Chep
Emperor
those congresses are so annoying, they force you to raze so many beautiful cities & completely destroy civs just because you need one single city from them...please, don't increase their frequency
Suggestions and Requests
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
DC123456789
Deity
...why would you need to do that?
Shadow Warlord
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2014
- Messages
- 272
You know you can refuse congress decisions right?
Chep
Emperor
refusing Congress decisions usually isn't that good of an idea.
Imagine 1750s-1800s Prussia refusing which leads to France, Ottomans, Russia and England declare on you.
So you have to accept them unless you are a lot stronger than the other voting parties (or isolated enough so that you don't care, or France who can just sue for peace immediately).
But giving away one of your highly developed core cities not only might cause you lots of (expansion) stability trouble, it also will be almost devoid of infrastructure once you take it back.
This means Prussia has to destroy Poland or they will get Königsberg. Or if you capture Amsterdam you will lose it at the next congress.
Razing Amsterdam and destroying Poland solve these problems for good. And currently are the only options to do just that.
Or if you want to hold on to your "historically" settled city in California as Japan you will need to fight the Mexicans and Americans for it, after each and every congress.
This is not even considering the problems the nesting of defensive pacts might cause if you decide to hand over and then retake one of your cities.
(however playing those pacts to your advantage is one of the coolest things you can do with diplomacy in the lategame, somewhat making up for the annoyance that congresses usually are)
Or the fact that giving up cities to the usually unstable AI will cause respawns of other civs which in turn could cost you even more cities.
(for example I had Spain take Marseille from me, causing a rebirth of France, which then cost me Paris)
Taking the current "military stability" mali into consideration as well makes the decision even easier. In my Spain game I had a permanent -10 for "losing wars" despite me conquering half the world at 80+% odds every fight plus a -2 to 4 for lost wars to barbarians (again, if the best chance you can get is 80-90% you will eventually lose a unit to those stacks of 4 barbs spawning in NA)
-> you dont want to fight wars against civs that can actually compete with you in terms of technology or you get another stability hit
-> don't get in a situation where you have to fight for your cities
-> avoid any situation where a civ could (reasonably) demand one of your cities via congress.
-> destroy a civ and raze cities you can't "defend" but whose territory you need.
Imagine 1750s-1800s Prussia refusing which leads to France, Ottomans, Russia and England declare on you.
So you have to accept them unless you are a lot stronger than the other voting parties (or isolated enough so that you don't care, or France who can just sue for peace immediately).
But giving away one of your highly developed core cities not only might cause you lots of (expansion) stability trouble, it also will be almost devoid of infrastructure once you take it back.
This means Prussia has to destroy Poland or they will get Königsberg. Or if you capture Amsterdam you will lose it at the next congress.
Razing Amsterdam and destroying Poland solve these problems for good. And currently are the only options to do just that.
Or if you want to hold on to your "historically" settled city in California as Japan you will need to fight the Mexicans and Americans for it, after each and every congress.
This is not even considering the problems the nesting of defensive pacts might cause if you decide to hand over and then retake one of your cities.
(however playing those pacts to your advantage is one of the coolest things you can do with diplomacy in the lategame, somewhat making up for the annoyance that congresses usually are)
Or the fact that giving up cities to the usually unstable AI will cause respawns of other civs which in turn could cost you even more cities.
(for example I had Spain take Marseille from me, causing a rebirth of France, which then cost me Paris)
Taking the current "military stability" mali into consideration as well makes the decision even easier. In my Spain game I had a permanent -10 for "losing wars" despite me conquering half the world at 80+% odds every fight plus a -2 to 4 for lost wars to barbarians (again, if the best chance you can get is 80-90% you will eventually lose a unit to those stacks of 4 barbs spawning in NA)
-> you dont want to fight wars against civs that can actually compete with you in terms of technology or you get another stability hit
-> don't get in a situation where you have to fight for your cities
-> avoid any situation where a civ could (reasonably) demand one of your cities via congress.
-> destroy a civ and raze cities you can't "defend" but whose territory you need.
Make friends, allies. use espionage and bribes. Use DPs. You can't go and conquer your neighbours and the rest of your rivals do nothing. You have to justify your conquests else face the global outcry. Basically the best option is complete conquest. Make sure poland will be dead after the conquest. Avoid conquering Dutch.
Chep
Emperor
bribing only 1 member of the congress costs you up to several turns of beakers (translated either into gold or espionage points) plus has no guarenteed result and even risks further diplomatic troubles.
Uhm...what?
It's not like I have the "elaborate" diplomacy options that SMAC had (where you could ask other civs to vote in your favour at the next congress via the diplomacy-screen) in Civ4.
That is precisely what I am saying.
Make sure there is no one and nothing to contest you when a congress comes around.
Uhm...what?
It's not like I have the "elaborate" diplomacy options that SMAC had (where you could ask other civs to vote in your favour at the next congress via the diplomacy-screen) in Civ4.
That is precisely what I am saying.
Make sure there is no one and nothing to contest you when a congress comes around.
Cosmos1985
King
In 3000 BC games, Buddhism pops up in Europe regularly. Even with its spread rate being low, it takes so long before Christianity is founded that it very often spreads to Rome or Constantinople, which always looks... weird. Is it possible to lower its spread rate in Europe even more, or perhaps even disallow it to be spread there "automatically" = without missionaries?
Also, because of the continent boundaries the AI is unable to improve the gold in Egypt - it doesn't really matter for a human player, but it obviously handicaps the AI a bit to not be able to grab it.
Also, because of the continent boundaries the AI is unable to improve the gold in Egypt - it doesn't really matter for a human player, but it obviously handicaps the AI a bit to not be able to grab it.
Kind of a random suggestion but it could be a good idea to spawn a Indie/Celtic city in Scotland right before the British spawn. This would help avoid exploits by earlier human euro civs where a city in Scotland is founded right before the english reach it. I'm mentioning England in particular because founding a city in Scotland is often a very cheap way of crippling a otherwise power civ by taking away a large portion of its core along with its iron. This also helps to slightly represent independent Scotland 
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Kind of a random suggestion but it could be a good idea to spawn a Indie/Celtic city in Scotland right before the British spawn. This would help avoid exploits by earlier human euro civs where a city in Scotland is founded right before the english reach it. I'm mentioning England in particular because founding a city in Scotland is often a very cheap way of crippling a otherwise power civ by taking away a large portion of its core along with its iron. This also helps to slightly represent independent Scotland
I like it, but there are some problems to face. The city should be Edinburgh. Now England flips any UK cities at spawn, so I'd prefer to make a late spawning event, just like the Kiev one, and eliminate a starting settler for England. This solution would allow, mainly to human player, to be free to settle a different Scottish spot (I usually prefer Inverness because of its direct access to whale resource).
Lone Wolf
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 9,908
Could we buff Italian Florence a bit? I mean, it's a pathetic size 3 city with no infrastructure, which is ridiculous for a European capital even at that stage, plus Venice isn't that strong of a city as well and is usually unhappy right after flipping.
Shadow Warlord
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2014
- Messages
- 272
If they don't already have starting infrastructure in Florence then they should. They would need the standard granary-aqueduct-harbor-forge (art studio in this case) setup.
Chep
Emperor
speaking of infrastructure:
could Colombia (and maybe Brazil/Argentina as well) get a Monastery of their state religion in their capitol? since they start with Scientific Method researched it will otherwise be rather hard for them to play with a religion.
could Colombia (and maybe Brazil/Argentina as well) get a Monastery of their state religion in their capitol? since they start with Scientific Method researched it will otherwise be rather hard for them to play with a religion.
Or we can let missionaries available by cathedrals too.
ozqar
King
This would make a lot of sense, evangelization hasn't ever really stopped and Cathedrals would be a nice place to get missionaries from.
ozqar
King
I was wondering, will there ever be a new type of great person? There's a mod (History rewritten) with Great Doctors (perhaps they have other types, I don't remember).
I would love to see one type of Great Person that honors Political Scientists, Journalists, Diplomats, Social Workers, Legislators, Judges, and Lawyers (yeah, some of them have been good!); Nobel Peace Prize laureates would fit this category. Perhaps, but not necessarily, you could link them to the Humanitarian victory conditions you once mentioned you were considering.
These "Great Political Scientists" (or another name) could allow for civics changes without anarchy and have a great building (a special courthouse, or a legislative palace); there are some techs that could be linked to them (most importantly Education, Liberalism, Democracy, Communism). Another idea would be to make them act as ambassadors providing a serious diplomatic bonus with one particular civ where you settle them.
Finally, (and I think this would be their most interesting ability) they could be really valuable if they had the ability to aid over-expansion (following the stability improvement idea). Perhaps you could take them to a city and make them add it to your core (provided it's not somebody else's core), otherwise they could simply introduce a factor that lowers the over-expansion rate.
I would love to see one type of Great Person that honors Political Scientists, Journalists, Diplomats, Social Workers, Legislators, Judges, and Lawyers (yeah, some of them have been good!); Nobel Peace Prize laureates would fit this category. Perhaps, but not necessarily, you could link them to the Humanitarian victory conditions you once mentioned you were considering.
These "Great Political Scientists" (or another name) could allow for civics changes without anarchy and have a great building (a special courthouse, or a legislative palace); there are some techs that could be linked to them (most importantly Education, Liberalism, Democracy, Communism). Another idea would be to make them act as ambassadors providing a serious diplomatic bonus with one particular civ where you settle them.
Finally, (and I think this would be their most interesting ability) they could be really valuable if they had the ability to aid over-expansion (following the stability improvement idea). Perhaps you could take them to a city and make them add it to your core (provided it's not somebody else's core), otherwise they could simply introduce a factor that lowers the over-expansion rate.
Similar threads
