Suggestions and Requests

[Cypriot]

More advanced technology -> more efficient administration -> more stability limit on overextention. That makes sense for me. If you wanna go for historicity, it's more logical to remove historical tiles from oversea empires. Or make year of Africa event which cause colonies to become independent. Or, considering how the mod just fails to properly simulate modern history on fundamental level, just foget about historicity and enjoy the game instead of proposing something which will make life harder for the player and do only that. Cause AI doesn't care and anyways will massively die after 2020, cause that's how this game works.

 

[mccp77]

More advanced technology -> more efficient administration -> more stability limit on overextention. That makes sense for me. If you wanna go for historicity, it's more logical to remove historical tiles from oversea empires. Or make year of Africa event which cause colonies to become independent. Or, considering how the mod just fails to properly simulate modern history on fundamental level, just foget about historicity and enjoy the game instead of proposing something which will make life harder for the player and do only that. Cause AI doesn't care and anyways will massively die after 2020, cause that's how this game works.

I'll make my case and bow out:

1. That is not how the AI works in 2020--the AIs gets conquered by super-states (typically Russia or Germany) that do not collapse in the late game b/c of the stability buffs. They don't go up in the air in a poof of smoke or just "die" through magical alchemical transmutation.

2. Easier for the player does not necessarily make a better game. Sometimes a more challenging game can provide more joy because of the challenge. You may want easier---but there are difficulty levels for precisely this reason. Difficulty is more variable based on player taste whereas historicity is not.

3. You misunderstad what it means for a state to be stable definitionally:

a. It is not synonymous with efficient administration. Otherwise the modern Soviet Union with its technology that allowed instantaneous communication across 11 time zones would've been more "stable" at its collapse than Rome during the Pax Romana. That's absurd on its face.

b. Stability's relation to technology has been complicated throughout history. The question with regards to each technology throughout history is: Does this enhance a state's coercive and/or responsive apparatus more than it enhances political opposition groups' ability to organize and/or circumvent said apparatus. For example, the printing press massively increased administrative capacity by allowing for the easy dissemination of information, but it enhanced dissidents' ability to organize to an even greater degree. Now, I'm not proposing each technology have its own specific impact on stability because I think there's value in parsimony and because I don't like to ask Leoreth (who I'm sure has a day job) for huge overhauls when small fixes can achieve a similar result. But there is no straightforward linear relationship between technology and stability, and there never has been.

 

[Zaddy]

As someone that plays very frequently into the modern era, I do not have this experience with superstates that mccp does. I was actually reminiscing a few days ago when Russia would become a Eurasian superpower when playing in the New World, which no longer really occurs. I would be pretty disappointed if this lack of strong late-game opponents was accentuated by making them even more prone to collapse.

Additionally, Domination victories are already pretty difficult and I politely disagree with making it even more difficult in service to making the game slightly more historical in the late game.

 

[1SDANi]

If we were to go with the nuclear option, we could buff independents to actually be semi-competent at managing and defending their cities, make settling territory/expanding borders spawn hostile native units, add nationalism events after nationalism is researched/enough civs have said tech to make given cities gain independent culture or, if enough such culture is in their city, spawn independent hostile units, and add decolonization events, thus adding more sources of instability rather than removing sources of stability. Might be possible to get away with something like having independents always be at war with major civs, but keep track of which cities are at war with which players and fake peace status for those who aren't, faking independent ownership of units by restricting units to acting within tiles assigned to the given city. Though a kludge like that does raise a question regarding how to implement independent cities attacking major civ neighbors, and whether they even should.

 

[Cypriot]

I'll make my case and bow out:

1. That is not how the AI works in 2020--the AIs gets conquered by super-states (typically Russia or Germany) that do not collapse in the late game b/c of the stability buffs. They don't go up in the air in a poof of smoke or just "die" through magical alchemical transmutation.

It IS how AI work. Each civilization in DoC has "expiration" date after each it becomes more likely to collapse. 2020 is the end game date, so it is the last year for every civilization which didn't expire before. And also no civ is allowed to reborn after 2020. So if you decide to continue to play after the end, every single AI civilization will collapse in the span of less than 100 years. Or it used to be so in the previous patches.

 

[psyblade]

I second MCCP's suggestion, late game is far too stable with gigantic empires. A solution may be adding new events that impact stability based on civics, which becomes more frequent with certain technologies.
For example, the nationalism tech adds more minority events. The instability coming from underdeveloping minority regions could spiral out of control for civs with incompatible civics like monarchy and bureaucracy.

 

[Dracosolon]

As a compromise, the stability bonus getting better with each era could stop doing so post Industrial (so Global era modifiers stay the same), while civs from Africa and Asia are more likely to ressurect then (the Americas already have plenty of young civs so this isn't a problem for them).

 

[CometHalo]

Nor sure if this has been mentioned, but when the Aztecs collapse they go from having archers to crossbowmen...kinda makes no sense, and makes it much harder to reach some UHV if they collapse (which they often do before capping)

 

[Dominus the Mentat]

Yea. Maybe could be better if the Natives, instead of Barbarians and Independents, take control of the cities after any native american civilization collapses? Since it appears the Natives take longer to research than any other civilization and they mostly produces Archers.

 

[Genghis Khaiser]

Yea. Maybe could be better if the Natives, instead of Barbarians and Independents, take control of the cities after any native american civilization collapses? Since it appears the Natives take longer to research than any other civilization and they mostly produces Archers.

I agree. IMO something similar should happen in southern Africa and the Pacific.

 

[CometHalo]

Also wondering about thoughts on city capture mechanics. I feel as though sack and raze need some adjusting. When you raze you don’t get the gold you’d get from sacking but historically I don’t think *most* razers were leaving valuables inside their prize. And similarly most groups that sacked cities didn’t keep them. I would think adding the sack prize to razing and changing sack such that when the revolt period ends the city flips back to its original owner would make more sense

 

[Genghis Khaiser]

Also wondering about thoughts on city capture mechanics. I feel as though sack and raze need some adjusting. When you raze you don’t get the gold you’d get from sacking but historically I don’t think *most* razers were leaving valuables inside their prize. And similarly most groups that sacked cities didn’t keep them. I would think adding the sack prize to razing and changing sack such that when the revolt period ends the city flips back to its original owner would make more sense

I think sacking actually refers to conquering a city and taking most of its goods. Returning the city is something you can do manually anyway.

However, I agree that razing should leave more gold than sacking.

 

[GuitarDemon]

I think England should lose its Unique power upon entering the modern Era?

They horde all the techs and wonders in every late game Ive played but they shouldn't hold a colonial empire forever. We already have UP that expires at eras for gameplay purposes (Greece comes to mind)

 

[TwoF]

Tell me, which file contains the names of great people by civilization?

 

[merijn_v1]

Assets/Python/GreatPeople.py

 

[Zaddy]

Some sort of notification for when a rival civ is the first to research techs that grant a reward for doing so (ie Economics, Scientific Method, etc) would be appreciated. Like the Liberalism notification in vanilla. It's otherwise pretty difficult to tell if you can still get the reward or not.

 

[Temujin8k]

Some sort of notification for when a rival civ is the first to research techs that grant a reward for doing so (ie Economics, Scientific Method, etc) would be appreciated. Like the Liberalism notification in vanilla. It's otherwise pretty difficult to tell if you can still get the reward or not.

Currently, I have to check every few turns by hovering on the research bar. If the "first to discover" tooltip cannot be found, it means someone else already got the tech. Though that only works if the concerning tech is the one currently being researched. If it's not yet being researched, the tech tree would not be helpful (the same mechanic does not apply to the tech tree; you'll still see the message regardless). I check it by going to the Info screen of the WB.

I do agree, though, that such a notification would be useful for us. As a tech enjoyer, I'd prefer receiving those notifications even if it's not part of my UHV.

-----

Speaking of Liberalism, maybe we can have the new tech tree equivalent for it that grants a free tech to the first to discover? Sociology, perhaps? Civil Liberties?

 

[Cacaso]

Speaking of Liberalism, maybe we can have the new tech tree equivalent for it that grants a free tech to the first to discover? Sociology, perhaps? Civil Liberties?

I think using the "Civil Liberties" tech would be more appropriate, because if we look at Techtree, the "Academia", "Scientific Method" and "Economics" techs already have a first to reach bonus. So AIciv/player usually tends to focus more on this northern part of the techtree, to try to collect these bonuses first.

So if this freetech bonus was added to the "Civil liberties" tech it would be more distributed, because while the player tries to focus on getting one of these "first to reach" techs it would give time for some AIcontrolled CIV to research another and then it becomes more challenging, a single CIV, manage to accumulate all these bonuses.

Besides, I think that "Civil liberties" would be historically more appropriate to have liberalism, than sociology.

 

[Derdan]

I think Scientific Method might be a better fit, since it actually decreases your research by disabling Monasteries. Plus it takes a while to benefit from the opportunities to make up for that with the National College since it's unlikely you'll have half of your cities with a University in them at that time.

 

[Dracosolon]

There are already a lot of "first to discover" bonuses in that era though.

I think a good rule would be to limit how many of those a single civ can get, either throughout the entire game or just for a specific era. That would limit rewarding the tech leader too much.