Dracosolon
King
Leoreth, this is as good as any an opportunity to ask: do you have some sort of general design philosophy over how much historical "railroading" you want in this mod, and how you judge if there's too much/too few of it?
Suggestions and Requests
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
I do, but I am not sure if it is answerable in those terms. Too much or too little cannot really be judged for something that isn't quantifiable. I like to approach this from the perspective of player experience goals. In a historical strategy game the player generally expects two things: first, to play in a world that plausibly reflects real world history, and second, to be able to have influence over the world with the gameplay decision they make.
I want to satisfy both expectations, but they inherently contradict each other: if the player can influence the world, they are theoretically capable of producing a world that does not reflect real world history. Another conflict is between historicity of processes and historicity of outcomes. You can easily force historical things to happen but then the artificiality of these events will be apparent to the player, which in itself is not historical. Conversely, you can accurately reflect some historical processes but they can fail to produce the same outcomes as in real world history, which also feels wrong.
In the best case scenario, game rules and goals are designed in such a way that the player wants to play historically. That is in my opinion the ideal experience for the player: you feel rewarded for sticking to history by positive outcomes, or you don't feel punished for picking optimal strategies by ahistorical outcomes. Around that, you can buffer the freedom of the player by scripting the AI to stick more closely to history, which players usually more readily accept, and by using elastic mechanics like expansion stability that allow you to stray from history to some degree with only small penalties, or to a larger degree only if you are good enough to overcome the penalties. The gradual nature of the penalty, and the sense of accomplishment from overcoming its more serious forms, makes the existence of a penalty that forces you to behave in certain ways less limiting and less frustrating.
Still, sometimes heavyhanded scripting is necessary. I'd like to keep the instances where this is used as infrequent as possible, and instead pick the most high impact situation to apply them. The most prominent examples of this are civ spawns that are guaranteed to happen, or the few big conqueror events that exist. I also usually try to exhaust other, less invasive methods of making certain outcomes happen, before resorting to scripting. And even when scripting is necessary, I try my best to make it context sensitive so it isn't completely jarring.
Two important design principles I have learned over time come to mind in this context. The first is what I call the Inertia Rule, which basically says that consequences of scripted events tend to stick around much longer in the game than they did in actual history, because of the number of years covered by a single turn. The second is that we only know one history (our history) on which to base the design of a historical game. That is important for several "what if" scenarios where railroading needs to be enforced because we know what follows the true course of history, but have no idea what follows all the alternative courses of history, so there is nothing to put into the game for those.
A common example for that is the recurring request to make the spawn of most medieval European civs conditional on the stability and existence of the Roman civilisation. On the surface, this makes sense: historically, these nations only existed because the Roman empire collapsed and various other states started filling its power vacuum. The fact that the game ignores that makes is less historical in process, but there is still not really any other option. European civs would go on to shape the remainder of history not only in Europe but most of the world. If they did not spawn, they would have to be replaced with... what? The only answer is nothing. So will northern Europe remain continually empty? That is also not historically plausible. Even if the Roman empire had not collapsed as it did historically, states and cultures in Europe would have continued to evolve, and e.g. native cultures in the Americas would have continued to evolve without European colonisation, but we don't know how. Any guess how they might have is also inherently ahistorical. Plus, if you imagine the perspective of, let's say, a player starting as Inca or America: they expect Spain and England etc. to be around, otherwise they're not having a historical experience.
One last thing that I didn't mention so far are ahistorical goals: I see those as a good tools to represent civilisations that did not reach their full potential because they fell to foreign domination. In that case, the ahistorical goal is a form of challenge, where the conditions of the civ accurately reflect history and the challenge exists specifically to overcome them as a sign of player skill.
I want to satisfy both expectations, but they inherently contradict each other: if the player can influence the world, they are theoretically capable of producing a world that does not reflect real world history. Another conflict is between historicity of processes and historicity of outcomes. You can easily force historical things to happen but then the artificiality of these events will be apparent to the player, which in itself is not historical. Conversely, you can accurately reflect some historical processes but they can fail to produce the same outcomes as in real world history, which also feels wrong.
In the best case scenario, game rules and goals are designed in such a way that the player wants to play historically. That is in my opinion the ideal experience for the player: you feel rewarded for sticking to history by positive outcomes, or you don't feel punished for picking optimal strategies by ahistorical outcomes. Around that, you can buffer the freedom of the player by scripting the AI to stick more closely to history, which players usually more readily accept, and by using elastic mechanics like expansion stability that allow you to stray from history to some degree with only small penalties, or to a larger degree only if you are good enough to overcome the penalties. The gradual nature of the penalty, and the sense of accomplishment from overcoming its more serious forms, makes the existence of a penalty that forces you to behave in certain ways less limiting and less frustrating.
Still, sometimes heavyhanded scripting is necessary. I'd like to keep the instances where this is used as infrequent as possible, and instead pick the most high impact situation to apply them. The most prominent examples of this are civ spawns that are guaranteed to happen, or the few big conqueror events that exist. I also usually try to exhaust other, less invasive methods of making certain outcomes happen, before resorting to scripting. And even when scripting is necessary, I try my best to make it context sensitive so it isn't completely jarring.
Two important design principles I have learned over time come to mind in this context. The first is what I call the Inertia Rule, which basically says that consequences of scripted events tend to stick around much longer in the game than they did in actual history, because of the number of years covered by a single turn. The second is that we only know one history (our history) on which to base the design of a historical game. That is important for several "what if" scenarios where railroading needs to be enforced because we know what follows the true course of history, but have no idea what follows all the alternative courses of history, so there is nothing to put into the game for those.
A common example for that is the recurring request to make the spawn of most medieval European civs conditional on the stability and existence of the Roman civilisation. On the surface, this makes sense: historically, these nations only existed because the Roman empire collapsed and various other states started filling its power vacuum. The fact that the game ignores that makes is less historical in process, but there is still not really any other option. European civs would go on to shape the remainder of history not only in Europe but most of the world. If they did not spawn, they would have to be replaced with... what? The only answer is nothing. So will northern Europe remain continually empty? That is also not historically plausible. Even if the Roman empire had not collapsed as it did historically, states and cultures in Europe would have continued to evolve, and e.g. native cultures in the Americas would have continued to evolve without European colonisation, but we don't know how. Any guess how they might have is also inherently ahistorical. Plus, if you imagine the perspective of, let's say, a player starting as Inca or America: they expect Spain and England etc. to be around, otherwise they're not having a historical experience.
One last thing that I didn't mention so far are ahistorical goals: I see those as a good tools to represent civilisations that did not reach their full potential because they fell to foreign domination. In that case, the ahistorical goal is a form of challenge, where the conditions of the civ accurately reflect history and the challenge exists specifically to overcome them as a sign of player skill.
Mosguito
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2020
- Messages
- 11
Just wondering is it ok to make “city movement” possible? Sometime settlement distance limit can be disappointing e.g, playing as China from 600bc, having Nanjing and not being able to build Shanghai later.
I guess it would be better if players can move settled city like about 1 tile for some pop and building maybe stability lost, or just simply disband city during peace. It can represent “town-to-city” competition in a small area. Some evolution in human settlement, I think.
Also, is it possible to have some food transportation between cities? This will help a lot in simulating a more modern world.
I guess it would be better if players can move settled city like about 1 tile for some pop and building maybe stability lost, or just simply disband city during peace. It can represent “town-to-city” competition in a small area. Some evolution in human settlement, I think.
Also, is it possible to have some food transportation between cities? This will help a lot in simulating a more modern world.
Mosguito
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2020
- Messages
- 11
Or just completely remove city distance limit?
Mosguito
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2020
- Messages
- 11
It's for programming or gaming reason? Just asking.
Kewlipo
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2015
- Messages
- 118
Hi everyone. I don't know if this is the right place to ask this, but I would like to disable global warming because I find it very annoying (as I probably should hehe...). Where is the code for this? Thank you for your help in advance.
Edit: nevermind I found it lol
Edit: nevermind I found it lol
Last edited:
ThreeBlackSevens
Chieftain
Were rebasing rules changed in either RFC or DOC? It seems to be the case that you have to have a defensive pact as well instead of just open borders to rebase to another civ's territory, which makes sense, but it is a little odd that you can't rebase to a vassal of a civ you have a defensive pact with, even with friendly relations, open borders, and having had a defensive pact just a few turns previously. If that is the change and I'm not just forgetting how regular civ 4 works, I'd suggest that you should be able to rebase to a vassal of a civ you have a defensive pact with, provided you have open borders with the vassal. 
1SDANi
Sister Lady
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2014
- Messages
- 2,931
What about a defensive pact with a nation's superior state aka you have a defensive pact with X whose vassal is Y, can you rebase to a city owned by Y?
I'd like to suggest a change for Multilateralism/Defensive Pacts:
As we all know, late game is often riddled with constant warfare on a global scale due to how Defensive Pacts tend to construct a very complex web. The downside to this is the huge amount of negative stability you gain from running Multilateralism and being dragged in to those huge wars through Defensive Pacts. The AI especially struggles with this, as it wants to both sign a lot of Defensive Pacts and run Multilateralism. I honestly see a couple of options here: Either change Multilateralism's bonus in a way that it no longer requires you to sign Defensive Pacts in order to gain the full value of the civic or just change how Defensive Pacts work later on in the game (or both!).
My first suggestions is that instead of a Defensive Pact giving the 100% income bonus, the bonus in Multilateralism would be tied to having Friendly relations with another civilization. I feel this would still be in line with Multilateralism representing a goverment willing to co-operate with other nations while not requiring you to sign those Defensive Pacts. It would also promote a "peaceful, non warring and welfare civilization" -type of play. Imo you can easily be a Multilateral country even if you don't agree to go full on war every single time any nation happens to calls for it.
And as I mentioned, my other proposal is in regard to how Defensive Pacts work. The current way Defensive Pacts work if I understand correctly, is a left over from original RFC. I do like how RFC/DOC -style Defensive Pacts work for the WW1/WW2 era, and I think they help a lot in creating those global scale wars. And don't get me wrong, I DO ENJOY having a WW1 and WW2, but once time moves on and the game is "past that point", I feel something should change so as to prevent a full on global world war beginning again and again every few turns until the end of time. Perhaps the construction of the United Nations or some bill passed in it could change how Defensive Pacts work from that point on for ex. returning the Defensive Pact rules to vanilla BtS rules or something of the sorts?
As we all know, late game is often riddled with constant warfare on a global scale due to how Defensive Pacts tend to construct a very complex web. The downside to this is the huge amount of negative stability you gain from running Multilateralism and being dragged in to those huge wars through Defensive Pacts. The AI especially struggles with this, as it wants to both sign a lot of Defensive Pacts and run Multilateralism. I honestly see a couple of options here: Either change Multilateralism's bonus in a way that it no longer requires you to sign Defensive Pacts in order to gain the full value of the civic or just change how Defensive Pacts work later on in the game (or both!).
My first suggestions is that instead of a Defensive Pact giving the 100% income bonus, the bonus in Multilateralism would be tied to having Friendly relations with another civilization. I feel this would still be in line with Multilateralism representing a goverment willing to co-operate with other nations while not requiring you to sign those Defensive Pacts. It would also promote a "peaceful, non warring and welfare civilization" -type of play. Imo you can easily be a Multilateral country even if you don't agree to go full on war every single time any nation happens to calls for it.
And as I mentioned, my other proposal is in regard to how Defensive Pacts work. The current way Defensive Pacts work if I understand correctly, is a left over from original RFC. I do like how RFC/DOC -style Defensive Pacts work for the WW1/WW2 era, and I think they help a lot in creating those global scale wars. And don't get me wrong, I DO ENJOY having a WW1 and WW2, but once time moves on and the game is "past that point", I feel something should change so as to prevent a full on global world war beginning again and again every few turns until the end of time. Perhaps the construction of the United Nations or some bill passed in it could change how Defensive Pacts work from that point on for ex. returning the Defensive Pact rules to vanilla BtS rules or something of the sorts?
FraggleJock
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2017
- Messages
- 84
It would be nice if La Mezquita had a No Desert tile in BFC cross requirement. so the Moors don't get a game over 6 turns in when the Arabs build it.
I think the real problem is the AI's poor threat assessment when it comes to potential enemies who are in Defensive Pacts. The AI doesn't seem to take into account that they will suddenly be at war with eight other civs by declaring war on one civ (and, conversely, doesn't seem to take into account their own allies, either). If AIs were less inclined to declare war on civs that had multiple Defensive Pact partners, with the chances dropping further the more Defensive Pacts they had (ideally scaling based on strength of the partners), it might mitigate some of the enormous wars and more accurately reflect the Cold War era where out-and-out warfare became much less frequent because the two blocs were just too big and threatening to each other for warfare to be practical (maybe a little less reflective of the modern era but of course warfare has dropped even further from the Cold War until now).
I think instability from bad relations should also ignore civs you are at war with, and Multilateralism should likewise not have a stability penalty for being at war with someone who your Defensive Pact partners are also at war with (i.e., you want to be Multilateral with your partners, so be at war with the same civs and at peace with the same civs).
caketastydelish
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2008
- Messages
- 9,571
I would recommend making "barbarian" civs playable. Primarily meaning civs that don't start off with settlers or cities but an army. an example being the huns. Or maybe play as native Americans with the goal of preventing Americans and Europeans from taking the content and wiping you out. Both the Huns and native American tribes, as examples had formal diplomatic relations with other countries/empires so this is legitimate to make them civs in their own right.
Last edited:
Dracosolon
King
Revisiting ideas mentioned in old threads, just fun thought experiments:
French UP - Power of Revolutions:
-Temporary additional drafting available after adopting new* Civics.
-*As in, never adopted before and not available at the beginning of the game.
-Cumulative with regular drafting (like from Nationhood).
-Maybe lessened anarchy (as in shorter and with less impact on stability)?
I'd seen discussions of something similar before but centered on the specific French Revolution, but that's a bit too unique for a UP. I think it can easily be extended to the numerous political troubles that characterized French history before and after.
French UHV2 - [insert name here]:
-Control or vassalize 40% of Europe and North America in 1810 AD and 40% of Africa, South Asia* and Polynesia in 1935.
-*Including South East Asia.
-Not sure on the name.
-The 40% is an exageration, especially in South Asia where you'll have to get both Indochina and a bigger part of India than the real life French enclaves, and makes it the partially ahistorical goal.
-Not sure on the name, something to do with both eras would be best. Maybe just a pithy Napoleon quote or something.
Mostly just to give the player more opportunities to use the aforementioned UP, and to make the 19th century slightly more interesting, since you just have to beeline for the Eiffel Tower and the Metropolitain otherwise.
National Wonder - Schismatic Shrine:
-Must be built by Great Prophet, requires that you do not control (at construction) your State Religion's Holy City.
-Provides Shrine income from your and your vassals' cities with your State Religion.
-Should probably not stack with regular HC Shrine income if you do acquire it later, you just get HC income then.
-Maybe mild diplomatic malus from other civs with the same religion?
The idea comes from the discussion over Shia Islam and the idea that it's not worth implementing as a full-fledged religion, but the logic is extended to other religions where Civs developped variants of their own - Church of England, maybe Buddhist schools?
French UP - Power of Revolutions:
-Temporary additional drafting available after adopting new* Civics.
-*As in, never adopted before and not available at the beginning of the game.
-Cumulative with regular drafting (like from Nationhood).
-Maybe lessened anarchy (as in shorter and with less impact on stability)?
I'd seen discussions of something similar before but centered on the specific French Revolution, but that's a bit too unique for a UP. I think it can easily be extended to the numerous political troubles that characterized French history before and after.
French UHV2 - [insert name here]:
-Control or vassalize 40% of Europe and North America in 1810 AD and 40% of Africa, South Asia* and Polynesia in 1935.
-*Including South East Asia.
-Not sure on the name.
-The 40% is an exageration, especially in South Asia where you'll have to get both Indochina and a bigger part of India than the real life French enclaves, and makes it the partially ahistorical goal.
-Not sure on the name, something to do with both eras would be best. Maybe just a pithy Napoleon quote or something.
Mostly just to give the player more opportunities to use the aforementioned UP, and to make the 19th century slightly more interesting, since you just have to beeline for the Eiffel Tower and the Metropolitain otherwise.
National Wonder - Schismatic Shrine:
-Must be built by Great Prophet, requires that you do not control (at construction) your State Religion's Holy City.
-Provides Shrine income from your and your vassals' cities with your State Religion.
-Should probably not stack with regular HC Shrine income if you do acquire it later, you just get HC income then.
-Maybe mild diplomatic malus from other civs with the same religion?
The idea comes from the discussion over Shia Islam and the idea that it's not worth implementing as a full-fledged religion, but the logic is extended to other religions where Civs developped variants of their own - Church of England, maybe Buddhist schools?
Last edited:
Genghis Khaiser
King
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2012
- Messages
- 699
Actually that French UP you propose would fit greatly for Mexico.
France's diplomacy bonus fits it overall although it could have a little improvement, and that would only represent the 19th and 20th centuries out of its roughly 1500 years of history, while Mexico's first 100 years or more as an independent country consisted of constant revolts and foreign invasions.
France's diplomacy bonus fits it overall although it could have a little improvement, and that would only represent the 19th and 20th centuries out of its roughly 1500 years of history, while Mexico's first 100 years or more as an independent country consisted of constant revolts and foreign invasions.
Darnokthemage
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2017
- Messages
- 124
There should be a way to secure defense organizations, or even Vassalisations with less powerful civs as a superpower. Look at what China is doing in Africa today, or America has been doing for the last 70 years. Things like the Marshall plan, or constructing infrastructure in other civs.
Similar threads
