Suggestions and Requests
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
Do you have any plans for Ocean Fisheries? Just asking because there's literally 1 tile of ocean that has a fish resource (off Eastern Australia, Brisbane or somesuch), and High Sea Fishing Boats, or Ocean Fisheries as they are now called, seem to take up a lot of attention on both the pedia, and now with the rename, on the update threads. What's worse, the Ocean Fisheries button even appears next to the Fishing Boats button for EVERY work boat ever built anywhere now, just grey and inactive. What is the point of all this if I may dare asking? Why all the trouble for an entirely irrelevant plot improvement?
On this issue, I seemed to recall that I could use my workboat to build either a regular fishing boat or an ocean fishery for the fish (or was it clam?) next to Brittany. Since ocean fishery had higher yields, that's what I built. Is this intended?
1SDANi
The Fading Memory
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2014
- Messages
- 3,081
Can confirm, all places I can build a fishing boat I can also build a ocean fishery.
Ogi123
The End is the Beginning is the End
So previously I talked, mostly to myself, about civics. Now I want to give some thoughts about wide/tall empire building strategies.
Problem what exist currently is there are no tall empire strategies, you will always want to go as wide as is possible. There are couple reasons for this:
1)Territory stability column.
There is no reward for staying under maximum allowed core pop limit. What I mean that this column can only penalize player, there is no reward for, say staying under half peripheral pop possible. Solution could be that you can go up to +20 stability if you have only core pop, this would fall as you periphery pop grows.
2)Health and happiness resources.
In current build going wide means going tall because each additional resource type contribute to max
and 
in cities. Secondary there is lack of buildings witch forces player to expand if you want bigger cities. Here my proposition would be three fixes:
-Resources by itself doesn't provide without building in city. This would force player to build infrastructure instead of units + conquer spree. Such solution also would probably need to increase base city to 4 or 5? I don't remember at what number this is currently.
-Resources obsolete in much greater quantities. Sugar,dyes, cotton, precious metals etc. So player needs to keep up with city infrastructure. What resources obsolete and when is matter for discussion.
-Much more buildings that grant flat bonuses, so city can be build up even without resources.
3)Science. Game of civilization was always game of scientific progress, in DoC it's no different. Here problems lay in that larger empires are inherently able to produce more
per turn. Only solution I can think of is adding tech cost for any city after first, perhaps +2-4%?. I know that this is something akin to base RFC but honestly otherwise small empires are disadvantaged.
Any thoughts, opinions or critique?
Problem what exist currently is there are no tall empire strategies, you will always want to go as wide as is possible. There are couple reasons for this:
1)Territory stability column.
There is no reward for staying under maximum allowed core pop limit. What I mean that this column can only penalize player, there is no reward for, say staying under half peripheral pop possible. Solution could be that you can go up to +20 stability if you have only core pop, this would fall as you periphery pop grows.
2)Health and happiness resources.
In current build going wide means going tall because each additional resource type contribute to max
and in cities. Secondary there is lack of buildings witch forces player to expand if you want bigger cities. Here my proposition would be three fixes:-Resources by itself doesn't provide
without building in city. This would force player to build infrastructure instead of units + conquer spree. Such solution also would probably need to increase base city to 4 or 5? I don't remember at what number this is currently.-Resources obsolete in much greater quantities. Sugar,dyes, cotton, precious metals etc. So player needs to keep up with city infrastructure. What resources obsolete and when is matter for discussion.
-Much more buildings that grant flat
bonuses, so city can be build up even without resources.3)Science. Game of civilization was always game of scientific progress, in DoC it's no different. Here problems lay in that larger empires are inherently able to produce more
per turn. Only solution I can think of is adding tech cost for any city after first, perhaps +2-4%?. I know that this is something akin to base RFC but honestly otherwise small empires are disadvantaged.Any thoughts, opinions or critique?
Quick responses because I don't have a lot of time, but I'd like to follow up later in more detail (especially for the second point):
1) In my mind stability is mostly about compensating negative stability with positive stability. The major source for negative stability is expansion, so offering options for positive expansion stability makes no sense as a counterbalance. Likewise, I do not want to diminish the impact of more minor sources of negative stability like civics or economy for civs only because they did not expand. But I'm open to be convinced otherwise.
2) I mentioned somewhere here that I want to change how trade and resources work and this happiness problem is a big part of that. My goal for that new system is that a) controlled resources should not affect all cities in the empire (or rather one controlled resource should not satisfy all cities) and b) trade should be an alternate method to secure resources you cannot get through conquest. Your suggestions are good interim solutions but I'd rather not mess with the system twice.
3) The current system is population based. Do wide civs have an advantage over tall civs with the same population?
1) In my mind stability is mostly about compensating negative stability with positive stability. The major source for negative stability is expansion, so offering options for positive expansion stability makes no sense as a counterbalance. Likewise, I do not want to diminish the impact of more minor sources of negative stability like civics or economy for civs only because they did not expand. But I'm open to be convinced otherwise.
2) I mentioned somewhere here that I want to change how trade and resources work and this happiness problem is a big part of that. My goal for that new system is that a) controlled resources should not affect all cities in the empire (or rather one controlled resource should not satisfy all cities) and b) trade should be an alternate method to secure resources you cannot get through conquest. Your suggestions are good interim solutions but I'd rather not mess with the system twice.
3) The current system is population based. Do wide civs have an advantage over tall civs with the same population?
Ogi123
The End is the Beginning is the End
Will wait for longer reply, but only wanted to quickly answer to third point. There is no possibility that you will get same pop in tall civ as in wide civ, again you will not have enough or . More realistic is is that wide civ will have more larger cities, such is current civ4 mechanics unfortunately.
or . More realistic is is that wide civ will have more larger cities, such is current civ4 mechanics unfortunately.But then it's mostly a problem of available happiness/health resources. A wider empire with higher population will still be hit with higher tech penalties than a tall empire with comparatively low population.
Imperator Knoedel
Currently obsessed with The Owl House
Have you looked into Civ4Reimagined's mechanics regarding resources? Imo it's the best and most innovative feature of their mod, and that's saying a lot. Basically, the effects of resources diminish the more population you have, so at some point you need to have more than one instance of the same resource to get the same benefit a smaller civ would. The exact threshold can be modified by civics and technologies.
1SDANi
The Fading Memory
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2014
- Messages
- 3,081
Knoedel's Back!!!
Imperator Knoedel
Currently obsessed with The Owl House
No, I'm not, I'm just taking a break that was supposed to be five minutes long but has now been going on for an hour. Oy vey.
1SDANi
The Fading Memory
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2014
- Messages
- 3,081
Oh, okay.
Yes, that influenced my thinking about this. But I would prefer if I could come up with a transparent system in which only some cities get happiness from resources depending on how many you have, instead of a global modifier.
merijn_v1
Black Belt
Reading this I immideately envisioned the resource manager screen, in which you can manage the distribution of the resources. What I envision looks good in my mind.
Last edited:
Imperator Knoedel
Currently obsessed with The Owl House
Hm, perhaps core cities followed by historical should always be prioritized, and everything else only gets the scraps if anything is left over?
I think an automatic rules based distribution is better though. If you give the player control the AI will lag behind.Reading this I immideately envisioned the resource manager screen, in which you can manage the distribution of the resources. What I envision looks good in my mind.
In principle yes, however here is where I want the trade system to come in. A city's trade income depends on what it produces and in turn determines how many resources it can import for happiness. Colonies cannot produce trade goods and instead funnel their resources back to the homeland.
Similar threads
