Suggestions and Requests
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
merijn_v1
Black Belt
Two new attempts.
I kinda like how the redish-brown turned out. It is not that different from the brown or red from previous suggestion. But IMO is has a good color for representing dirty power, while still being a clear thunderbolt.
I also did the orange-white combination suggested by steb.
Maybe I should upload what I have now, so you can decide the color yourself. I do have a template for the thunderbolt icon, so you can easily paint that and import it with ASAF's tool.
I kinda like how the redish-brown turned out. It is not that different from the brown or red from previous suggestion. But IMO is has a good color for representing dirty power, while still being a clear thunderbolt.
Spoiler :
I also did the orange-white combination suggested by steb.
Spoiler :
Maybe I should upload what I have now, so you can decide the color yourself. I do have a template for the thunderbolt icon, so you can easily paint that and import it with ASAF's tool.
Attachments
Last edited:
merijn_v1
Black Belt
Alright. I will make a PR with the orange-white combination.
I made the changes in the same branch as the Frontenac update. You need to merge those changes first before I can push these changes, otherwise the will be in the same PR. (Still seperate commits though)
I made the changes in the same branch as the Frontenac update. You need to merge those changes first before I can push these changes, otherwise the will be in the same PR. (Still seperate commits though)
Enyavar
Prince
- Joined
- May 16, 2015
- Messages
- 517
The negative mood of the AI is really depressing. They frequently have a -1 modifier from "first impression", and can quickly ride us into the dirt with all the negative diplomacy they hand us.
So, here's an idea for DoCs future: Can we assign consequences towards rejecting requests to boycott/attack third parties?
Currently, there is Alice "Please help me crush Bob under my heels". If we do that, we get +1 "mutual enemy" from Alice, and -3 for DoW from Bob. If we deny the request, we get -1 "you refused to give military aid" from Alice, but nothing from Bob. If Bob turns up a few turns later and asks to help destroying Alice, we get the same choice again. Worse, the "mutual enemy" effects are only active as long as the war lasts. So there is no long-lasting positive effect from these annoying and regular events, but multiple long-lasting negative effects. The same is true for boycotts: Alice wants us to boycott Bob. If we accept, we get nothing from Alice, but a negative diplo from Bob. If we don't accept, we get negative diplo from Alice, and Bob doesn't notice.
I claim that international diplomacy doesn't work that way. The third party usually gets wind of consultations that would involve boycotting or attacking them.
Can we get a +1 diplo "You took our side" or "You stood up for us" from Bob if we refuse Alice's request? And also, if we accept Alice's request, can we get a similar bonus from her, as well? Such a diplo modifier could be capped at +3. And let's say the following scenario occurs: Bob and Alice are worst enemies, we support Bob when Alice asks us to attack him, but then we support begging Alice with a tech: The first action would increase the "on our side" bonus with Bob, but the second action would give "you gave us help" with Alice but remove the "on our side" bonus with Bob, probably adding the "you traded with our enemy" malus.
That would discourage flip-flop diplomacy, and nudge players towards choosing their sides.
So, here's an idea for DoCs future: Can we assign consequences towards rejecting requests to boycott/attack third parties?
Currently, there is Alice "Please help me crush Bob under my heels". If we do that, we get +1 "mutual enemy" from Alice, and -3 for DoW from Bob. If we deny the request, we get -1 "you refused to give military aid" from Alice, but nothing from Bob. If Bob turns up a few turns later and asks to help destroying Alice, we get the same choice again. Worse, the "mutual enemy" effects are only active as long as the war lasts. So there is no long-lasting positive effect from these annoying and regular events, but multiple long-lasting negative effects. The same is true for boycotts: Alice wants us to boycott Bob. If we accept, we get nothing from Alice, but a negative diplo from Bob. If we don't accept, we get negative diplo from Alice, and Bob doesn't notice.
I claim that international diplomacy doesn't work that way. The third party usually gets wind of consultations that would involve boycotting or attacking them.
Can we get a +1 diplo "You took our side" or "You stood up for us" from Bob if we refuse Alice's request? And also, if we accept Alice's request, can we get a similar bonus from her, as well? Such a diplo modifier could be capped at +3. And let's say the following scenario occurs: Bob and Alice are worst enemies, we support Bob when Alice asks us to attack him, but then we support begging Alice with a tech: The first action would increase the "on our side" bonus with Bob, but the second action would give "you gave us help" with Alice but remove the "on our side" bonus with Bob, probably adding the "you traded with our enemy" malus.
That would discourage flip-flop diplomacy, and nudge players towards choosing their sides.
Spoiler 'Nother idea :
Last edited:
Zaddy
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2018
- Messages
- 364
Playing after 1500 as the Turkic civ is pretty tough going. Your core will have transitioned to Persia, but the Iranian spawn essentially almost entirely removes you from your core, leaving you with only your Afghan possessions. I'd suggest that if the Turkic player has survived this long, their core should shift back to Transoxiana, or something to that effect. Or I suppose maybe this is intended, and you're just supposed to collapse.
Last edited:
I just mentioned this in another thread but I think the way Rome works right now is a bit unfair, especially when playing as Carthage. There is the following situation: you have conquered all of Italy, declared peace, and then after ten turns they declare war again and have free armies spawning all over. I know that this is a dynamic for imperialist civs in DoC but can we have a rule where the civ only gets their armies under the condition that they are in control of their core? It's quite unrealistic for Rome to be left with just a Balkan city and one in France and then to get truck loads of legions and ballista's for free.
1SDANi
The Fading Memory
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2014
- Messages
- 3,081
In the meantime, I suggest waiting out the two punic war events and then invade.
Ah so they are specific events with specific dates? I didn't know that. Thanks for the tip.
1SDANi
The Fading Memory
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2014
- Messages
- 3,081
iRomeCarthageYear = -220
iRomeGreeceYear = -150
iRomeMesopotamiaYear = -100
iRomeAnatoliaYear = -100
iRomeCeltiaYear = -50
iRomeEgyptYear = 0
iAlexanderYear = -340
iCholaSumatraYear = 1030
iSpainMoorsYear = 1200
iTurksPersiaYear = 1000
iTurksAnatoliaYear = 1100
iMongolsPersiaYear = 1220
You can find more details on conqueror events in AIWars.py.
Imperator Knoedel
Currently obsessed with The Owl House
We all know how frustrating it can be when you think you've got a good thing going only for an unexpected flip or spawn to ruin a large part of your empire. Certainly this gets better as you get more experienced in the mod and learn how its mechanics work and when, where and under what circumstances flips and spawns happen, but when you're new to the mod or playing a civ whose history you know little about, such events coming out of nowhere can be discouraging. I have seen first hand how a friend of mine got turned off from playing this mod after he lost half of his Roman empire to the Byzantine spawn and then lose almost all of his troops to desertion when he tried to reconquer the east.
I therefore suggest that, at least when you are playing on the easiest difficulty (as you probably will when you are brand new), the human player gets warning popups before a major event that is going to negatively impact them is about to happen, say ten turns in advance. Obvious examples would be the Mongol spawn when you are China or Korea, European conquerors when you are Native American or Alexander's conquests when you are Egypt, Babylon or Persia.
Of course we can do better than just having the game tell you with no bells and whistles "yo stuff is about to happen that you should prepare for". If we look at Fall From Heaven II for inspiration, when the Armageddon counter passes certain points you get nice flavorful popups telling you for instance that if you foolish mortals don't stop sinning soon you are going to invite far darker beings onto this plane of existence than you can handle, with the first such popup being an advance warning and only subsequent ones coming along with actual negative effects. With some creativity we can turn contrived, frustrating and unexpected game mechanics surprising you out of nowhere into ominously foreshadowed flavorful adventures! These messages could even give you a subtle hint of what would likely be the best course of action, i.e. strengthening defenses against conqueror events or abandoning doomed regions that will soon flip.
Imagine you are playing Persia and it's 400 BC. Suddenly you receive this message: "Travelers from the west report that one of the accursed Greek tribes, the so called Macedonians, have in a shockingly short amount of time made massive improvements to their military infrastructure and training and are currently in the process of taking over all of Greece. Many worry that their rapid expansion will not stop there and that they will seek to conquer our mighty empire once they are ready. Your generals urge you to build up your own military and strengthen the western garrisons. They especially caution you about the dangers of the famed heavy infantry the Greeks are known to field."
For China it could be something about the commanders of your northern garrisons warning you about the increasing level of organization the Mongols seem to develop, advising you to strengthen your defenses, especially against cavalry, in your most important cities in easily defendable positions, but to abandon outlying desert towns as they are likely not worth the cost of trying to hold them, especially since the local population is getting increasingly rebellious as it is.
For the Native Americans it could be something like "Your oracles are prophesizing that the end is nigh and the gods themselves will arrive within our lifetime to strike us down if we are not prepared", with the warning popping up when the first non-American civ has researched Caravels.
And now, for a completely unrelated suggestion, how about enabling espionage against Independents along with certain special actions like negotiating trade and open borders or decreasing the likelihood of any given unit deserting to a newly spawned civ depending on how much espionage you have against Independents?
I therefore suggest that, at least when you are playing on the easiest difficulty (as you probably will when you are brand new), the human player gets warning popups before a major event that is going to negatively impact them is about to happen, say ten turns in advance. Obvious examples would be the Mongol spawn when you are China or Korea, European conquerors when you are Native American or Alexander's conquests when you are Egypt, Babylon or Persia.
Of course we can do better than just having the game tell you with no bells and whistles "yo stuff is about to happen that you should prepare for". If we look at Fall From Heaven II for inspiration, when the Armageddon counter passes certain points you get nice flavorful popups telling you for instance that if you foolish mortals don't stop sinning soon you are going to invite far darker beings onto this plane of existence than you can handle, with the first such popup being an advance warning and only subsequent ones coming along with actual negative effects. With some creativity we can turn contrived, frustrating and unexpected game mechanics surprising you out of nowhere into ominously foreshadowed flavorful adventures! These messages could even give you a subtle hint of what would likely be the best course of action, i.e. strengthening defenses against conqueror events or abandoning doomed regions that will soon flip.
Imagine you are playing Persia and it's 400 BC. Suddenly you receive this message: "Travelers from the west report that one of the accursed Greek tribes, the so called Macedonians, have in a shockingly short amount of time made massive improvements to their military infrastructure and training and are currently in the process of taking over all of Greece. Many worry that their rapid expansion will not stop there and that they will seek to conquer our mighty empire once they are ready. Your generals urge you to build up your own military and strengthen the western garrisons. They especially caution you about the dangers of the famed heavy infantry the Greeks are known to field."
For China it could be something about the commanders of your northern garrisons warning you about the increasing level of organization the Mongols seem to develop, advising you to strengthen your defenses, especially against cavalry, in your most important cities in easily defendable positions, but to abandon outlying desert towns as they are likely not worth the cost of trying to hold them, especially since the local population is getting increasingly rebellious as it is.
For the Native Americans it could be something like "Your oracles are prophesizing that the end is nigh and the gods themselves will arrive within our lifetime to strike us down if we are not prepared", with the warning popping up when the first non-American civ has researched Caravels.
And now, for a completely unrelated suggestion, how about enabling espionage against Independents along with certain special actions like negotiating trade and open borders or decreasing the likelihood of any given unit deserting to a newly spawned civ depending on how much espionage you have against Independents?
Staying on the topic of Carthage (I just can't shut up about it): I've been reading about the North African elephants used by Carthage, and learned that they went extinct in classical times due to over-exploitation, not only in wars but also due to Roman circus games (some 3500 elephants perished this way during the reign of Augustus alone). So I was thinking: could we have the two elephant resources disappear from North Africa after a specific year, maybe having them replaced by something else?
bluepotato
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2018
- Messages
- 329
They also disappear when the Romans didn't even conquer Carthage. Do we assume that the Carthaginians would've also killed all of them?
My point is, maybe they shouldn't disappear if Carthage is still alive.
Also, when the bronze is replaced by iron in Egypt, the mine is also gone. Is that intentional?
Similar threads
