Suggestions and Requests

[AbsintheRed]

What are the exact detailts for it in DoC?
How are the tiles choosen?

 

[DC123456789]

IIRC every time your city's culture hits a certain threshold, another tile in the city's radius is added to your civilization, prioritizing resources, fertile tiles, rivers, etc. while avoiding deserts, mountains, and the like.

 

[merijn_v1]

What are the exact detailts for it in DoC?
How are the tiles choosen?

From the changelog:
# New culture rules
# instead of culture expansion when a city reaches a new culture level, the covered tiles gradually expand as a city gets more culture
# city culture can only extend up to the third ring
# more culture required to cover the entire second ring
# properties of the plot influence how much culture it takes to cover it (more for desert, peaks ..., less for tiles with bonuses or river connections, making for more geographically appropriate borders)
# tiles get covered in order of their culture costs (cheapest first)
# forts reduce the culture cost to zero

 

[gilgames]

it would be also good, if you could "trade" and/or gift tiles. It would be lso very historical, many wars have been fought for lands and not for cities. Sometimes for small lands (ie=tiles) So if you can bus/sell exchange or gift them, that would add a lot to the game....imo.

 

[AbsintheRed]

it would be also good, if you could "trade" and/or gift tiles. It would be lso very historical, many wars have been fought for lands and not for cities. Sometimes for small lands (ie=tiles) So if you can bus/sell exchange or gift them, that would add a lot to the game....imo.

That's not really possible. Well, a very basic thing could be coded I guess, but that would already need enormous effort.
And the biggest issue would be the AI, it wouldn't be able to handle it well (or at all).

 

[jekke]

Actually, if I remember correctly, the "control province X" UHV conditions are triggered when all the tiles in the province are culture-covered, and tile-by-tile acquisition could be a problem for that if mountains are avoided, couldn't it? I guess there is always an option to found a new city though. Or is it? Are there tiny provinces on the map where there can be no place for a city left, if cities in the adjacent provinces are too close?

 

[AbsintheRed]

Actually, if I remember correctly, the "control province X" UHV conditions are triggered when all the tiles in the province are culture-covered, and tile-by-tile acquisition could be a problem for that if mountains are avoided, couldn't it?

Not exactly.
The more common condition: you control a province, if you have a city there, and no one else has. No culture coverage is checked, only the cities.
The condition you mention is only a safeguard, if there is a small province right on your border, in which you don't want to found a city. So you can control a province even if you don't have a city there, if you cover all tiles with your culture.

I guess there is always an option to found a new city though. Or is it? Are there tiny provinces on the map where there can be no place for a city left, if cities in the adjacent provinces are too close?

But maybe you are aware of the exact rules, based on the second part of your post.
Anyway, I don't think it would cause any real issues.

 

[gilgames]

I think the diplo screen need a rework too. I.e. close borders can be really high. I hope we can limit both positive and negative modifiers. Pope had +12 for common religion and -12 for no tribute gifts. Also -5 -10 close borders are common things.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Huge bonuses are from sharing a religion with a high number of faith points. Catholic civs can get really big diplo bonuses with it.
I'm not sure if I mind rather big penalties from closeness of borders (and culture pushing into foreign core territory), as more often than not this was the main reason for hostility between adjacent nations in medieval times.

 

[gilgames]

different religions can spark tensions and that's right. But close borders imo dont run in similar depth. I dont want argue with you what was the reason for hospitality. I belive that two entire empire's politics were not driven by border tensions. (i can imagine that, between feudal lords.)

 

[AbsintheRed]

Exactly how much diplo penalty did you see from closeness of borders?

 

[gilgames]

Its not only the amount itself, but compared to other modifiers. It was -13 as far as I remember, but -7 -9 are common. Compared to "This war spoils our relation" used to be -5 average., from -3 to -6. This is the reason i said to limit it to a max number, i.e. -3 or -5. Also open border brought our people closer is max +1 or +2. Other modifiers also on a small scale, usually +- 1-2. Nice trade is max +4. So if other things have limit, then these 2 might have a limit too imo. (cb and religion)

 

[AbsintheRed]

Religion do have a limit.
-13 for borders seems way too much, I agree.
I haven't seen it that high though, will try to test it out.
Between which civs did you see it?

 

[gilgames]

i dont remember, but can happen against ugly/aggressive civs like: vs. russia, habsburg, ottoman, and izi.

 

[AbsintheRed]

honestly I've only fired up these 3 games and they all needed several changes (to the feudalism civics for example), the eastern nations obviously also start without "state religion" (the civic) which seems intentional however is annoying as you'll want to switch towards one asap anyway. and none of them have militarism or anything besides the most basic civic in the last group selected.

Getting back to starting civics:
I would like to hear some opinions about it.
Which civs should start with Feudal Monarchy and Serfdom? Manoralism? Everyone starting after 1000 AD should automatically start with one or more of these?
Subjugation is also an interesting question. While it's usually much better for the first 20-30 turns than any other expansion civic, it does seems strange that all civs start with it. Which civs should start with Vassalage or Militarism instead?

PS: I'm currently working on adding an instant religion change (free of any additional anarchy) when a civ first switches from Paganism to any religious civic which has a state religion.
IMO this alone would ease most of the annoyance with early civic changes.

 

[Brew]

Just tried RFCE for the first time today - I've been a big fan of DOC, SOI, and RFCCW for a long time, but for some reason never really tried this one. While it has all these amazing and ambitious features after years of obvious labor by many, I cannot help but wonder why no one took the time to mod variable game speeds. For an RFC mod, which inherently will only see a few civs play the entire game, it has surprisingly few turns. Even SOI, which is smaller in geographic and historical scope, has 20% more turns on normal speed, and offers an epic speed. I've always felt like the RFC mod-mods were intended to give higher geographic and historical (i.e. temporal) resolution to RFC. However, the eras seem to fly by faster than their counterparts in DOC. I realize not everyone wants a longer game, but that is why most mods offer variable game speeds. I know vanilla RFC did not offer those options and was only 500 turns as well, but that was rectified long ago before DOC even got off running. I believe more turns allows the features of a mod such as this to be experienced at their highest potential, and that the current limitation is actually a disservice to the mod. That said, everyone who continues to work on this mod is an absolute saint - CIV4 is still the pinnacle of strategy gaming for me, but only because people like you continue to keep it fresh and exciting, while my competence only allows me only the slightest alterations. Molte grazie!

 

[AbsintheRed]

Welcome to the mod!
Don't forget to leave some feedback

Another speed level is certainly something to consider.
In some cases 500 turns do seem too few, given that some civs only use a little part of it in their UHVs.

Also, I agree with your thoughts about Civ IV wholeheartedly.
It's the definite strategy game for me too. Civ V and VI are not in the same league.

 

[Force44]

Getting back to starting civics:
I would like to hear some opinions about it.
Which civs should start with Feudal Monarchy and Serfdom? Manoralism? Everyone starting after 1000 AD should automatically start with one or more of these?
Subjugation is also an interesting question. While it's usually much better for the first 20-30 turns than any other expansion civic, it does seems strange that all civs start with it. Which civs should start with Vassalage or Militarism instead?

imo The best civics for the first 20-30 turns for each individual civilization should also be the ones started with by default for each individual civilization. If those happen to contain Subjugation I propose keeping it that way.
If this is ahistorical one could argue that the starting conditions of said civilization ought to be changed. (but that imo is a different discussion)

PS: I'm currently working on adding an instant religion change (free of any additional anarchy) when a civ first switches from Paganism to any religious civic which has a state religion.
IMO this alone would ease most of the annoyance with early civic changes.

I think this is a wonderfull solution.

I apologize in advance for going a little bit off topic here.

But why only allow instant religion change away from paganism the first time?

Why not Always? After all, switching to Paganism already gives anarchism + the inabality to switch away from Paganism for a couple of turns. So it already always is more disadvantageous to switch from Islam to Paganism to Orthodoxy than it is to switch from Islam directly to Orthodoxy.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Ohh, yeah, didn't mean to write that. I don't want to add it only for the first time.
(apart from gameplay and intuitiveness reasons, it would also need to to dynamically store the number of religion-changes for each civ just for this, which is totally unnecessary)

 

[gilgames]

PS: I'm currently working on adding an instant religion change (free of any additional anarchy) when a civ first switches from Paganism to any religious civic which has a state religion.
IMO this alone would ease most of the annoyance with early civic changes.

Sounds good
One more idea, if 2 civs get at war, both used to ask help, then both are angry if you do not help them.
Give me a button: "I will stay out of your war, and give big penalty if i dont.