Suggestions and Requests

[DC123456789]

Among a number of other problems, wouldn't the Huns only exist for like 10 turns or something like that...?

 

[HighFunctioningAlcoholic]

Among a number of other problems, wouldn't the Huns only exist for like 10 turns or something like that...?

~370 AD - 469 AD. I don't play Marathon, but that still seems like a tight fit for UHVs.

 

[Cole98]

Yeah there's not really much room timewise, plus their origins as a culture are not well documented.

 

[1SDANi]

I mean, they can kind of be included if we were to go with the "Huns and Xiongnu" theory by including the Xiongnu with a Hun dynamic name or UHV goal, but that just extends it from 10 turns to 40 turns, 70 turns if we interpret the later Xiongnu states as a collapse to core.

 

[freethink]

I mean, they can kind of be included if we were to go with the "Huns and Xiongnu" theory by including the Xiongnu with a Hun dynamic name or UHV goal, but that just extends it from 10 turns to 40 turns, 70 turns if we interpret the later Xiongnu states as a collapse to core.

From what I understand is that Huns mostly were Turks with influences from Mongols and Finnish cultures or something. I dont think the situation should be changed but if it was, it would go to change the Turkic civilization.

 

[ShinobiHus92]

I think this has been mentioned in the past, but perhaps in the future their can be a second 'Turkic' Civilization added which will represent the Xiongnu, Hephthalites, Huns, Bulgars etc.

 

[Enyavar]

The Huns: (starting position with a horse army, broadly in the area of the Mongols although that is not fully historically acurate).
The Power of Plunder: In a city that gets currently razed, 1 Unit per turn gets fully healed. Pillaging improvements restores health partially. Pillaging a road earns gold.
Unique Unit... based on AoE2, I suggest a Tarkhan (nobility/commander title), rolling together the Turk Oghuz and the Sipahi. Make it 1 health weaker than Horse Archer, but converting Barbarians upon attack.
UHV:
* Steppe raiders: Cross Eurasia and raze a city each in China, Persia, Near East and Europe
* Restless: Never have more than 1 city at the same time
* Scourge of God: Kill 25 Roman or Byzantine Units (Independent's troops in formerly Roman cities count)

----

On a more serious note, @Leoreth did you see my posts on Benghal Kampuchea, and the naval retreats (has that boots/marching sound) on the previous page?
I just think those comments got inundated in a **storm.

 

[Leoreth]

Yes, I even replied to you. Did you see my post?

 

[Enyavar]

Well, maybe the sound could be one of those standard woosh sounds of ships. I could also imagine a ringing ship bell with a faint unintelligible (retreat) command.
Or even the lighthouse sound... if there is no good alternative.


On the topic of naval stuff, another suggestion: allow privateers to enter barbarian ports. (Includes regular healing in port just as if you're a barbarian; and also includes destruction if someone conquers the city.)

 

[PtzRK]

Hello everyone. Perhaps when you all played as Japan, you noticed that this civilization practically does not use samurai, since after completing 1UHV you will most likely have a firearm. (Personally, I used several samurai pumped to attack the city and as a treatment)

So, perhaps it would be worth adjusting the UHV, for example, the unification of Japan, from independent cities into a single whole. Tell me what? What are the considerations?

P.S. Although I like UHVs themselves, Japan is one of my favorite civilizations. Can be played from antiquity to the 20th century. True, since antiquity, sometimes it turns out imba.

 

[Dannimal]

On the current git version, national monument was moved to nationalism for balance reasons, but I'm pretty sure the construction cost hasn't increased. Feels a bit cheap for a post 1700 national wonder - I think might need a slight cost increase (+20%). Then again monuments are quite cheap. Anyone have thoughts on the construction cost?


Re Samurai :I typically use to conquer most of mainland Asia. City raider Samurai are superior to arquebusiers when attacking. With city raider 3 they have a (base strength 8) +95% attack vs city gunpowder defenders.
A hypothetical city raider 3 samurai (8x1.95= 15.6 strength) vs city garrison 1 arquebusier (+20% city defense, +25% defence from fortification) (10x1.45=14.5 strength). With a bombardment, the samurai wins. Chinese firelancers are also weaker than arquebusiers & many won't have city garrison. Against muskets it's a bit different.

If you invade the mainland early enough, you'll get plenty of samurai action.
I wrote something up in the guide sub-forum https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/1-16-japan-600ad-uhv-4-city-start.668103/

Cheers.

 

[Methodius]

After several years away, I’ve been playing 1.16 a few months now (probably too much), and I have a few possible suggestions. But one thing especially comes to mind (my apologies if this has been brought up before).

I feel like the Greek and Roman civilizations by nature operate quite ahistorical. I’m sure a number of things can be done, and I don’t know if this is a priority. However, the biggest issue with the Romans is that their state date is too early. 753 BC was a mythical founding date, and even if accurate, Rome started out as a small village and subject to Etruscan rule. It is definitely ahistorical for the Romans to show up in Italy in 753 BC with two legions and fleet, which leads to the player embarking on a Roman conquest of the Mediterranean in a time when Rome was a tiny village. For much the same reason the Dutch starting date was moved to the 1580s, I think the Roman start date should be later. I would suggest c. 509 BC, when the Roman Republic was created. That would be a more accurate time for Rome to emerge on the scene and begin conquests.

Of course, the problem with this is that it’s already a major crunch accomplishing Rome’s UHV. Perhaps the UHV could be changed, but I have another idea that could contribute to this (and the idea I really wanted to bring up).

It occurred to me that there are too few cities in the ancient period. And that makes sense: settlers take time to build. However, if you think about it, many of the cities built by Alexander the Great, the Romans, and the Arabs were founded by decommissioned soldiers. Alexander seeded his empire with Macedonian military colonists, founding the many Alexandrias. The Romans, after the chaotic political upheavals around the land reform attempts of the Gracchi, mostly gave lands to decommissioned veterans, who were settled as colonists in the provinces, especially in strategically useful sites (rebuilding Carthage and Corinth, and founding important cities like Trier, Cologne, and London). Likewise, the Arabs planted military colonists in garrison cities (amsar), founding Cairo, Mosul, Kufa, and Kairouan, among others, this way.

My question is, would it be possible, both within the game engine and within your vision for the mod, to allow for military units to found cities? Perhaps when running the conquest civic, since the planting of veteran colonies is a strategy used by expanding empires to quickly assert control over conquered territories? This would potentially speed up the Roman UHV, since the Roman player can concentrate on military production (with the help of the Coliseum), and use those soldiers both for conquest and quickly settling cities (like the Roman really did). It would also help represent expansion of other great pre-modern empires.

 

[Leoreth]

I am concerned about the side effects this would have.

 

[Genghis Khaiser]

My question is, would it be possible, both within the game engine and within your vision for the mod, to allow for military units to found cities?

I think settlers are enough, and even if it could, only certain units should build them at certain areas. For example, Rome's UU already builds special roads so adding that ability would make it OP. As Leoreth said, we are not aware of its side effects, doubt the AI would use that ability since they don't even use settlers to update their old cities.

 

[Enyavar]

planting of veteran colonies is a strategy used by expanding empires to quickly assert control over conquered territories? This would potentially speed up the Roman UHV

Legion: Can build Roman Roads and be sacrificed to found cities (req Tech: Engineering). To found a city, a Legion needs to be Level 3 (10XP) and be fully fortified in the spot. The new city gets a barracks, but has only 50% commerce and food output for 20 turns (temporary "military foundation" building).
That would allow the player to start much later like Methodius suggests (and the reasoning is good.


In a similar fashion, Greece shouldn't appear 1600 BC but more in 800BC, similar to real life. The Mycenean culture was as "Greek" as the Celts/Picts were "English" and as Gauls were "French".
For those interested in history, I have created a cheat sheet (still not translated to English, but I'm preparing on that. At least the color coding should be understandable.)

 

[MechatronicJazz]

If the concern is that there are too few cities, then maybe a simpler solution would be for more independent city spawns. Empires do found a lot of cities, but many of them were built on or near pre-existing cities or ruins. Given the time scale of the game, a city that was conquered, razed, and rebuilt in a relatively short time frame is modelled well in the game by simple conquest and renaming.

 

[Leoreth]

Legion: Can build Roman Roads and be sacrificed to found cities (req Tech: Engineering). To found a city, a Legion needs to be Level 3 (10XP) and be fully fortified in the spot. The new city gets a barracks, but has only 50% commerce and food output for 20 turns (temporary "military foundation" building).

You forgot to mention that you also need permit 838 from the house that sends you mad

 

[Methodius]

If the concern is that there are too few cities, then maybe a simpler solution would be for more independent city spawns.

I suppose I mean the Greeks were great city builders, which wouldn't really be replicated by independent cities. But I'm never inclined as the Greeks to build cities in the East like Alexander, not to mention found Syracuse or Marseilles in the West as they historically did. If cities were easier to build in the ancient period maybe that would be more likely to happen.

I think settlers are enough, and even if it could, only certain units should build them at certain areas. For example, Rome's UU already builds special roads so adding that ability would make it OP. As Leoreth said, we are not aware of its side effects, doubt the AI would use that ability since they don't even use settlers to update their old cities.

Yeah, I agree that Rome's UU would be OP. In fact, one might argue it already is—I recently played a Rome campaign where I didn't expand much and survived well after the fall to win an Orthodox religious victory, and kept my legions around well into the Renaissance. Only with the advent of firearms did were they obsolete, and even then I kept a few around to build roads.

But anyway, this is why it occurred to me to have any military units found cities in certain circumstances. Not only would it prevent the legions from becoming more OP, but other civilizations (as I mentioned, Greeks under Alexander, Arabs in early conquests) pursued roughly similar policies of using military settlers. Also, the rapid expansion of civilizations in premodern periods is hard to replicate in the game considering each turn covers several years early on, and so this occurred to me as a way of helping model simulate that better (and maybe I just don't like building settlers).

If it is unlikely that the AI would use the ability, then there might be less concern about over side effects. My obviously I can see how it might cause problems. Anyway, I figured it was something to keep in mind, especially as I figure there's probably some retooling going on anyway in preparation of the new map.

Alternatively, maybe with certain civics or wonders associated with Greeks and Romans settlers could just build much faster?

 

[Steb]

Maybe settler costs should be reduced in general?

 

[Enyavar]

It just occured to me that I am (as Japan) the tech-leader in my world. I don't have access to either Oil nor Uranium. Sure, I know where I can get both, but if I choose not to take control of some Oil/Uranium source, I am still able to build Airports without ever having seen Oil. And down that path is steampowered Spaceflight.
As I see it, that shouldn't be allowed. So the rule would be:

Nuclear Power is not possible to research without either

• access to Uranium
  
• or Open Borders with another nation that has researched this technology already

Same goes for Aviation, cannot be researched without

• access to Oil
• or Open Borders with another nation that... see above.

I don't see any other techs that would need such a rigid resource restriction, except possibly Steel (requires Iron) and Steam Engine (requires Coal): but I think those two are easy to handwave, as the raw materials are possible to get somehow.

Flight by itself can similarly be handwaved (some coal-powered steampunk engine, or run the plane on salad oil), as can Fission (small amounts of nuclear material are available somehow).
But to develop the Aviation industry or to go for Nuclear Power: you'd need either access to large quantities of the resources; or you get the inspiration from a friend.

Trading for the tech, and espionage are also both viable, my issue is only with initial research when you have no access to the fundamentals.