The Core of the Rhye - Concept

[The Q-Meister]

I would be interested in hearing how Personal Unions would work exactly, in my opinion, vassals just don't work the way they should, won't go too much into it here but they can hoard techs and not give them to you, generally useless when it comes to coordinating attacks when at war and can't break vassal agreement even when the benefits have clearly run out.

As far as Unions having to be historical, it would be nice to have a code to make some countries more likely and others less likely to form into such a union, but that being said, nothing wrong with historical alternative scenarios? After all, not in every game do civs that got along with one another historically do so all the time ditto with who they make as their vassals ditto with who they go to war with ditto with the civics they adopt etc. So no I don't see the possibility of ahistorical unions as being that big a deal though some code implemented would be nice so there is some kind of structure about it.

 

[musicfreak]

If the is no loading difference in that example, even though a civilization is no longer in the game, does that mean that changing Byzantines to a mojor civ, or keeping civs as full civs instead of turning them into Independants has no effect on loading times?

What I am asking is, does the number of civs in the game affect loading time if the are still the same number of cities and units etc?

The number of civs greatly affects the loading times. In fact, cities and units barely have any effect at all compared to the calculations made to civs specifically. Think about it, there is a lot to be calculated: stability, UHVs, UPs, triggered events, etc etc. Independants and Byzantine don't have to worry about most of these checks, as they have no stability rating, no UHVs, etc. So making them major civs would greatly impact gameplay. I think that by the time you reach the modern era, the game is almost unplayable (unless some civs collapsed or were destroyed).

I don't like the idea of unions, there are a lot of "what-ifs", and it would just be way too hard to balance. Also, I don't really like the idea in general, but looking at other posts in the topic, that's just me. I think instead of adding a whole new concept of unions, the concept of vassals needs to be changed to make it more realistic. This has nothing to do with loading time, I just though I should point that out.

I'm working on optimizing the code a little, and maybe I'll send it to Rhye so he can update the main mod. Basically what I'm doing is making huge calculations be calculated as few times as possible. For example, instead of checking Turkey's UHV every turn (which is slow because you have to loop through and count every city and find its location), I made it so it only runs the check when Turkey gets a new city. Same was done for a lot of other UHVs and UPs.

 

[Rhye]

the idea behind personal unions was just to recycle the marriage message to merge 2 AIs.
One of the two would control both the cities, the techs, and retain the rest of the choices (civics, relations,...)
Those AIs would be chosen under certain conditions (close borders, not vassal of anyone, both weaker than the human player, not too many cities involved).
Apart from the speed benefit (which isn't happening, despite my and musicfreak's logic) it just improves the challenge to a strong human side

 

[mitsho]

Interesting concept and I certainly was wrong beforehand, sorry

But what about revolutions. Can the "lost" civ rise again? In your example, If Russia-Vikingia becomes unstable, can and will the vikings revolt? Is their a seniorpartner as it seems that no new civ is created? How is that determined? Will the PU have a new name (Russia-Vikiniga) or will it just be Vikings?

In any case, when it doesn't really prolong the game (besides Turn 1), why shouldn't it be included? It looks like an interesting challenging concept, the question is wether this challenge is needed? And who could really merge? Will this result in competitive or "boring regions"? Example: A newly risen China merges with an old struggling Khmer on turn 1 while Japan just descended into Civil War. The Mongols aren't around any more. --> One civ in Asia?

But why not

m

 

[Rhye]

the dead civ (vikings in the case) wouldn't be allowed to respawn for a certain number of turns (100?)
I think the single name would be better because otherwise it would produce some weird combinations.

But as you say, is this really needed?

 

[SadoMacho]

Needed? No, but something new is allways nice.

 

[Talkie_Toaster]

I'd like to see Personal Unions as an option if the civs are friendly enough with each other, and possibly on the diplo screen for human players. Obviously relations would have to be *very* good.

If this isn't possible, the unions by marriage is something I'd very much like to see, and I'd thought about it even before I saw this thread.

 

[Aeon221]

Is anything ever needed? It seems cool, and it would clean up some of the diplomatic micromanagement for the human.

Go for it if it ain't too much of a pain in the ass.

 

[greentea]

I love the city merge idea even if it doesn't speed up the game!

That said, I am looking forward to any improvement since I don't have the patience to play post-1700 on my apparently old laptop. Still, I have plenty to be occupied with

 

[musicfreak]

the idea behind personal unions was just to recycle the marriage message to merge 2 AIs.
One of the two would control both the cities, the techs, and retain the rest of the choices (civics, relations,...)
Those AIs would be chosen under certain conditions (close borders, not vassal of anyone, both weaker than the human player, not too many cities involved).
Apart from the speed benefit (which isn't happening, despite my and musicfreak's logic) it just improves the challenge to a strong human side

Ah, okay, that makes more sense. I thought you were basically making a new type of Vassal state, so I didn't see the point.

That would be cool I think. It would add something new to the game which is always nice. It's not needed, so if it's too much work I'd say it isn't worth it. But it definitely wouldn't hurt the game.

 

[Talkie_Toaster]

Wait, why can't they just merge into the same civ? That'd save on loading...

 

[Rhye]

yeah, one of the two. The other is dead

 

[Rod]

well, if we can not reduce loading times by merging civs then what's the point ?

Why dont we just let civs collapse more often. A huge Mongolia kicking and alive beyond 1500 is ridiculious the same goes for Khmer etc.

I suggest that a civ is likely to collapse as soon as the time for their historical targets has expired. That means that Mongolia will collapse soon after 1500 etc. (naturally this does not apply to reborn civs) If you want some civs to be alive all the game, then just give them UHV without timelimit (like Germany's 'Finish the tech tree first')

Apart from I still recommend to take over the City-Settlements concept from FFH2. In FFH there is one civ (Kuriotates) that can build only a limited number of cities (that work as cities) but the rest are settlements. Settlements act as cities in terms of trade, research etc, but you can not build anything in them. This concept could really speed up the game.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Why dont we just let civs collapse more often. A huge Mongolia kicking and alive beyond 1500 is ridiculious the same goes for Khmer etc.

Why exactly? Thi is alternate history, after all...

 

[Rod]

Barbarian/Independent cities take less resources for processing.

If we could we would run a 187 Civs - Modern World Game, but we cant. So somebody needs to get axed. So I suggest to apply the axe in a most appropiate historical manner to civs that have declined in some point of time. It is really not about the question whether I like Huge Mongolia kicking and alive in 1875 but it is just about the fact that I dont want my machine to calculate stability, diplomacy, trade etc etc for Huge Mongolia in 1875.

(naturally this feature would only apply if Mongolia is not human controlled)

 

[musicfreak]

So let's just make all AI players collapse 20 turns after they spawn, so by the modern age you'll be playing by yourself against Independents.

Personally, I'd rather the game be fun than fast. I'll wait 5 minutes for my turn to come if it means that I don't have to fight AI that don't attack me and don't do anything. Getting rid of Mongolia (in your example) would basically get rid of all the opposition to the Asian civs. If you are a human player playing China, having Mongolia collapse means an opportunity to get some free cities, making the game a lot easier and less fun.

In the perfect world where Rhye has all the free time he could ever wish for, Stability and all the other resource-hogging features would be moved to the DLL and optimized. But I realize that would take a LOT of work, so I'm not going to expect that anytime soon... =(

 

[Rod]

What a great argumentation line. The absence of Mongolia would suddenly let China get overpowered and this disrupts the whole game balance...

Maybe you have not noticed but in Modern Times it is not China against Mongolia and it is not Mongolia and China in Asia but it is China alongside the rest of the world and China in a global world.

What I mean to say is that the distances shrink when the technology advances. So the absence of Mongolia doesnt has such a huge impact and it certainly does not take away the fun.

You need to understand that in Modern Times the race is not for land but for research. I assure you that Mongolia is no factor in the tech race at all. China is competing against Germany and UK rather than against Mongolia. Mongolia is just a big placeholder in a crappy territory. Undeveloped, hopelessly unadvanced and frankly speaking as offensive as a tortoise. The role that Mongolia plays in Modern Times can be easily taken over by a mass of independent cities and it would be even more historical.

 

[jessiecat]

What a great argumentation line. The absence of Mongolia would suddenly let China get overpowered and this disrupts the whole game balance...

Maybe you have not noticed but in Modern Times it is not China against Mongolia and it is not Mongolia and China in Asia but it is China alongside the rest of the world and China in a global world.

What I mean to say is that the distances shrink when the technology advances. So the absence of Mongolia doesnt has such a huge impact and it certainly does not take away the fun.

You need to understand that in Modern Times the race is not for land but for research. I assure you that Mongolia is no factor in the tech race at all. China is competing against Germany and UK rather than against Mongolia. Mongolia is just a big placeholder in a crappy territory. Undeveloped, hopelessly unadvanced and frankly speaking as offensive as a tortoise. The role that Mongolia plays in Modern Times can be easily taken over by a mass of independent cities and it would be even more historical.

So, by that logic, the Aztecs and the Incas disappear by 1600 and the
Spanish and Portugese cities in S. America all revolt by 1850. That would
leave the whole Western Hemisphere sitting ducks for American expansion.
OK, maybe accurate historically, but what would that do to game balance?
Instead of being one of the harder UHV's to win, America would become
the easiest. In fact America would be the human player's civ of choice by
default. Why choose anybody else? Where's the fun in that?

 

[Rod]

I feel I repeat myself, but the trouble of the US are not the Incas, but the Germans who constantly beat them in building the Pentagon and the British who fight with Infantry when the Americans still run around with Riflemen.

We have to think more global when we speak about Rhye. RFC is actually quite accurately simulating the changing balance of Power in the history of earth. Moreover your civilization really grows from a local power to a regional power and then to a global power.

Incas and Aztecs have no effect on American Development. Germany and UK have.

 

[jessiecat]

I feel I repeat myself, but the trouble of the US are not the Incas, but the Germans who constantly beat them in building the Pentagon and the British who fight with Infantry when the Americans still run around with Riflemen.

We have to think more global when we speak about Rhye. RFC is actually quite accurately simulating the changing balance of Power in the history of earth. Moreover your civilization really grows from a local power to a regional power and then to a global power.

Incas and Aztecs have no effect on American Development. Germany and UK have.

I think you misunderstand what I've described. What I'm saying is that when
the U.S. spawns in 1733, the Aztecs and Incas would not be there at all.
The continents would be EMPTY. So what's going to stop the Americans
filling themup with cities, thus building a huge empire?
BTW How many times have you seen a German A.I. build the Pentagon or
the British attack with infantry in 1733? The A.I. isn't that smart!
The balance is just fine. Besides I like having the Americans as vassals.