Suggestions and Requests

[Ogi123]

Currently China tech pace is crazy. In last three 3000BC starts in 1500 they had physics and replaceable parts. In 1700 riflemen and ironclads...

 

[Ogi123]

That's why unlike vanila game you get a -10 stability hit immediately, which means you cannot always abuse this situation. People who are paranoid about their stability rarely raze cities, but when they do -- sometimes it is worth to replace useless city with something useful. But I do think that starting Renaissance Settle training should reduce the population of the builder city by -1, then -2 for Industrial Era, -3 for global and -4 for digital. This will bring some balance and realism to the world.

This is why you starve city to 2 pop before conquest, you will get only -2 stab penalty this way.

 

[Fresol]

Better yet, for foreign cities, you can starve them AFTER conquest, grant independence and then raze.

 

[Leoreth]

"better"

 

[Ogi123]

Hey at least this isn't Stellaris, you can't turn them into livestock...

 

[Leon Michiel]

Better yet, for foreign cities, you can starve them AFTER conquest, grant independence and then raze.

There's historic parallels to be made here, especially in recent times. I could name a few but its frankly too depressing to get into.

It's kind of like chattel slavery; it's historically so significant, I appreciate its in-game but I can't say it's a 'fun' feature.

Speaking of significance, perhaps the Ottoman and Berber empires should also be able to get slaves from the Black Sea area? And Morocco from Southern Europe.

 

[fegeleinmarsch]

I will keep proposing this: Your mod absolutely needs WW1 Trench Infantry (And perhaps medieval Arquebusiers)

Moderator Action: Moved to the appropriate location. Next time posting in the wrong thread despite explicit request is going to be an infraction. -- Leoreth

 

[trevor]

I will keep proposing this: Your mod absolutely needs WW1 Trench Infantry (And perhaps medieval Arquebusiers)

Moderator Action: Moved to the appropriate location. Next time posting in the wrong thread despite explicit request is going to be an infraction. -- Leoreth

Moderation aside, this mod already has both of these things.

 

[Tigranes]

I will keep proposing this: Your mod absolutely needs WW1 Trench Infantry (And perhaps medieval Arquebusiers)

Did you get the term "Medieval" for Arquebusier from Total War? There is nothing Medieval about 15th century when those guys started to appear and we do have them as the first gunpowder unit in this mod, did you miss them?

As for trenches, in a way in Industrial Era Machine Gun can act as forces in the trenches. Up until you develop Marines Infantry has little chance to win attacking MG. Feels pretty WW1-ly...

 

[citizenofdoom]

make western and eastern part of roman empire a perm alliance.
( At least in real life, the eastern provided 100000 men to support)
:3 made this roman will be invincible

 

[hnrysml]

I have a suggestion based on what I've noticed in game and in discussions on the forum, which would be that you can settle a settler in an existing city, granting it all the free buildings for the current era, and giving a base percentage of your culture.

My first reason for suggesting this, is that, for civs that don't really settle much territory (only conquer), there is little reason to ever use the settler unit, when in fact, most conquering civs did send settlers to newly conquered regions.

My second is that newly conquered cities are greatly disadvantaged to the point where often they will never be useful and the player will choose to starve them then raze them, risking the stability penalty.

And, it doesn't make sense that a newly founded city would already have more infrastructure than a captured city.

 

[Tigranes]

Can I ask for a small but very useful UI feature for F8 screen? Turn/Year timestamp next to the checked UHVs. It will allow the player to track his "win by" victories. If, in addition, it is possible and pertinent to show virtual victory date for "win in" victories -- this could be a really neat way to report our achievements or just constitute a useful way to keep important records while playing the game.

 

[Leoreth]

This information is currently not tracked.

 

[merijn_v1]

I don't think it's that hard to code. If you want, I can make a PR of it.

EDIT:
Concept image.

Spoiler :

 

[Leoreth]

I assume you are persisting human victory turns in StoredData? From a formatting perspective, I would like to have

(check) Goal accomplished! (xyz AD)

and

(check) Goal accomplished! (xyz AD - turn n)

If the "display UHV deadline turn" option is enabled.

 

[FinalLegendZero]

A suggestion regarding Russia's 3rd UHV goal. Currently, a civ counts as communist for the purposes of the goal if - and only if - it's running Central Planning. Prior to the latest civic revamp, whether the civ ran Central Planning was also the sole determining factor for whether the civ got its communist dynamic name. Now, however, a civ can get its communist dynamic name either by running Central Planning without running Vassalage, or by running State Party without running Vassalage, Totalitarianism, Merchant Trade, or Free Enterprise. I propose we alter the conditions for what civs count as communist for Russia's 3rd UHV goal to match the conditions for a civ getting its communist dynamic name.

 

[Leoreth]

That's a good point, I'll put it in the backlog.

 

[merijn_v1]

I assume you are persisting human victory turns in StoredData? From a formatting perspective, I would like to have

(check) Goal accomplished! (xyz AD)

and

(check) Goal accomplished! (xyz AD - turn n)

If the "display UHV deadline turn" option is enabled.

I indeed use the StoredData. I currently have a list for all civs, similarly to lGoals.

Do you mean that showing the winning date is enabled by default and the turn only when that option is enabled?

 

[Leoreth]

Okay, that's probably better in case there is a civ switch. And yes, I would always show the year, and the turn only via the same option that displays the turn next to UHV goal dates.

 

[Bogdan_RO]

Is it intentional for the human player starting as Byzantium to be able to raze Ctesiphon in the 600 A.D. start before the Arabs get it?

If not, could we maybe move (at least) the Cataphract from Constantinople to further north, so that it's unable to reach that city before the flip? Preferably north of the Danube and maybe even with a Barbarian unit between it and the border, to simulate Maurice's Balkan Campaign. (of course, this presents the issue that said campaign, while still ongoing in 600 AD when the game starts, was over long before the devastating war with Persia, which is prominently featured in the opening description as the reason for the Empire's weakness at the start of the scenario)