Suggestions and Requests

Some civic stability suggestions:
  • Isolationism + Meritocracy: +3 (or +5)
    • To incentivize the East Asian civs to adopt this, especially if the AI is aware of civic stability effects. I notice that Korea and Japan don't really adopt this since their leaders do not have Isolationism as favorite civics.
  • Isolationism after the Renaissance Era: -3 per era after Renaissance
    • To force civs to reopen its borders to foreign trade again. However, I don't think the Industrial Era is an accurate condition; we should think of something better.
    • AI China is highly unlikely to switch out of Isolationism unless Mao becomes the leader. This should mean that China should also be more likely to switch out of Despotism/Monarchy, at least after the discovery of a tech enabling a late-game civic (Representation? Journalism?).
  • Isolationism + Confucianism: +3 (or +2)
    • Same as with Meritocracy. Confucian states were more likely to remain staunchly isolationist as they viewed Western civilizations as barbarians, and tended to cling tightly to their conservative Confucian ideologies.
 
For this purpose? Just two, and they are in the pictures. The workers start at Copenhagen so I doubt there'll be any variations here, they either build the around-Baltic road or cross the land bridge and build improvements in Scandinavia.

Of course, the catch is when Vikings lose to Holy Rome in war, their cities in Scandinavia will fall.
 
Last edited:
I'm just not sure that's a significant enough sample size.
 
After Vikings' inevitable collapse their cities become Spanish or Holy Roman. So there's that.
 
I'm just not sure that's a significant enough sample size.

How many times do you think tests like this should be run? Would a dozen Italy + a dozen America runs (to get a sense of both short and long-term consequences) be sufficient? Excessive? A good start?
 
Depends on what trends end up showing up. But one data point is never enough. I usually run at least three.
 
Is it possible to modify the way the map works so that, given a configuration with two diagonally-adjacent land tiles and two diagonally-adjacent water tiles, both diagonals are traversable by their respective unit types? This would ideally be the case only where desired, and a strait should be visible to signify it. (Land tiles would be separated by a little bit of water, but land unit passage would still be allowed.)

I have a feeling the answer is "no". However, if it's not impossible but merely difficult, it could be worth trying. I can think of many cases where such a feature would be beneficial:
- land passage between Denmark and Sweden without shutting off the Baltic Sea
- open Black Sea even when Constantinople is not present (which happens sometimes), and even allowing two straits (Dardanelles and Bosphorus)
- islands can be separated from the mainland without impeding land movement (Sicily, Newfoundland, Corsica, ...)
- more realistic archipelagos (Japan, Philippines, New Zealand, ...)
- The Suez and Panama canals could be implemented as projects that, once built, modify the map
- possibly allow land passage at Gibraltar
 
Last edited:
Is it possible to modify the way the map works so that, given a configuration with two diagonally-adjacent land tiles and two diagonally-adjacent water tiles, both diagonals are traversable by their respective unit types? This would ideally be the case only where desired, and a strait should be visible to signify it. (Land tiles would be separated by a little bit of water, but land unit passage would still be allowed.)

I have a feeling the answer is "no". However, if it's not impossible but merely difficult, it could be worth trying. I can think of many cases where such a feature would be beneficial:
- land passage between Denmark and Sweden without shutting off the Baltic Sea
- open Black Sea even when Constantinople is not present (which happens sometimes), and even allowing two straits (Dardanelles and Bosphorus)
- islands can be separated from the mainland without impending land movement (Sicily, Newfoundland, Corsica, ...)
- more realistic archipelagos (Japan, Philippines, New Zealand, ...)
- The Suez and Panama canals could be implemented as projects that, once built, modify the map
- possibly allow land passage at Gibraltar

RFC:Europe does this for the Danish straits and the Dardenelles (not the Bosphorus though, which always requires Constantinople), so it's certainly possible.
 
I think it's possible, movement rules are entirely controlled by the DLL. But right now I don't know where it is implemented.
 
Would giving a trading mission similar to great merchants to the viking Huscarls make sense? It would reflect that the vikings were traders too, not just warriors and pillagers.
 
I don't want to add trading missions to units that you can simply build. It is essentially a conversion of production to gold, which either is worth it (endless money supply) or not (pointless).
 
I forgot Huscarls were not Great Generals. Giving trade missions to Great Generals would be cool.
 
For Vikings? Interesting.
 
Don't they (with the VD module)?
 
With VD there are custom looks for GGs, but I think there is one model for all male, european, middle ages GG
 
Oh, too bad. I might expand on that at some point but for now, covering all the new units is already enough work.
 
Back
Top Bottom