Suggestions and Requests
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
civcivcivcivciv
Warlord
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2013
- Messages
- 274
Leoreth > ok thanks 
Ani Taneen
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2015
- Messages
- 278
As we are currently examining the History Rewritten mod for the Tech tree, I was wondering what the player community thinks about the Unique National Wonders aspect of the mod. The Mod explains that:
These wonders work like UB, in that they replace a national wonder (as opposed to a world wonder). The beauty of this system is that it can allow certain civs to be able to build highly apporpiate national wonders.
For example, the Dutch UW, the Amsterdam Bourse replaces the Stock Exchange. Where it can fit DoC, is that rather than count Banks, it can count Customs House, rewarding the player for their trade empire as opposed to their banking establishments.
Also, this gives DoC a choice in the development of national wonders, we can
This will also incorporate some of the National Wonders from HR, which would be great for the new Tech tree.
These wonders work like UB, in that they replace a national wonder (as opposed to a world wonder). The beauty of this system is that it can allow certain civs to be able to build highly apporpiate national wonders.
For example, the Dutch UW, the Amsterdam Bourse replaces the Stock Exchange. Where it can fit DoC, is that rather than count Banks, it can count Customs House, rewarding the player for their trade empire as opposed to their banking establishments.
Also, this gives DoC a choice in the development of national wonders, we can
- Reinforce the relationship between national wonders and great persons by making wonders more closely tied to having the corresponding GP (Some wonders, such as the National Epic could be created by consuming a Great Artist, Stateman, or Prophet)
- Seperate the GP from the National Wonders, give GP effects that less drive the player to "stock them up" (I'm looking at you engineer), and make the National Wonders more reflecting of your empires constitution.
This will also incorporate some of the National Wonders from HR, which would be great for the new Tech tree.
Unique wonders are a nice idea but they don't do anything besides starting a golden age. I think there are too many ways to get GAs in DoC already, and the effect is rather uninspired. Sounds like a nice concept to associate immersive names with but I couldn't think of a way to make this interesting gameplay wise. Also it seems like it will create the obligation to make this work for all civs which creates a lot of work and probably lackluster outcomes for some of them.
But drawing a better distinction between NWs and GP buildings is something I want to deal with in the process of the tech tree redesign. I actually plan to make a thread on that subject soon.
But drawing a better distinction between NWs and GP buildings is something I want to deal with in the process of the tech tree redesign. I actually plan to make a thread on that subject soon.
Ani Taneen
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2015
- Messages
- 278
I really hope that isn't the only thing that they do! I was thinking of a more asymetrical relationship between the Vanilla National wonder and civ specific one.
One example, the Tibetian UW could be the Potala Palace, it replaces the adminsitrative center. rather than count the number of courthouses you have, it can count the number of buddhist temples world wide. Rather than reduce your management, it could instead provide cultural, defense, or economic bonuses. If we don't divide the NW from the GP, then it could be made by both the Prophet or the Statesman.
Oh I don't doubt that it will take time, but I don't think it will be lack luster. Some World wonders are already far too tied to one civ's UHV (Himeji Castle currently being the biggest offender). The art may already exist for most of them. Personnally I feel that if the Ishtar Gates, the Sphinx, and the Terracotta Army become National wonders.
It can also give certain NW the ability to be represented in previous eras. Like the Roman civ could have the Exchange be replaced by the Basilica Ulpia. This UW checks the number of forums you've built. And rather than just simply give a gold boost, it can also give a stability boost for Over-extension and distance from capital.
It should be pointed that I usually play marathon games, so I view these wonders like quests, where you can build a special building if you managed to accomplish a certain criteria.
Personnally, I argue for splitting them almost entirely. There where a lot of great proposals made when we last discussed GPs
Turning wonders into NWs is a bad idea in my opinion, this would turn wonders goals into pure tech + production races if nobody else could build them. Likewise, if you are guaranteed the effect (which you are for NWs), it must be weaker.
In the original Civ4 design, NWs are mostly a means for specializing cities (limited number per city) and a reward/boost for smaller civs (you can have them only once no matter how large your empire is). On the other hand, wonders are reward for technological (and to a lesser extent production) superiority and provide your empire with unique advantages. They're very different really and the distinction should not be muddied.
As for better ideas than just free GAs (yes that's what they do in HR) every other "special" effect is basically just another UP that unlocks later in the game. Again, I think the lines between UPs and NWs should be kept clear.
For GP buildings, not sure what to do about them. I like the idea of having one building per GP that is somewhat a weaker version of its NW counterpart, but stackable. But something else needs to be done so this isn't just another mechanic for power stacking.
In the original Civ4 design, NWs are mostly a means for specializing cities (limited number per city) and a reward/boost for smaller civs (you can have them only once no matter how large your empire is). On the other hand, wonders are reward for technological (and to a lesser extent production) superiority and provide your empire with unique advantages. They're very different really and the distinction should not be muddied.
As for better ideas than just free GAs (yes that's what they do in HR) every other "special" effect is basically just another UP that unlocks later in the game. Again, I think the lines between UPs and NWs should be kept clear.
For GP buildings, not sure what to do about them. I like the idea of having one building per GP that is somewhat a weaker version of its NW counterpart, but stackable. But something else needs to be done so this isn't just another mechanic for power stacking.
Imperator Knoedel
Currently obsessed with The Owl House
merijn_v1
Black Belt
Once I had the idea that a NW allows a free specialist (or specialist slots) of some kind. Like CivA's UNW receives a free Merchant while CivB's UNW receivs a free artist, while both UNW replace the same default NW. This gives every civ somewhat the same bonus, while still having some kind of variation.
Force44
King
Following Leoreth's line of thought an unique national wonder should be an UB (unique building) that can be built only once.
The first thing that comes to mind is an exact copy of the civs unique building so the bonuses for that UB double in that city.
That might actually be interesting. The biggest problem I can think of sofar is that the UBs that give a bonus to units would give even less time for building said units (the time to build the UNW gets deducted). This could be ameliorated by giving some UNW's upon completion of certain conditions (other, but not necessary other, than building the UNW in the town you want to have it).
Which brings the subject to civspecific quests. Which brings the subject to UHV (unique historical victories). So perhaps the subject is better discussed when discussing the (possible) overhaul of victoryconditions.
The first thing that comes to mind is an exact copy of the civs unique building so the bonuses for that UB double in that city.
That might actually be interesting. The biggest problem I can think of sofar is that the UBs that give a bonus to units would give even less time for building said units (the time to build the UNW gets deducted). This could be ameliorated by giving some UNW's upon completion of certain conditions (other, but not necessary other, than building the UNW in the town you want to have it).
Which brings the subject to civspecific quests. Which brings the subject to UHV (unique historical victories). So perhaps the subject is better discussed when discussing the (possible) overhaul of victoryconditions.
Force44
King
On a sidenote, how about Unique (civspecific) Palaces?
Any bonus tied to a palace looks like it is a bonus tied to the civ (because the capitol must have a palace) but that need not be the case (a palace tied to the capitol vs a capitol tied to the palace)
Spoiler :
Any bonus tied to a palace looks like it is a bonus tied to the civ (because the capitol must have a palace) but that need not be the case (a palace tied to the capitol vs a capitol tied to the palace)
Make unique national wonder require the UBs the same way some buildings require a number of other buildings. I.e. stock exchange requires 8 banks.
Some quick thoughts on that:
Civ: UB UNW
Egypt: Obelisk, Pyramids
China: Taixue, Forbidden Palace
Babylon: Zigurat, Hanging Gardens
Greece: Odeon, Academy
India: Edict, Khajuraho
Phoenicia: Cothon, Great Cothon
Rome: Forum, Coloseum
...
France: Salon, Museum
England: Royal exchange, city
Russia: Russian lab, secret space center
Poland: Semjik, Veche
Turkey: Hamam, Blue Mosque
America: Mall, World Trade Center
Some quick thoughts on that:
Civ: UB UNW
Egypt: Obelisk, Pyramids
China: Taixue, Forbidden Palace
Babylon: Zigurat, Hanging Gardens
Greece: Odeon, Academy
India: Edict, Khajuraho
Phoenicia: Cothon, Great Cothon
Rome: Forum, Coloseum
...
France: Salon, Museum
England: Royal exchange, city
Russia: Russian lab, secret space center
Poland: Semjik, Veche
Turkey: Hamam, Blue Mosque
America: Mall, World Trade Center
I can only repeat that I see no appeal in turning wonders into national wonders. It makes the game less rich in multiple ways and the only thing you seem to get out of it is that there are unique national wonders now. 
Panopticon
Utilitarian
When you are waiting for the scenario to load, one message tells you to get the SVN for latest updates. This should now say Git!
NerfCothons
Warlord
If someone wanted to implement some of those unique national wonders for purely aesthetic reasons, they could be civ specific versions of the 2 UHV GA triggering national wonder.
Force44
King
Since we are stuck with stability as a means to an end I would like to note the following.
The ways the mod gives instability and a reduction to instability (eg the expansion stability) are really fine, maybe even elegant (imho)
But the stability that is given trough (a combination of) civics (with other civics and/or eras) just doesn't make sense.
I pick the most stable combinations all the time, and I am gratefull for the additional stability, instability often still being the bane of my empires, but they don't make sense.
Right now they give stability because they give stability.
That is an additional external agent that is superfluous.
The mod/game can be made more elegant and fun by letting stability through civics be applied indirectly, and ultimately trough other parts of the game.
Let's say stability is determined by +stability and -stability
-stability (commonly known as instability) is fine (for me/more or less/at the moment)
+stability (positive stability as opposed to reduction of negative stability) should ultimately (more accurately would be could but I like to be directive as opposed to informal here) be determined by 3 and only these three factors: (an increase of)
1. food
2. commerce and production
3. culture
The (combination of) civics should apply (at least also) a bonus to stability (+stability) trough applying a bonus to one of these three categories.
read spoilor to learn how I came to this conclusion
The ways the mod gives instability and a reduction to instability (eg the expansion stability) are really fine, maybe even elegant (imho)
But the stability that is given trough (a combination of) civics (with other civics and/or eras) just doesn't make sense.
I pick the most stable combinations all the time, and I am gratefull for the additional stability, instability often still being the bane of my empires, but they don't make sense.
Right now they give stability because they give stability.
That is an additional external agent that is superfluous.
The mod/game can be made more elegant and fun by letting stability through civics be applied indirectly, and ultimately trough other parts of the game.
Let's say stability is determined by +stability and -stability
-stability (commonly known as instability) is fine (for me/more or less/at the moment)
+stability (positive stability as opposed to reduction of negative stability) should ultimately (more accurately would be could but I like to be directive as opposed to informal here) be determined by 3 and only these three factors: (an increase of)
1. food
2. commerce and production
3. culture
The (combination of) civics should apply (at least also) a bonus to stability (+stability) trough applying a bonus to one of these three categories.
read spoilor to learn how I came to this conclusion
Spoiler :
Ani Taneen
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2015
- Messages
- 278
I feel that those bonuses and banes (Running Theocracy and Secularism) could easily be built into the cultural tech tree idea.
Formation was used in Ancient Mediterranean and middle east in classical era. At the same time in China they avoided as much as possible for stability reasons.
And to an extend this logic historically makes sence and helps the progression of the game.
At first I though a correlation with a tech, but this seems wrong, because China will discover it. So corelating it with a building is much more appropriate.
Maybe: Barracks: +3XP points, -1 stability
Rome pioritise barracks and gains instability, while China avoids them as much as possible, so we have an instable Rome and stable China.
And to an extend this logic historically makes sence and helps the progression of the game.
At first I though a correlation with a tech, but this seems wrong, because China will discover it. So corelating it with a building is much more appropriate.
Maybe: Barracks: +3XP points, -1 stability
Rome pioritise barracks and gains instability, while China avoids them as much as possible, so we have an instable Rome and stable China.
Similar threads
