Suggestions and Requests
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
Sgt. Bears
Warlord
What about changing all resource health and happiness to 1/2 (buildings and from having the resource improved). This should quarter the health and happiness limit for cities. You can then add all the other resources with no buildings to the health and happiness buildings.
While this should be good for large empires it probably won't work for small ones like early England who wouldn't be able to grow very big.
If the dll doesn't allow for it you could change it to no improved resource happiness and just 1 happiness from buildings.
While this should be good for large empires it probably won't work for small ones like early England who wouldn't be able to grow very big.
If the dll doesn't allow for it you could change it to no improved resource happiness and just 1 happiness from buildings.
Non-integer values would be hard to do, but an equivalent change would be to simply increase the unhappiness and unhealthiness per population to two. Which is pretty radical, but maybe something like two unhappiness and unhealthiness per population after ten could actually work.
merijn_v1
Black Belt
What about the Realism Invictus system? Most resources don't give 
directly. Only after building certain buildings, they will provide . (This will cut the from resource by about half)
directly. Only after building certain buildings, they will provide . (This will cut the from resource by about half)
JustAnotherNerd
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2014
- Messages
- 144
I don't know what Realism Invictus system is, but I'm already afraid of it ;D
If, say, gold/gems/silver won't give happiness directly, then ancient mediterranean civs will be unplayable, at least on higher difficulty levels, except Egypt maybe, since they starting with dynasticism.
Besides, maybe in that Realism Invictus, dynasticism is not capped on 4 happiness?
Anyways, for human player always exist a way out, but what about AI?
It will result in very unhappy cities for the AI, or very small core area cities for the AI, it does mean early collapses due to low expansion stability for them.
If, say, gold/gems/silver won't give happiness directly, then ancient mediterranean civs will be unplayable, at least on higher difficulty levels, except Egypt maybe, since they starting with dynasticism.
Besides, maybe in that Realism Invictus, dynasticism is not capped on 4 happiness?
Anyways, for human player always exist a way out, but what about AI?
It will result in very unhappy cities for the AI, or very small core area cities for the AI, it does mean early collapses due to low expansion stability for them.
I suppose the buildings that give happiness with resources are cheaper and become available earlier? I'd probably also create more diverse buildings that don't do anything except providing health/happiness with 1-2 resources.
merijn_v1
Black Belt
That's more or less what Realism Invictus does. I can give you a list of the buildings from RI which do this, if you want.
merijn_v1
Black Belt
Not at all.
Another feature, some religions don't get extra health or happiness from certian resources. For example, if you have adopted Islam as your state religion, pigs don't provide any health bonus and wine doesn't provide a happiness bonus. This might be a nice addition when you overhaul the religions.
Another feature, some religions don't get extra health or happiness from certian resources. For example, if you have adopted Islam as your state religion, pigs don't provide any health bonus and wine doesn't provide a happiness bonus. This might be a nice addition when you overhaul the religions.
Spoiler :
ales_
Heir
Whale and wine too.
JustAnotherNerd
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2014
- Messages
- 144
Seems like "fashion designer" is late game building? Maybe furs won't be obsoleted with plastics now. Finally!
ezzlar
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Messages
- 1,846
Some random thoughts about war. The idea is to decrease city fighting:
- Remove most of the city raider promotions
- Remove city garrison promotions
- Reduce forest to 25% defense bonus
- Increase fortress bonus to 75%
- Make fortress cultural control area (like Sengoku mod)
- Make all sea units able to explore foreign territory
- New rules for ZoC? Sea/land
- Remove most of the city raider promotions
- Remove city garrison promotions
- Reduce forest to 25% defense bonus
- Increase fortress bonus to 75%
- Make fortress cultural control area (like Sengoku mod)
- Make all sea units able to explore foreign territory
- New rules for ZoC? Sea/land
strijder20
Wallowing in irony
I don't agree with the 75% (!!) defensive bonus for forts. That means a hill fortress is nigh untamable, especially if the city raider bonuses are removed too.
The only realistic and effective way I can see to remove city fighting's importance is to establish an UPT limit, but that's a lot of work and it's merits are debatable.
You attack similar points to what I have in mind, although my solutions are a little bit different.
Why? Stacks don't really have a relationships to cities. I think cities are more of a problem because currently they are a defensive liability rather than asset, considering that the easiest way to stack attack bonuses are city attack promotions. That might be feasible in BtS where you can abandon your first ring of cities an then mount a counterattack, but in DoC many civs only have one ring of cities.
You could also probably include it in Japan's expansion UHV, too.
Talking about zones of control, do you mean a similar system to in Civ 2? I think it could work well, maybe only applied to certain units or in certain situations (cities/forts are obvious). It would force more combat in the field rather than having armies glide past each other. And then maybe a modern Blitzkrieg style promotion could override it. Definitely scope for some interesting arms races there.
Tomorrow's Dawn
Heroes Never Die
You're looking at the symptoms and not the cause of the problem.
I agree with the bottom non-bolded stuff. But the top stuff is just shifting some numbers around without actually addressing the reasons why city defense happens and why forts are ignored.
Read below.
I disagree. Defense is still weaker than offense in this game, but can still hamper most efforts because of something BtS didn't have. There were two tech situations you could end up in vanilla, depending on the difficulty you chose. On easier difficulties, it's entirely possible to be 2-3 eras ahead of your competition and steamroll. On harder difficulties, it's impossible to stay ahead, but in BtS, it was possible to tech in such a way that you could be fighting Infantry with stacks of Cuirs and Rifles and be winning, so long as you were lobbing tac nukes ahead with every strike.
In DoC, tech is constant, as new civs spawn with equivalent techs to you. Fighting at troop parity and no easy access to an edge like tac nukes gives defense a bit of an edge; what it just means is that defense can hold out against a siege longer, it doesn't mean that defense is good at what it's supposed to do and stop an attack altogether without pumping up insane bonuses like Theodosian Walls which I'll maintain is bar none the worst Wonder in the game.
I mentioned this before in an old post, but Forts are useless. There's no strategic incentive to defend them, no strategic incentive to attack them and in the few instances that there are useful Forts (Suez),
the simple workaround is to drop troops on another coast. Defense loses because it is static. Offense wins because it is mobile and dynamic. Forts can be ignored at leisure. Cities cannot, as centers of production and places where reinforcements can be funneled, such as by air or sea. Cities are superior to forts by these traits, and not so much a liability because of it.
To fix forts, let them generate and contribute yields as long as they are connected to your empire via road/railroad. This can be disregarded in the case of an island fort.
To prevent abuse, only allow players and AI to build a limited number of Forts.
Because the fort now contributes to an enemy war effort in a direct way, this will make it an important issue to tackle and be considered on the list of threats to address.
Let taking a fort and subverting it under your control provide a ton of warscore so the attacker now has incentive to take it as well.
We can make Forts useful in other ways too, such as reducing the strength of Barbs that enter the Forts cultural ZOC as suggested by ezzlar.
There's also the Citadel solution in Civ5.
I have more subtle fixes in mind.
You can read an old post of mine to improve defense here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=13483256&postcount=206
In a rare case of simulationist leaning, I have a mechanic in mind that will make city sieging a bit more interesting,
but I actively recognize this goes counter to the promos I've suggested without a third mechanic in place. Just throwing it out there for thought.
City defenders lose their Fortification bonus if the total Food output being worked by the city goes under positive.
Similar threads
