1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice
  6. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Suggestions and Requests

Discussion in 'Rhye's and Fall: Europe' started by Publicola, Jun 11, 2015.

  1. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,865
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    The main problem is that it's not easy to separate lakes and sea tiles for the purposes of buildings.
    Neither as prereqs, nor in the bonuses.
    I'm not sure if we should allow any of those naval buildings on salt lakes.
     
  2. Swarbs

    Swarbs Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    936
    Thing is you get it with Lake Ladoga anyway, just by building a city at the right points on the isthmus. Ditto the Sea of Galilee, Lough Neagh and Lakes Peipus, Sniardwy, Malaren, Vattern, Vanern, and loads others where a lake is within reach of a city on the coast. If it's not gamebreaking or OP when it happens already, why would it be gamebreaking or OP when added to other lakes, most of which won't get the bonus anyway as they won't have a city bordering them.

    I may be wrong, but aren't Lake Tuz and the Dead Sea the only salt lakes on the map? In which case, we could avoid that issue by making salt lakes have 0:food:3:commerce:. That way when Konya and Jerusalem build harbours the salt lakes will only give their standard 1:food:3:commerce:.

    Alternatively how would you feel about hard coding cities on the Red Sea to start with harbours and lighthouses? That would mean no need to enable them for lakes, and would mean the Red Sea becomes equal to the other seas in terms of the food and health bonuses it provides.
     
  3. El Bogus

    El Bogus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Messages:
    355
    Location:
    Leipzig, Germany
    Well, if nobody thinks a 4:food:1:hammers:2:commerce: tile in a lake is not a problem, I concur.
    That would work. One Arabian settler could be deleted as a compensation.
    EDIT: It leaves the human player and also the AI with fewer decisions where to settle, though.
     
  4. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,865
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    I do.
    Not yet sure about the solution.
     
  5. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,865
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    What would be the preferred solution:
    To be able to build naval buildings on all sea coast tiles, but not near lake tiles?
    Or to be able to build them near sea and freshwater lake tiles, but not near salt lakes?

    Btw, many North African salt lakes are already implemented in one of the development maps.
    Also I don't really want to add special rules for cities near the Red Sea, would rather have a general rule.
     
  6. Swarbs

    Swarbs Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    936
    If it's a problem then it's a problem right now. 90% of the time a city is built which has that tile in its BFC and is on the coast so can build a harbour. Anything we implement now won't alter that issue.

    To be able to build them on all sea coast tiles.

    My only suggestion is that they be able to be built on the coast of the Red Sea (and Marmara if possible). It just seems incongruous that cities built next to a major sea should lack access to harbours and lighthouses. Any way that can be implemented I will be happy with.
     
  7. The Turk

    The Turk Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Messages:
    2,140
    Location:
    Canada
    The Red Sea has amazing fisheries, and from the ~1000s onwards was the main artery of international trade (linking the vast Indian Ocean with the Mediterranean). Not representing it would be a true folly. How difficult would it be to decrease the threshold to make it an ocean?
     
  8. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,865
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    Actually I was thinking right on it's implementation if the +1 food is too much. Even brought up the possibility that we can separate the 2 Island types - "rocky" and "green" - with only one of them giving extra food.
    That depends on the map though, on the exact locations where we will have those Islands.
    For now it doesn't really matter, as we only have 4-5 Islands altogether. On the long run I most certainly want to avoid 4-1-2 tiles without resources.
    I guess I will remove the food right now to be consistent.
     
  9. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,865
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    If I decrease it, then it affects all water bodies, so all lakes too.
    But actually I might be able to solve it through some extra restrictions in the .dll, will see how well it works.
     
    The Turk likes this.
  10. Swarbs

    Swarbs Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    936
    Maybe have two different types - sea islands and lake islands. After all, there's no real reason an island in a lake should have more food than an island in the sea. That way islands in lakes and seas will only ever give a basic 2:food: rising to 3:food: when under harbour influence.

    Of course that won't address the issue of lakes giving more food when in the BFC of a city with a harbour, but it will stop islands ever having 4:food:
     
  11. gilgames

    gilgames Priest-King

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2012
    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    Budapest, Hungary
    A small request.
    Make a hotfix where HA/MS can be upgraded to ghazi/huszár/berber c. maybe even konnik. It would be logical and its missing. I know you want to make a bigger military overhaul. So it is just hotfix.
     
  12. Swarbs

    Swarbs Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    936
    Couple of things:

    1. Sweden currently starts with outdated units (Heavy Lancer and Crossbows) when it already has the techs for Knights and Arbalests.
    2. England is too weak in the current version imo - they should start with three settlers and two missionaries so they can take at least three of their four core provinces on spawn
     
    The Turk likes this.
  13. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,865
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    Sure, both sounds reasonable
     
  14. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,865
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    Oh, actually AI England already gets an additional settler and also a defender unit.
    You meant too weak even for the human player?
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2017
  15. Osakasayama

    Osakasayama Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2010
    Messages:
    55
    Location:
    St. Louis
    You recently changed Teutonic knights to have Shock, but doesn't this make the Boyar a completely inferior unit?
    Also, I don't think the Condottiero mercenary deserves a 14 strength. It should be Str. 13 or even 12 like Stradiots, since its strength is already represented by the Tactics promotion.
     
  16. Swarbs

    Swarbs Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    936
    Yes. England has to settle Wessex, London, Mercia and East Anglia for the UHV. Whilst you can cover these four with culture from three cities if you position them right, with only two starting settlers you need to build another one whilst still fighting Scotland and London and planning to invade Ireland. It makes human England too weak at the start imo, particularly if you end up at war with Scotland and France on spawn.

    Also seems odd to me that the Normans shouldn't be able to settle England immediately - they were a conquering army so they wouldn't be building settlers to settle an unpopulated land.
     
  17. Swarbs

    Swarbs Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    936
    The Boyar receives defensive bonuses and can fortify, so it's actually very strong on defence. Fortify one in a castle and it has a defensive :strength: of 32.5. I think that's more valuable than the extra 1:strength:, particularly as it means Muscovy doesn't need to build any other units to defend captured cities.

    Agree with the Condottiero, although I think :strength:13 would be appropriate - it should be stronger than the light Stradiot as it has higher penalties against polearm and archery units.
     
  18. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,865
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    While you do make a good point, Teutonic Knights do have a national limit of 5 now.
    So maybe it's not that bad if they are inferior? Teutonic + Templar Knight are intentionally more powerful than all other Knight-type units.
    That might be too much for the Boyars though.
    I'm not sure if it was intentional, not only an oversight.
    Should that remain that way? Cavalry shouldn't be too well-suited for city defence IMO
    Templar Knights are already a stretch. Or if anything, they should get the no defensive penalties instead of Boyars.
     
  19. Swarbs

    Swarbs Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    936
    I always assumed it was necessary given how late Muscovy spawns. For a civ that spawns in 1380AD to have a knight type UU would put them at a big disadvantage unless that UU has a very strong capability. I figured the defensive bonuses were part of that.

    If that isn't the case, and Boyars will lose defensive bonuses, then I agree that they are severely underpowered as a UU, particularly when compared to the benefits of units like Paladins, which will be around 200 years earlier.
     
  20. merijn_v1

    merijn_v1 Black Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    4,614
    Location:
    The city of the original vlaai
    IIRC, it was intentional that the Boyars receive a defensive bonus. But I don't think it was intentional that it would be that strong.
     

Share This Page