IrishDragon
Legend
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2006
- Messages
- 522
I don't know, I think it's somewhat historically realistic for dominant powers to squander their advantage by going on random tangents off the tech tree. How else do you explain this?
Spoiler :
Suggestions and Requests
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
I noticed that India rarely faced invasion from the northwest after 600 AD (Arab and Turkic often fought over Persia, and the only emerging barbarian during this period was Rajput), so India hardly ever need to face any threats before the birth of the Ghurid/Mughal. I think perhaps should spawn some Turkic and Tajik barbarian units in northwest India to represent the invasion of India by Ghazni and the early Ghurid.
In addition, it may be possible to spawn Turkomans barbarians in the Iraq and Iran region during the period between 1370-1500(Birth of Safavid Iran), to represent the Qara Qoyunlu/Aq Qoyunlu and brought some difficulties to Ottoman expansion in the East
In addition, it may be possible to spawn Turkomans barbarians in the Iraq and Iran region during the period between 1370-1500(Birth of Safavid Iran), to represent the Qara Qoyunlu/Aq Qoyunlu and brought some difficulties to Ottoman expansion in the East
SultanRedSnake
Prince
#UzunHasan
SultanRedSnake
Prince
Would it be not too much trouble to enable Plot Hovers/Interaction while in auto-play?
banzay13
Emperor
After researching Television (or Globalism or building Internet project) , all cites that have colony maintenance (colonies as is) suffer additional expansion penalty (similar to cultural, more colony maintenance - more penalty) unless you running Colonialism. Maybe those cites should get more chances of revolt.
Last edited:
Dracosolon
Emperor
Random minor ideas:
1) Add a "generic leader" option when starting a game, which works for the human player the same way leaders are normally picked for the AI, so that your identity changes across the game rather than being the same person the entire time.
2) Add a"stage a coup" "improve relations" option for Spies, giving a minor temporary boost to the target's attitude toward you. This sort of parallels what Great Statesmen can do, and since Statesmen are among other things the Espionage specialist... Alternatively that could be an additional effect when you change the target's civics.
1) Add a "generic leader" option when starting a game, which works for the human player the same way leaders are normally picked for the AI, so that your identity changes across the game rather than being the same person the entire time.
2) Add a
caketastydelish
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2008
- Messages
- 9,718
two suggestions: for prussia/germany it should control or vassalize some of the conquered territory rather than just control. Especially for Italy. Italy and Germany were allies, not a hostile country that they conquered. Maybe even let it be "have a defensive pack with Italy" and then invade all the other countries.
second suggestion: it would be fun to play as native Americans in north America. We cam say they can't build cities, but they can attack other civs in north America with the ability to capture cities.
second suggestion: it would be fun to play as native Americans in north America. We cam say they can't build cities, but they can attack other civs in north America with the ability to capture cities.
CometHalo
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2020
- Messages
- 63
Not sure if I’ve missed some request like this, but I request for neutral desert terrain to be passable for one turn and then deal damage or kill a unit if they stay on it for more than one turn. Alternatively, suggest to make neutral deserts passable to workers, and then roaded neutral deserts to be passable to all.
The express reason for this request is the Assyrian UHV: occasionally the sea peoples will absolutely swarm Egypt, and if they lose their two easternmost cities, the desert tile that needs to be passed by Assyrian troops to conquer Egypt is neutral and therefore impassable, basically obviating any chance of winning…
Additionally, occasionally the great general you need to win as Assyria spawns in occupied Egypt, but can’t make it back your core for the same reason. This one isn’t as bad because by then you can build a galley to do it, but I find the lack of a land route from Egypt to Asia immersion breaking…
The express reason for this request is the Assyrian UHV: occasionally the sea peoples will absolutely swarm Egypt, and if they lose their two easternmost cities, the desert tile that needs to be passed by Assyrian troops to conquer Egypt is neutral and therefore impassable, basically obviating any chance of winning…
Additionally, occasionally the great general you need to win as Assyria spawns in occupied Egypt, but can’t make it back your core for the same reason. This one isn’t as bad because by then you can build a galley to do it, but I find the lack of a land route from Egypt to Asia immersion breaking…
I think this could all be solved just by making the Suez and adjacent tiles be semidesert after ~1500BC, so you can always cross between Egypt and the Levant.
SultanRedSnake
Prince
How about disbanding Expansion/Conqueror/Script units on collapse to core? This is mainly aimed a common but odd (read:ungamely) situation in which the Turks' empire collapses before they have a chance to use most of their free units, which are then teleported to Orduqent. I also think it just fits the spirit of what a collapse-to-core is intended to represent. I would add, however, that regardless the Turk situation still warrants attention.
In which respect?
Genghis Khaiser
King
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2012
- Messages
- 770
I have two comments about Mexico.
1. Does the power apply in general or only when setting the city to produce science?
2. And the reason why I'm posting this here: United States eventually declares war on Mexico and spawns troops in California. Shouldn't they also spawn troops in Texas? Arguments could be made about it already being next to their territory when war starts but that's what the war was originally about.
1. Does the power apply in general or only when setting the city to produce science?
2. And the reason why I'm posting this here: United States eventually declares war on Mexico and spawns troops in California. Shouldn't they also spawn troops in Texas? Arguments could be made about it already being next to their territory when war starts but that's what the war was originally about.
1. It affects the science produced when you set the city to produce science.
2. The event is not meant to simulate the Mexican-American war, only American westward settlement into California. You would not have been targeted if you had not settled there.
2. The event is not meant to simulate the Mexican-American war, only American westward settlement into California. You would not have been targeted if you had not settled there.
SultanRedSnake
Prince
It may very well be the case that they're mostly working as designed, and I'd even be on board. In short, in a typical game their conquest phase doesn't last more than about 10 turns before a total or partial collapse. Usually its a collapse to core, and because so few turns passed from army spawns, they all get crammed into their collapsed area. A strange variation on this general situation is when they collapse-to-core while in the process of assaulting Anatolia, either capturing these cities after collapse (resulting in a clumsy exclave), just before collapse (causing one of possibly many rounds of Script Army Ping Pong), and just being a general spoiler in the region. As I'm reading all this its occurring to me that this might be exactly what they're supposed to do
. If that be the case I'd suggest adding Armenia to the target list and consider granting them Persia as an Expansion Area so their new core cities don't get so suddenly and severely depopulated. Lastly, maybe implementing an Islamic spread to Khorasan/Transoxiana would be warranted? I acknowledge they weren't particularly devout Muslims but I don't believe I've ever seen them go Islamic once on this map. Buddhism is the usual go to and that just feels a bit cursed (Mongols too).As things stand now, the situation is far from intolerable so by all means file this into the Wish List repository, if at all.
With respect to the Ottomans, my own observations in playing 600AD starts are that they are rather unsuccessful in their initial conquests. I generally see them cap out, at best, at their WW1 borders (i.e. no Greece, Egypt, Balkans, or even sometimes Iraq). I have even seen them fail to take Istanbul, which may be because of the prior observation from @SultanRedSnake (that may have been fixed now) that the Ottomans sometimes don't DOW the initial holder of Constantinople, especially if it's independent.
I have no great insight into the cause since I have not to closely watch what AIs are doing. My guess is that the inability for Ottomans to build Janissaries at spawn means some unlucky combat rolls or bad collapses can result in them losing any real military power. If the Mongols are still conquering in the Middle East at this time, their UUs also absolutely demolish the Ottomans.
Lastly, it may just be my last few games, but I have seen very strong AI Byzantines lately. In my last French game (played on the pre City Name commit), I recall the Byzantines alive and not-Unstable even well past 1450.
I have no great insight into the cause since I have not to closely watch what AIs are doing. My guess is that the inability for Ottomans to build Janissaries at spawn means some unlucky combat rolls or bad collapses can result in them losing any real military power. If the Mongols are still conquering in the Middle East at this time, their UUs also absolutely demolish the Ottomans.
Lastly, it may just be my last few games, but I have seen very strong AI Byzantines lately. In my last French game (played on the pre City Name commit), I recall the Byzantines alive and not-Unstable even well past 1450.
Zaddy
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2018
- Messages
- 361
Minor suggestion on immigration: in my experience playing as America, there would often be waves of immigration to mature, large cities that couldn't support extra population, which just immediately starved off. It might make more sense for the immigration mechanic to consider ability to support new population when deciding which cities should experience immigration.
Similar threads
