Suggestions and Requests

[Swarbs]

I always associated the culture from religion with the writing, teaching, preaching etc that comes with religion. So as long as the religion isn't suppressed / marginalised, as it would be under SR, OR and Theology, then it would still have a cultural impact. Although it is largely irrelevant by that point as you will usually be able to use buildings, artists or the slider to get as much culture as you need.

I do agree about Paganism tho' - if anything there's a stronger argument that religion shouldn't give culture under Paganism than under Tolerance, as there's no reason pagans should be more tolerant than people following a major religion. Tho' if we changed that then Lithuania's UHV might need a rebalance.

 

[DC123456789]

Yeah, that's why I found it more fitting if religions didn't give culture even when in Paganism.

Sorry, didn't read your post closely enough.

 

[AbsintheRed]

oh a minor idea come to my mind. Purely for a flavor. It used to happened that a missionary fail to spread the given religion. I suggest that in that case, if you can be successful than the first missionary (the unit gone) shall become a saint or martyr. Thus giving the city +1 and +1. What do you think?

Sounds good for some minor flavor.
Very low priority though.

 

[AbsintheRed]

@Bobby Martnen
Sry, Ireland has no place in this mod. I agree with all points mentioned against it.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Thematically I agree with most points made here about Religious Tolerance and Paganism.
Gameplay dictates it otherwise. So if it's changed then we should find some good compensation for Paganism, and especially for Lithuania.
IMO culture from non-state religions is a vital source of early culture for a couple civs.

 

[El Bogus]

Well, let's have a look at the civs that start with Paganism: Bulgaria, Novgorod, Kiev, Hungary, Norway, Denmark and Lithuania. The first four benefit greatly from switching immediately when they gain a religion imo.
Denmark has to stay pagan for about 100 years then switches to Catholicism which spreads quickly after this. Same goes for Norway with a little delay. So, for Norway (and Denmark, actually) it's useful to build the Shrine of Uppsala which provides enough culture with the Pagan Shrines. Usually Christianity comes too late for the Viking Nations to have a cultural impact in their pagan times.
About Lithuania: What if their Unique Power allowed them to benefit from the religious civics without declaring a state religion?

 

[gilgames]

Every religion got a lots of building+ wonder and that's fine. But Paganism is not an option in mid/late game. I dont want it on the same level, just make it viable. I can think of a new building that give + . It could be an altar or some ritual idk really. Other option of Rune Stone +1 stability +1 (double prod. with stone)

But this new unique power sounds good too

 

[El Bogus]

On a completely different topic: could Mines get +1 with Steam Engines like Workshops and Lumber Mills; and Quarries +1 with Replacable Parts?

 

[El Bogus]

Also Timber can have ridiculously high tile yields with up to 9 . That seems a little too high.

 

[Swarbs]

About Lithuania: What if their Unique Power allowed them to benefit from the religious civics without declaring a state religion?

Not sure how that would work - if they adopt Theocracy, for example, would they get +2 exp from every city? Would it add up for each religion in their city so they could get +6 with three religions?

Maybe make Lithuania's UP the ability to gain +2 and +1 in cities without state religion and +2 from each foreign religion per city whilst running Paganism? That would reflect their religious openness under the Gediminids and also mean the culture goal wasn't so reliant on an early ahistorical rush for the Shrine of Uppsala.

 

[AbsintheRed]

On a completely different topic: could Mines get +1 with Steam Engines like Workshops and Lumber Mills; and Quarries +1 with Replacable Parts?

Also Timber can have ridiculously high tile yields with up to 9 . That seems a little too high.

Will look into these. ATM don't really remember why I choose the current balance between improvements.
Any more opinions/suggestions about production from improvements?

 

[AbsintheRed]

Maybe make Lithuania's UP the ability to gain +2 and +1 in cities without state religion and +2 from each foreign religion per city whilst running Paganism? That would reflect their religious openness under the Gediminids and also mean the culture goal wasn't so reliant on an early ahistorical rush for the Shrine of Uppsala.

Actually I plan to add a new wonder aimed at Lithuania (probably Samogitian Shrine or something similar) with the current bonuses from the Shrine of Uppsala.
Uppsala will get something more useful, with bonuses more beneficial for the Viking civs.

 

[Swarbs]

Minor request - can cities on the Red Sea be made able to build Harbours and Lighthouses? As it stands I don't think they can, which greatly limited their health and size for no real reason. In general I think they should be able to build all the buildings which require sea access, including the Wonders.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Btw, this is also true to the Sea of Marmara.
Lake Ladoga also has some problems, altough from a different direction.

Anyway, the whole thing is much more complex coding-wise than it seems.
It's tied together with lakes, only water area size is taken into account for most dll functions.
Also, if that's not enough, vanilla Civ IV automatically converts ocean tiles into lakes if it's area is below a certain threshold.

So if you can build naval buildings there, you will also be able to do that in all at least size 2 lakes.
Do we want naval buildings on lakes?

Also, what about naval units? What would be the goal with those then?
That's handled entirely differently, just to make our lives easy...
Should we have some cities where we have access to Harbor and Dockyard, but no ships?

 

[gilgames]

Some city could use harbour (+food) but pointless the lighhouse and drydock, as well naval units. Although a galley on lake ladoga seems acceptable. So imo if you could make the harbours requirement change to coast or lakeside, that would be a halfway solution for these problem.

 

[Swarbs]

Btw, this is also true to the Sea of Marmara.
Lake Ladoga also has some problems, altough from a different direction.

Anyway, the whole thing is much more complex coding-wise than it seems.
It's tied together with lakes, only water area size is taken into account for most dll functions.
Also, if that's not enough, vanilla Civ IV automatically converts ocean tiles into lakes if it's area is below a certain threshold.

So if you can build naval buildings there, you will also be able to do that in all at least size 2 lakes.
Do we want naval buildings on lakes?

Also, what about naval units? What would be the goal with those then?
That's handled entirely differently, just to make our lives easy...
Should we have some cities where we have access to Harbor and Dockyard, but no ships?

I don't see a major problem with having harbours and lighthouses on lakes. After all, if you build then in Tyre, for example, then the Sea of Galilee gets a food bonus, so no different from building them in cities next to a lake. After all, many lakeside towns and cities have traditionally relied a lot on fishing for food, so why wouldn't you have a harbour on Lake Ladoga to boost its food yield? And there are around 20 lighthouses around the sides of Lake Ladoga.

Also seems odd you could build a city on the Karelian Isthmus and use a harbour to gain 3 from lake tiles, but not do this for a city on the east bank of the same lake. Same for Lake Peipus, Balaton etc - if a city is built on their shores then it should be able to build a harbour and lighthouse.

Naval units not so much - I don't see much point having naval units on lakes as it will only cause the AI to spam ships for no reason. Drydocks also not needed on a lake, but I assume if you enable harbours and lighthouses you enable drydocks as well? Still, small price to pay imo for a better reflection of the economy of lakes and the ability to build harbours and lighthouses on the Red Sea and Marmara.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Originally this was done this way for game balance reasons though.
3 food and 3 commerce from all lake tiles, even in midland seems quite overpowered.

 

[gilgames]

then make lakes give 1 and 2. so it will be 2/2 after harbour. problem solved. also 3/3 isn't op without hammer.

 

[Swarbs]

Originally this was done this way for game balance reasons though.
3 food and 3 commerce from all lake tiles, even in midland seems quite overpowered.

But harbours and lighthouses don't give bonus commerce yields. It would be either 32 for a freshwater lake or 23 for a saltwater lake. Neither of those seem particularly OP to me, given how few lakes there are, and the fact you would need to have a city right next to the lake to gain the bonus. After all, most of the smaller lakes on the current map are close enough to the coast that you can engineer the bonus for at least part of them by putting a city on the coast with the lake in the BFC.

 

[El Bogus]

While 23 is definitely not op, 32 is a 50% food buff which is very strong (and works fine for Vanilla Civ BTS). Add the island on lake Ladoga it becomes a 412 tile which seems way out of line. What about adding a building that adds flat health, something like Fishing Village. It could only be built on lakes. Then, the food bonus for lakes could be deleted.
About the Red Sea: Could it be hardcoded that any cities bordering the Red Sea start with Harbors? That won't be too op, would give access to the Fishing Village (health instead of the seafood bonuses!) and avoid the ability to build ships there.