Suggestions and Requests

It would be cool if we could play as a civ that doesn't start with cities or settlers but only military units such as native Americans or huns.

But a suggestion that perhaps you might take more seriously is this: I would like that wonders can only be built in the geographical area it was built irl. If you wan to build the Kremlin then you must control the part of Russia that would contain Moscow if you want the effiel tower you have to control Paris. Meaning either you play as that civ or conquer the territory.
 
No.
 
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.
Still praying for the civ-wide 10% :science: bonus for Scientific Method.

In my mind I initially agreed with this, but then I remembered Scientific Method already grants a free Great Scientist to the first-to-discover civ. I think it would be an overkill to have it also grant a free tech simultaneously.
 
A suggestion I thinking of after seeing the turks take over almost all of europe (Which caused the ottomans to spawn in as Buddhist lol). I think it'd be cool if there was a higher probability of crusades passing by the pope voting if Christians factions are at war with non Christians. Even more so if they're deep into europeaon territory.

Either way at least most civs vassalized and ending up surving the onslaught. I was playing as Japan so my scout was just watching the massacres the Turkish doom stacks were causing lol
 
Another random suggestion. Right now all film, music and game resources are locked to their respective wonder. The other day I got a random event I've never seem before that gave me a free film resource. I was wondering if maybe a great artist could produce one at random so this way civs have some to trade? Maybe even a settled artist or a city with legendary culture.

I know there's an abundance of happy resources but just a thought. Haven't really fleshed it out but thought I'd throw that idea in here
 
The culture bomb action could give out a singles/movies rescource because the action of culture bombing is called creating a great work and those could represent them. I would also say I only use culture bombing when compelting UHVs, so it could make that option stronger, especially late game when culture isnt as hard to get.
1696275496707.png
 
Still praying for the civ-wide 10% :science: bonus for Scientific Method.

In my mind I initially agreed with this, but then I remembered Scientific Method already grants a free Great Scientist to the first-to-discover civ. I think it would be an overkill to have it also grant a free tech simultaneously.
That's true. I think a civ-wide 10% boost to research would be better. Plus a free tech at that age might be too strong.
 
Suggestion for the Roman conquest UHV - change the "Greece and Anatolia" part to expand it a bit east to include cities like Tyr and Jerusalem and rename it to something like "Eastern Mediterranean" (or some other more specific name).

Reasoning:
- It's historical and give a bit more emphasis to Roman involvement the region,
- Currently the "Greece and Anatolia" part is shortened to just "Anatolia" on the map, which is a bit awkward,
- Would give the Roman player a bit more freedom for city placements there, since as it is four cities in that zone quickly get cramped.

I imagine that further down the line of the Big Map's development UHVs are getting overhauled anyway, but for now I think the above would be cool.

A more ambitious change to the Roman UHV I thought might work too, if that doesn't get too gimmicky or samey with other infrastructure goals, would be to require to connect your continental* cities by Roman Roads - named, of course, "All Roads Lead To Rome". But that would probably need to be folded into the conquest UHV, which for brevity's sake would need to be shortened, so maybe something like: "Control 95% of the historical Roman Empire and connect all of your continental cities by Roman Roads by 320 AD". The "95% of the historical Roman Empire" part could maybe be changed to just the Mediterranean + a couple of specific regions (maybe not all of the historical ones even).

*So, no islands and no Britain.
 
Could Next War be incorporated into Dawn of Civilization? And include some a new future era random events like Zombie apocalypse, alien invasion or rouge skynet. Playing Egypt into the Future era and unleashing towering Titens onto the enemies of the Pharoah would be awesome!
 
Suggestion: Allow the player to immediately resume war in case your enemy capitulates to a war ally. I've had it happen that I'm knocking on the doorstep of my enemy's capital only to hear the horn blow, my enemy vassalized by a war ally and have my troops pushed out of my enemy's territory. I can no doubt re-declare the war on my enemy and his new master, but in case of a "conquer x" UHV goal it might cost me valuable turns having to move my troops again across their border and into their territory. I think it's a fair change, because I'm not a part of the peace treaty the capitulating civilization and their new master have agreed into, I'd like to have the option to defy that and resume war without having my troops pushed out of their territory.
 
It's not the biggest deal ever and maybe its intentional but playing as later Rome/Greece it kind of sucks having a massive kill/death ratio against barbarians but still having a "lost battles to barbarians" stability penalty
 
It's not the biggest deal ever and maybe its intentional but playing as later Rome/Greece it kind of sucks having a massive kill/death ratio against barbarians but still having a "lost battles to barbarians" stability penalty
I think this is historical. Roman legions won countless battles against barbarians during European conquests. But few losses like Battle of Teutoburg forest and others had a significant effect on Roman society and stability.
 
With the new civ changes comes a renaming:
Tamils -> Dravidians
  • The Tamils have been renamed to Dravidians to strengthen their connection to Telugu and Kannada polities and most importantly Vijayanagara
As I wrote in the thread, I'm not a big fan of this, because "the Dravidians" isn't really a meaningful political or ethnic group. It's primarily the name of a linguistic family of languages, and by extension can be used to refer to the various cultures that speak those languages. But politically, there is no such thing as "Dravidia", and there never was. It would be an artifice to lump somewhat related groups into one South Indian civilization. It can be justifiable (in fact the "Indian" civilization is a similar artifice, and so is the Mughal one), but I think it's worth trying to avoid it if we can.
I understand why you made this change but I want to register that I think it sounds silly to use a primarily linguistic grouping as a civilization 😤

But I don't have a better solution, other than splitting the civ into Tamils and some other group like the Kannadigas or something.
So let's explore seriously the spontaneous suggestion I made to split the Dravidian civilization into the Tamils and the Kannadigas. (In practice, adding the Kannadigas and keeping the Tamils more or less as they are.) The Kannadigas are the Kannada-speaking people, living in the modern state of Karnataka. In other words, they're one of the four main Dravidian groups, the others being the Tamils, the Telugus, and the Malayalis (who speak Malayalam). Malayalam diverged from Tamil only around 800 AD, so for our purposes we can consider them to be the same group.

1698441502556.png


Why the Kannadigas? Let's look at South Indian history. As far as I can tell these are the main South Asian states that existed since ancient times:
  • Pandya dynasty (Tamil): -300s to 1600s
  • Chola dynasty (Tamil): ancient, revived 850 to 1279
  • Chera dynasty (Tamil): -200s to 1100s
  • Satavahana dynasty (either Telugu or non-Dravidian, ruled the north of South India only): -100s to 200s
  • Pallava dynasty (unclear origin, possibly non-Dravidian or Telugu / Tamil): 275 to 897
  • Kadamba dynasty (Kannada): 345 to 540 (first Kannada state)
  • Western Ganga dynasty (Kannada): 350 to 1000
  • Chalukya dynasty (Kannada): 543–755
  • Rashtrakuta dynasty (Kannada): 753 to 982
  • Western Chalukya Empire (Kannada): 975–1184
  • Hoysala Empire (Kannada): 10th to 14th centuries
  • Kakatiya dynasty (Telugu): 1163 to 1323
  • Jaffna kingdom (Tamil, in north Sri Lanka): 1215 to 1619
  • Kolathunadu (Malayalam): ancient to modern (poorly known)
  • Bahmani Sultanate (non-Dravidian, split from the Delhi Sultanate, ruled over some Kannada and Telugu areas): 1347 to 1527
  • Vijayanagara Empire (Kannada; Telugu and Tamil also spoken, but Kannada was the court language): 1336 to 1646
  • Kozhikode / Calicut (Malayalam): 1124 to 1806
  • Kingdom of Mysore (Kannada): 1399 to 1799 (became prominent after the fall of their Vijayanagara overlords)
  • Nayak kingdoms (various independent states after the fall of Vijayanagara, speaking Tamil, Kannada or Telugu).
    • Notably, the Madurai Nayak dynasty controlled Tamil country from 1529 to 1736. Interestingly, the royals were of Telugu origin and spoke that language, but ruled over a Tamil-speaking population.
After this South India is controlled by European powers until the independence of India, so there are no Dravidian sovereign states anymore. (Sri Lanka is majority non-Dravidian, though it has a Tamil minority.)

My reading of this is that there were two main centers of power in South India over time: the Tamil coast in the southeast, and Karnataka in the northwest. The Telugu area to the northeast also gave birth to some states, but apparently less often and less powerful ones.

Meanwhile, the Tamil civilization is especially well represented in ancient and early medieval times, though it still had states into the modern era. The Kannadigas appear around AD 350, give rise to a number of powerful dynasties (Chalukya, Rashtrakuta), and then in 1336 to arguably the most important South Indian state, the Vijayanagara Empire, which we know Leoreth wants to represent in the game better. Later, another prominent South Indian country, Mysore, was also culturally Kannadiga.

Of course, all these areas were always interlinked, which is why it's not totally outlandish to think of a "Dravidian" civilization. Vijayanagara, for instance, although it spoke Kannada in court and has its capital in modern-day Karnataka, was also an era of flourishing for Telugu culture and I think Tamil also. Still, the fact that they mostly coexisted and entered conflict (e.g. Vijayanagara conquered the Tamil Pandyan capital of Madurai in 1370) means that it would make sense to represent the Tamils and the Kannadigas as distinct civilizations. One that spawns around 300 BC on the southeast coast, with a game focused on the ancient and medieval eras, on culture, and on building a maritime empire; and the other spawning inland in 350 AD, with a game that involves military conquest, resisting the Mughal and British invasions, monumental architecture, and Mysorean rockets.

A concern is space on the map. South India isn't huge, and a coexisting Kannadiga and Tamil civilizations would be able to only have 2-3 cities each in their core. (Of course they can also choose to conquer each other.) On the other hand, if this forces the Tamils to be a more maritime civilization, it wouldn't be a bad thing. The Telugu area would also be up for grabs to both (and to India / the Mughals).

To give you an idea: the city of Vijayanagara would be roughly on the spice, south of the ivory and north of the river; Madurai (Pandyan capital) would be on the rice near the tip and Thanjavur (Chola capital) one NE of that. Mysore would be 1N of the aluminium, and Bangalore, the current Karnataka capital, probably 1N of that. Chennai/Madras, the current Tamil Nadu capital, would be on the gems at the mouth of that river.
1698444519526.png

It's a bit cramped.

Anyway, I don't expect the current plans to change due to this post, but maybe it's worth considering such an addition for an eventual overhaul of India. There was also some discussion in the past about creating e.g. a Bengali civilization, so maybe that can all happen at the same time. Or maybe it's better to stick to "Dravidia", I don't know. At least I used this opportunity to learn more about a part of the world I knew very little about.
 
Not on my end.
 
In case any new civ would be added I have to support suggestion of Mississippi / Cahokia culture and oppose any Old World additions. Eurasia is already quite crowded, if anywhere outside of Americas could be filled in, it would be Africa or (more of a reach) Australia.
Cahokia starting in 800 CE would provide interesting and challenging gameplay seeing how it spawns next to starting location of strongest late game civ, is well grounded historically and fills in large blank space on the map. Adding yet another civilization in already crowded time-space locations is in my opinion waste. There can only be so many civs at the same time. We could have easily 3-5 distinct civs in Indian subcontinent in almost every period of time post Mauryan Empire, but would it really add much to the game?

I could be wrong though about how India feels on new map. It is region with multitude of significant polities so easily there could be more civs there. Anyway if just one new civ is to be added, I believe pre-columbian North American would be great, but not some anachronistic "Native Americans" or any weird amalgamation, Cahokia was a large city in nearly perfect gameplay wise "empty spot" in both space and time for it to join this mod as new civ in my opinion. However, there will be a lot of new civs added so I have no idea if there are plans of adding any new ones at all or in near future.
 
If North American civs are ever added I agree Cahokia is the obvious choice, though I'll reiterate that I'm worried about how to stop such a civ from growing ahistorically powerful. Especially since as Leoreth correctly observed, it couldn't be lumped together with a possible concept of nomadic civs, since what's notable about Cahokia is being one of the most well-developped sedentary settlements complete with evidence of complex agriculture.

I *think* this could be mitigated through a number of factors:

- A late spawn (the most obvious limitator, but kind of counter productive if the goal is to play before the conquerors come),
- Limited tech (somewhat useful, but can't be overdone),
- Bad modifiers (ditto),
- Limited stability map,
- External pressure from Native raids and potentially other North American civs (the latter having design challenges too),
- A challenging UHV (applies only to the human player, though if Cahokia is implemented before other NA civs it could be human only anyway),
- Obviously if the civ is still alive then conquerors + plagues should hit them.
 
If North American civs are ever added I agree Cahokia is the obvious choice, though I'll reiterate that I'm worried about how to stop such a civ from growing ahistorically powerful. Especially since as Leoreth correctly observed, it couldn't be lumped together with a possible concept of nomadic civs, since what's notable about Cahokia is being one of the most well-developped sedentary settlements complete with evidence of complex agriculture.

I *think* this could be mitigated through a number of factors:

- A late spawn (the most obvious limitator, but kind of counter productive if the goal is to play before the conquerors come),
- Limited tech (somewhat useful, but can't be overdone),
- Bad modifiers (ditto),
- Limited stability map,
- External pressure from Native raids and potentially other North American civs (the latter having design challenges too),
- A challenging UHV (applies only to the human player, though if Cahokia is implemented before other NA civs it could be human only anyway),
- Obviously if the civ is still alive then conquerors + plagues should hit them.

Yeah, late spawn would not make sense IMO
Low tech start and isolation should do the trick in my opinion
This coupled with stability hit around 1600 that will take it out when it's not players civ.

So I am not too worried, I mean it won't be UK developing Internet in 19th century type of ahistorical. I guess it could snowball if there are more NA civs around it, but I have no idea how that nomadic civs would work so it's hard to tell for me if they would make it easy to advance too fast with tech. If it would be implemented and let play out as non-player on it's own I would expect it just building couple of cities and collapsing as scheduled during 16-17th centuries. As player you would still be limited with what you can do since you can't really steal tech until Europeans arrive. Sure you have great land but you can have constant hostile natives moving around and with low starting tech you should still have very hard times when USA spawns, having just brief window of opportunity between first arrivals and US spawning. That's just my oppinion though, I see from what you wrote this subject has been already talked over in detail, I will look into some older conversations then.
 
Could the Reformation trigger work so that the number of Catholic civs adopting Protestantism end up at roughly 50/50? This has balance implications for European civs and stuff like the Congo UHV.
 
Back
Top Bottom