Suggestions and Requests

[MechatronicJazz]

I considered this when I changed religion rules, but I think this level of granularity only complicates things with very little gain.

That's fair. Honestly, after playing more paradox games, I'm just happy that civ allows for multiple religions to be present in one city at all. I really enjoy EU4, but it irks me that every province has one religion and one culture.

 

[merijn_v1]

The recent discussion thread suggesting Shia Islam be added got me thinking about how minority religions are represented in the game. Would it be possible to add a mechanic that determines/shows a rough percentage for each religion in a city instead of each religion being equally present? I don't think it would be worth doing just for one religion to be added, but I think it could also improve the representation of other minority religions like Judaism. It could also allow for a distinction between a minority non-state religion and majority for things like stability calculation and UHVs. Not sure if it's worth it if it would be a pain to implement, but I think it could be a cool feature.

A mechanic that only shows the percentage of each religion in a city (using the current rules) isn't hard to implement. Do note that even with the current rules, not all religions are equally present. Your state religion is much more prominent.

 

[Leoreth]

That's fair. Honestly, after playing more paradox games, I'm just happy that civ allows for multiple religions to be present in one city at all. I really enjoy EU4, but it irks me that every province has one religion and one culture.

I agree, those games make monoreligious polities way too common to the point of being ahistorical.

 

[merijn_v1]

Looking at the code to calculate the religious population of a city, noticed something strange. If you have a state religion, all other religions combined will sum up to 50% of the total population. If your state religion is present, it will fill up those remaining 50%, otherwise those 50% is unreligious.

But there seems to be an exception to this rule. If there is only 1 non-state religion present, all of the population is condidered to follow that religion. I would say that in the (getReligionCount() == 1) situation, it should return getPopulation() when that religion is your state religion and only half of it when that religion is not your state religion.

int CvCity::getReligionPopulation(ReligionTypes eReligion) const
{
    if (!isHasReligion(eReligion)) return 0;

    if (getReligionCount() == 1) return getPopulation();

    ReligionTypes eStateReligion = GET_PLAYER(getOwner()).getStateReligion();

    if (eStateReligion == eReligion) return getPopulation() / 2 + getPopulation() / (2 * getReligionCount());

    if (eStateReligion == NO_RELIGION) return getPopulation() / getReligionCount();

    return getPopulation() / (2 * getReligionCount());
}

 

[Force44]

Some suggestions that might belong more in the general discussions thread regarding wonders, great people and free citizens.

(1) I believe this was mentioned before, but I think it would be neat to have a constructed wonder placed on the map as an improvement. A city would then have to work the tile to receive the benefits of the wonder (similar to how the game tracks the progess of cottages the effect of the wonder could even vary over time the wonder was 'exploited')

(2) Could the great person points a wonder yields be simplified by granting a free specialist citizen upon completion of the wonder?

(3) Could (great) people specialists (or perhaps even citizens) be made kidnappable (again?)? I think it would be a neat feature if they somehow were. For example upon capture of a city with a great person specialist you are able to purchase them away from that city in exchange for some espionage points. (this would work especially nice in conjunction with the second suggestion of this post) And I consider the the assassination of great people unfun.

(4) Could great people be settled as two or three regular citizens (over time). A twothousend year old Archimedes makes little sense. Perhaps after a certain amount of turns the great person could be replaced by two free citizens to represent its school (pupils the great persons legacy attracted)

(5) Could settled great people also contribute to the great person points? If specialist citizens can contribute to the generation great people I fint it hard to imagine why extraordinary specialist citizens wouldn't be able to.

(6) Could some citizens temporarily be turned into great citizens? (eg. as a local (minor) golden age upon the attachment of a great person superspecialist to the city)

(In regards to suggestion six, I do see great people specialists as free citizens that do not take up a specialist slot (with increased rewards for the slot it does not occupy. ...I'll stop typing now before I make the explanation outdo the idea in its complexity… ))

 

[merijn_v1]

Some suggestions that might belong more in the general discussions thread regarding wonders, great people and free citizens.

(1) I believe this was mentioned before, but I think it would be neat to have a constructed wonder placed on the map as an improvement. A city would then have to work the tile to receive the benefits of the wonder (similar to how the game tracks the progess of cottages the effect of the wonder could even vary over time the wonder was 'exploited')

I once had a similar thought as well, although my reason for doing this is only aesthetical. It would be nice constructing Machu Picchu would spawn a Machu Picchu improvement on a nearby peak. It doesn't improve tile yield or anything, it only is placed to have the Machu Picchu on a peak instead of being in a city.

I don't think it would be good to untying the bonus effect from the wonder from a building to an improvement. It would mean that other can take over the wonder by working that wonder tile. Besides, I think that a wonder providing a bonus by being a building in that city represent being exploited well enough, even better than by being an improvement even.

(2) Could the great person points a wonder yields be simplified by granting a free specialist citizen upon completion of the wonder?

I don't see how this would simplify it?! Specialists also provide GPP. What is the difference? (Besides that specialists provide more GPP and also have their regular yield/commerce increase, making it probably overpowered)

(3) Could (great) people specialists (or perhaps even citizens) be made kidnappable (again?)? I think it would be a neat feature if they somehow were. For example upon capture of a city with a great person specialist you are able to purchase them away from that city in exchange for some espionage points. (this would work especially nice in conjunction with the second suggestion of this post) And I consider the the assassination of great people unfun.

This could be a fun mechanic. I could see a civ having the UHV: Capture X GP by Y ad.

(4) Could great people be settled as two or three regular citizens (over time). A twothousend year old Archimedes makes little sense. Perhaps after a certain amount of turns the great person could be replaced by two free citizens to represent its school (pupils the great persons legacy attracted)

I would say the school of a GP is much better represented by a settled GP than by a settled specialist.

(5) Could settled great people also contribute to the great person points? If specialist citizens can contribute to the generation great people I fint it hard to imagine why extraordinary specialist citizens wouldn't be able to.

Wouldn't this create some kind of a positive feedback loop? I know that the costs of generating a GP increases, so the closed loop gain would be smaller than 1, but still.

(6) Could some citizens temporarily be turned into great citizens? (eg. as a local (minor) golden age upon the attachment of a great person superspecialist to the city)

I quite like the concept of this idea.

 

[Leoreth]

What's a Great Citizen? Louis Philippe?

I don't think a Great Specialist represents literally the great person being settled, but rather the tradition of science, art, etc. being established by that person in the city.

 

[Force44]

I agree with all the criticism in response to the six ideas I suggested in my previous post.

Originally I envisioned the free citizen specialists as a reward for the city proper constructing the wonder (from the first idea).

Right now there are two separate sources that contribute to the total of great person points (wonders->gpp + citizens->gpp). I thought It would be neat if they were organised hierarchically (wonders->citizens->gpp)

~​

I am sorry if I caused any confusion about what makes citizen great, besides the consumption of copious amounts of delicacies.

I figure I also think of the settled Great Specialist as an abstract representation of a tradition of science, art, etc.
My suggestion would be to make that tradition a little more concrete in representing it by citizens partaking in activities originally commenced by the great person that was settled in the respective city.

A couple of turns some bonus science to represent the great scientist proper that was attached to the city (to represent his or her tradition) seems like some nice flavour to me. (as well as adress the minor issue that compared to bulbing an invention setteling a great person most of the time is horribly underpowered)

 

[Leoreth]

I don't know if the balance concern is true, or rather that your proposal would address it. Settling the Great Person is already better in the long term than bulbing, which is powerful in the short term (and through the multiplicative effect of having access to a tech early). A settled great person will always provide more science than bulbing (or the commerce/yield equivalent) over time, unless the game ends early enough. Settling is more short term focused than a Great Building if the city is not well developed, though. So in that view, giving settled great people more benefits later down the line does not address the problem because that's where they are already preferable.

As for the hierarchy, I think it's preferable if strategies are diverse and there are multiple ways to get to the same goal. Wonders and specialists are different and disjoint strategies for generating great people.

And don't get my earlier half joke about great citizens wrong, I'm not opposed to the idea but I have no idea what they would represent or what they would do or where they would come from.

 

[Force44]

I completely agree on the divide between short term (bulbing) and long term (sacrificing for modifier or settle)
Now I don't know about the experience of other players, but I find in my games (paragon/marathon) bulbing is vastly superior to the other two options. Counterintuitively especially in the early stages of the game. Two inventions is a lot and I find the snowballing effect of the unlocked abilities make up and surpass the increase of economy setteling a great person gives. (eg bulbing calendar for the plantations asap gave me so much more food that I ended up with more great persons when I bulbed and then settled subsequent great persons than when I settled all great persons straight away.)

In that regard adresses, in retrospect, is to much praise. Flimsily ameliorate would be a more justified adjective.
(I do not consider bulbing great people overpowered btw, the role I have for setteling great people is usually to provide food and happiness, oh yeah! , for a lone core capitol)

Now I got to the subject of very large cities (eg the lone core capitol) Perhaps allowing a Great Priest to settle as a Great 'health official/docter' after a certain discovery in a city plagued by unhealtiness (trough marshes or foodplains) would be a nice addition. Late game I find Great Priests notably less usefull than the other great people.

 

[Cacaso]

Some suggestions that might belong more in the general discussions thread regarding wonders, great people and free citizens.
(3) Could (great) people specialists (or perhaps even citizens) be made kidnappable (again?)? I think it would be a neat feature if they somehow were. For example upon capture of a city with a great person specialist you are able to purchase them away from that city in exchange for some espionage points. (this would work especially nice in conjunction with the second suggestion of this post) And I consider the the assassination of great people unfun.

I really liked this idea

 

[Zaddy]

Another post in this thread made me wanna express an idea I've had for a while, with regards to whipping, rushbuying, drafting, etc

Traditionally, since Civ4, all of these mechanics were tied to civics. I think an alternative way of handling this would be tying these mechanics to unlock from a technology as opposed to a civic choice, opening them to everyone as they research the appropriate technologies.

For example:

Sacrificing population to finish production is unlocked at Property
Spending gold to finish unit production is unlocked at Contract
Spending gold to finish building production is unlocked at Patronage
Drafting units is unlocked at Nationalism

All of these could be less efficient versions of what is currently available from civics (say, whipping will provide 20 hammers per population instead of 30 hammers. just sample numbers). The respective civics that currently unlock them can instead provide a bonus to boost them to their current efficiency.

So what is the goal of this suggestion?

In my view, it is very, very slow to manually build all the infrastructure/units your civilization needs in order to operate. This greatly disadvantages every civic that doesn't include one of these mechanics. I think this suggestion would help better balance the civics and give players a bit more choice in choosing their civics.

Food for thought.

 

[Hickman888]

I completely agree on the divide between short term (bulbing) and long term (sacrificing for modifier or settle)
Now I don't know about the experience of other players, but I find in my games (paragon/marathon) bulbing is vastly superior to the other two options. Counterintuitively especially in the early stages of the game. Two inventions is a lot and I find the snowballing effect of the unlocked abilities make up and surpass the increase of economy setteling a great person gives. (eg bulbing calendar for the plantations asap gave me so much more food that I ended up with more great persons when I bulbed and then settled subsequent great persons than when I settled all great persons straight away.)

I just wanted to add in that this has been my impression as well: That bulbing a great person is usually the better choice, even in the early game. Although I have been playing exclusively for historical victories, and those tend to be shorter games that incentivize me to adopt a high time preference... Lets say I was playing an early game civilization until the end of the game... Like you said, the utility of getting two immediate technologies is often too great not to take advantage of, and has the potential to pay for itself rather quickly. (Obviously running Republic might push you to settle most/all of your great people.) Once you enter the Medieval/early Renaissance era, however, your great people are only able to instantly bulb a single technology, and since there is still a good chunk of the game remaining, it seems like this is the prime time to settle your great people. Continuing to the Industrial era however, the turns remaining in the game decreases, and you are again incentivized to bulb your great people.

 

[Cacaso]

I propose a change in the mechanics of religion of the game, So there would be the great religions (Protestantism, Islam ...) that would have URV, Shrines built with great prophets, normal foundation methods, schism events, and everything.
There would also be the subdivisions of these main religions that would be Sunni Islam, Theravada Buddhism, Anglican Protestantism, that subdivision could only be at the aesthetic and nomenclature level (without affecting the requirements of URV) adjusting the location on the map (I think it would be easier to implement), OR, you can add components with benefit / loss in diplomacy with other subdivisions of the same religious group and also individually with other subdivisions of other religions, adding specific missionaries from each subdivision, the temples, monasteries and cathedrals should be the same for all subdivisions, spread a subdivision with the missionary unit replace a subdivision of the same religion, the passive spread of one subdivision does not delete the other, among others ... (which would be more difficult to implement)
Some specific religions-related wonders can have their production cost increased by X percent, and then add a modifier (similar to what happens with resources) to decrease production cost by X (or X + __) percent with the appropriate religious subdivision, thus helping the historical construction of some wonders. Wonders must only require the larger religion, not a specific subdivision in order to be built.
Temples, monasteries and cathedrals in a subdivision should be converted and not destroyed in the case of using the Inquisitor unit, in addition to the exchange of subdivisions and temporary unhappiness in the city.
Subdivisions should have a negative impact on religious unity stability, with civics as tolerance / secularism denying that impact and technologies such as Civil Rights decreasing regardless of civics. This would be interesting to represent the multi-religiosity of places like the USA and serve as a justification for the player to maintain civic tolerance. In addition to aesthetically representing the USA as a place with many different Protestant religions and not a single homogeneous Protestant religion, I personally even use clergy in the USA because it is more useful than tolerance and this does not seem historically accurate beyond what strengthens the already strong ones USA.

another point that we should discuss would be to create specifics for each religion as Islam does not gain health from pigs, cows generate extra happiness in hyduism, ... Religions seem very generic (although I understand if no changes are made for ethical reasons)

Subdivision of Islam into Sunnis, Shias and Ibadists (in Oman, Zanzibar and East Africa coast);

Subdivision of Buddhism in Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana (in their historical areas according to wikipedia);

Subdivision of Hinduism in Shaktism, Vaishnavism and Shaivism;


Subdivision of Protestantism in (Adventism, Anabaptism, Anglicanism (in England), Baptists, Calvinism, Lutheranism, Methodism, Pentecostalism) of those maybe only use 2 or 3;


Sikhism / Jainism / Xintoism IMO should not be added because they are present in regions that already have many religions and would not add much to the gaming experience, if they were added it would be more appropriate for them to be subdivisions of some of the major religions.

Catholicism is already very good with the schism systems already established.

eastern orthodoxy, Confucianism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism I don't think there should be major changes with these IMO.

Traditional African religions (Yorubá, voodoo, Candomblé, Umbanda, Macumba among others) should be added as the area of Africa has become very large and very likely new Civs will be added there.

 

[KeeperOT7Keys]

about all these religion suggestions, I think History Rewritten does a a very good job with tenets and this mod can benefit from its mechanics. Though I see tenets system might be too ambitious for a more historical mod.

 

[BaneFire]

Either in 1.17 or for the big map:
Could Japan get a 600AD/610AD spawn? This means we can do the 600AD start date as Japan without having to deal with the AI already having done everything. Changes would be Japan maybe gets an extra free building when they settle, or start with more culture in their capital, or their culture UHV1 requirement is slightly lower.

 

[BaneFire]

Some suggestions for the Arabs:

* UHV1 is fine and fun to do.
Basically done by House of Wisdom bulbing and trading with China/Korea.
* UHV2 (conquer and hold). I would change this to: "Control or have a vassal control North Africa in 800AD and 1300AD, Spain in 1000AD and 1300AD, Persia in 900AD and 1300AD, Transoxiana in 1000AD and 1300AD, Balochistan in 1000AD and 1300AD.
The main change is that you need to conquer North Africa and Spain earlier rather than rushing them in 1200AD, plus also requires you to conquer or settle Balochistan. To compensate for these harder goals:

* Arabs spawn with 4 or even 8 extra (not sure, 4 is probably appropriate but maybe not enough) units (half ghazis, half mobile guards) in 600AD. Something like 4 in Mecca and 4 in Damascus.
* Arabs spawn with 2 or 4 extra workers.
* Arabs start with Theocracy.
* Moors spawn is slightly changed, to one of these 3:
1. Moors conditional spawn when Arabs are unstable after 700AD, and guaranteed to spawn after 800AD.
2. Moors automatically spawn as a vassal when Arabs take a city in their core. (my preferred option)
3. Moors start in ~450AD as a Christian kingdom in North Africa (representing the Berbers ruled by Rome who formed the Mauro-Roman Kingdom).
* UHV3 (30% islam) is changed to "Convert 25 cities with your UHV".
6 in your flip, 3 in Persia, 2 in Transoxiana, 5 in North Africa, 4 in Spain, 1 in Balochistan. Therefore another 4 (or so, depending on settles/razes/etc) which you could get by conquering Ethiopia, Anatolia, France, India or Central Asia, but can then release/vassal later on.

These changes would reflect the extent of the Arab caliphates, make the Arabs have a more ambitious and exciting goal (currently there's a lot of sitting around in the Arab UHV...) and make the Middle East just a bit more hectic.

 

[urbestfriend]

Hello,

I have lurked for a long time but have been playing since 1.11, I love this mod and I think it's fantastic.

I did want to say, would it be possible to turn off random events for new civilizations for their first X amount of turns? Nothing makes me restart or exit the game faster than starting a new game and having my first improvement or building get hurricaned or volcanoed. I think restricting random events for the start of the game until you can get a foothold would remove frustration and prevent starts being randomly boosted by extra gold or free improvements.

I'd also like to see the vikings be more aggressive, in my experience they have no interaction with anyone else the whole game until their inevitable collapse around 1500, they're one of the most unimportant civs in the game. They occasionally get into a phony war with russia but neither side has any success. I know the viking conquests typically occured before or right around when the europse civs spawn, which makes full conqueror events a bad solution but I wonder if they could get mini conqueror events against france spain and germany sometime after their spawn, not enough to conquer but enough to do some pillaging.

 

[Leoreth]

Hello,

I have lurked for a long time but have been playing since 1.11, I love this mod and I think it's fantastic.

I did want to say, would it be possible to turn off random events for new civilizations for their first X amount of turns? Nothing makes me restart or exit the game faster than starting a new game and having my first improvement or building get hurricaned or volcanoed. I think restricting random events for the start of the game until you can get a foothold would remove frustration and prevent starts being randomly boosted by extra gold or free improvements.

Good point. I'm pretty sure the base game disables random events for the first couple of turns, so it makes sense to adjust that rule to take your spawn turn into account.

I'd also like to see the vikings be more aggressive, in my experience they have no interaction with anyone else the whole game until their inevitable collapse around 1500, they're one of the most unimportant civs in the game. They occasionally get into a phony war with russia but neither side has any success. I know the viking conquests typically occured before or right around when the europse civs spawn, which makes full conqueror events a bad solution but I wonder if they could get mini conqueror events against france spain and germany sometime after their spawn, not enough to conquer but enough to do some pillaging.

Yes. I am currently working on implementing new rise and fall rules in the mid-term and I have some ideas that should push the Vikings more in that direction.

 

[BaneFire]

Suggestion: Improve Musketeer bonus to something like +50% versus Arquebusier, or rather, something to basically make Musketeer success against Arquebusier about 90% on default.
Why? I think it should be so that European civs are able to actually reliably kill Independent and Asian civs. The Musketeer should be that gap bridger, allowing the Europeans to reliably kill enemies. But currently both Musketeers and even Riflemen sometimes struggle against Arquebusiers in a walled, decent pop city, which means that both AI and player can sometimes fail to take cities in Southeast Asia and India. An analogous example is the Swordsmen vs Archer or even Heavy Swordsmen vs Archer dynamic. Conqueror civs will often spawn with Heavy Swordsmen who can quickly make mincemeat of archers and expand their empire, but I feel like the gunpowder colonisers are kind of missing a military advantage.

(Arguably they never had it IRL, but I think that's another discussion for another time)