Suggestions and Requests

[Genghis Khaiser]

In Civ5, some food bonuses give food to all cities and more food for the capital. I think food resources in DoC should give extra food nationwide including their health bonus. (This gave me an idea: mine and quarry resources giving extra production?)




On another different issue, some suggestions about the Mayans:
-50 AD is too late for their spawn. It should be moved to somewhere between 800 BC and 350 BC. According to Wikipedia:

The first Maya cities developed around 750 BC, and by 500 BC these cities possessed monumental architecture, including large temples with elaborate stuccofaçades. Hieroglyphic writing was being used in the Maya region by the 3rd century BC.

-There is no encouragement to settle the Yucatan peninsula. Everyone agrees that Tikal and Monte Albán are much better places to build the Temple of Kukulcan, so a stone resource should be put there. Maybe some more sea resources, to make an equal or better city than Tikal (Besides, Mérida has terrible production in the 1700 AD scenario).

 

[Visard]

Some new ideas and suggestions:

Apothecary(Persian UB) should give food bonus to Wine instead of Silk.

New UP for tha Maya (Yucatan Urbanization):
Core cities +1 and improvements adjacent to two core cities +1

Railwaystation's effect(+25%) is not very thematic.
Alternative suggestions:
1) +1 per each railroad connected city within BFC
2) +50% from inland (no sea or river connections)
3)+1 for every railroad tile

Public Transportation should give +1 for each highway tile.
Park should give

 

[1SDANi]

Some new ideas and suggestions:

Apothecary(Persian UB) should give food bonus to Wine instead of Silk.

New UP for tha Maya (Yucatan Urbanization):
Core cities +1 and improvements adjacent to two core cities +1

Railwaystation's effect(+25%) is not very thematic.
Alternative suggestions:
1) +1 per each railroad connected city within BFC
2) +50% from inland (no sea or river connections)
3)+1 for every railroad tile

Public Transportation should give +1 for each highway tile.
Park should give

By +1 Trade Route per railroad connected city within BFC, that means that the city itself has to be in the BFC right? Does the trade route specifically go to that city, or can it choose to path to any city?

 

[Visard]

By +1 Trade Route per railroad connected city within BFC, that means that the city itself has to be in the BFC right? Does the trade route specifically go to that city, or can it choose to path to any city?

Well yes, the city has to inside BFC,
idea was to make the building more useful in crowded areas like Germany and not useful in isolated areas like Polynesia.
(For example Hamburg/Lübeck would get +2 )
But it could also work, if only the railroads are needed to be inside the BFC and the cities can be two tiles apart.
(This would give Hamburg +4 , so maybe it's too strong.)

The intention was to give generic .
Is it even possible to make to a specific city?

Maybe better wording would be:
+1 per each city, which are exactly one railroad tile away.

This would also include corner cities, like Paris&Bordeaux, which are not inside each other BFC but are only one tile apart.

 

[1SDANi]

Well yes, the city has to inside BFC,
idea was to make the building more useful in crowded areas like Germany and not useful in isolated areas like Polynesia.
(For example Hamburg/Lübeck would get +2 )
But it could also work, if only the railroads are needed to be inside the BFC and the cities can be two tiles apart.
(This would give Hamburg +4 , so maybe it's too strong.)

The intention was to give generic .
Is it even possible to make to a specific city?

Maybe better wording would be:
+1 per each city, which are exactly one railroad tile away.

This would also include corner cities, like Paris&Bordeaux, which are not inside each other BFC but are only one tile apart.

Nope, it's not possible to define where a route goes to my knowledge, that's why I was asking what were your intentions for the effect. I definitely like this more than the current effect, I'm going to include this or a version of this in my modcomp.

 

[Ogi123]

So, I played additional two control games up to 1980/90 to check if perhaps I was wrong with this whole "capitalism is suicide".
I wasn't, there is no possible way in late game to avoid economic recession penalty if you stay static, -18 to -24 penalty kills you fast. After electric grid there is no buildings increasing , you cottages are fully matured so you don't have a way to increase . You can conquer up to expansion stability limit, but it's this the way we want to late game unfold?
This synergise badly with current stability calculations. Only column in which you can gain permanent positive stability is civics one. Expansion and economy can only be negative in long timescale, foreign can get you small bonus for good relations and vassals, war is only temporary. This is also reason why reborn civs collapse almost immediately.
Coincidentally this is also reason why religious unity bonus is so important, so staying in clergy to the end of game is most efficient from stability viewpoint. This is also why secularism is so weak, sacrificing up to what 5-6 stability for its effects? No thanks I can get and from other sources, I cannot do it with stability.
I repeat my opinion that economy penalty for low growth should go away. Only for below 0% growth there can be negative effects, otherwise future belongs to centrally planned religious peoples republic I guess.

 

[1SDANi]

So, I played additional two control games up to 1980/90 to check if perhaps I was wrong with this whole "capitalism is suicide".
I wasn't, there is no possible way in late game to avoid economic recession penalty if you stay static, -18 to -24 penalty kills you fast. After electric grid there is no buildings increasing , you cottages are fully matured so you don't have a way to increase . You can conquer up to expansion stability limit, but it's this the way we want to late game unfold?
This synergise badly with current stability calculations. Only column in which you can gain permanent positive stability is civics one. Expansion and economy can only be negative in long timescale, foreign can get you small bonus for good relations and vassals, war is only temporary. This is also reason why reborn civs collapse almost immediately.
Coincidentally this is also reason why religious unity bonus is so important, so staying in clergy to the end of game is most efficient from stability viewpoint. This is also why secularism is so weak, sacrificing up to what 5-6 stability for its effects? No thanks I can get and from other sources, I cannot do it with stability.
I repeat my opinion that economy penalty for low growth should go away. Only for below 0% growth there can be negative effects, otherwise future belongs to centrally planned religious peoples republic I guess.

Have you tried my modcomp yet? I have attempted to limit the huge amount of instability from stagnation, I haven't played a full game yet though so the modification to the stability code may require a bit more tweaking. But as far as I've seen so far stagnation is a lot less crippling.

 

[Jarlaxe Baenre]

Perhaps the stability effects related to economic growth could consider performance relative to neighbouring civs?

 

[Ogi123]

Have you tried my modcomp yet? I have attempted to limit the huge amount of instability from stagnation, I haven't played a full game yet though so the modification to the stability code may require a bit more tweaking. But as far as I've seen so far stagnation is a lot less crippling.

From what I saw yours modcomp limits recession to half value. That's not enough, at end of game (400+ turns) there is no way to increase base . That means you will always get recession if not running central planning.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

That means you will always get recession if not running central planning.

Well yes, that's called "historically accurate".

 

[Ogi123]

Nah, historically accurate would be if central planning would actively reduce yours and caused ...

 

[Zaddy]

Nah, historically accurate would be if central planning would actively reduce yours and caused ...

This will end well.

 

[1SDANi]

From what I saw yours modcomp limits recession to half value. That's not enough, at end of game (400+ turns) there is no way to increase base . That means you will always get recession if not running central planning.

Is it that bad during late game? I want to keep at least some penalty for stagnation, perhaps I should make stability only ever affected by a maximum of 4 neutral checks and revert it to the old weight. Would that fix things?

 

[DC123456789]

Well, the real core of the issue is that at some point there's simply no way to grow your economy other than through conquest (i.e. through continued development or technology). That's a much harder problem to attack than just trying to adjust the stagnation stability penalties though.

 

[1SDANi]

Well, the real core of the issue is that at some point there's simply no way to grow your economy other than through conquest (i.e. through continued development or technology). That's a much harder problem to attack than just trying to adjust the stagnation stability penalties though.

True, the easiest way that I can see is if we were to ensure that cities could keep growing, but that would require some sort of change to how happiness, health and food are treated. It's not too historical for cities to inevitably stop growing during the late game. Not really sure how to fix things without major changes to current systems. I'd happily make those changes, mind you, but I'm not too certain if I'd be able to accomplish it.

 

[DC123456789]

True, the easiest way that I can see is if we were to ensure that cities could keep growing, but that would require some sort of change to how happiness, health and food are treated. It's not too historical for cities to inevitably stop growing during the late game. Not really sure how to fix things without major changes to current systems. I'd happily make those changes, mind you, but I'm not too certain if I'd be able to accomplish it.

Personally I was thinking that technology should continue to be a source of growing your economy into the very lategame. As Ogi123 said there aren't really a lot of economy bonuses or buildings in the late Modern Era techs, which are mostly military or Space Victory-based, which in addition (I think this was discussed before) does make the Modern Era pretty boring and disappointing - this is probably the biggest gap, and probably easier than trying to think up some new systems. It might also make sense to give each Transhumanism level a small commerce boost or something like that, to represent undefined technological improvements continuing to increase productivity or something like that and make technology at least somewhat non-useless if you ever get up there to finish the tech tree.

 

[Zaddy]

Perhaps this sort of idea runs contra to your idea of civ modifiers, but have you ever considered an in-game way to improve a civ's modifiers, Leoreth? Right now, they're rather undynamic, uncompromising things. For example, as India in 1700 AD, you could be the model of a forward-facing, western style liberal democracy, but you'll never catch up to Europeans because your modifiers are HILARIOUSLY bad. Meanwhile, India's close neighbor of Iran can very easily become a tech leader, by virture of it's wonderful modifiers, even if Iran adopts to the most "backwards" of civics. If you've ever played Europa Universalis 4, I was thinking along the lines of their (now-discarded) westernization mechanic.

 

[Leoreth]

Well, the real core of the issue is that at some point there's simply no way to grow your economy other than through conquest (i.e. through continued development or technology).

That's not true, your economy also grows through your cottages and city infrastructure (via modifiers).

Perhaps this sort of idea runs contra to your idea of civ modifiers, but have you ever considered an in-game way to improve a civ's modifiers, Leoreth? Right now, they're rather undynamic, uncompromising things. For example, as India in 1700 AD, you could be the model of a forward-facing, western style liberal democracy, but you'll never catch up to Europeans because your modifiers are HILARIOUSLY bad. Meanwhile, India's close neighbor of Iran can very easily become a tech leader, by virture of it's wonderful modifiers, even if Iran adopts to the most "backwards" of civics. If you've ever played Europa Universalis 4, I was thinking along the lines of their (now-discarded) westernization mechanic.

Not opposed in principle, but I have no idea how such a mechanic would be framed or work mechanically. I definitely don't want a concept that literally invokes westernization. In principle, different civ modifiers are parameters that compensate for terrain environment and starting situation and account for the desired historical trajectory. If I give the opportunity to improve it, the requirements would probably be tied to game success in some way already, so it would mostly help those who are already ahead, in which case the question is what the point is.

 

[Ogi123]

I afraid that this is not true, at the end of game you have usually build everything because production is plentiful. In such situation you can't simply increase modifiers or base commerce any more.

 

[Leoreth]

I mostly don't balance around the end game.