Suggestions and Requests

[ozqar]

I personally don't like the idea of a major/minor religion split, I think all religions should have different degrees of [the factors that would make them major and minor, ie: spread rate], but I guess this is basically that we would call a minor religion in the game:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_religion

As opposed to the few "proselytizing religions" that don't restrict themselves to one ethnicity.

Again, I'm not advocating this, but just thought I would post in case it helps the discussion.

 

[Vekkimaster]

Haven't read this thread so don't know if these marks have already been told.

War weariness

it should IMO to give more penalty, both in your stability (if not the proper civics) and maintenance. I'm thinking something like supply wagons/trucks to go along with your troops to prevent them to suffer, especially in foreign countries. Also some of your nation's FOOD would be consumed through your troops which would be linked somehow to maintenancing troops.

With this new dilemma of war there could be a new xp-level: MORALE, to prevent war weariness in foreign areas and to give some kind of short term bonus like "critical hit", formation etc. Only great generals could achieve this level.


A new nation of Father Christmas - Finland (maybe with a conditional spawn like Byzantti)

Spawning core between Sweden and Russia in the 12th century. UB SAUNA (theatre) giving you both extra happiness and health with some culture. UU Finnish skipatrol (infäntry) with a 2 first strikes and withdraw 40% (these units gave hell to Soviet Union during WW2). UP could be perhaps a cheaper technologies after a modern era.


Map
IMO there should definitely be GOLD somewhere in Lappland to be realistic.

 

[calad]

Well I perfer local vs global religion view on this. Global religions would be current religions minus Zorostian which for me is more like a local religion. Local religions would be enabled if you have certain civic like Pantheon and then you can build a special building like a temple that gives you benefits.

 

[Panopticon]

I don't think it's helpful to think in terms of minor religions because the religions discussed here are actually quite different.

That's kind of the problem with this discussion. We're all exchanging ideas about what the new religions could be like (which is fine), but there is very little discussion about what purpose the new religions should serve in each particular case, making it hard to make actual decisions.

I agree.

What are the merits of having 1.future Shinto-religion Japan instead of 1.12 Buddhist-religion Japan? It's true that Shinto was part of Japanese culture, but it is also true that painting was part of Japanese culture, yet that's not included in the game, i.e. it will never be a complete simulation of reality. Religions in the game work best when they are multinational, allowing for interesting diplomatic play, and not just expressions of the national culture.

 

[Bernd-das-Brot]

I suggest to make the Great Lighthouse go obsolete much earlier. Now it obsoletes with corporation, making Alexandria extremly powerful for every empire until industrial or even modern era! Makes absolutely no sense to me.
I think it should be obsolete with compass, optics or astronomy at the very latest. Regarding that it is a very early WW I think it's timeline of usefullness would be still long enough.

 

[strijder20]

It escapes me why you would skip Corporation when entering the Industrial/Modern era.
In the early-midgame, coastal trade routes are worth about 4 commerce; even less in the timespan between Banking and Corporation when the AI generally runs Mercantilism.

We generally don't see OP Arabia or even OP Turkey (before Corporation) anymore so I don't think a nerf is necessary.

Furthermore, Alexandria is foreign core and in Turkey's warmap, and usally not that easy to obtain.

 

[calad]

I suggest to make the Great Lighthouse go obsolete much earlier. Now it obsoletes with corporation, making Alexandria extremly powerful for every empire until industrial or even modern era! Makes absolutely no sense to me.
I think it should be obsolete with compass, optics or astronomy at the very latest. Regarding that it is a very early WW I think it's timeline of usefullness would be still long enough.

Compass would be more logical. Historically GL was destroyed by earthquake during 15th century, but I would imagine its real importance was long gone back then.

 

[Leoreth]

Super Arabia isn't that rare though.

 

[Bernd-das-Brot]

It escapes me why you would skip Corporation when entering the Industrial/Modern era.
In the early-midgame, coastal trade routes are worth about 4 commerce; even less in the timespan between Banking and Corporation when the AI generally runs Mercantilism.

We generally don't see OP Arabia or even OP Turkey (before Corporation) anymore so I don't think a nerf is necessary.

Furthermore, Alexandria is foreign core and in Turkey's warmap, and usally not that easy to obtain.

Modern era may admittedly be very rare, but possible. Industrial without corporation is not uncommon.

It may not be gamebreaking, but is definitely extremly powerful, when combined with an overseas empire. And there is absolutely no reason for the GL to be so powerful even in renaissance. Most of the other ancient WWs are long gone even without the potential of being so powerful. It just abusable for the human player without any historic or gameplay reason.

And as Leoreth said super Arabia is relatively common.

 

[Bernd-das-Brot]

Another topic:

I played nearly all Euro civs (600 AD) in the last weeks and thought it a bit strange that Theocracy is nearly always the better way to go in comparison to dynasticism. Not only ahistoric, but a bit boring if there is no real strategic choice.


For comparison:

Dynasticism:
Medium upkeep

+1 happy per millitary unit, up to +4

Stability bonus with Absolutism in Renaissance.


Theocracy:
Low upkeep
Double Priest slots

+2 happy (with state religion present)

+2 XP (with state religion present)

Stability boni with Org. Religion and Fanaticism. Stability-malus from industrial and later.


A possible change:

Dynasticism:
Low upkeep

+1 happy per millitary unit, up to +4

A minor capital buff, double statesman slots or extra happiness

Stability bonus with Absolutism in Renaissance.


Theocracy:
Medium upkeep
Double Priest slots

+2 happy (with state religion present)
-1 happy for every non-state religion

+1 culture per priest (with state religion present)

Stability boni with Org. Religion and Fanaticism. Stability-malus from industrial and later.



(And Totalitarism seems very attractive in comparison to Egalitarism. But I have not much experience with the late game civics, so I may be wrong.)

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Agree that Theocracy is almost always better than Dynasticism, though I'm not sure if I like your suggestions to fix that.

 

[Leoreth]

Unfortunately you cannot modify the yield of individual specialist types right now.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Unfortunately you cannot modify the yield of individual specialist types right now.

You can with buildings, it's what Angkor Wat does.

 

[citis]

Another topic:

I played nearly all Euro civs (600 AD) in the last weeks and thought it a bit strange that Theocracy is nearly always the better way to go in comparison to dynasticism.

It depends on what strategy you have. The general strategy is to control as populous cities as possible, thus dynasticism is better (it allows +2 more pop points).

 

[Leoreth]

You can with buildings, it's what Angkor Wat does.

But only yield types, not commerce types. Frustratingly.

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

I'd like to propose a revision to the New World conquerors mechanic for a number of reasons.
1. Old World civs are teching faster, making the ETA of conquerors very close to spawn in the case of the Aztecs. I'm talking Normal speed, Regent difficulty.
2. This has a direct effect on the doability of New World UHVs and I'd like that to be rectified.

My solution is as follows:
-Let's remove the arbitrary 1300AD waiting time required to trigger conquerors.
-Make the arrival of conquerors on first contact conditional to the stability of the New World civilizations.
(i.e. if Aztecs are Shaky, this triggers the same stack as currently expected, more units included in the stack at Unstable/Collapsing)
This is supported by history as in the case of the conquest of the Aztec and Inca Empires, the Spanish forces were majority (and I mean 90%+) comprised of discontented natives and tribes/city states.

This will likely require a retooling of Spain, but I'd prefer to see the New World civs gain a little breathing room so that they can flourish.

 

[strijder20]

I second that, seeing conquerors later than 1400 AD is becoming unusual.

In my current Russia game, both Poland and Italy had caravels in the water by 1350 AD - Spain followed suit (they were later because they failed to attack the Moors).

 

[Bernd-das-Brot]

Agree that Theocracy is almost always better than Dynasticism, though I'm not sure if I like your suggestions to fix that.

I am open for other suggestions. My main purpose was to get attention for the disbalance, not to see my suggestion incorporated.

 

[Bernd-das-Brot]

It depends on what strategy you have. The general strategy is to control as populous cities as possible, thus dynasticism is better (it allows +2 more pop points).

But how often do you get cities that big in early/midgame? Plague comes regularly and hits especially the big cities hard. And is it worth the effort? Too grow so big fast you have to focus on food, missing precious specialists and hammers. And you need 3 or 4 military units to gain more happiness than Theocracy gets for free. That's a lot of units, that will be needed somewhere else if you are not in peace. And many UHVs need war efforts or units for protection of colonies.

So I would say Dynasticism is highly situational and only in very rare cases better.

 

[Fresol]

A simple solution: make Palace give for example an extra +2/3 happiness under Monarchy.