Suggestions and Requests

[Imperator Knoedel]

I agree, let's just agree that this is best solved together with a civil war mechanic? Which in turn has a dependency on my player slots to civilizations refactoring. For which I'm currently preparing some utility changes. So you could say I'm basically already working on it

Would this civil war mechanic also do away with Seljuks in their current form?

 

[faustao]

Any plans for Australia and South Africa?
They feel a bit unimportant in most if not all games unless the player himself focuses on those places.

 

[Leoreth]

Would this civil war mechanic also do away with Seljuks in their current form?

I hope to dispose of them by other means, but yes, their implementation is also very awkward.

Any plans for Australia and South Africa?
They feel a bit unimportant in most if not all games unless the player himself focuses on those places.

Maybe later when more civ slots become available.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

I hope to dispose of them by other means, but yes, their implementation is also very awkward.

Excellent. They should be grateful it's the good cop removing them, because by the time I would be through with them their UU would be called... *puts on sunglasses*

Gulag Warrior.

YEEEEEEAAAAAAAAH!

 

[merijn_v1]

To expand on my Seljuks suggestion, I'd like to repeat my desire that Civ5's barbarian camp system be implemented. Instead of spawning Medjeys/Mohwaks/Seljuks/whatever name this or that rebel scum may go by directly just spawn barbarian forts guarded by era appropriate defensive units instead, and make it so that a new appropriate unit (Impis in Africa, Dog Soldiers in America, Seljuks in the Middle East etc.) spawns in it every turn or every few turns depending on the exact situation.

I must stress that barbarians appearing out of nowhere in the heart of your empire is just immersion breaking, especially if your stability is solid.

I while ago, I was toying around with that idea. I may pick it up again.

(http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=539068)

 

[KeeperOT7Keys]

could we discourage the use of slavery in the core cities for ai? whenever a middle east civ resurrects they always use slavery in their core cities and that makes them constantly unstable. this is especially for egypt, although they have all kind of improvements in fertile fp tiles they always go for slavery. and their core cities stay at pop 5-6 for the whole game.

 

[Panopticon]

To be frank there would be almost no point to colonization with these changes as is.

Well, this is just a proof of concept. It works, you can do it, so of course it could change. Anyway, in most DoC games, the colonising tropical Africa is usually left to the AI.

The results are intriguing ... what modifiers did you use?

Really simple, just some large increment to cultureCost on non-ocean tiles within two rectangular areas of the map covering most of the tropics in Africa. Maybe +500. There are cleverer ways to do it (multipliers, or discounts for plots with resources). Then when you discover Biology, it does cultureCost recalculation like when a new resource type is discovered, and it skips the increment from then on.

 

[Leoreth]

Really simple, just some large increment to cultureCost on non-ocean tiles within two rectangular areas of the map covering most of the tropics in Africa. Maybe +500. There are cleverer ways to do it (multipliers, or discounts for plots with resources). Then when you discover Biology, it does cultureCost recalculation like when a new resource type is discovered, and it skips the increment from then on.

Oh that's how you did it. I thought it was somehow done via Jungle/Marsh tiles.

 

[Chep]

is it feasible to change the "declare-war-mechanics" in a way that accepting someone as a vasall doesn't trigger defensive pacts?

Scenario:
I am at war with Civ A, who has a def. pact with Civ B (who I already made peace with or was never at war with in the first place). I accept Civ D as my vasall, now they declare war on Civ A, causing Civ B to declare war on me as well.

I think that last part is unnecessarily belligerent.
(also: all civs you accept as vasalls pretty much become unstable immediately, making it almost completely idiotic to take vasalls in the first place)

 

[Panopticon]

Oh that's how you did it. I thought it was somehow done via Jungle/Marsh tiles.

That's a good idea too. I rejected it because many of the desired tiles are just plains or hills plains. Actually, I think something like that might already exist in the code.

 

[adhiraj.bose]

ok so I have installed the newest version and started playing it. One point about the map changes, why was coal in India not included ? Or Uranium ? I thought the master map change suggestions were going to be incorporated in the later versions after 1.11?

 

[Leoreth]

ok so I have installed the newest version and started playing it. One point about the map changes, why was coal in India not included ? Or Uranium ? I thought the master map change suggestions were going to be incorporated in the later versions after 1.11?

I don't know who said that but it wasn't me.

 

[Mouthwash]

Why do you have such an allergy to implementing map changes? Iran looks ridiculous as it is, and some major modern countries don't have access to strategic resources (China lacks uranium and bauxite).

 

[Leoreth]

I just don't like most changes proposed in that thread

 

[Mouthwash]

I just don't like most changes proposed in that thread

But some of them are completely historical. Adding coal to India surely can't ruin your game experience, can it?

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

But some of them are completely historical.

Some of them? Does that mean most of them are just random adjustments based on imagination? Because then I can see why Leoreth wouldn't want to include it. There's too many resources as it is.

 

[Mouthwash]

Some of them? Does that mean most of them are just random adjustments based on imagination?

No, I mean the ones that are clearly, categorically historical and make minimal changes. Morocco IRL has plenty of green areas but whether this is represented by the game properly or not is up for debate. Canals or straits can be represented by rivers, but Leoreth apparently finds them hideous. Et cetera.

 

[Panopticon]

Not everything needs to be everything. Leoreth made the right call when reducing the resources in England.

 

[Mouthwash]

Not everything needs to be everything. Leoreth made the right call when reducing the resources in England.

I agree. But India and Pakistan are both nuclear states. So is China, which also has an advanced military. Why shouldn't they be those in DoC?

 

[Leoreth]

I don't disagree that China or India need some late game strategic resources. It's just disingenuous to claim that I don't like map changes at all based on my actions in relation to that specific project.

I'm sure that it includes many changes that make sense such as the ones mentioned, but it's kind of hard to parse those out of what is offered to me more or less a full package, which I can only decline in full.

I'd prefer if we could move to a more productive process of simply pointing out those isolated problems so I can come to a well founded decision.