).

 

[Atreju]

The penalty for declaring war lasts also after making peace again, right?

 

[Atreju]

Was anyone else confronted with the United Nations not being able to successfully get a secretary general because none of the two candidats were able to get enough votes?In my China-game the nations of the world are meeting the 5th time now and wasting their time because both candidates are too unpopular so all the weaker nations abstain. One of the available candidate has already been exchanged by an other but still the UN stucks.

The new rule to give the smaller nations more power in the UN was a good idea. Maybe you should be able to vote for one of three candidates instead of 2 and decrease the necessary number of votes so there are not so many abstains because the chanche is higher that for more nations there is at least one popular candidate.

 

[ozqar]

I have a small observation, I noticed that the original Hanging Gardens wonder is working as a Floating Gardens one that requires corn, and since that guy (can't remember who it was) renamed them to "Chinampa" in his improved civilopedia modmodmod, I just realized they're meant to represent the Aztec ones. The best name for them would be "Xochimilco" (the way we call them) or "Xochimilco Gardens" (if you want to be more precise). I get that "Floating Gardens" is more generic, but that doesn't ring any bells. In any case, it's not very relevant, just a minor detail.

Also, thanks for the previous and very detailed reply, by the way.

 

[citis]

If Rome is alive and not German vassal, then Germany should be called "Kingdom of Germany" and not "Holy Roman Empire".