Suggestions and Requests

I think you just have a more operations based strategic mindset that I think generally cannot be adequately reflected in a Civ game that as the same time covers the whole world and the entire timeline of human history. At some point you have to choose between scope and granularity.

I also appreciate your point of view, but I also have to stick to the design decisions I have made for DoC (and those inherited from RFC), and in this case I don't think those two are compatible.

Thanks for the constructive level of discussion too by the way, especially in contrast to what happened earlier in this thread.
 
I have never commented on here before, but I love DOC, and I’ve been on a long quest to win as every civilization (after several years, I’m only a little over halfway there). But I came up with an idea, so I wanted to share. I apologize if this something like this has been implemented and I don’t know about it; I haven’t updated my install in a while (worried that those abandoned saved games where I’m so very close to completing my UHV, that I hope to go back and win someday, will not be compatible).

Anyway, my idea was that after nationalism, when a faction collapses, it collapses as if it were a human player—namely, back to its core. Without being destroyed.

I feel that this would be realistic. After the concept of nationalism, nation states haven’t really gone away. After the empire of Napoleonic France collapsed, there is still a France. After the Ottoman Empire collapsed, there is still a Republic of Turkey. These empires lost their imperial lands, but their core (both in a real sense, and in a gameplay sense) remained. Likewise, after WWII, all the European colonial empires essentially collapsed. But we still have England, the Netherlands, etc, as countries. The Soviet Union collapsed, but there still exists a somewhat reduced Russia.

I feel like this would not only enhance the game in terms of historical accuracy, but also in terms of gameplay. Collapsing civilization being eliminated is useful for making room for new civilizations. The Western Roman Empire collapses to make room for the Western European countries (also, the Western Roman Empire was really destroyed); the Ancient Persians tend to collapse to make room for the Arabs, and the Arabs in turn for the Turks. But after nationalism there are few new civilizations, and those that exist are mainly colonial (e.g. United States, Argentina, Brazil), and thus far from any other civilization’s core. You don’t need to get rid of old empires to make room for new ones in the same way as earlier in the game.

This would also make it harder to destroy civilizations (though not impossible; if at war with a collapsed civ, it shouldn’t be too hard to score the coup-de-grace and take their now-isolated capital). I think this is important. In games that I have played that have made it to the 20th century, the map, especially of Europe, never looks like it did historically. And while this is in some sense good (I don’t want everything to unfold historically), the reason is many of the large European colonial empires collapse, meaning games with no Spain, or no France, or no Portugal. And the Ottomans always seem to collapse, so there is never an independent Turkey.

Thoughts? Is this possible?
 
I agree with your observations. Currently there already is a "collapse to core" mechanic, but it mostly works as a weaker counterpart of collapses for slightly more stable civs. It's true that complete collapses don't seem realistic in most cases, and also are undesirable in the way the leave major regions only controlled by minors. On the other hand, as you mentioned complete collapses are sometimes necessary to get an old civ out of the way to make room for history to progress.

I have plans for stability changes already and have also thought about this problem. I've never managed to come up with a good way to determine when which kind of collapse is required but your idea of simply using Nationalism as the determining factor is actually quite simple and elegant. I will keep it in mind, thanks.
 
My suggestions:

-Iran has an awkward-looking leader that is apparently a copy of Tokugawa of Japan. But I know you said that his look cannot be changed. This is a little flaw in your mod. But if it cannot be changed, it is okay!

-The religious persecutor is apparently an Orthodox/ Christian one even for Asian nations like China who is having an Asian religion as her state religion. Again, a little imperfection.

-I know nothing about editing a mod. I wonder if you can add the following elements that I and other players may long for:

Cultural influence: you know in history we have hellenization by Greeks in Central Asia and India. We also have Japan, Korea and Vietnam incorporated into themselves Chinese cultures. Recently, Korean culture is also very popular in Asia. The above cultural influences are not totally the same as the cultural border we have in Civ 4--that is actually a territorial border. The cultural influence I mean here is the influence that does not necessarily occupy a foreign city.

I have this in mind: say, if Greeks culture is very influential, this may affect the building styles of some cities in a foreign civilization that welcomes/ incorporates its culture. The influence may also affect the diplomatic relation of Greece with this foreign nation positively. I mean, the influence may increase the relation score of the foreign nation with Greece. For example: "+2: Your civ's culture is very popular in my nation." And if a civilization is very backward towards a more advanced civilization, or if a civilization has triggered wars with a foreign civilization, these may reduce the relation score. For example: "-4: we disdain your backward unimportant culture" or "-3: our people are resisting your civ's culture".

Also, cultural influence-wise, I always think of a unit like a "scholar". Like how Japanese people sent a lot of scholars to China in Tang Dynasty to learn her culture, technologies and systems, and how China sent students to study the Western technologies in Japan. I think this is quite an important element in the course of history--we are mutually learning from/ influencing each other. I think some unit like a "scholar" can be created. The scholar can be sent by a civilization to a foreign civilization's capital and learn the latter's advanced technologies and cultures. After learning an advanced technology, the less advanced civ will discover that technology. Or After studying a culture in a foreign civ, building styles, religions and change of diplomatic relations may be resulted. Actually, not just building styles can be influenced. Perhaps we see Japan builds "Taixue-Chinese Examination Hall" in their country.

Of course, you may say that, we can also trade technologies in our existing game. But, that is just a "trade", not "learning".

Of course, to be perfect, I hope to see that each civilization has its own unique features (can be any pre-existing thing or a newly created thing by you). They can be ideology, religion, civics, intangible stuff or tangible stuff like the Taixue I have just mentioned. You can create something like American movies, Bollywood films, Chinese poems, Japanese drama, Korean music, etc. And a unique feature of a civ can be seen in any form anywhere in a foreign civ as an influence.

May be my suggestion is a little too ideal. I don't know. But I think "cultural influence" is quite an underdeveloped bit in Civ games. I think you are the only person who can do this magic.
 
For the minor stuff:
- the Abbas art can of course be changed, I just don't have any better art on hand. If that changes we can see.
- religion based art for persecutors is complicated. Civ based art is easier, however again I would need someone to actually create that art first.

Cultural influence: I also think that culture is represented very one-dimensionally in the game. I've also had some ideas before how it could have a greater effect but changing these things upsets other aspects of game design so it's not that easy. It's definitely a big change so I won't be able to tackle it very soon.
 
:thumbsup:Glad that you do consider about the cultural thing. Looking forward to seeing this included in your later version.

"Civilizations" is already a great game. But I don't think the official developers will pay too much attention to individual ideas that can further refine the game (at least they would not talk to us directly like you would, wouldn't they?). It is really happy to have you as the very one who can make the game that interesting.

I think you can collaborate with Rhyes or the official game developer to make your mod another expansion of Civ 4. Actually I think Rhyes should have done so for his game, too. It is because RFC and DOC have just improved a lot of boring and one-dimensional features of the normal game.
 
Soren Johnson, the lead designer for Civ4, actually talks quite a lot about his work on the game in interviews and podcasts, I suggest you give them a listen. He really is one of the best game designers to learn from.

I think there is a big difference between the goals of a commercial game development team and hobby modders. The latter have more time individually, and no deadlines or financial considerations so they actually have the ability to focus on small details they consider important.

RFC already is as endorsed by Firaxis as any mod can be, it is packaged with BtS after all. At this point the company has already moved on to the next iteration of the series though.
 
You don't make a DOC for Civ 5 because you don't like Civ 5. But why you don't like Civ 5? For me, I don't like it because it has no vassal system.

I wonder is it because Civ 5 is more difficult for your modding or what? But in case you do that, it will be a very big reason and excuse for me to buy Civ 5. If not, I will just continue to play your Civ 4 DOC mod among all other Civilization series I have and look forward to seeing the release of Civ 6.
 
You do know there are mods that add vassal states in Civ5? Really, this should be the least of your worries.

Incidentally Civ5 really is worse to mod than Civ4, even though it needs modding to be fun in the first place.
 
You don't make a DOC for Civ 5 because you don't like Civ 5. But why you don't like Civ 5? For me, I don't like it because it has no vassal system.

I wonder is it because Civ 5 is more difficult for your modding or what? But in case you do that, it will be a very big reason and excuse for me to buy Civ 5. If not, I will just continue to play your Civ 4 DOC mod among all other Civilization series I have and look forward to seeing the release of Civ 6.
Civ5 is less modding friendly than Civ4 but the reasons I dislike it have more to do with its game design. Incidentally I also don't like it aesthetically but that's not the main point.
 
Does anyone ever build smokehouse? So far it's been fairly useless for me.
Wouldn't it be better if it worked more like granary? How about if it stored 20% after the growth for sheep, pig, deer and cow. Granary the same for wheat, corn and rice.
 
Does anyone ever build smokehouse? So far it's been fairly useless for me.
Wouldn't it be better if it worked more like granary? How about if it stored 20% after the growth for sheep, pig, deer and cow. Granary the same for wheat, corn and rice.

yea... Let's just say that when you are in the late classical and early middle ages, situated on flood plains, with an overpopulated, no longer historically significant cities...

Ok when you own Babylon, they are slightly better than the aqueduct.
 
I build the smokehouse... in my modmod. :p
 
Hello :)
I`ve played and liked this mod for a long time. As the Art of the Leaders was recently discussed and Leoreth said there were not really any better Art to fit those Leaders, I wanted o make some suggestion. Should you, Leoreth, like some/ all of the suggested new art, I would be willing, to make a pull request (It can't be that hard. :lol: ). I don't want to imply that the current Art is bad, only that there mightbe better and fittingArt:

Abbas the Great:
Spoiler :
The Art of this Leader is an obvious copy of the Oda (Tokuava) art with only slght changes:
Civ4ScreenShot0006.JPG
As a replacement, I propose this Art taken from the Mod Swords of Islam. (Although I am not sure whether you are allowed to take it. As I normaly only use the files locally, this has not been a problem for me yet.)
Civ4ScreenShot0016.JPG
An comparision image:
Shah-Abbas-002.jpg


Barbarossa:
Spoiler :

Barbarossa and Henrigue Alfonso have reskins of the same Leaderhead as Art:
Civ4ScreenShot0007.JPG
Civ4ScreenShot0008.JPG
I propose this Art taken from the Download-segment of the Civfanatics-page:
Civ4ScreenShot0018.JPG


Alfred the Great:
Spoiler :

The Art used for Alfred the Great is very similar to Ragnar they also have the same animations:
Civ4ScreenShot0005.JPG
Civ4ScreenShot0013.JPG
I propose this Art taken form the Downloads-page: He is meat to be William the Conqueror, but I always thoughthe looked more like Alfred the Great:
Civ4ScreenShot0017.JPG
As comparision:
alfred1_2797968b.jpg
 
Now that you mention it, Frederick Barbarossa and Alfonso Henrique do look like the exact same person with different armour and hair colour...
 
As a continuation of my previous post:

Casimir the Great:
Spoiler :

Taken from the Downloads-page, too, this art just looks much better (In my opinion):
Civ4ScreenShot0020.JPG
Old version:
Civ4ScreenShot0010.JPG


Gustavus Adolphus:
Spoiler :

Same reasoning as with Casimir. The art was taken from the download-page:

Old version:
Civ4ScreenShot0011.JPG


Hongwu:
Spoiler :

The current Hongwu is jst a reskin of Taizong (who is used in the mod, too):
Civ4ScreenShot0012.JPG
This art taken from Historry rewritten seems to fit (Again, I have no idea if you're allowed to use the art. The original verion was part of RFCAsia, I think):
Civ4ScreenShot0023.JPG


Yaroslav:
Spoiler :

Just an updated verion of the current art (from the download.page):
Civ4ScreenShot0024.JPG
Previous Art:
Civ4ScreenShot0015.JPG


Basil:
Spoiler :

There really is not that much of an improvement, but it's a newer version and looks slightly better (from the download-page):
Civ4ScreenShot0019.JPG
Previous version:
Civ4ScreenShot0009.JPG


The Art of Shirivaji (The Indian Leader) is a reskin of Ashoka, but I never found a better replacement.
 

Attachments

  • Civ4ScreenShot0021.JPG
    Civ4ScreenShot0021.JPG
    181.5 KB · Views: 241
Another suggestion I wanted to make for some time, but newer got around to actually do it:
Make Germany(Prussia) a conditional spawn considering the stability of HRE. It makes sense both historically and gameplay wise:
Historical:
Had HRE not been as unstable, Prussia would probably newer risen to power and unified Germany. Additionally, with a strong HRE, there really wound not have been a need for a new German nation state, as Germany would have already been unified as HRE.
Gameplay:
The spawn of Prussia/Germany is really devasting for HRE, as you suddenly get a much worse core. This seams just unfait to the player, and if HRE is AI-controlled and strong, HRE already fits the role Prussia should take in the game (A central European powerhouse), therefore there is no need for a spwan of Prussia.

An additional condition for the spawn of Prussia could be wether HRE controls the entire Prussian core. That way, if the Player is HRE and wants Prussia to spawn (In order to play as Prussia), he could simply grant independence to Danzig/Königsberg, wich is part of the Prussian core, but not the HRE-core.
Should you, Leoreth, accept my proposal, I could try to implement it myself (I already did it once) and make a pull request, thogh I have no idea how to implement the proposed control-territory-condition.
 
Everything that leads to the German nation not existing is a good thing in my book. :D

Unrelated to that:

New sea improvement: Minefield - Requires Combustion; +100% Defense, basically a super charged fort of the sea at the cost of 30 hammers or whatever a workboat is.
 
Thanks for all the LH suggestions! Some of them are obviously better, for some I tend to prefer the current ones, others I probably need to think about. Detailed response comes later.

The sea mines idea is actually rather interesting, although I would implement them as an actual unit instead of a fort equivalent, with a high strength but only one movement and defend only. They probably also need to take high flanking damage from other ships so they cannot be stacked.
 
Back
Top Bottom