Suggestions and Requests

There is a "maps"-subfolder in the installation directory, where you can check on the areas if you don't know them. This doesn't work that well with the adjustable core-areas (like Mongolia who has it expanded after eliminating China, etc.).

But yeah, the button is gone. I'm not too sad about it.
 
There's a new, bigger map that has been a work in progress these past few years (you can see its outline here), but its scale is nowhere near as big as the maps in RFCE or SoI.

To be honest while I like these mods, RFCE's map feels very empty compared to how detailed DoC's current map gets.
 
There's a new, bigger map that has been a work in progress these past few years (you can see its outline here), but its scale is nowhere near as big as the maps in RFCE or SoI.

To be honest while I like these mods, RFCE's map feels very empty compared to how detailed DoC's current map gets.
thanks for the link and explanation, it does look really cool. I will definitively play 1.18
 
Every time Arabia loses territory to the point of controling only cities in Levant and Arabian peninsula its dynamic name returns to Rashidun Caliphate. The Rashidun Caliphate existed only in 632 to 661. After this period the state was replaced by Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates, which the last one was the only caliphate to return to existance several times in history after its downfall. My suggestion is to put the Abbasid Caliphate dynamic name fixed during medieval age, independently from triggers such where is the capital and how many cities Arabia have under control.
Screenshot_7.6.png

Poland could have as dynamic name Principality/Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia if its capital is Kiev during middle ages and Grand Principality of Ruthenia in Renaissance age
Screenshot_8,4.png

If Mexico, Andes, Brazil and/or Argentina is colonized by islamic nations, should be nice to give initial dynamic names related to the faith, like Emirate or Sultanate of X nation. That can make the game more diverse and more historical alternative.
Screenshot_8,2.png Screenshot_8,3.png
 
Poland could have as dynamic name Principality/Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia if its capital is Kiev during middle ages and Grand Principality of Ruthenia in Renaissance age
View attachment 669343
Disagree. Firstly, Galicia-Volhynia as name makes sense if their capital is in Lvov, not Kiev. Secondly, using name kingdom or principality should be based on religion, kingdom for catholic and principality for orthodox. And thirdly, we have upcoming independent Ukrainian/Ruthenian civilization on 1.18, so all these names go to them.
 
Started Korean game and noticed one thing. My country currently is named Goryeo, which doesn't make any sense. Goguryeo/Goryeo was placed in the Northern Korea and Southern Manchuria, while my capital is in the south. If something, it should be called Silla. I think it would be cool if Korea in its early period had dynamic names Goguryeo/ Baekje/ Silla depending on position of its capital. Especially on the bigger map. Also, Korea notably doesn't have core and has very few historical tiles in Manchuria, despite the fact that Goguryeo controlled a lot of land there. I thing it also could be changed.
 

Attachments

  • Goryeo.png
    Goryeo.png
    1.6 MB · Views: 116
I actually intend to do this during 1.18. Many of the new terrains introduced do not really look well next to the base game terrain, and I do not want to maintain versions of them for both graphics sets.
Glad to hear that! What do you think about adding the soundtracks module by default in 1.18 ?
 
Why?
 
I thought that with the default game terrain being Blue Marble in version 1.18, adding the DoC soundtracks module to the mod made sense and would make the gaming experience more complete in a way.
 
The reason it is a module is to allow people to use less space and memory if they prefer.
 
in my game I can’t found Vinland as Vikings until after discovering compass. The part of of North America I can reach west of Greenland dosent let my settler found a city is that right? Could it be changed so Greenland can have a city even if it’s a small one? The Vikings did have a settlement there.

Can we change Prussia uhv to invade or make vassals of the territory they are supposed to get instead of annex all of it? Italy was just an ally and Vichy France was a vassal for example.

I’d like some wonders to be designed to be more exclusive that you can’t built them unless you are playing as the civ that built them OR you invaded and own (or have vassalized) the civ that built them. For example only Russia can built the kremlin but if someone invades Moscow or makes Russia their vassal then they are allowed to build it. Why can’t we buy barbarian units ?

Edit: more ideas: can you fix it so we can turn time victory off ? One idea I would like implemented, if possible, is group alliances like nato with article 5 protection (if one member gets attacked all do). The founder of it could be constructed like a world wonder, and the founder os allowed to make offers to which civ wants to join it. They must be a democracy to be allowed in (if it is nato specifically but there can be an equaivent for fascist and communist). You can only be in one of these types of alliances. Being in the alliance gives you a boost of some kind (cultural, wealth. Research whatever).
 
Last edited:
Late game has some weird borders and expansions, as well as dead civs that have no hope of returning. In a post nationalism world, it is strange to continue to see large sprawling empires. At end-game, however, stability isn't hard to attain.

With that said, I think a U.N. Decolonization Resolution is a good mechanic to get to our desired outcome for a more dynamic endgame.

The Decolonization Resolution pops up every now and again, and targets one dead civ and tries to resurrect it.

For example, the Decolonize Mexico (if the US expands south too far), Decolonize Vietnam (French), or Decolonize Poland (Russia, et al.) Resolutions would, once they pop up, allow for the world to vote on supporting the guerillas and revolutionaries.

The U.N. vote also has a weighted 'Liberation Score' (which could be displayed next to the [Dead] marker for dead civs. The Liberation Score is a value proportional to the size and strength of the colonized cities. If the occupied cities have high stability bonuses (courthouses, religious bonuses, etc.), the liberation value is reduced, and vice versa (overextended, underdeveloped, and angry cities have higher liberation score).

The possible outcomes are:
- Vote Success: This triggers gives a 'Rise of X Civilization' pop-up that is similar to regular spawns for civs that own core cities,
- Vote Failure: This rotates the next Decolonization Resolution to the next dead civ in line,
- Vote Defiance: This gives the normal penalties to all defiant civs, and gives an additional angry citizens in the core cities of the colonized civ, which increases the Liberation Score and makes the next decolonization resolution more likely to succeed.

Decolonization also affects independent-ruled cities, with a succeess respawning the civ in the core areas.

Alternatively, of course, a general 'Rise and Fall' mechanic that is independent of U.N. Resolutions could also get the job done, but having it be tied to the U.N. gives a twist on modern diplomacy that is quite appealing.

Edit: Oops. I realized there WAS a decolonization and 'free nation' option in the U.N.
I think the Liberation Score idea (and showing the value next to dead civs) is still viable however, but perhaps changed to be called Rise score. It can be a core mechanic as part of the general Rise and Fall cycle of the game. A civ collapses, keeps a Rise Score, which fluctuates over time. If it reaches a certain threshold, it triggers guerilla troops and random liberation events, and contributes as an additional weight in the U.N. votes.
For example, when the U.N. vote on whether or not to restore a collapsed and occupied France (24 Rise Score), the Yes vote automatically has 24 votes from the Rise Score.
 
Last edited:
I agree that bordeds are always weird. The only way to shrink an AI empire is birth and rebirth, which is rare because stability is always high in late game. Nationalism (maybe an increase in overextension penalty) or UN may work.
 
Another suggestion (that is much lighter) is: Minor Settlement Landmarks.

So basically cottages sort of represent minor settlements, but they can't be named right? What if there is a tile marker that pops up when cottage is built and is removed when it is destroyed (drawing dynamically from the city names logic)?

No England player would ever be able to build a city of York next to a city of Liverpool (they're adjacent tiles). With this suggestion, building the city of York and a cottage in the Liverpool tile would make one city of York and a small tile marker atop Liverpool. This would increase immersion and allow for minor city representation.

Of course, that means cottage economies would clutter the map, but one marker could suppress other generated markers within one tile.
 
I would like to humbly request that the current stability mechanic be changed.

Currently, stability increases with each era. (I believe.) I would like to see it peak in the industrial era and then decrease in the global and information eras.

That is a more accurately reflection of how technological progress affected the expansion of empires than we currently have, and it would encourage European colonies to declare independence / Russia to collapse in the late game.

I apologize if I have either suggested this before, or if I misunderstand how stability currently works. My main point is that big empires should be harder to hold together after the industrial era, rather than easier.
 
I would like to humbly request that the current stability mechanic be changed.

Currently, stability increases with each era. (I believe.) I would like to see it peak in the industrial era and then decrease in the global and information eras.

That is a more accurately reflection of how technological progress affected the expansion of empires than we currently have, and it would encourage European colonies to declare independence / Russia to collapse in the late game.

I apologize if I have either suggested this before, or if I misunderstand how stability currently works. My main point is that big empires should be harder to hold together after the industrial era, rather than easier.
I kinda agree, except I'd change it for the last era (Digital I think it is) to be where it decreases.
 
Currently, stability increases with each era. (I believe.) I would like to see it peak in the industrial era and then decrease in the global and information eras.
I see people love to suggest things which makes world conquest or just massive expansion even less possible. :-/
 
Back
Top Bottom