Suggestions and Requests

[Bu77Trout]

Late game suggestions:

I don't know if Global Warming revamp is a priority or not but I have some thoughts. Understanding that the effects of climate change are drastic and unpredictable I still think it is a bit jarring when a random square amongst grassland turns directly into desert. Would it make more sense to have grassland become less productive before turning into desert? Grassland could turn into plains, which could turn into semi-desert, and finally desert. The rate of change and number of affected tiles could be accelerated so that the effects are still drastic without having weird spots of desert. Similarly tundra, moorland and taiga could potentially become slightly more arable, but maybe at a slower rate. Flooding would be cool but barring adding marsh along coasts and rivers I guess changing coastlines is tricky at best.

I have a couple of further ideas on this which are perhaps more ambitious. Desertification could cause adjacent tiles to become more vulnerable to degradation as well. Labourers could be given the job of mitigating climate change effects in the late game. For example, with the discovery of X technology, planting trees or building dikes could become an option which could be used to prevent degradation, desertification and flooding in tiles adjacent to those affected by global warming. The gamble would be that you might have to destroy a valuable improvement to safeguard the tile, but if you don't safeguard the tile there is a chance it becomes totally unusable.

Also, loosely related, my vassal started randomly nuking Natives, I feel like there should be a mechanic for taking the nuclear toys away from your vassals. I pulled their uranium source but they already had a number of Nuclear bombers on hand.

I had other thoughts, but I've forgotten them thankfully.

 

[AOS9001]

Would it make more sense to have grassland become less productive before turning into desert? Grassland could turn into plains, which could turn into semi-desert, and finally desert. The rate of change and number of affected tiles could be accelerated so that the effects are still drastic without having weird spots of desert. Similarly tundra, moorland and taiga could potentially become slightly more arable, but maybe at a slower rate. Flooding would be cool but barring adding marsh along coasts and rivers I guess changing coastlines is tricky at best.

I've had a similar idea in the past.

A real global warming mechanic would expand deserts from the arid zones and expand temperate zones into the Arctic/Antarctic zones. Not that global warming (if we should even call it that, knowing what we know now) should be tied to nuclear weapons at all, it should be tied to the amount of coming from buildings in the industrial/global/digital era, if you ask me.

Honestly I'm on board with any rework of the global warming mechanic. If anything, nuclear weapons should start reversing global warming with all the dust and ash thrown up into the upper atmosphere...

 

[Dracosolon]

I still wonder what would be the strategic impact of more realistic climate change mechanics when the game's timeline ends in 2020. You'd get an increased chance of disasters, some disappearances of resources and terrain changes in the least consequential turns of the game?

This is why personally I'm more in favor of introducing/changing a victory type to represent environmental efforts. Standard victories have a speculative/futuristic element to them, and are by definition about some sort of new status quo, a possible conclusion to your historical struggle - so things that concern the future are made impactful that way.

IIRC there was some talk of a possible "humanitarian" victory type, which could incorporate environmental preservation among other goals. The alternative could be redefining diplomatic victory: I understand it's supposed to simulate American soft power, but the UN's internal politics feel a bit too reductive for that role. I'd expect the road not taken when it comes to avoiding the disaster that's coming would involve a truly ahistorical level of international cooperation. It should be very challenging.

 

[IrishDragon]

I don't know if this would work with the AI, but add a new mechanic beyond capitulation called annex/assimilate. This would allow larger civs to completely take over smaller neighbours without having to conquer every city militarily, similar to how Scotland joined England.

It could be a general mechanic.

Or it could be given as a UP for China, and make major changes to how China is played. Use the free civ slots to add minor unplayable bronze age kingdoms and states that existed in ancient times. From a brief look, ancient Shu, the Dian Kingdom and the old Wu state that existed in the Zhou era for example. Instead of just existing with barbs and independents, the player would have the option to militarily conquer the minor states, or incorporate them diplomatically (maybe based on having open borders, good relations and trade, or being too militarily powerful on the other end). China would have this ability to assimilate any civ in the greater China region, and maybe Korea and SE Asia too.

 

[Bu77Trout]

I still wonder what would be the strategic impact of more realistic climate change mechanics when the game's timeline ends in 2020. You'd get an increased chance of disasters, some disappearances of resources and terrain changes in the least consequential turns of the game?

This is why personally I'm more in favor of introducing/changing a victory type to represent environmental efforts. Standard victories have a speculative/futuristic element to them, and are by definition about some sort of new status quo, a possible conclusion to your historical struggle - so things that concern the future are made impactful that way.

IIRC there was some talk of a possible "humanitarian" victory type, which could incorporate environmental preservation among other goals. The alternative could be redefining diplomatic victory: I understand it's supposed to simulate American soft power, but the UN's internal politics feel a bit too reductive for that role. I'd expect the road not taken when it comes to avoiding the disaster that's coming would involve a truly ahistorical level of international cooperation. It should be very challenging.

Yeah you're right about it being inconsequential. That said I think with all the extra techs and late game buildings compared to the base mod the timeline could be extended and the late game fleshed out. Of course considering this is a historical mod, the future is definitely not a priority, but an area of interest. It would be interesting if a civ had a hypothetical future environmental goal.

 

[banzay13]

We need place Hesperides 1S in 600AD game. It's soooo usless city right now and have only one option - to be razed. City founding 1S can reach Oil (so it definitely more suitable for Benghazi), and can make cultural connection to Tripoli and build road. Now, if player didn't do it, there is no connection along cost even in modern times.
Nobody want it. Not Arabia, Not Egypt. Look like even Leoreth didn't love it. While even natives have Riffles - Hesperides in their gardens have only bows and spears

 

[AOS9001]

For me, it's Automala when I play on 3000 BC. Two oils, an oasis, and eventually the culture will provide an overland route from Egypt to Libya.

And even when I play 600 AD I often raze Hesperides because it's so useless.

 

[hnrysml]

Nobody want it. Not Arabia, Not Egypt. Look like even Leoreth didn't love it

i'm so sorry but in my head this reads exactly like the following meme (adapted horribly for doc forum)

 

[Tigranes]

There are 3 Christianities and only 1 Islam. I suggest adding Shia Islam, which is currently tested in one of the modmods:

Historical significance of Shia-Sunni split is hard to overstate. Game-wise it will stop a love-fest between Ottomans and Iran+Egypt, among many other things:

 

[Leoreth]

Please don't discuss modmods in the main threads.

 

[AOS9001]

As much as I'd like the immersion factor, the only civ we have in-game right now that would have Shia as a state religion is Iran, so they'd just end up diplomatically isolated. If you want the practical effect of that, just run a game as Iran and convert to Zoroastrianism. You'd get the same diplomatic results, though without access to Islamic wonders.

Has there been another DOC-level civ that's had Shia as a state religion longer than ~200 years? The Fatimids came and went in about that time and Egypt's been Sunni-dominated ever since. Besides that I can't think of any. Maybe Iraq as a Babylon respawn? But the Arab core has been moved north to be Iraq and Syria, so who knows if that'd work.

 

[Tigranes]

As much as I'd like the immersion factor, the only civ we have in-game right now that would have Shia as a state religion is Iran, so they'd just end up diplomatically isolated. If you want the practical effect of that, just run a game as Iran and convert to Zoroastrianism. You'd get the same diplomatic results, though without access to Islamic wonders.

Has there been another DOC-level civ that's had Shia as a state religion longer than ~200 years? The Fatimids came and went in about that time and Egypt's been Sunni-dominated ever since. Besides that I can't think of any. Maybe Iraq as a Babylon respawn? But the Arab core has been moved north to be Iraq and Syria, so who knows if that'd work.

Why so conservative?

Muslim Persia (on respawn representing Buyids), Iran, Swahili, early Muslim Egypt (Fatimids), Assyria (Hamdanid respawn), Tunisia (Carthage respawn), and Dravidians under certain conditions (Bahmani Sultanate).

 

[Bu77Trout]

There are 3 Christianities and only 1 Islam. I suggest adding Shia Islam, which is currently tested in one of the modmods:




Historical significance of Shia-Sunni split is hard to overstate. Game-wise it will stop a love-fest between Ottomans and Iran+Egypt, among many other things:

Ah the perennial, "Maybe we should represent Shia Islam as a distinct sect of Islam." Rarely have I seen as much hostility to a largely innocuous idea.

Personally I am in favour of more flavour religions. Shiism for Islamic world variety. Sikhism and Mormonism for late game fun.

 

[AOS9001]

Why so conservative?

Muslim Persia (on respawn representing Buyids), Iran, Swahili, early Muslim Egypt (Fatimids), Assyria (Hamdanid respawn), Tunisia (Carthage respawn), and Dravidians under certain conditions (Bahmani Sultanate).

If any of those respawns actually happened (besides Iran and Egypt), there'd be a good case for including Shia. But DOC doesn't seem to have enough civ slots to let ancient civs respawn on their own without scripting like Egypt has.

Let's say Shia was introduced in the current state of DOC. Iran would adopt it and maybe Egypt (for a little bit) too. It'd be like Taoism, essentially a one-civ affair. I'm not against it! Taoism exists for pure flavor, it has zero impact outside of China, no one ever adopts it as their state religion. But in terms of priorities, Shia would have to be very low, it just doesn't bring enough to the game in its current state. If the game gives Egypt's respawn the Iran treatment (new UHV, new UU, new UP, etc) and gives Carthage the ability to return in the medieval era as Tunisia, then I think it's worth looking into Shia as a separate religion. We just don't have enough granularity in the Islamic world yet to do that, I think.

Shia's problem is that it's always been demographically small compared to Sunni, maybe 10% of the Muslim population today. If I implemented Shia, I'd do it like Judaism. Its heartlands are in Iraq, the Persian gulf coast down to Bahrain/Qatar, and the Yemeni highlands. These regions have been Shia dominated for a thousand years or more. It then expands to include Iran after 1500 (Iran was not a Shia stronghold until the Safavids made it one). Beyond these areas, it spreads around randomly on the Sunni religion map as a minority religion, causing but also bringing the opportunity for more and if a civ will tolerate it.

 

[Leoreth]

Rarely have I seen as much hostility to a largely innocuous idea.

I have never seen hostility to this idea. Usually someone proposes this, then someone else asks which civs would actually adopt it and what the impact would be, and then there is never a convincing follow up to that question and the discussion fizzles out. It's a big who cares of a change idea.

 

[Tigranes]

I have never seen hostility to this idea. Usually someone proposes this, then someone else asks which civs would actually adopt it and what the impact would be, and then there is never a convincing follow up to that question and the discussion fizzles out. It's a big who cares of a change idea.

Well, I mentioned 7 different civs, unless respawns don't count. It can even prompt Muslim Egypt to become playable civ, starting in Maghreb and expanding into Egypt, Syria and Western Arabia.

 

[Leoreth]

You certainly did do that.

 

[CivEnthusiast]

I've had a similar idea in the past.

Honestly I'm on board with any rework of the global warming mechanic. If anything, nuclear weapons should start reversing global warming with all the dust and ash thrown up into the upper atmosphere...

Then if we take away that effect from nukes I'd be down for something different with them, like a longer-lasting radiation effect or a permanent city destruction until rebuilt by a settler once radiation clears. I wish to see the in-game world nuked to the literal apocalypse in a "grand finale", and right now so far it's "global warming" desertification that gives some semblance of that.

 

[AOS9001]

Nuclear winter mechanic! Instead of desert world you get snow world, reduced food and commerce yields, and so on. Civs dwindle away into ancient era levels of population. We can call it Civilization IV: Rhye's and Fall of Civilziation: Dawn of Civilization: Twilight of Civilization.

 

[IrishDragon]

Given we seem to be seeing more extreme weather events due to climate change, I think there could be a big ratcheting up of destroying improvements on tiles or taking out buildings and/or population in cities. Limit the desertification to places where it makes sense, having desert creep like someone suggested above seems more realistic