merijn_v1
Black Belt
Hmmm. Maybe it's time for a new modcomp...
Suggestions and Requests
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
Hmmm. Maybe it's time for a new modcomp...
Spoiler :
Some more ideas on these suggestions:
Spearman, axeman and swordman removed. (Heavy swordman renamed to swordman).
Phalanx: (requires bronze working, copper or iron) 4, +10% strength per phalanx in stack in plains (caped at 50%), upgrades to pikeman
The trait resembles that the power of phalanx is the dense formation of units, and it's inability to form in abnormal terrain.
Maniple: (requires ironworking, copper or iron) 4, +25% on attack except cities, ugrades to (heavy) swordman
These units can cause a lot of problems if not countered quickly.
Cohort: (requires construction, iron) 6, starts with city raider I
I want to clarify my position in contrast to what has been said about me above, it's not as much a thing that I am against in principle, but I think it's one of those ideas that would open the flood gates if implemented only punctually. If I do it, I want to implement it properly ("ugly" implementation is possible right now though) and really think through for whom it would be appropriate. So maybe a thing for later.
I'm not a fan of the river-surrounded tile that some map makers like to use. It looks ugly and does not do much to approximate the real world situation in my opinion.
I consider the island west of Italy a representation of both Sardinia and Corsica. And what do you mean with Palma? Mallorca / the Baleares are there. If you mean Malta, I think it's too small.
These things only prevent colonization, which is more important than some indies in my opinion.
Italy is crowded enough, and it's no question that Milan is more important from the Industrial era onwards. I'd consider Turin before Venice.
Ciudad de Guatemala is the largest city in the area. The placement is mostly for space reasons, and close enough in my opinion.
I don't think we want those islands to be settled.
I've tried to make Varanasi happen for a long time, and it doesn't really work. Even more so with Madinah, given how limited resources are in Arabia.
None of these wonders were in use after 600 AD, or outright ruined or destroyed, so they are not present.
Nothing against adding them, but I also don't think they would add much to the game. So no priority here.
I find national wonders problematic in general because their impact is much higher in RFC because civs in general have less cities overall compared to BtS. So I'd rather remove the NWs that are still left. I like the idea of NWs to specialize your cities more, but they probably need a rework to fit that role in RFC.
Moai Statues exist in the SVN and are a part of the Polynesian UHV. There is no civ that can historically build Stonehenge so it has been effectively removed (initially replaced by the Sphinx which eventually also had its effect changed).
Dunno, wouldn't it be more accurate to require no major wars to build the UN?
This is a popular one. In my view, TC events represent historical trading companies, which your examples aren't.
Didn't look it up, but isn't Memphis downstream the Nile? I assume it's to allow two cities in the Egyptian core.
The mechanic I use to make this name change is very wonky and can end up confusing if overused. It's probably better to wait with this until the framework around civilizations is changed.
There are about two dozen civs I'd add before Scotland. Indie Edinburgh has been tried but England works better without it.
Portugal already has a high chance of peacefully allowing flips.
There isn't really right now. Canada is already in, and as soon as civ slots and spawns are redesigned to allow additional civs I think there are more interesting civs than even more late game western civs.
This already happens to some degree.
Nationalism seems appropriate given the historical circumstances.
No, I don't want religious uniformity to be achieved too quickly (persecution has been replaced with a persecutor unit, but you can only have one of them as well).
Actually I think I'd rather revert that special rule.
I don't think it's necessary for gameplay and historically there's little that could come inbetween. That upgrade progression seems fine to me.
It's still siege equipment, though.
Yeah, why not?
The real life name of Japan is "Japan", without title. So I wouldn't know why any alternative should be more realistic. Not sure about the Shogunate, Japan was still nominally an Empire during the Shogunate.
A kingdom is not a republic, and that should be emphasized. Not opposed to "United Republic of Great Britain", but I also like the Commonwealth name.
You can wind up with authoritarian or democratic dynamic names depending on the civics you combine it with, which is a fine way to handle it in my opinion.
(Please forgive me if my answers appear curt, there's just so much to answer. Feel free to follow up if you think an answer isn't satisfactory. Also, if it seems that I'm arguing against most suggestions, it's because I've either already considered them or they have been made before. Suggestions I'll wholeheartedly agree with mostly fall into the "it's already in" or "it's a long term thing" categories.)
Sgt. Bears
Warlord
What about the Great Library being present in both later starts and the terracotta army being present in the 1700 AD scenario and not present in the 600 AD.
I think you were being sarcastic but please don't merge the 2nd unique unit. I love the idea of the mod but some of the added units and buildings are just lame. It's hard to come up with good ideas for 43 civs.
I think you were being sarcastic but please don't merge the 2nd unique unit. I love the idea of the mod but some of the added units and buildings are just lame. It's hard to come up with good ideas for 43 civs.
Shadow Warlord
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2014
- Messages
- 272
The Great Library shouldn't be present in either 600 AD or 1700 AD as far as i'm concerned. The Great Lighthouse really shouldn't be present in 1700 AD either (both were long gone by that time, Great Library destruction date varies, but it's around the 600 AD point). I think Khajuraho could stand to exist for 600 AD, it would really help Mughals with their first UHV.
GL and TA are inconsistencies that haven't been rectified yet. I think both should be removed. Terracotta Army is one of those wonders that could also work as present but expired, but either way one scenario needs to be adjusted.
ales_
Heir
What about adding all wonders already build in all scenarios but just make sure that they are obsolete?
Genghis Khaiser
King
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2012
- Messages
- 771
Thank you for your answers, Leoreth.
-About the wonders, I am aware that most of them were destroyed or disappeared by a certain age, but even though I was speaking for gameplay rather than for historical accuracy, that could probably go against the philosophy of this whole modmod. Some of those wonders were buried or hidden for centuries, so perhaps a few of them could be autofounded at a certain date or technology, or maybe have an archaeologist event (That could have an interesting mechanic for a future version).
-Memphis is near what is Cairo nowadays. I believe it is named Ineb-Hedj here, two tiles east and one tile south of Alexandria, or two tiles north from Niw-Rst/Thebes/Luxor.
-About the Siege Elephant, it is a siege unit but it is also an elephant, so it could cross jungles. Speaking of which, why are jungles in RFC impassable for most units? I am not against the idea, in fact, gameplay-wise it creates natural defenses and probably could be the translation of why some areas historically were not explored until recent centuries.
-Now that you mention that of South Africa, I agree, but to some degree with the exception of Zimbabwe. The Zulus and Boers are fine represented by Natives (as long as the Boers are given guns).
-A persecutor unit is good enough to represent persecutions like the Inquisition or the Wars of Reformation. That project existing only once at a time was a bit annoying.
-About the TCs I suggested, I forgot about the East Indian Companies and thought more about Industrial Age imperialism.
-About the inland islands, you are right. I tried some of them myself with the World Builder and most of them looked pretty ugly.
-And for some reason the one I wrote for the most, the Autocracy, for historical accuracy, having it combined with another democratic civic like Representation or Egalitarianism could cause either a republican (authoritarian republics), monarchical (constitutional monarchies, that being my point, which so far), or a dictatorial name, depending on what empires or dictatorships they historically had, or how long did it take them to get rid of their monarchies. Maybe a monarchical to most of those who either abolished their monarchies after WW1 or keep it nowadays, a republican for those who abolished it before that or never had any monarchy at all, and some special names for certain civs, like France (French Empire) or Mexico (Mexican Republic).
By the way, I read the 1.13 log so far, and my only trouble is espionage, but I hope I am wrong with that and that it is much better in practice than it looks in paper. The Great Statesman is a great idea, it was about time something like that existed in a Civilization game. Ooooh I loved that idea of the islands causing water tiles to make production, otherwise it would have taken ages to build the cheapest building there.
-About the wonders, I am aware that most of them were destroyed or disappeared by a certain age, but even though I was speaking for gameplay rather than for historical accuracy, that could probably go against the philosophy of this whole modmod. Some of those wonders were buried or hidden for centuries, so perhaps a few of them could be autofounded at a certain date or technology, or maybe have an archaeologist event (That could have an interesting mechanic for a future version).
-Memphis is near what is Cairo nowadays. I believe it is named Ineb-Hedj here, two tiles east and one tile south of Alexandria, or two tiles north from Niw-Rst/Thebes/Luxor.
-About the Siege Elephant, it is a siege unit but it is also an elephant, so it could cross jungles. Speaking of which, why are jungles in RFC impassable for most units? I am not against the idea, in fact, gameplay-wise it creates natural defenses and probably could be the translation of why some areas historically were not explored until recent centuries.
-Now that you mention that of South Africa, I agree, but to some degree with the exception of Zimbabwe. The Zulus and Boers are fine represented by Natives (as long as the Boers are given guns).
-A persecutor unit is good enough to represent persecutions like the Inquisition or the Wars of Reformation. That project existing only once at a time was a bit annoying.
-About the TCs I suggested, I forgot about the East Indian Companies and thought more about Industrial Age imperialism.
-About the inland islands, you are right. I tried some of them myself with the World Builder and most of them looked pretty ugly.
-And for some reason the one I wrote for the most, the Autocracy, for historical accuracy, having it combined with another democratic civic like Representation or Egalitarianism could cause either a republican (authoritarian republics), monarchical (constitutional monarchies, that being my point, which so far), or a dictatorial name, depending on what empires or dictatorships they historically had, or how long did it take them to get rid of their monarchies. Maybe a monarchical to most of those who either abolished their monarchies after WW1 or keep it nowadays, a republican for those who abolished it before that or never had any monarchy at all, and some special names for certain civs, like France (French Empire) or Mexico (Mexican Republic).
By the way, I read the 1.13 log so far, and my only trouble is espionage, but I hope I am wrong with that and that it is much better in practice than it looks in paper. The Great Statesman is a great idea, it was about time something like that existed in a Civilization game. Ooooh I loved that idea of the islands causing water tiles to make production, otherwise it would have taken ages to build the cheapest building there.
Against which specific philosophy would that go?
I think there's a difference between outright destroyed wonders (Great Lighthouse, Hanging Gardens ...) and those which fell out of use and into obscurity (Borobudur, Macchu Pichu ...). It's probably most consistent to have the former absent and the latter present but expired.
Oh right. That means that Memphis and Thebes could coexist in theory, which is probably the most historical combination for ancient Egypt. There are multiple problems with this though:
- in practice, it's hard to arrange resources so that this configuration is actually preferable for the player (although I haven't looked at it in detail). If nobody's going to build it, it becomes pointless.
- it precludes Alexandria, which is better to have from basically the Greek era up until now
The problem with spawning at Memphis is that we're stuck with that city in any case. If Thebes isn't possible or desirable the second city will make the result worse than the common Thebes/Alexandria we get now. I could attempt to keep the Thebes spawn but encourage Memphis over Alexandria a bit more.
The whole idea of a jungle is basically something that you cannot cross with a regular army. It's hard enough for small groups, anything larger is essentially impossible to supply. That this is also good for gameplay is one of the nice emergent features of RFC.
As for Siege Elephants, I imagine their cannons to be carried separately when armies are moving (no way an elephant is going to carry a cannon on its back all day). And siege equipment through jungles is even worse than regular foot soldiers.
I think the Zulus are more interesting than Zimbabwe. The Zimbabwean civilization was over before anything that exists in the game right now could interact with them. They would essentially be filler that doesn't actually add to the game by interacting with someone. It's similar to how AI Polynesia does not exist.
Yeah, I've tried to model the effects of that more through the Congress mechanic.
I have a bit of a problem parsing your post, probably because I'm not sure what you're addressing. Is there a specific outcome of the current mechanism you're criticizing?
Because I think they way it works right now already does a pretty good job of encapsulating what you describe. It comes down to either (liberal) republican names for Autocracy (with Universal Suffrage or Representation) or fascist/authoritarian names (with the others). I see the former as populist democracies or maybe even what is now branded "illiberal democracy", where republican names are nominally correct still. The others are strongman states, outright dictatorships and assorted totalitarian regimes. The fascist names might be too strong there for some countries, but usually they are generic enough to work either way. Constitutional monarchies require Dynasticism in my view, and should be precluded by running Autocracy. They currently wind up with the standard monarchical name which is historically accurate.
The only weakness of the current naming system is that "empire names" (i.e. something that's based on extra factors like number of cities), such as "French Empire", can only apply if you're a monarchy. That's obviously not always right. Napoleonic France was the French Republic but it was also the French Empire. Not always sure what to prefer in such a situation.
Great to hear! You can always check it out for yourself, it's not that hard to setup SVN access.
What exactly do you think is problematic about the espionage changes?
Shadow Warlord
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2014
- Messages
- 272
For Egypt i feel Thebes -Memphis - Alexandria would be the ideal setup, as all three cities were at one point capitals of the many Egyptian Kingdoms. Plus the later scenarios force you into Cairo and Alexandria anyway, the only question is how you want to settle the south of Egypt (the AI usually settles Luxor either way).
For Dynamic names, the combinations are fine, but the AI civic choices need to be changed so they don't favor Autocracy so much (sorry, but there's only so many times i can stand seeing a modern Commonwealth of England).
Btw, Napoleon did crown himself Emperor of France during his reign (wikipedia actually labels the First French Empire as an Absolute Monarchy. There is a reason France has five different republics). Napoleon also basically got to pick and choose what sorts of freedoms he would allow.
There are two tiles Memphis could feasibly be on, either directly adjacent to Thebes and Alexandria respectively.
Actually I think the AI is smart in this. Autocracy seems to be too strong.
Shadow Warlord
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2014
- Messages
- 272
Why can't Memphis just be where it is in 600 and 1700? Or are you looking to ensure each city has their first ring unobstructed?
DC123456789
Deity
Alexandria-Memphis-Thebes would be ideal, but Egypt is currently definitely too small for three cities on the Nile, and there is no way it could be expanded without distorting and shrinking the already marginalized Nubia even more.
The Diocletian
Fire Fly
Disagree heavily, I actually think Republic is too strong in comparison to Autocracy. Perhaps I undervalue the draft, but IMO the cottage growth rate and GPP generation bonus Republic brings heavily outweighs the draft, the small happiness bonus, and the great general bonus (which is almost irrelevant IMO). Granted, I feel the AI makes better use of Autocracy than it would Republic, mainly because the AI is terrible about building improvements. By the time Autocracy becomes available, production is plentiful, and the draft isn't really needed.
Genghis Khaiser
King
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2012
- Messages
- 771
That depends on what you are looking for. If you are an economic/technological player, Republic lets you do research faster, but Autocracy is great for building armies in a short time.
Imperator Knoedel
Currently obsessed with The Owl House
Currently the only condition that determines whether a civ is communist for the purposes of dynamic names and the Russian UHV is that a civ is running Central Planning. Imo that is insufficient. Even if we operate under the bourgeois assumption that states like the Soviet Union or PRC are communist, this doesn't account for states like Saudi Arabia which have large parts of their economy nationalized, but nobody in their right minds would call communist.
I therefore propose that a civ that's running Central Planning is not to be considered communist if it is also running more than one of the following civics:
Dynasticism, Theocracy, Vassalage, Absolutism, Tribalism, Agrarianism, Capitalism, Fanaticism.
This way there is still a little leeway for stuff like state capitalistic China calling itself a People's Republic, but we won't have a half feudal Soviet Union anymore which is depressingly common.
I therefore propose that a civ that's running Central Planning is not to be considered communist if it is also running more than one of the following civics:
Dynasticism, Theocracy, Vassalage, Absolutism, Tribalism, Agrarianism, Capitalism, Fanaticism.
This way there is still a little leeway for stuff like state capitalistic China calling itself a People's Republic, but we won't have a half feudal Soviet Union anymore which is depressingly common.
Imperator Knoedel
Currently obsessed with The Owl House
Which is why I didn't preclude authoritarian civics from making a given civ being considered communist by the game.
If I was talking about what civics an actual communist society would run it pretty much would have to be City States/Republic, Egalitarianism, Public Welfare, Central Planning/Environmentalism, Secularism and... umm... Militia I guess? However such societies have so far not only been very rare, but also of negligible impact to world history, which is what this mod focuses on. The myriad degenerated workers' states on the other hand, which are authoritarian or totalitarian regimes associated with Marxist thought tradition, claim to have abolished classes or are working on it, and often call themselves People's or Democratic Republics, have taken together been quite influential on the world stage in the past century, hence it makes sense to represent this phenomenon in this mod.
But that's missing the point, and that is that states which are commonly considered to be communist have pretty much always done away with feudal and overly religious structures, while some other states like Saudi-Arabia arguably have a centrally controlled economy, but aren't thought of as communist by pretty much everybody except for maybe some libertarian whack-jobs with Any Rand as their Waifu. If we look at Saudi-Arabia as an example of a civ with Central Planning without the game considering it communist for dynamic name and Russian UHV purposes, it would likely be running these other civics:
Dynasticism/Theocracy
Absolutism
??? (Now that I think about it, any labor category civic except Agrarianism and maybe Slavery could fit them.)
Fanaticism
Standing Army? Don't know much about their military structure tbh
Let's compare and contrast with modern PRC:
Autocracy
Totalitarianism/Representation?
Capitalism
Secularism
Standing Army
or for the full "being exactly the kind of society communism was supposed to abolish but it has People's and/or Democratic Republic in its name" experience North Korea:
Autocracy
Totalitarianism
Industrialism
Pantheon (arguably, depends on how you take the ruler cult that makes it look like a parody of 1984)
Standing Army
and as added bonus, the craziest of the crazy, the Khmer Rouge:
Autocracy
Totalitarianism
Agrarianism
??? (I honestly don't know how much influence local folk religion had on their ideology, considering they were very nationalist.)
Standing Army?
Now if you compare those with my list, you will see that Saudi Arabia has at least three of the no go civics, while my other examples only have one each. If my proposal was implemented gameplay would nicely reflect reality if this situation was replicated ingame, giving Arabia its monarchical name and the other civ their "communist" ones.
To be honest, all of that is dancing around the true point, that is in real life most people consider a state to be communist if that state can trace its state ideology back to at least a twisted version of Marx' teachings, and what this state actually does on a daily basis, like sending people to forced labor camps, thoroughly surveillance its populace, engineering famine, enforcing a ridiculous ruler cult around the guy in charge, even actively letting foreign corporations in to exploit their workers, which one would think is the exact opposite of communism, does not affect this judgment. Just having a sizable portion of your economy nationalized doesn't cut it, its the state's ideology that counts. And that is in most states commonly thought of as communist one that claims that the working people are in charge and is deeply secular, while in Saudi-Arabia it's a specific branch of a major world religion which openly proclaims that the real power lies in a supernatural being and a royal family.
Phew that was a long post. Better attach a summary:
tl;dr: Central Planning isn't enough to constitute a state as communist, it's about in what ideological tradition that state stands.
Similar threads
