Suggestions and Requests

Is there any real reason to pursue Stability if you are not close to collapse or risking a respawn of another civilization? After playing a small civ, I've been actually thinking about it. I didn't have to consider various +2 -2 stability factors... didn't even know about all of them (I gotta print the list some day). Used outdated civics for some time.
Maybe the commerce or culture could be a little higher with Solid/Stable stability (business likes it)?
 
I find that while there's no specific benefit from having a high overall stability rating, the value is in being able to trade off high stability in one category against a planned low stability in another. Common examples I see in my games are using +2 per vassal while running Tributary in order to support overexpansion or running outdated civics, or stacking bonuses from civic combinations to counter the penalty from foreign relations in lategame wars. Also, the economic modifier for growth/recession can be very finicky, especially if you use binary research, so having some buffer there is nice too.
 
Note that high stability levels function as buffer once your stability worsens for some reason. Sometimes bad economy can quickly turn against you.
 
Hello Leoreth, first of all, thanks a lot for your incredible work. It is a great game: I've been playing Civ from the Civ 2 m and I have to say that you mod is the only one I am actually playing. Thanks for all.

As a suggestion, I would like to propose a couple of ideas:
1) It's quite common to lose battles when you have +90% win (I'm losing battles with even 99%!!). I understand it's a problem of the 'IA' but is it possible to automatically retreat when losing a battle with a 90% win option? It would be less frustating...
2) Stability: I've seen that collapse happens when stability is -12... is it possible to increase it?

Once again, thanks a lot y un saludo!
 
It's not a question of AI, that's just how probability works.

What do you mean in point (2), increase what?
 
Is it possible to automatically retreat when losing a battle with a 90% win option? It would be less frustating...

If I am not mistaken, some modmod(s) around have something like that, but I do not like it. It means you can't lose your super-strong unit with GG attached. And that is bad for the game. With 90% win, he will lose 1 battle out of ten, on average. And die.
 
1) It's quite common to lose battles when you have +90% win (I'm losing battles with even 99%!!). I understand it's a problem of the 'IA' but is it possible to automatically retreat when losing a battle with a 90% win option? It would be less frustating...
Both my and 1SDAN's modmods have that feature.
 
If I am not mistaken, some modmod(s) around have something like that, but I do not like it. It means you can't lose your super-strong unit with GG attached. And that is bad for the game. With 90% win, he will lose 1 battle out of ten, on average. And die.
 
The cost of using a Settler to rebuild "free" buildings in an already existing city should somewhat scale with the number of buildings it adds. I suggest two options:
  1. Using a Settler to rebuild costs a lump sum of money, scaling with the production cost and/or number of added buildings.
  2. Using a Settler to rebuild causes a revolt in the affected city ("Those darn immigrants are taking our jobs!!!111"), with the length of that revolt scaling with the production cost and/or number of added buildings.
 
I considered this, but there is really no further benefit this adds compared to founding a new city on a free tile, so I don't think additional costs or restrictions are necessary.
 
I've been trying the new map, and a problem is that Harrapa always pinches the Pyramids before Egypt can build it. I'd suggest making it so that the Pyramids and Great Sphinx require the Monarchy/Redistribution/Deification civic combo.
 
Last edited:
While there is some discussion about how to display religious requirements for wonders in the Questions about wonders thread, I'd like to suggest/request an overhaul of these religious requirements.

As it stands, most wonders in the early to mid game require a state religion. This, I believe, is intended to make the wonders appear in the areas they were actually built, and also provide coherence: if a wonder is a Christian church, it makes no sense to build it in a place where there are no Christians. There is also the advantage that civs belonging to different cultural spheres provide a different game experience.

But there are unfortunate consequences:
  • Often, there is very little competition for wonders. We lose the classic feeling of needing to race the construction of a useful wonder to get its effects.
    • In the extreme case of this, some religions are restricted to very few civilizations: Zoroastrianism (Persia), Confucianism and Taoism (China and rarely Korea, and functionally identical for wonders), Hinduism (India, Tamils, rarely some SE Asian civs). This means that the wonders associated with these religions are almost like additional, guaranteed unique powers for these civilizations.
  • Religions are unequal in wonder availability, so sometimes you might be tempted to switch just to build more wonders (or a specific wonder that you want), even though it doesn't really make sense otherwise (because of diplomacy, religious unity, roleplaying, etc.).
  • Some wonders rarely get built because no civ is around with the appropriate religion (e.g., Zoroastrian wonders if Persia has collapsed, Bamiyan Buddhas if no Buddhist civ is in central Asia).
  • Some wonders require that a religion be present in the city, regardless of the state religion (Jewish wonders are like this). Some have a state religion requirement and a city religion requirement. It is often difficult to communicate this information, and it also feels arbitrary.
  • There are also coherence issues:
    • If you have a minority religion in a city, you can order the city to build temples, monasteries or cathedrals of that religion. But why not a wonder?
    • While some wonders are actual religious buildings, many are not. Why couldn't a non-Protestant civ create the Amsterdam Bourse?
    • In the late game, most wonders have no religious or regional requirements and we seem fine with this. We can say it is because the modern world is more globalized, but why the double standard?
    • Except for corn and rice, which are used for the regionalization of a few pagan wonders, no wonder has a resource requirement, even though some were clearly made of a particular resource (marble, stone, gold, etc.). Instead, the use of the resource is represented through construction speed bonuses. Why are religious requirements more stringent than resource requirements?
All in all, I think the system has more drawbacks that advantages. However, I don't recommend getting rid of it altogether: seeing the wonders in the correct regions most of the time is important.

What I think is this: we should remove all state religion requirements (some exceptions may apply, but I can't think of any), and replace them all with city religion requirements.

Since religions spread in a broadly historical fashion, this would still ensure that wonders are built mostly in the correct regions. It would simplify the communication of religious requirements in the pedia. It would be more in line with the requirements for regular religious buildings. And it would allow e.g. Greece to build the Great Mausoleum when it captures a Zoroastrian city without converting (and losing its capacity to build pagan wonders).

There is still some value in having a link between state religion and wonders. After all, it is more plausible for a polity to build a great tribute to Buddha or Christ when its government is Buddhist or Christian. So why not use the same system as for resources? Wonders that are actually religiously themed (temples, tombs, religious schools, religious monuments) could have a 25% or 50% speed construction bonus when you have the appropriate state religion (base costs would need to be adjusted to take this into account). Then there would still be an incentive to convert in some cases.

I'm not sure what to do with pagan wonders. They could be available to all but have a speed bonus when you don't have a state religion, or become unavailable when you convert, as is the case now.
 
Here's a suggestion, not sure if it's feasible but would make the interface just a tad more user-friendly. So, when we are plotting a route for embarked units to take that combines sea and land it would be nice if the game would automatically suggest the fastest combined (sea and land) route for the land units.

For example, right now I'm trying to send several units on cogs to Persia from the Western Mediterranean. I'm trying to think whether it would be best to send them all the way to Jerusalem by sea and then by land the rest of the way or whether it's best to disembark somewhere on the coast of North Africa as there are some spots of Roman Roads along the coast.

If sea/land routes could be easily calculated for embarked units, that would be handy in solving this dilemma.
 
Building off of my suggestion earlier in this thread, I propose adding a new wonder... The Great Bath of Mohenjo-Daro (this wonder was also represented in Civ 6).

This wonder would take the effect currently held by the Aqua Appia (+2:health: in all cities), and would help inspire either a Great Engineer or Great Prophet.

I see this move as having two benefits:

First, it would give the Harappans a wonder to build, as I think they are the only early civilization without a wonder that represents their culture.
Second, it would mesh really nicely with the Harappan unique ability (positive :health: contributes to city growth in the ancient era), and help inspire a play style that doesn't require spamming out city builders to meet their 30 population requirement.
 
For the Moorish UHV, it's definition of the Maghreb excludes Tripoli/Libya, which (as I understand) are commonly considered part of the Maghreb. In 600 AD this means you have to found some odd/useless cities in order to meet the 3 city requirement. Can the Maghreb region be expanded to include Libya?
 
Is the Nobel Prize wonder programmed to scale with game speed? You get like 20 GPP per activation from it, which is pretty minuscule when your next great person costs 5000 GPP...
 
hey guys,

for DOC -

not sure where to find the requirements for founding new religions besides being first to discover a tech.

Ive tried reading the forums and can locate the "suggestions" but looking for conclusive rules...

For example, Hinduism, Ive founded calendar first. BUT as soon as the Indians spawn they found it.


So, looking for a complete list for all religion founding criteria please.

Thank you
 
In general, you can found a religion by discovering its tech while also having a city in that religion's core area.

Special cases:
- Judaism will be automatically founded in Jerusalem if it has not been founded yet
- Orthodoxy will be automatically founded if it has not been founded yet
- Catholicism will be founded when more Orthodox cities are outside of the control of Orthodox civilisations than inside
- Protestantism can only be founded by Catholic civilisations
 
Quick suggestions about ingame naval aspects, one of them I think was already suggested here before.

1) Remove the requirement of open borders agreement to naval movement in rival territory during peacetime.

Maritime borders and territorial sea are modern concepts and states rarely had any control over the sea besides few kilometers off their coast. Considering that sea routes were historically essential to trade and cultural exchange between different nations/civs/polities, I don't see reason to have the current restriction, which mimics the land borders mechanics. Perhaps in the Information Age some technology could enable those restrictions (representing the UNCLOS and new forms o sovereign over sea bodies).
The Dutch UU (East Indiaman) would require a new effect, though. Perhaps could be + 1 Gold per turn when stationed in a foreign city?

2) Make navies useful tools of diplomacy.

Historically, warships and navies were often used as tools of diplomacy, both in the more coercitive (like gunboat diplomacy) and cooperative sense. I don't know if it is possible to implement, but warships (especially when they are in sight of the "victim") could be valued double when the AI make considerations about accepting or making tribute demands. Naturally, this would be applied only to civs that have access to sea and don't share significant land borders. We could expand this naval diplomacy mechanic merging it with the proposal of unilateral open borders agreement as tribute or allowing the possibility of successfully demanding coastal cities from other civs as tribute (which would represent well the European colonialism/imperialism in Asia and Africa and could work together with the Trading Companies existent mechanic).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom