Suggestions and Requests

[CaterpillarKing]

A democratic and peaceful hitler is as weird as a democratic and peaceful Germany during industrial era. Let Germany recieve hitler as leaderhead and let them to try conquer Europe.

The same way a communist warmongering India is as weird as a communist warmongering Ghandi. Let India recieve Ghadi as leaderhead and make India peacefull.

In other words let leaders define the civics, agressiveness and so on. Not the other way around.

I disagree. Nations shouldn't be forced into certain civic classes because they hit an era. That's just not right to make everything on rails and definite like that. The current way LHs are done is perfectly fine and should be left in.

 

[merijn_v1]

About Germany, is that sarcasm? It's just as hot here as Alabama, but thank god there's little humidity here.

For our standards, it is nice weather.

 

[CaterpillarKing]

@merijn_v1 The dryness does make it better. 39.5 degrees Celsius with 80% humidity isn't at all uncommon in Alabama.

Also on the point of LHs, is Wilhelmina of the Netherlands in? For some reason I think he is...

 

[Leoreth]

And about the "No Protestant civ in Europe in 1700 AD" goal of Spain, does one have to use a Great Spy and spies to convert Prussia to Free Religion or Catholicism on the 1700 AD turn? Because otherwise the goal fails. I did that but I don't think it's really intended that way?

I was under the impression the goal ignores Prussia, it's a bug if that is not the case.

About Germany, is that sarcasm? It's just as hot here as Alabama, but thank god there's little humidity here.

For our standards, it is nice weather.

Exactly Alabama heat without humidity = good summer. Good thing I'll be in California in September when the weather in Central Europe will unavoidably turn to the complete opposite.

A democratic and peaceful hitler is as weird as a democratic and peaceful Germany during industrial era. Let Germany recieve hitler as leaderhead and let them to try conquer Europe.

The same way a communist warmongering India is as weird as a communist warmongering Ghandi. Let India recieve Ghadi as leaderhead and make India peacefull.

Germany had less wars than Britain in the Industrial era. And India was pretty socialist and warmongering in its era, even under a Gandhi.

In other words let leaders define the civics, agressiveness and so on. Not the other way around.

But that's a valid point. As of now, it's actually both. Leaders have favorite civics so civs can get "stuck" in one leader/civic combination that stabilizes, and I've always been unhappy with that. On the other hand, I can't think of a better criterion for when there are multiple leaders for the same time period.

Railroading civs into specific civics, so that e.g. Russia is always communist, is the opposite of what this game is about in my opinion though.

 

[citis]

Germany had less wars than Britain in the Industrial era. And India was pretty socialist and warmongering in its era, even under a Gandhi.

Germany had less wars, but the size of them and the aim of them, (trying to conquer Europe), then agressiveness during industrial era is justified. And that's what Germany/Prussia should do in the game, try to conquer as much European land as possible.

As for India, that' right. Although Ghandi is memorised for being peacefull, gameplaywise India was very agressive. They tried (and succeeded) unifying Indian peninsula under its rule. So it is justified to see AI India trying to conquer Indian colonies.

But that's a valid point. As of now, it's actually both. Leaders have favorite civics so civs can get "stuck" in one leader/civic combination that stabilizes, and I've always been unhappy with that. On the other hand, I can't think of a better criterion for when there are multiple leaders for the same time period.

Railroading civs into specific civics, so that e.g. Russia is always communist, is the opposite of what this game is about in my opinion though.

It's a historical mod so most times it should be like history. Equivalently, most games shouldn't be alt-hist, like never meeting Hitler, Mussolini or Franco. I never met anyone of them.

 

[Leoreth]

(trying to conquer Europe)

yeah who cares about conquering non-white people

It's a historical mod so most times it should be like history. Equivalently, most games shouldn't be alt-hist, like never meeting Hitler, Mussolini or Franco. I never met anyone of them.

I disagree, the what if aspect is much more important.

 

[need my speed]

yeah who cares about conquering non-white people

Well, not Bismarck. Or, what do you mean?

 

[Leoreth]

I just wanted to express that besides the fact that conquering Europe was nobody's goal at the onset of WW1, it's apparently irrelevant what kind of wars were fought outside of Europe and what their consequences were. Because you know, history is stuff that happens to white people.

 

[need my speed]

Ah, well, I didn't get that vibe from his post, but fair enough.

And, well, considering history starts the moment someone starts recording things, there's no way non-white people can have any kind of history; they're way too dumb to record anything, don't you know? Now, excuse me while I get my Indonesian slave to bake a cake for me. I wonder why all those whining subhumans don't just eat cake (I know 'let them eat cake' is likely to be an invented phrase, but hey, that shouldn't detract from the 'quality' of this paragraph)...

 

[CaterpillarKing]

I just wanted to express that besides the fact that conquering Europe was nobody's goal at the onset of WW1, it's apparently irrelevant what kind of wars were fought outside of Europe and what their consequences were. Because you know, history is stuff that happens to white people.

Another human being with logic and emotion! At last, I have proven them to exist!

On the point of LHs defining civs, we would need a set for each type of government for each era. Also, what would the player determine government wise? It would be more like Victoria 2 then.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Can we move Mt. Rushmore to another tech so America actually has a chance of building it? In my current game I had to give myself a Great Spy via Worldbuilder against the Dutch and sabotage their progress twice, and I've only now discovered Assembly Line. And I'm not even that backwards, the only civs ahead of me are England and the Dutch!

Me not being able to build all wonders that a civ has historically constructed is one of my biggest pet peeves, no matter if they are required for a UHV or not. I can't tell you how many Egypt games I aborted because of the Sphynx or how many as Germany because of Brandenburg Gate. America is of course a nightmare for that, especially if you also count projects.

 

[citis]

yeah who cares about conquering non-white people


I disagree, the what if aspect is much more important.

So you want a game where you will not meet any fascist leader from Hitler, Franco, Mussolini?

And don't forget about balance. Prussia needs to weaken Russia and France. Italy and Russia need to weaken Ottomans. Spain needs a chance to not be conquered by France after their colonial empire collapses (autocracy will let them produce a lot of military).

 

[CaterpillarKing]

Why is Mt. Rushmore on Fascism anyways? Doesn't make sense.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

So you want a game where you will not meet any fascist leader from Hitler, Franco, Mussolini?

No, he wants a game where you don't meet the same fascist leaders every single time you play it.

Why is Mt. Rushmore on Fascism anyways? Doesn't make sense.

Well it was built in the 1930s and 40s, so it fits the time at least.

 

[citis]

No, he wants a game where you don't meet the same fascist leaders every single time you play it.

Right now we are at the exactly opposite point. They never appear.

 

[need my speed]

You know what I dislike about the tech tree? That, at one point, it goes from 1200 to 1800 in about two to three technologies. Here:

Divine Right is tied with "L'état, c'est moi", I suspect, so put that at the late 1600's. I wonder if Constitution should be tied with the USA? Probably, so, 1776 it is. Military Tradition should probably be tied with 'esprit de corps' and the French Foreign Legion, so, 1831. That's fair enough I guess.

Paper arrived at the late 1000's in Europe, but was widespread-ish around 1200 / 1300 or so. The Printing Press is probably tied with Gutenberg, around 1440. But then we get Replaceable Parts, which is a concept from the late eighteenth century, with Napoleon and all. So we advance about 350 years with one technology. Taking the other path, we get Education, which I guess symbolises the spread of universities at the end of the middle ages (sixteenth century or so), and Liberalism which should be associated with the French Revolution (late eighteenth century). Again, we go forward many centuries with one technology.

I guess we can put Guilds at 1300 or so as well. Banking has a long history, but, I would put that either at the 1200's or so, or, what would be more logical here, tie it to Medici, which puts this at 1397. Gunpowder, in Europe, was first used in Europe in the mid-thirteenth century, but I guess we should put this technology at the late fourteenth century, which also fits with Banking. However, the next technology is Chemistry. This unlocks Frigates, which I'd put at the late fifteenth century. However, chemistry only begins to differ from alchemy in the very late seventeenth century. So...?

There are more examples, but I can't be bothered describing them (Scientific Theory > Communism is another good example, even if we use 'Karl Marx' instead of 'formation of the USSR' - this also implies 'Physics' refers to 'nuclear physics', by the way, which I guess is possible, but...). It just feels messy.

 

[citis]

This is the old tech tree. Economics require Astronomy, constitution requires Printing press, nationalism requires military tradition and there some other changes.

Chemistry can be considered to represent both Alchemy and Chemistry. The difference is scientific method (alchemy before SM, chemistry after it).

However, Printing Press seems a little problematic. You can go from paper (1100AD) to 1550AD with one tech. Maybe Printing Press should require Education instead of Paper?

 

[need my speed]

Oh, excellent point. I should investigate DoC's tech tree then.

 

[Shadow Warlord]

Don't forget that some of these techs (Printing Press, Gunpowder) were discovered in China much earlier than in Europe, but then slowly made their way over. So for some civs it makes sense to start with some of those techs earlier while others don't. We can't entirely model the tech tree on how advanced was Europe in this date.

 

[Shadow Warlord]

Can we move Mt. Rushmore to another tech so America actually has a chance of building it? In my current game I had to give myself a Great Spy via Worldbuilder against the Dutch and sabotage their progress twice, and I've only now discovered Assembly Line. And I'm not even that backwards, the only civs ahead of me are England and the Dutch!

Me not being able to build all wonders that a civ has historically constructed is one of my biggest pet peeves, no matter if they are required for a UHV or not. I can't tell you how many Egypt games I aborted because of the Sphynx or how many as Germany because of Brandenburg Gate. America is of course a nightmare for that, especially if you also count projects.

If you're not already using the latest SVN, you should try it. The AI tech rate has been heavily nerfed, so as America not only will you start out ahead, you can practically maintain that lead for the entire game.

I do agree that Mt Rushmore at Fascism never made sense. I also think it should probably require a certain civic combination so America is more likely to build it.