Suggestions and Requests

In the 1700AD scenario, Java often respawns within a few turns and this triggers a Dutch declaration which in turn grants Java bonus units and renders them unconquerable. Perhaps Java should be a starting civ with control of Surabaya and Badung (Sultunate of Mataram)?

Other 1700AD proposals:
  • Sofala (81,17) part of Portuguese Mozambique.
  • Recife (49,28) - was founded in 1537
  • Dutch Suriname (38,35)
  • French Saint-Denis (94,18) or Port Louis (96,19)
  • Indy Vijayapura (126,32) - same Indy civ as Pontianak - Sultanate of Brunei
  • City in Northwestern China
  • City in eastern Iran
  • Moors as Ottoman vassals w/ control of Maghrebi cities
  • Place Otto Benghazi (74,45)
  • A core city for English
  • Ontario controlled by France
  • Assign TC corp to appropriate cities
  • Preplace some European monastaries/seminaries at least in capitals.
  • Move Trabzon 1 tile E. Replace Ankara with Samsun (84,55) or Amaseia (84,54).
Starting Civics:
  • Is Individualism appropriate for ancien regime France at this point? Also seems like Hegemony (reign of Sun King) could work just as well.
  • Netherlands - Syncretism
  • Prussia - Syncretism or Secularism
  • Mughals - Bureaucracy
  • Ottos/Mughals - Despotism label is arguably Orientalist and game effect doesn't match their historical capcity at this point.

Several improved tiles start without route connection. I suppose a case could be made for particular decisions but I suspect these were simple oversights, at least those in long-developed areas. If intended, disregard.

Final Note: Even as the author of this post, I wouldn't want it to take any priority at the moment (especially at the cost of the balancing enterprise), so by all means slip into the punch list file.
 
SultanRedSnake said:
Several improved tiles start without route connection. I suppose a case could be made for particular decisions but I suspect these were simple oversights, at least those in long-developed areas. If intended, disregard.
Click to expand...
I don't want to start the scenario with all roads on every tile, so I focused on connecting cities and resources. If resources are already connected by river, I often skipped routes.
 
Taking opportunity of SultanRedSnake's suggestions, here are a few additional proposals for the 1700 AD map for South America:
  • Asunción – The Paraguayan capital is one of the oldest Spanish cities in the Southern Cone and served as a significant and somewhat autonomous Jesuit mission among the native population during colonial times.
Other suggestions, pending their addition for gameplay reasons:
  • Remove Montevideo – It was founded only in 1724. At the time, the Uruguayan territory was divided between Portuguese settlements on the banks of the Río de la Plata (the most important being Colonia del Sacramento, founded in 1680) and Spanish gauchos in the countryside.
  • Córdoba – The second most important Argentine city, founded in 1573.
  • Cartagena de Indias – Founded in 1533, it was the main Spanish port in Colombia and was frequently targeted by the British during their wars against Spain.
  • Valdivia – Founded in 1552, this Chilean city was the southernmost Spanish settlement in South America for a long time and one of the most fortified cities in all of Spanish America. It was occupied by the Dutch during the 17th century.
  • Forte de São José do Rio Negro (Manaus) – Founded in 1669, it established Portuguese presence in the Amazonian hinterlands. Currently, the area remains largely empty, even after the Latin American spawns.
  • Cuiabá – Although founded in 1719, it ensured Portuguese (and later Brazilian) control over much of the South American interior. Conversely, could be add if we maintain Montevideo and, additionally, Cuiabá and Manaus would make Portuguese South America more closely resemble the boundaries established by the Treaty of Madrid (1750).
On a side note, I've been taking notes on settler priorities for several civilizations. However, as mentioned, this is a very low priority at the moment, and I'll wait for the completed city names update.
 
Thanks. Just as a side note, and not meant to disagree with any specific suggestion, there is a bit of tension between different goals when deciding which cities should exist for a given scenario. For example, a city might be placed "before its time" to ensure the long term historical development in that area (e.g. Uruguay as a neither Argentinian nor Brazilian buffer zone) or a city might not be placed even though it already existed at that date because a city covers a large area of the map and deep penetration of that entire area would go too far. I also want to leave some of the joy of settling e.g. the American interior to the player.

If the AI struggles to do so that might be a separate problem that should be dealt with separately. Speaking of city name maps, there is probably some convergence needed between city name and settler maps - the city names should not be taken to be authoritative because they are selected more with the real world geography in mind and not always with the constraints of the actual map. It also does not always reflect my considered opinion, in many places I have just continued to use whatever was in LacsiraxAriscal's original proposal for the map. But more on that once my iteration of city names is complete - but just to be clear my work there is primarily going into finding translations and name changes for city names, and is concerned less so with the question of which name is the best for each tile.
 
Leoreth said:
Thanks. Just as a side note, and not meant to disagree with any specific suggestion, there is a bit of tension between different goals when deciding which cities should exist for a given scenario. For example, a city might be placed "before its time" to ensure the long term historical development in that area (e.g. Uruguay as a neither Argentinian nor Brazilian buffer zone) or a city might not be placed even though it already existed at that date because a city covers a large area of the map and deep penetration of that entire area would go too far. I also want to leave some of the joy of settling e.g. the American interior to the player.

If the AI struggles to do so that might be a separate problem that should be dealt with separately. Speaking of city name maps, there is probably some convergence needed between city name and settler maps - the city names should not be taken to be authoritative because they are selected more with the real world geography in mind and not always with the constraints of the actual map. It also does not always reflect my considered opinion, in many places I have just continued to use whatever was in LacsiraxAriscal's original proposal for the map. But more on that once my iteration of city names is complete - but just to be clear my work there is primarily going into finding translations and name changes for city names, and is concerned less so with the question of which name is the best for each tile.
Click to expand...
Great stuff. Insights into your design process are at the top of my Best Reads list. 📚📚📚📚 And of course it would go without saying that such knowledge helps us become better playtesters.
 
Yeah that's why I share these things in detail sometimes, to provide context for my decisions and to allow people to use that as context for their feedback. Disagreement is still possible of course :)
 
Since South/Latin America has come up, has anyone successfully completed a UHV on the new map/civcs for any of the Latin American civs yet? From my USA / Prussia / Japan playthroughs I don't see how the tech situation could allow for Brazil and Argentina to meet their UHVs really: by spawn, the Euros are too advanced and poach up all the wonders / crush you in wars.

Argentina's geographic position in particular feels nerfed versus the old map, based only on when I loaded them up once without playing it through, and Brazil I never managed to surmount even on the old map. Colombia's starting stacks looked promising but the puny core scared me off. And Mexico I believe someone has actually cleared? I am curious on others' experiences since the region has a lot of potential but I don't see discourse on it too much.
 
I had to cheat via WB to achieve Brazil's UHV2. Britain, Germany, Japan—anyone could snatch it from me. To maximize my starting situation as Brazil, I continued a Portugal run where I won the UHV and developed Brazil pretty hard. (Side effect: Portugal was also snowballing a la England once I switched.)

As for Colombia, I am also discouraged by its UHV2. I think only Andes (UHV1) should be fine. Can we perhaps have the goal be defensive pacts with all South American civs instead of conquering them?
 
I never understood Colombia's control all of South America goal. Is it a reference to some Bolivar aspiration that I don't know about?
Orbii said:
Since South/Latin America has come up, has anyone successfully completed a UHV on the new map/civcs for any of the Latin American civs yet?
Click to expand...
Lol no, by the time Brazil spawns, England/France/Netherlands and maybe Spain/Germany/Japan are two or three tech rows ahead of you. I don't think it's actually possible right now. More tech balancing is needed for the late game, which is going to be much more annoying due to how long turns take starting around 1700...
 
Bolivia's is quite easy on marathon at least. Just run Despotism and whip all your non-core cities to death. It's a shame your core is so small though. Bogota and Maracaibo deserve more food in my opinion.
 
AOS9001 said:
I never understood Colombia's control all of South America goal. Is it a reference to some Bolivar aspiration that I don't know about?
Click to expand...
Between June 22 and July 15, 1826, Simón Bolívar called the recent Spanish-American republics to a meeting in Panama. It was a chimera that was called the Amphictyonic Congress.

Bolivar had the vision of creating a confederation of Latin American peoples, from Mexico to Chile and Argentina, at this meeting. Representatives from Colombia, made up of Panama, Venezuela, Ecuador, and Colombia; Mexico, Peru and the Federal Republic of Central America were present.

For Simón Bolívar, the Congress was a dream since 1815 when he said from Jamaica: “How beautiful it would be if the Isthmus of Panama were for us what the Isthmus of Corinth was for the Greeks… Hopefully, one day we will have the fortune of installing an august Congress there…”. From this perspective, Bolivar longed for understanding among all countries and sought the unity of the continent. He also saw the potential of a water canal through Panama.

The agreements to which Bolivar aspired in the Congress did not reach a happy conclusion for various reasons: the youth of the new republics, the absence of economic solidity, and border problems.
 
Complementing Tigrane's explanation and considering the UHV, Temüjin VIII's suggestion of including defensive pacts has some merit, although allowing vassalization may be a stronger case. I would also add Mexico and Central America but maybe remove Brazil from the second UHV (control South America in 1920). While Brazil was invited to the Congress of Panama, it was a notable opponent of any agreement and represented Bolívar's ideological opposite back then — a centralist and monarchical state ruled by an European dynasty.
 
I would just say that the goal should be to unify by whatever mean, including vassalization, but ideally there could be a diplomatic option akin to accepting federalization, (which us more than what a defensive pact covers). AFAIK the goal of that congress was for the different newly independent republics to voluntarily join a union; it wasn't Bolivar's dream to conquer and subject the people he had been fighting to liberate. Moving the capital to Panama City could be a nice second condition to the UHV. I'd say that allowing more time to achieving this diplomatic victory would be reasonable as this was an aspirational UHV.
 
I always loved the idea of a Union pact that shares territory, economy, and population for the purposes of victories and stability, makes trade count as domestic and is what civs start as when released, would be a fun excuse to add Lithuania.
 
Last edited:
ozqar said:
I would just say that the goal should be to unify by whatever mean, including vassalization, but ideally there could be a diplomatic option akin to accepting federalization, (which us more than what a defensive pact covers). AFAIK the goal of that congress was for the different newly independent republics to voluntarily join a union; it wasn't Bolivar's dream to conquer and subject the people he had been fighting to liberate. Moving the capital to Panama City could be a nice second condition to the UHV. I'd say that allowing more time to achieving this diplomatic victory would be reasonable as this was an aspirational UHV.
Click to expand...
a pen-dragon said:
Maybe something like BtS permanent alliances?
Click to expand...

I'm definitely in favor of adding in more diplomatic actions like that. The mechanics of 4X games really lends itself to war and conquest being the best way to achieve most goals (which in a game designed to simulate human history, fair enough, there's plenty of that), but I think a certain amount of counterbalance is needed to allow diplomatic actions to also be attractive options. But we would need to brainstorm some ideas on how that could work, or what it would look like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Russia and Rus civilizations thread: suggestions and discussion.
Replies
7
Views
1K
Apple111111
A
Leoreth
New Map City Names Development Thread
2
Replies
20
Views
3K
Leoreth
Leoreth
L
A Proposal to improve Crete
Replies
13
Views
748
Lennon789
L
Hickman888
The Phoenicia Thread
Replies
6
Views
817
1SDANi
1SDANi
T
Religious Victory Thread
Replies
7
Views
757
Tak Tubo
T
Back
Top Bottom