Suggestions and Requests

[freethink]

That idea actually solves a difficulty I've had with another suggestion I've been playing around with in my head: the idea of adding a unique Religious Order for each religion in the game. DOC is such an improvement over the base game, in shifting religions from one-size-fits-all where the only difference is a unique name for each religion's shrine (and I don't mean giving unique names to the generic buildings like temples/monasteries/cathedrals) by adding so many new wonders that are attached to each religion.

One of the things I like about Civ 6 is the customizability of faiths with different beliefs: separate benefits for the religion founder, follower civs & cities, worship buildings, and spread 'enhancers'. I don't think we need to take it nearly that far, but I feel it should be possible to differentiate religions a bit more. Sword of Islam adds relics and unique titles; RFC Europe gives special bonuses for each religion based on a civ's 'faith points'. I've been wondering if it'd be feasible to split the different, and add a unique bonus for each religion, but one that requires a bit of extra effort so it's not quite a freebie like RFCE.

What if Great Prophets could create an 'enhancer' to each religion? I'm specifically thinking of something like SOI's use of corporations. Once the Shrine has been built and after a pre-req tech discovered, a Great Person could create a 'religious order' for each faith -- such as Sufism for Islam, either Dominican or Franciscan for Catholicism, Zen for Taoism (technically should be Buddhism, but it's Chinese-flavored Buddhism heavily influenced by Taoist ideas), etc. Each of these Orders would give a small bonus on its own wherever it spreads, and unlock a unique building in its HQ city (e.g., 'Shaolin Temple' for Zen, 'Franciscan hospital' for Franciscan, etc.) with a bigger benefit.

I'm still wrestling with some of these ideas trying to get them straight and figure out a way to get them to work seamlessly with the game, but the idea of pairing the unique Religious Orders with each faith is really appealing to me.

This had been proposed years ago to simulate Mesoamerican religions that are now mostly represented through unique civ abilities and wonders. I also remember that ROC Classical World and Realism Invictus gives unique bonuses strictly by religion (I remember that in Classical World Taoism brings happy faces with forests)

 

[psyblade]

A pilgrimage building built by great prophets sounds like a good way to bring parity between great prophets and other great people.
Religion has a mechanical niche in Civ. Where production (engineers) gives hammers and trade bonus (manufactury), science gives beakers and sometimes health, religion could give trade routes and passive spread of faith to synergize with how great shrines make religious cities optimal as trade centers (jesuit centers for catholics, pilgrim sites for hinduism, etc).
It's a simpler solution compared to coding reliquaries from SoI or adding organizations like the jesuits for example.

 

[freethink]

A pilgrimage building built by great prophets sounds like a good way to bring parity between great prophets and other great people.
Religion has a mechanical niche in Civ. Where production (engineers) gives hammers and trade bonus (manufactury), science gives beakers and sometimes health, religion could give trade routes and passive spread of faith to synergize with how great shrines make religious cities optimal as trade centers (jesuit centers for catholics, pilgrim sites for hinduism, etc).
It's a simpler solution compared to coding reliquaries from SoI or adding organizations like the jesuits for example.

Could Great Prophets go on pilgrimages to holy cities, I wonder? I realize this is a little different from what you mentioned?

 

[Just an idea]

I thought about a way to make Isolationism civic more useful. Currently it's usually detrimental unless you have Porcelain Tower wonder.

I think there would be more situations where running Isolationism would be useful if long distance trade routes would be bit harder to get? Currently trade routes can pass through neutral countries even without Open Borders agreement. If neutral territories blocked trade routes Isolationism might be more useful.

Let's take Japan as an example. Player manages to get enough Open Borders agreements to get scout to Europe. Now scout can stay there and player gets benefit from high value trade routes for most of the game. However if neutral countries blocked trade routes; Mongols take over China and Korea and don't want to Open Borders. Player no longer benefits from those trade routes and Isolationism suddenly looks like a viable option. Once player has Optics and enough map knowledge to get those trade routes active again through the ocean, it might again be beneficial to switch away from isolationism.

 

[Efim]

Is there a submod for Australia?

 

[MrCassata]

Hi. First of all, great mod! However, there are a few things I'd like to see changed:

1. When an AI civ collapses, it would be great that instead of becoming solely independent city-states, it would become a rump state limited to its core and non-contested historical areas, with conquered civs rising up from their own core areas. That would align more closely with the behaviour we offer the player. It would make things more realistic (for example the Soviet Union didn't just become a bunch of independent city-states), and the endgame a bit less lonely. It would also mean someone would be there to trade items from wonders such as Graceland and Hollywood.

2. I noticed that some civs won't vassalize with "You've grown too powerful for us" as a stated reason. Make that stop please. I like vassals.

 

[Dracosolon]

Is there a submod for Australia?

It's in Merjin's mod and Civilization Reborn at least but those would be pretty outdated and buggy by now, I would think.

1. When an AI civ collapses, it would be great that instead of becoming solely independent city-states, it would become a rump state limited to its core and non-contested historical areas, with conquered civs rising up from their own core areas. That would align more closely with the behaviour we offer the player. It would make things more realistic (for example the Soviet Union didn't just become a bunch of independent city-states), and the endgame a bit less lonely. It would also mean someone would be there to trade items from wonders such as Graceland and Hollywood.

Isn't "collapse to core" something that's more likely once Nationalism is discovered? Anyway, given the mechanics in place to keep too many civs (more than is efficient for player slots) from staying alive by collapsing them, maybe there could be something to make collapsing AIs more likely to spawn reborn civs if the number of civs go below a certain threshold. Maybe something like that already exists though.

 

[Cacaso]

The Mighty Aztecs sent a spaceship to meet God Quetzalcóatl, who, according to legend, flew to heaven
View attachment 647495

Leo, Looking at Banzay13's message on "The "OMG! Look what happened in DoC!" Thread", I remembered something I find very uncomfortable in the MOD. Which is when you complete all parts of the Spaceship and launch it, you need to keep pressing enter to give the Next Turn! over and over again, sometimes reaching 20 or 16 turns. And I think that's kind of a waste of time, because you're just waiting for the spaceship to arrive and the passing of turns takes a long time in the late game.

So I would like to propose that this waiting time be removed and give victory in the turn in which the spaceship launches, or at least a large reduction in the number of these turns until the arrival (maybe only 3 or 4 turns), or even making a mechanism that is like this for each booster part you add to the spaceship reduces the number of turns that the trip lasts so that if all available parts are produced, ScienceWIN is reached exactly in the turn that the launch takes place or just a few very few turns later (either the next turn or just 2 turns later).

Because I really think these almost 16 turns are a bit of a waste of time, which I think could be removed without harming the MOD in any way and it would be better.

PS: I think the space race represented in the DoC is really cool. I love winning that way. If, in order to remove these waiting shifts, it is necessary to add some more steps/more pieces, I think that would be interesting too.

 

[freethink]

I was thinking today about events that can make the transition between Pagan and World Religions more interactive.

If a pagan civ has deification could occur every 10 or 20 turns.

Title:

The Gods demand tribute!

Text: Our priests and priestesses are decrying the current state of affairs they warn the people that retribution will come if we do not grant sacrifice to the gods and spirits. Should we appease the malcontent sorcerers or punish them for causing unrest?

Option 1: We will bequeath the sacrifice that is due (-10 food in all cities, -50 gold, +1 anger in cities that have a religion)

Option 2: Now is the time to host an extravagant celebration to grant honor and glory to our esteemed deities! (-20 food in al cities, -150 gold, +1 happiness in all cities, +100 culture in capital, +2 anger in cities with a religion)

Option 3: Gods will play the games that they please. We will tell the superstitious advisers to be gone and imprison anyone who causes trouble
+1 unhappiness in all cities. Can also cause the civil unrest event to fire

Can fire for any pagan civ is a religion is in 25% of the cities (maybe Judaism could be excluded?)"

Title:
Our faith is challenged!

Text: Recently, wandering teachers and pilgrims have led some of the citizens astray from the gods that we have honored since time immemorial. We need to do something to protect our sacred tradition!

Option 1: Let us gently remind the people of our gods with celebrations
-100 gold, small chance that world religion will be removed from cities.

mini event text: The citizens of-CITYNAME- have reaffirmed their old faith!

Option 2: Send out our priests and priestesses to hunt the troublemakers who threaten our way of life.
+2 unhappiness in all cities, -1 population in all cities (or cities with a religion), you receive a single religious persecutor unit, small chance that world religion will be removed from cities.
Chance of triggering unrest and fire event

Option 3: There is nothing to be done, the people will follow any faith they wish.
Chance of unrest. -10 food in all cities (Followers of new faiths are withholding taxes from our pagan colossus)


These two events are supposed to grant more immersion into the pagan experience which I think adds more complex gameplay to Ancient playthroughs. These events are written generically in such a way that I hope can be applied to all pagan civs. Also, Leoreth said before that Paganism should stay an inferior option to world faiths, so I put that into consideration when proposing the effects of each choice.

I think the second event could be useful to players that want a few extra turns to build pagan wonders or if they are trying to beeline to a pagan victory goal. however, fighting to retain paganism does come at a cost. Also even though it would be fun I purposely refrained from using natural disaster effects or anything that could be interpreted as supernatural. I don't think DOC suggests at any point that any belief system could be true

Title:
The old faith strikes back!
Could be caused by one of these conditions:
-An Ancient Civ has converted to a world religion
Or if it could be coded
-Can occur randomly within 10 turns of a recent convert to world religion from a pagan religion
-More likely if it the year is before 100 CE

Text: Our conversion to our new faith displeased the unrepentant seers of the old ways. In an attempt to regain their lost power, they are raising mobs to attack our places of worship!

Effects: The capital will suffer anarchy for one turn, and temples can be destroyed.

Mini event text if our civ: Pagan fanatics are rioting!
Mini event text if another civ: -Pagan fanatics in -CIV NAME- are rioting!

 

[Dannimal]

I suggest AI Byzantium spawns with Constantinople having the Theodosian Walls pre built.
In some of my 3000BC games I see the Byzantine AI being are wiped out by barbarians before 700AD. I do not know if the AI can bribe barbarians via the unique ability, so having the walls should guarantee their survival to the medieval age.

 

[Dracosolon]

So I've been thinking that with the new map and birth protection mechanics, it's now much more feasible to push back the French spawn to 485 AD (~conquest of Soissons by Clovis) as was discussed at some point.

485 AD: Spawn at Paris on the 3000 BC scenario, flip an independant Cologne next turn (two important cities for later, and representing the Frankish presence in both France and Germany well enough).
Next few turns: conquest of whatever cities are present in France.
600 AD (8 turns later on Normal speed): Start of the scenario, with Cologne + all French territory (I think Paris + Bordeaux + either Lyon or Marseille or both work).
Then the game proceeds until 840 AD (23 turns after 600 AD), where HRE spawns and flips Cologne. This leaves the French player with some latitude to plunder cities they'll know will flip to HRE (and possibly Spain), though obviously their army should be weak enough that they can't push their advantage too much - and with the bigger map, conquests will take longer in general. Then the flip weakens them a little while also easing their maintenance.

My concern is Rome. It's a sensible move to conquer it if you're close to it, and it would be briefly historical as a Carolingian thing. But then wouldn't it be too much of an advantage? And what happens with the HRE?

Some possibilities (outside of keeping the 750 AD spawn, which would be perfectly understandable for balance reasons):

-Go with 485 AD but increase Rome's defenders to make it a true challenge,
-Put it in HRE's flipzone,
-When HRE spawns, Rome and Italian cities go independant,
-Reworked Italian spawn?

None of these possibilities are terribly satisfying. One thing I've been considering would be to make ownership of the Catholic Holy City more difficult by tying it to Apostolic Palace mechanisms. You can conquer Rome normally, but to hold on to it you need some sort of approval from other Catholic civs. If you fail to get it, Rome flips to Independants. Triggers could be:

-If you lose an election for Pope (or maybe just get too small a percentage),
-If as Pope, too many of your resolutions fail,
-Maybe bad relations in general?

Ideally this would make ownership of Rome more precarious and less attractive, along with encouraging more cautious inter-European relations (assuming diplomacy modifiers are adjusted so that medieval Catholic civs aren't so chummy). Players with continental conquest goals would be more ambivalent toward conquering Rome instead of seeing it as a must as is currently the case, and would need to have a smarter diplomacy game if they do get it. Italy would have a lot of trouble holding on to Rome due to its small size, which might be a good thing due to the current emphasis on northern city-states and the general precariousness of Italy's territorial history.

 

[Lennon789]

I think there are enough Latin American civilizations to warrant the creation/inclusion of a soundtrack for that part of the world, which could also apply to Spain and Portugal after they've lost their New World colonies.

 

[LukeAtmey]

I think there are enough Latin American civilizations to warrant the creation/inclusion of a soundtrack for that part of the world, which could also apply to Spain and Portugal after they've lost their New World colonies.

I like this idea. Overall I love the dynamic soundtracks as they really help immerse you and enhance the experience of playing a particular civilization. To be fair I would love if the dynamic soundtracks went on and continued even after Reneissance era. Should the expaning of dynamic soundtrack list happen at any point in future I'd volunteer to help finding suitable tracks.

 

[Steb]

So I've been thinking that with the new map and birth protection mechanics, it's now much more feasible to push back the French spawn to 485 AD (~conquest of Soissons by Clovis) as was discussed at some point.

485 AD: Spawn at Paris on the 3000 BC scenario, flip an independant Cologne next turn (two important cities for later, and representing the Frankish presence in both France and Germany well enough).
Next few turns: conquest of whatever cities are present in France.
600 AD (8 turns later on Normal speed): Start of the scenario, with Cologne + all French territory (I think Paris + Bordeaux + either Lyon or Marseille or both work).
Then the game proceeds until 840 AD (23 turns after 600 AD), where HRE spawns and flips Cologne. This leaves the French player with some latitude to plunder cities they'll know will flip to HRE (and possibly Spain), though obviously their army should be weak enough that they can't push their advantage too much - and with the bigger map, conquests will take longer in general. Then the flip weakens them a little while also easing their maintenance.

My concern is Rome. It's a sensible move to conquer it if you're close to it, and it would be briefly historical as a Carolingian thing. But then wouldn't it be too much of an advantage? And what happens with the HRE?

Some possibilities (outside of keeping the 750 AD spawn, which would be perfectly understandable for balance reasons):

-Go with 485 AD but increase Rome's defenders to make it a true challenge,
-Put it in HRE's flipzone,
-When HRE spawns, Rome and Italian cities go independant,
-Reworked Italian spawn?

None of these possibilities are terribly satisfying. One thing I've been considering would be to make ownership of the Catholic Holy City more difficult by tying it to Apostolic Palace mechanisms. You can conquer Rome normally, but to hold on to it you need some sort of approval from other Catholic civs. If you fail to get it, Rome flips to Independants. Triggers could be:

-If you lose an election for Pope (or maybe just get too small a percentage),
-If as Pope, too many of your resolutions fail,
-Maybe bad relations in general?

Ideally this would make ownership of Rome more precarious and less attractive, along with encouraging more cautious inter-European relations (assuming diplomacy modifiers are adjusted so that medieval Catholic civs aren't so chummy). Players with continental conquest goals would be more ambivalent toward conquering Rome instead of seeing it as a must as is currently the case, and would need to have a smarter diplomacy game if they do get it. Italy would have a lot of trouble holding on to Rome due to its small size, which might be a good thing due to the current emphasis on northern city-states and the general precariousness of Italy's territorial history.

I like this. Post-Roman Europe is a bit too empty for my tastes currently.

To solve the Italian question you bring up, pushing the Italian spawn earlier might work. I suggested in the 1.18 brainstorming thread that Italy could spawn in Venice around 800 AD. This would make sense as Venice was the first northern Italian city to become wealthy and powerful, and would allow it to be represented better without creating a Venetian civilization. An earlier Italy would make it more difficult for foreign civilizations like the Franks or the Germans to hold the peninsula. With a new mechanism to easily change the capital, it would also represent Italian history better. The civ could respawn around 1140 (current spawn date) if it was previously destroyed.

I also like your suggestion for Rome. Rome does end up controlled too often by civilizations, while spending more time as an independent city would be more appropriate.

 

[Dracosolon]

I'm still a bit skeptical of the idea of an earlier Italian spawn as Venice but I'll play along. Tentative UHV:

* The Serenissime: Culturally flip two cities by 1200 AD and conduct two trade missions by 1300 AD.
The first part is mostly so that you can't just conquer/settle your fellow Italian cities and have to simulate the formation of the Lombard League.

The trade missions could be replaced by anything (I went with something vaguely Marco Polo-ish), but I was wary to come up with a more warlike goal since there isn't a lot of space for the historical Venetian colonies, and because it would be redundant with the third UHV. An alternative idea might be "control X trade routes/get X gold from trade routes", which would require you to get more coastal cities to build Lighthouses and Wharfs. Something to do with resources could also work.

Alternatively, something naval-based like sinking ships or building them might be thematically fitting, but would risk being too luck-dependant since there isn't a whole lot of enemy ships in the Mediterranean (also personal taste but I hate that kind of goals). There were talks at some point of including a (Venetian) Arsenal wonder, this could be used to synergize naval power and economy ("+1 trade route per naval unit of level X or more", perhaps?). San Marco Basilica could also be reworked ("+2 trade routes per settled GP?").

* Birthplace of the Renaissance: Build three medieval wonders and reach influential culture in three different capitals by 1600 AD.
You get a bit more freedom in your wonders but Santa Maria/San Marco/The Sistine Chapel are still the latest so they'll be easier to aim for. The capitals goal might be tedious but would sort of simulate the city states - and also eventually allow the player to relocate their capital to Rome if they're so inclined.

* Futurism: Be the first to discover Radio, Psychology and Fission and control X% of the Eastern Mediterranean and Ethiopia by 1940 AD.
Credit to borhapp88 for this one (also those titles are much better than mine). I like the tech goal because there's so much time between 1600 AD and 1940 AD that just focusing on conquest is a bit boring.

I'm aware that those are a lot of different goals and that the end result is a bit verbose. Simpler goals could also be worded if that's too much.

 

[Leoreth]

Are you really trying to backdoor Venice right now

 

[Dracosolon]

I don't expect anything given your previous statements on the subject, this is a thought exercise - and like I said, I'm not too hot on it either. Personally my main objections would be that expansion would risk feeling like Venice conquering and creating a unified Italy (as opposed to the current implementation putting the city states on a more equal footing) and that the eastern Mediterrenean is too tiny to meaningfully represent its conquests.

 

[Steb]

Are you really trying to backdoor Venice right now

Eh, it's my idea so allow me to defend it a bit. I don't care about Venice more than the other Italian cities, but I do think that it was the first northern Italian city to rise from the post-Barbarian invasion mess and become a notable power in its own right, thanks in large part to trade with Byzantium, and possibly helping jumpstart the other cities in turn. The current setup, in which northern Italy is either a bunch of independent cities, or controlled by foreign powers, until the Lombard League, is... it's okay, I guess, but it's skipping over a lot of interesting history, it makes it too easy for France/the HRE to control the area (which was the concern I was specifically addressing here), and also the Lombard League doesn't feel like such a pivotal event in real history.

But, and I insist on this point, this change would only work if we came up with a mechanic that forces or greatly encourages capital changes. Nobody here wants Venice to be the capital of the Italian civilization for the entire game. If Italy had a "Power of City-States" UP that gave it a free capital change every 5 techs or something (I'm spitballing here), or some other mechanic, then that would lead to a more interesting Italian gameplay experience IMO, since we'd see Milan, Florence, Venice, Rome etc. all serve as capitals at various points.

Also, an earlier spawn with a single city, no flips, and only a small initial army, would make the early Italian game more fun and challenging: you're just a small city-state, by default weaker than the other European powers, and you need to acquire other mainland cities (or Venice's maritime empire if going that route) through significant effort and strategy.

I wouldn't create a Venice-themed UHV, either. I don't want the civ to focus more on Venice, especially from the Renaissance onwards. It just so happens that Venice is where post-Roman Italy first started to grow powerful and rich.

Like Dracosolon, I don't really expect this to happen, but I think there's a lot of potential in the idea. As a bonus, it would make people stop asking for Venice all the time!

 

[Dracosolon]

For capitals I think it could make sense to have various Palace buildings that become available at different techs/eras and provide strictly better benefits. In the current game it's usually not worth it to build a Palace because you already have its benefits in another city and the stability map ensures that your most important cities are close to each other.

So you would start with the regular Palace in the ancient era, then techs like Politics or Statecraft could unlock better versions that you'll likely want to build anyway, which means you'll have to reconsider its city location while you're at it (though keeping it in the same city would be an option).

As for the benefits a stability bonus (that could even replace the current bonus you get per era) would fit, as would maintenance in nearby cities, , percentage, etc.

All of this, of course, is dependant on if wanting incentives for the Palace to move more often is really the goal (I think there are some bits in the code to do it automatically for some AIs?).

 

[Lennon789]

I'm not sure how balanced this would be, but from a flavor standpoint it would be interesting if Great Generals could reform the government just like Statesman, particularly since there seems to be some thematic overlap between these two Great Person categories. For example, playing as Colombia, I just spawned a Great General named Francisco de Paula Santander, who in addition to being a military leader also served as the acting president of New Granada and the President of the Republic of New Granada. Interestingly, he came to be known as "The Man of the Laws."