Suggestions and Requests

[AOS9001]

I've missed a lot in the four years I was out of touch with this mod, so forgive me if I'm retreading old ground and forgive me for bringing up Portugal again (it's my favorite civ to play). Both Timor and Makassar/Moluccas are historical areas for Portugal and Portugal was established IRL in both areas for some time (much longer in East Timor's case), but they're not counted as part of Asia for the historical goal like Malacca is. Is this for a reason?

Oh, yeah that's why I said I would preferably combine this with a game option you select at the beginning of the game together with the difficulty etc. Something like "railroad everything" vs "railroad civs related to me" vs "railroad in autoplay only" vs "no railroading", obviously with better names. I suspect different people have different preferences here for different civs.

I've seen mods for Victoria II that do this, I think it's a good idea. Off the top of my head, here's how I'd name them:

• Historical mode (railroad everything even while human is playing)
• Semi-historical mode (railroad civs related to me)
• Historical autoplay (railroad only until the human spawns)
• Ahistorical mode (no railroading, i.e. original RFC)

 

[Fresol]

Reason is inaccurate rectangle.

 

[AOS9001]

So by my meager knowledge of how this game works, it falls outside the rectangle of tiles defined as Asia in the code?

 

[JHLee]

So by my meager knowledge of how this game works, it falls outside the rectangle of tiles defined as Asia in the code?

Yes, this kind of mis-defined tiles, while not too game-changing, can be found here and there in the game.
A couple of other examples are the strange Greek and Persian stability maps, where a few tiles in the middle of Core/Historical/Contested Areas are left out as Foreign/Foreign Core Areas.

 

[Leoreth]

I've missed a lot in the four years I was out of touch with this mod, so forgive me if I'm retreading old ground and forgive me for bringing up Portugal again (it's my favorite civ to play). Both Timor and Makassar/Moluccas are historical areas for Portugal and Portugal was established IRL in both areas for some time (much longer in East Timor's case), but they're not counted as part of Asia for the historical goal like Malacca is. Is this for a reason?

Makes sense, let's include it.

I've seen mods for Victoria II that do this, I think it's a good idea. Off the top of my head, here's how I'd name them:

• Historical mode (railroad everything even while human is playing)
• Semi-historical mode (railroad civs related to me)
• Historical autoplay (railroad only until the human spawns)
• Ahistorical mode (no railroading, i.e. original RFC)

I don't like this name pattern, because there's no reason to imply that one is more historical than the other.

 

[AOS9001]

Well, what else would you be railroading but history? Coming up with ideal railroads for every civ would take time, to say the least. It'd be easier to just push things along to follow real history up until the point of divergence (human spawn)... or even after. Maybe I fundamentally misunderstood your intentions with this theoretical mechanic.

Glad to know my Timor/Moluccas suggestion makes sense, though.

 

[Leoreth]

Well because you could equally argue that it's more true to history to have decisions and circumstance shape subsequent events instead of a pre-ordained historical order.

 

[bluepotato]

To me even the conqueror events seem ahistorical, why do roman legions appear from thin air?
Anyways, currently my biggest problem with the roman empire is that it keeps collapsing too early. And not because it's overran by barbarians, it's because the utterly stupid roman emperor keeps murdering his core population. Couldn't the AI prioritize growth in its core instead of killing its core population if it has an overextension penalty, and whip in historical/foreign areas? I rarely see an Eastern Roman Empire because the Romans die way too early.

Or do they already do that?

 

[1SDANi]

What does the sway of fate influence?

• The World
• Your Connections
• Your Origins
• Nothing

 

[AOS9001]

Well because you could equally argue that it's more true to history to have decisions and circumstance shape subsequent events instead of a pre-ordained historical order.

Now we're in philosophy!

To me even the conqueror events seem ahistorical, why do roman legions appear from thin air?
Anyways, currently my biggest problem with the roman empire is that it keeps collapsing too early. And not because it's overran by barbarians, it's because the utterly stupid roman emperor keeps murdering his core population. Couldn't the AI prioritize growth in its core instead of killing its core population if it has an overextension penalty, and whip in historical/foreign areas? I rarely see an Eastern Roman Empire because the Romans die way too early.

Maybe those kind of scripted events like the Roman and Greek conquerors (as well as Turkic conquerors) would be the kind of thing that gets disabled if you choose the "no railroading at all" option.
But I agree, the Romans seem to always die around 200 AD in my games, usually from overexpansion. Historicish, but too early for them to have an effect.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

To me even the conqueror events seem ahistorical, why do roman legions appear from thin air?

Because the AI is really really dumb.

 

[Tigranes]

Please nerf Bad Relations stability penalty, especially for the late game. Congresses, AP, UN make everyone to know each other and meeting someone unhappy triggers late game collapse. Yes Soviet Union and Yugoslavia collapsed to core but last 70 years we don't see maps change too much. At some point stability favors humans because AI does not care to improve relations to stay stable.

EDIT: Oh I just discovered in dedicated thread that Leo is planning to review this before releasing. Looking forward to.

 

[Leoreth]

Don't expect indepth change though.

 

[72_Resign]

Hello. What are your thoughts on this?
Volcanoes as a terrain type as opposed to random mountains acting as volcanoes. Maybe it would be better as a terrain feature as volcanoes appear in mountainous areas as well as flat areas.

 

[Tigranes]

Hello. What are your thoughts on this?
Volcanoes as a terrain type as opposed to random mountains acting as volcanoes. Maybe it would be better as a terrain feature as volcanoes appear in mountainous areas as well as flat areas.

Welcome to forums!


Unless volcano is active -- it, for all intents and purposes, IS a mountain. Many mountains are extinct volcanoes, and some islands have volcanic origin. In game terms volcanic activity best modeled by random events. How different from mountains should they act every turn in the game? Damage units every time one of them walk near volcano?

 

[72_Resign]

There is a major difference between regular mountains and volcanoes. Now, volcanoes may be inactive, in which case it basically functions similarly to a mountain. But it is an overextension to then have any random mountain in the game have the ability to have volcanic eruptions.
My thoughts were similar to the mechanism in Civ6 where volcanoes are active/inactive/extinct. If a unit is nearby when the volcano is active, there is chance that it could be damaged or destroyed. I also was thinking that eruptions could be classified by magnitude and high magnitude eruptions would have a greater chance of affecting the world climate since it is well known that massive eruptions cause the global temperature to decrease which can cause famine.

 

[TJDowling]

Welcome to forums!


Unless volcano is active it is for all intents and purposes IS a mountain. Many mountains are extinct volcanoes, and some islands have volcanic origin. In game terms volcanic activity best modeled by random events. How different from mountains should they act every turn in the game? Damage units every time one of them walk near volcano?

I think volcanoes are a bad idea but perhaps notable volcanoes could be added? Not every mountain has potential to be a volcano. So it's strange to see volcanic eruptions in random locations where there are no volcanoes in real life. One idea which I think might not be too awful and doesn't require adding any new volcano terrains/features. A volcanic eruption destroys your improvements but adds 1+ food to the tile representing the way eruptions can replenish the nutrients of the soil in their vicinity.

 

[JHLee]

The vanilla civ4 volcano event does exactly that, without the food plus.
I dont think volcanic eruptions happening left and right damaging your cities/units wouldnt be a fun experience.
If volcanic eruptions happen randomly that is just one more unenjoyable random event you cant control.
If they happen on certain tiles only that is just another feature human players can easily exploit and AI cant react to.

 

[Tigranes]

Can I ask you please why Permanent Alliances are not the part of this mod? Very few Civ4 people actually played a game with Permanent Alliances, but I even have a PBEM game set in the modern times with 7 human players controlling the Earth (Dominearthion) and can attest that permanent alliances are a lot of fun and fully programmed by the Fraxis -- so ready to go feature, just needs to be included to make late games more fun. It gives access to mechanics most players never experienced before, like researching techs together, helping each other with projects , etc. Most things in modern world is done via international collaboration (like ITER, ISS, CERN).

 

[Leoreth]

Can I ask you please why Permanent Alliances are not the part of this mod? Very few Civ4 people actually played a game with Permanent Alliances, but I even have a PBEM game set in the modern times with 7 human players controlling the Earth (Dominearthion) and can attest that permanent alliances are a lot of fun and fully programmed by the Fraxis -- so ready to go feature, just needs to be included to make late games more fun. It gives access to mechanics most players never experienced before, like researching techs together, helping each other with projects , etc. Most things in modern world is done via international collaboration (like ITER, ISS, CERN).

It's unfortunately not ready to go in RFC. Permanent alliances are implemented using teams, where everyone begins the game in their own team until they start to share one when beginning a permanent alliance. In fact, things like research are implemented entirely using teams, and not players. The thing is that in RFC many mechanics are implemented with the assumption that player of ID x is also in team x, and to protect this assumptions permanent alliances needed to be disabled. It's essentially the same problem as what I was talking about with civilisations being tied to player slots. Likewise, players right now are tied to their team slots. Maybe untangling one can untangle the other, but I'm not sure. Let's see when we get there but right now permanent alliances won't work.