Suggestions and Requests

[Publicola]

I noticed that one of the things this forum doesn't have yet is a general "Suggestions and Requests" thread, like the one used for the Dawn of Civilization forum. This is intended for smaller items that don't require their own individual threads, but would otherwise bog down the forum with many smaller posts.

For instance, I recently posted a proposal to pretty comprehensively reform the Crusades mechanic, which I considered major enough to need a separate thread, but I decided to create this thread in order to post two much smaller ideas.

I'm going to leave this as-is in case it needs to be edited, and post the ideas below.

 

[Publicola]

Idea #1) Islamic Corporations, from Sword of Islam?

With the map being expanded in the most recent version of the mod, I'd suggest we might start to draw on some of the elements used in SoI. Specifically, I propose using one or two of the corporations (I forget the name, but it was something like "Kasimi Merchants" -- don't quote me on that). This would empower Arabia a bit, and allow it the opportunity to spread its own economic influence into Europe.


Idea #2) Genoa in the Black Sea

I haven't played a game as Genoa, so I'm not as familiar with its UHV or stability map, but one of the things that struck me as I've been learning more about the history of Italy was the close ties between Genoa and its colonies around the Black Sea. Does the mod reflect that historical link? The original mod's treatment of the Black Sea always struck me as an element with room for revision and expansion, so this might be a good opportunity to do that.

Thanks for listening.

 

[merijn_v1]

The Karimi Families have been brought up before. They don't have much area to spread into. They will fit SoI better. However, someone suggested Sufi as an islamic company, which does fit this mod better.

The Genoan UHV requires the Krim to be settled. It's reflected that way.

 

[Publicola]

I mentioned this in my Crusader thread, but I'm not really satisfied with how the mod treats "relics." This is mainly a problem with historicity, as relics were *everywhere* in medieval Europe, but in the game there's only (iirc) two sources of them total.

I propose that instead of treating relics as resources, we treats relics as *events*. Each relic provides a dialog box with a variety of options -- the relic can either create a reliquary (+1 ), or add +2 to an existing cathedral, or provide tourism income (+1 per turn?) to a city with both cathedral and reliquary, etc. There could even be an option to donate relics to Rome or Constantinople in exchange for faith points and a permanent diplomatic bonus.

The primary source of relics would be the Holy Land. Each nation participating in a successful Crusade would receive 1 relic once the Crusading armies return home. If a Catholic or Orthodox nation had possession of Jerusalem, the 'Solomon's Temple' wonder would produce 1 relic every 5 turns (does that sound about right?) You could also extend this to other cities in the holy land -- a Catholic/Orthodox nation with control of Antioch would receive a relic every 10 turns (still in the Holy Land, but less religiously significant than Jerusalem).

 

[Publicola]

Another possibility for dealing with relics would be borrowing the "relics" unit from Sword of Islam. I don't think you'd need to specific each type of relic separately (no "Piece of the True Cross," just a vanilla "Relic"). I think you could still keep the same suggested mechanic as "relics generated every ___ turns when a Catholic civ controls Jerusalem" (perhaps including Orthodox civs, possibly starting after a certain turn or tech) to ensure that there are enough relics to go around. Given that relics were major tourist attractions in medieval Europe, I'd suggest that relics be able to construct reliquaries that provide not only happiness, but a bit of culture and commerce as well.

 

[Shadow Warlord]

Another possibility for dealing with relics would be borrowing the "relics" unit from Sword of Islam. I don't think you'd need to specific each type of relic separately (no "Piece of the True Cross," just a vanilla "Relic"). I think you could still keep the same suggested mechanic as "relics generated every ___ turns when a Catholic civ controls Jerusalem" (perhaps including Orthodox civs, possibly starting after a certain turn or tech) to ensure that there are enough relics to go around. Given that relics were major tourist attractions in medieval Europe, I'd suggest that relics be able to construct reliquaries that provide not only happiness, but a bit of culture and commerce as well.

I can support this idea. I think there were relics in Charlemagne too no? Or was that the vikings mod from Warlords?

 

[saddam_who_sane]

I like free walls construction in cities built on forts. may be it would be also good to add free market in cities built on towns (and villages)?

 

[SavioursSamurai]

Being in the middle of a highly frustrating game as Austria where I've had to cheat and give myself two whole SODs in order to just squeak by an attack of two separate SODs from Hungary and Germany, an idea which came to me a few days ago has returned:

Limit the number of knights and similar nobility-based units that a civ can have. I'm thinking like the Sengoku mod that was done for civ 4, which I consider an example of what this mod could be like if the balance were perfected. In the Sengoku mod, you are limited to 2 samurai units per city, plus 2 for your personal retinue (and then your daimyo character, which we wouldn't need here). I'm thinking something similar could work in this case (with some tweaks, so that, for example Lithuania isn't stuck without a lot of infantry because Bajoras units are limited), and would be historical - there only were so many nobility, and so you would have to fill out your army with assorted lower-class soldiers (mainly spearmen/guisarmiers, historically). I'd think this would also help with the massive SODs of strength-II knights that Germany and France, in particular, like to field. Of course, you'll still get the SODs of bombards and such, but with a limit on the knights (or boyars, huszars, etc.), it should be a lot easier to deal with.

 

[QManNL]

Does anyone feel like the Frankish Empire should be reworked? The starting area isn't even historical. The civilization should spawn in the original Austrasian area: Aachen, Trier, Tournai, Nijmegen, Cologne, etc. and Paris should be prebuilt because Clovis conquered it and made it the capital in 508. Better yet, given the rapid expansion of historical Francia, and the handful of in-game turns covering the years of his reign, at least Neustria (thus Paris) and Aquitaine (Bordeaux and Toulouse), and perhaps Swabia (Augsburg), should flip. I don't think it's unreasonable to give the Franks this sort of boost considering the plus to historicity and the many, many conquests still to go. If anyone thinks it makes it too easy to make the first UHV, the provinces Flanders, Carinthia, Bavaria, and maybe Navarre and Holland could be added to the goal. Also, Saxony could be split into Saxony and Thuringia. It would be nice to see more complexity and history added to the German area because I know a lot of discussion has gone into how the HRE should be dealt with.

I would recommend drawing some inspiration from Europa Universalis IV if possible on what sort of mechanics to implement, but not necessarily all of them. Just going off aesthetics and "filling the gaps" here, but my list of German civs would be: Saxony, Brandenburg, Bohemia, Austria, Lorraine, and then the "East Francia" German civ already implemented can continue to represent the Franconia-Swabia area and the free imperial cities of the HRE. I see Samurai's comment and I'd say it'd be a big help to Austria to edit the Alps slightly for more city space or resources, and this is a stretch but also make the entirety of Bavaria flip to them. I'm not saying this should be set in stone and absolutely implemented, but I just wanted to offer some ideas. Lorraine would probably add too much of an obstacle to Burgundy, and Saxony kind of wound up migrating to eastern Germany at some point, so these are just the tip of the iceberg in the difficulties we face trying to make any adjustments to the current Germania situation.

Sorry for going from France to Germany, but this sort of complicated shift somewhat hearkens to how intertwined their early history was, doesn't it?

 

[gilgames]

to abandon the sod's seems tempting! but i wouldnt tie it to any fix numbers! even small civs should have the power to defend themselves!

France WILL be reworked after the realese of 1.3 which is almost ready, but Absinthe gone for a good while.... (we miss you)

To cut saxony in two sounds good, but takes some work for the modders.
Imo Austria is just fine, and strong enough. If you have Hungary as Austria, you are going something wrong

 

[SavioursSamurai]

I second QManNL about France. I had a very similar idea. I've also found that I extremely dislike playing as France. The first victory just isn't fun. I don't like having to reload 20-30 times to make sure that I get the timing and victories exactly right in order to just squeak by. Kiev is hard, but a fun challenge. The first victory for France is just not fun. I think the changes suggested by QManNL would help resolve that.

To counter France becoming too powerful later, you could debuff by having everything past Pyrenees, Alps, and Burgundy break away (which I think should happen anyway). Also, perhaps have trouble with rebellions in Provence, Toulouse (which should be its own province, Languedoc, by the way), and Bretegne. Alternatively to rebellions in some provinces, buff England on the continent, but only if the computer, and have both England, Burgundy, and France have to deal with barbarian knights and similar mercenary units during the Hundred Years' War period.

 

[Publicola]

I'd like to propose a new tile improvement for the game: namely, a port.

Unlike most improvements, its effects on the tile would be tied to whichever city has it within its Big Fat Cross. Specifically, it would give:

+1 if within the BFC of a city with population 1-5
+2 if within the BFC of a city with population 6-10
+3 if within the BFC of a city with population 11-15
+4 if within the BFC of a city with population 16 and up

[EDIT: Alternately, its tile yield could grow as the player discovers more and more tech. I sadly don't recall the specific names of individual technologies, but it could easily be possible to spread out the +1 bonuses to technologies across the span of the tech tree.]

If it within the BFC of two cities, its effect would be determined by combining the population of both.

More importantly, however, a port would allow inland cities (again, those that have it within the BFC) to produce ships and buildings usually reserved for coastal cities. New ships would be auto-placed or moved to the port tile rather than the city itself.

As for where this new improvement can be placed, I'd suggest ports can be placed on any coastal tile so long as they are either on a flatland tile or (if placing a port on a hill tile is necessary) on a hill beside a river. (We may need to add a single-tile river near Jerusalem to make this work for a port at Jaffa).

The reason for this new improvement is that historically, inland cities were more defensible, but for reasons of commerce and naval competitiveness those fortified cities were often associated with nearby ports. The was famously the case with Athens, which built the Long Walls connecting it to the port of Piraeus. Likewise for Jerusalem and the port at Jaffa, as well as Mecca and the port of Jeddah. All of those cities were built inland, but required close ties to the sea, and that should be reflected in the game mechanics just as much as it is seen in history.

 

[Publicola]

I considered adding this to the above suggestion, but I think it's distinct enough to deserve its own line-item.

I propose that players (human and AI) be permitted to build forts on the same tile as other improvements.

The immediate impetus for this was to preserve what I mentioned in the proposal above -- the "Long Walls" connecting Athens to Piraeus, the fortifications that let Athens defend its naval superiority despite the city itself remaining inland. Given the vulnerability of a coastal port, it makes sense to allow such tiles to be fortified and defended.

However, there's also a broader historical and game-based justification. Given the manorial system of the Middle Ages, I find it hard to envision a Europe where forts (local castles) cannot coexist alongside farmland.

I do think we can keep some restrictions on forts. For instance, perhaps forts cannot be built on a tile next to a city or another fort, so there's always at least one tile to space the forts out. Likewise, perhaps forts could remain incompatible with some other improvements, like plantations or workshops. But certainly for farms, and perhaps for cottages and towns, forts should certainly be allowed to be placed on the same tiles.

 

[Publicola]

Here's another proposal, for a minor map change.

I've been researching the period of the Crusades, and came across several references to Byzantine silk that I didn't understand. On looking it up, I discovered that around the year 550 AD, itinerant monks discovered in China how silk was produced, and later smuggled silkworm eggs or larvae out of Central Asia to be brought to be brought to Constantinople. The resulting silk production was in fact a critical part of the Byzantine economy from that time until the fall of Constantinople almost 1000 years later.

The Byzantine monopoly was ended during the Second Crusade around 1150 AD, when silk weavers were captured and brought to Sicily, spreading silk production and trade further into Western Europe. The same occurred during the Fourth Crusade (around 1200 AD) when Constantinople was sacked and the silk factories were brought to Venice and other cities in Italy.

All that is context for my suggested proposal:

1) If silk isn't a luxury resource in RFCE, it should be added.
2) There should be a silk resource placed near Constantinople, preferably in the province of Thrace (on the European side of the Bosporus strait).
3) Alternately, if RFCE allows resources to be added to the map after the game starts, then the silk in Thrace should appear around 550 AD (or as close to 554 AD as the turn clock will allow). Likewise, to reflect the spread of silk production to Italy, another silk resource should also appear in Sicily around 1147 AD, and potentially near Florence (on the west side of the Apennines, as close to the city of Lucca as the map will allow) around 1204 AD.
4) Alternately, instead of manually adding silk resources to these tiles, you could create a new 'Project' that becomes available very early on that provides on completion one or two silk resources. The prerequisite for this project should be "Own a city in the Byzantine core" -- which would allow the Byzantines to start working on the project immediately and complete it at the proper historical time, as well as enable the Italian states to work on the project as long as they conquer a Byzantine city (per the historical method). The project should have 2-3 slots, like some of the later colonial projects.

Finally, this is slightly unrelated, but I'd really encourage there to be another project or wonder or bonus for the Byzantine Empire related to the Silk Road. Considering how vital that was for the Byzantine economy, it really feels ahistorical for that not to be reflected in the game. You could even make the 'Silk Road' into multiple projects, that expire periodically and must be rebuilt. The prerequisite for building the project would be owning a tile on the far eastern edge of the game map, so it would be impossible to rebuild if the eastern part of the Byzantine Empire was overrun. The Arabian civ would still be able to build it, which should make it easier to play and win as that civ.

 

[Publicola]

And yet another proposal, this time related to diplomacy.

Given that the RFCE+ and 3.0 are based on expanding the list of playable civilizations, which often means dividing existing civs into their original component parts, it seems necessary for the game to reflect the process by which they were united.

Specifically I'm proposing a diplomatic option related to "Personal Unions," such as those encountered between Aragon & Castille, or Denmark & Norway, or Poland & Lithuania.

We don't have the luxury of more detailed games to play with actual royal lines, etc., but I think it should be entirely possible to model the idea of 'Personal Union' through gameplay.

The basic idea would be that a 'Personal Union' would add another civ's territory and cities to your own. They would preserve their own culture, and would be in danger of rebelling in toto if the Union is not working for them (if, for instance, you aren't able to supplant their previous culture with your own).

The criteria for allowing Personal Union would be these:

1) The two civs must share borders
2) The two civs must be "Pleased" or "Friendly" with each other
3) The annexing civ (the one that retains control, the one that the other civ is joined *to*) must have a higher score than the other nation
4) The annexing civ must have completed one of the other nation's UHVs.

That last one is probably the most crucial. I considered making the requirement "has completed two UHVs for the other civ) but I'm not sure that'd be even possible. The gist would be that only two nations that are so unified in purpose, that one fulfills the other's 'reason to be', would consider joining into a single country.

This could probably be developed further, but it seems like a pretty promising concept.

 

[gilgames]

you got some good idea, but this last one is overmanipulated...

 

[Publicola]

Can you define 'overmanipulated'? I wasn't able to find a definition through google.

If you meant that there are too many conditions and prerequisites, can you say which ones you think it's safe to get rid of?

I'm inclined to say the third could be optional -- I just wanted to give a baseline for how the mechanism should work if two AI players use 'Personal Union', so the game would know which AI should remain.

I think the first and fourth (share borders, complete one UHV) are the most essential (don't want a personal union between Spain and Sweden, for instance). Perhaps the third condition (that the two civs 'like' each other) could be removed, making the 'Personal Union' option more of a geopolitical necessity than a sign of diplomatic triumph. (Did Aragon and Castille actually 'like' each other before they were united in the persons of Ferdinand and Isabella?)

 

[Shadow Warlord]

Can you define 'overmanipulated'? I wasn't able to find a definition through google.

If you meant that there are too many conditions and prerequisites, can you say which ones you think it's safe to get rid of?

I'm inclined to say the third could be optional -- I just wanted to give a baseline for how the mechanism should work if two AI players use 'Personal Union', so the game would know which AI should remain.

I think the first and fourth (share borders, complete one UHV) are the most essential (don't want a personal union between Spain and Sweden, for instance). Perhaps the third condition (that the two civs 'like' each other) could be removed, making the 'Personal Union' option more of a geopolitical necessity than a sign of diplomatic triumph. (Did Aragon and Castille actually 'like' each other before they were united in the persons of Ferdinand and Isabella?)

I think completing another civ's uhv would be hard to determine/work with, and somewhat pointless. It's not like the AI ever bothers to go for the UHV, so you won't see PU's happening between AI civs. And it also means, unless you made some interface update to show other civs uhv progress, you'd need to be checking the civlopedia often. Lastly, a lot of uhvs require controlling territory, which means you'd be outright conquering your PU subject.

Honestly, the way RFCE++ did it was fine, although it in itself seemed too gamey/unclear on whether the AI would accept or not (e.g., as Prussia, Germany would never let me get Berlin through that minor PU).

 

[Publicola]

Honestly, the way RFCE++ did it was fine, although it in itself seemed too gamey/unclear on whether the AI would accept or not (e.g., as Prussia, Germany would never let me get Berlin through that minor PU).

Wait, there already is a 'Personal Union' mechanic in the ++ version? What are the specifics? (I'm waiting for a stable version, so I've only played 1.0).


New proposal!

The big idea for today is: post-combat ransoming!

Basically, given the importance of nobility in medieval warfare, those nobles often found themselves captured by the enemy after a military defeat, and would only be able to return to their estates after being ransomed back.

To reflect this, I propose that after each military victory, there should be a certain percent chance of receiving a certain amount of . Specifically:

After defeating a infantry unit (melee or archer) or light cavalry, there should be:

a 5% chance of receiving between 1-5 , and​

a 1% chance of receiving 10 .​

After defeating a heavy cavalry unit (lancer, knight, etc.), there should be:

a 50% chance of receiving 5 ,​

a 25% chance of receiving 6-10 , and​

a 25% chance of receiving 11-25 gold.​

(In other words, you would always receive a ransom of at least 5 gold after defeating a knight, and the value of that ransom would go up depending on the value of your captives.)

Forts and city walls make all units in that tile immune to ransom effects (so defeating a knight that's defending a city would not give you a ransom, since you wouldn't have captured them). We might make an exception for the final unit defeated as the fort or city is captured.

This ransom mechanic could be an isolated effect on the winning civ (the money appears out of nowhere) or ransoms could be transfers from one civ to the other (the money appears in your treasury while disappearing from your enemy's). I prefer the second one, but I leave that to others to decide

If we go with the second option (ransoms as transfer payments), we might also give a corresponding minor benefit to the civ that loses funds. Specifically, that on paying a ransom, that civ receives a number of in production equal to the amount of lost. This production would go toward building a new knight/heavy cavalry unit in their capital city.

 

[faustao]

I think Aragon needs some work.
While it's not particularily hard to survive spawn, Cordoba will severely cripple you unless they're really weak or collapse really early, which makes going for the UHV really hard.
Also, stability is a huge problem. Even if you control nothing but Valencia/Zaragoza/Barcelona with no unhappiness, decent economy and no unhealthiness (realistic scenario), you will not be above 0 stability for some reason.