Version 2.6 discussion

c0d5579 · Dec 23, 2008

Still, that strikes me as more of a post-Biological Warfare espionage mission that causes a disease than an actual disease, unless there's a "holy crap, the monkeys are loose!" event.

EDIT:
Back to the military issue - I was considering a modern promotion, "Combat Engineer," requiring Combat 3, City Raider 3, or Amphibious, available only to gunpowder units. There are several possibilities as to what it could do...

1 - Reduce movement costs as per Mobility
2 - Reduce or eliminate defensive bonus from city or fortification
3 - Allow instant fortification of a unit

With this, then, I'd also recommend a unit, Combat Engineer, that gains the promotion at creation, which Flamethrower could upgrade to. Statistically it should be similar to the other specialized infantry formations, Marine and Paratrooper, with perhaps a "Modern Sapper" unit upgrade.

EDIT2:
Argh - one of the things I like about this mod is that Elephants can do something other than attack horsemen; I saw the Combat Engineer unit as being able to do similar things (build Roads, Forts, Bunkers, clear woods and jungle) in the modern era.

Jabarto · Dec 23, 2008

Would it be possible to add more levels of barbarian activity? I really miss the 5 or 6 that civ 3 had, as opposed to the "None/High/Absurdly High" levels in Civ4.

Complex · Dec 23, 2008

EDIT - ignore this post, i misread something and replied in error

konradcabral · Dec 23, 2008

zappara said:
...new corporations, new promotions, more balanced things...

New City Culture Levels... :lol:

Any other thing we could improve?

0100010 said:
On a totally separate issue, please do not add any resources to 2.6. The current resource count is enough (or perhaps too much, given the occasional problem of resources getting left out from map generation) you also have to remember that, given too many resources, trading them becomes much less needed. After all, why bother when you have alternate versions which are just as effective? (lemons vs. apples, potatoes vs other grains, etc.)

Respectfully, totally disagree. I'd love to see more resources at future versions. I'll explain:

- About resources left out: I, at least, wouldn't mind if a generated map not had a essential resource. I'd like to imagine/simulate how mankind would progress without sulphur, for instance, as well I like to see the Eiffel Tower in Tokyo and Islam being founded at New York. My fun with Civ is based on questions "What if...?". More, if people do not agree with my very unusual opinion (yes, I know it), I think Zap can twist the parameters in order to guarantee the major resources at every map.

- About balance / trade issues: one possible fix to the problem of happiness / health unbalance and the other problem you talked about trade getting useless is: why not multiply the most of the unhappiness and unhealth per 2 and the most of the happiness and health per 1.5 (adjustable). This would generate an empty space we could use for putting new resources and turn more unique the existing ones. I don't know if it would work, but there it is, my opinion.

c0d5579 · Dec 23, 2008

There is an issue with resources, true. What this means to me is either higher resource occurrence (I mean, really, how rare is building-quality stone?) or if any resource changes are made, they need to focus on resource placement that would normally be otherwise bare of resources - sea resources, in short.

About obsidian, I've been torn on that one for a while. On the one hand, I agree, it's a subgroup of stone, and doesn't add a whole lot given that the late-game uses of obsidian (surgical instruments, etc.) have never been implemented. On the other, we know from history that it can be used to equip units up to Swordsman-equivalent (the Aztec macahuitl is meant to be used like a sword, by a warrior equipped like a European swordsman, with shield, body armor, and sword). Could this be done with plain Stone? Absolutely. Still... if we have four kinds of meat animal, four kinds of grain, two kinds of metallurgical resource, two (three if you include Gems) precious metals, and four kinds of seafood, it's hard to say "exclude Obsidian because it's too like Stone!"

Hydromancerx · Dec 23, 2008

I think the more the resources the better. The reason is not all places in the world use all the resources. For instance North America having corn, Europe and the middle east having wheat and Asia having rice. Sure they are all grains but they are indigenous to that region of the world. Why not have a local fruit or sea food that is equivalent to one in another part of the world. It happens in real life why not in game too?

little_cyclone · Dec 24, 2008

konradcabral said:
About resources left out: I, at least, wouldn't mind if a generated map not had a essential resource. I'd like to imagine/simulate how mankind would progress without sulphur, for instance, as well I like to see the Eiffel Tower in Tokyo and Islam being founded at New York. My fun with Civ is based on questions "What if...?".

I agree, for the most part, but I've run into a few maps where theres been no Oil, and it really drags things down... I have no problem fighting over a minute supply of a resource, such is the nature of life, but when they are missing altogether it really becomes more of an annoyance then an interest.

Big Heb · Dec 24, 2008

Another thing to add is civilization-specific great people names. Zoroaster being born in America brings a "what if," but as it keeps happening it just becomes annoying. Instead of one master list, each civilization should have a list of names it takes from for each GP. For example this is a partial list for America...

GE: Eli Whitney, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Alexander Graham Bell, ETC.

GA: Mark Twain, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Louis Armstrong, Elvis Presley, Bob Dylan, ETC.

GS: Stanley Miller, John Bardeen, Edwin Hubble, ETC.

GM: Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, ETC.

GP: Ralph Waldo Emerson (preached transcendentalism), Joseph Tracy, William Bradshaw, ETC.

GG: Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Winfield Scott, Ulysses S. Grant, William T. Sherman, George Patton, Douglas MacArthur, Dwight D. Eisenhower, ETC.

This thread already has some work done on ideas.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=207273

jm_dracolich · Dec 24, 2008

The only problem with civ specific GP names is that we don't know a lot of people from every culture. We hardly know anybody from Sumeria for example, except for Gilgamesh and Sargon, and some of the other kings on the King List. Those could be Great Generals, but we don't have artists, merchants, scientists, etc... I love the idea of civ specific GP names, I've wanted it for a long time. But I don't really think it's possible. Unless some lists are shared... but then it's unrealistic again.

EDIT--
Hmm well after going to that link, it seems like somebody already did all of it, and if it were to be implemented in ROM, it would only need to be converted a bit to be compatible. It seems pretty good too. So I'm all for it.

Big Heb · Dec 24, 2008

jm_dracolich said:
The only problem with civ specific GP names is that we don't know a lot of people from every culture. We hardly know anybody from Sumeria for example, except for Gilgamesh and Sargon, and some of the other kings on the King List. Those could be Great Generals, but we don't have artists, merchants, scientists, etc... I love the idea of civ specific GP names, I've wanted it for a long time. But I don't really think it's possible. Unless some lists are shared... but then it's unrealistic again.

The thread I posted has a lot of GP ideas for Babylon and Sumeria. The only difficult ones would be Assyria, Iroquois, Mongolia, ETC. Greece, Rome, China, Britain, France, Russia, ETC. would be a breeze.

c0d5579 · Dec 24, 2008

Could be like the artstyle lists - you have a regional great person list.

RandallS_1985 · Dec 25, 2008

Have you considered merging the Stone Age 2 mod with this. There seem to be some pretty interesting ideas for stone age techs in it. ROMK already goes really far into the future, why not start deep into the past as well. Perhaps a game that begins in almost complete resource ignorance.

JarlFrank · Dec 26, 2008

About the Great Person thing, while it might be hard to find some specific great persons for factions like Zulu, you could add some general culture-specific great persons. Zulu and Ethiopia would then get general African great persons, while other countries like Germany, France or the USA could get great persons from their own countries. That would be the best way I think.

Although this is not so important, since it's interesting to have Moses born in Berlin in the year 1246^^

konradcabral · Dec 26, 2008

JarlFrank said:
Although this is not so important, since it's interesting to have Moses born in Berlin in the year 1246^^

I agree. Also interesting is to have Isaac Newton born in Istambul in the year 1990. :lol:

Guardian_PL · Dec 26, 2008

Wow, long time, no posts, just popped in on that Christmas time to check out on things.

And I have one question only - how's it going regarding basic food yield? Is it still the same, like 4 :food:

with cottage and 5 :food:

with farm? That's the only thing about Rise Of Mankind that bothers me - that it's better to found cities with as little resources as possible, since matured cottages own all the other tiles.

I've even started a thread about it back then - http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=295235

I'd be happy to get any news on that

Complex · Dec 27, 2008

RandallS_1985 said:
Have you considered merging the Stone Age 2 mod with this. There seem to be some pretty interesting ideas for stone age techs in it. ROMK already goes really far into the future, why not start deep into the past as well. Perhaps a game that begins in almost complete resource ignorance.

True, but the inherent problem with adding Stone Age "technology" is that Stone Age mankind was so primitive it's hard to imagine them building cities and whatnot. Going back to stone age in Civ terms, you would essentially have some warriors roaming the country side killing animals and fortifying for a few turns and then moving on. Cities and civilization as we know it basically started happening around the advent of agriculture. As people realized they could grow exponentially more food than by hunting/gathering alone, the excess food surpluses are what allowed mankind to stay in one place and dramatically expand the population. Once every single member of the tribe was not solely devoted to the gathering of resources, it allowed people to focus on other pursuits, i.e. government, standing armies, religion, art, etc..

Discoveries like fire are so old the game would have to start thousands of years earlier, and things like foraging are so basic, humans have been doing them since we were apes.

styfken · Dec 28, 2008

I think that the number or tanks, destroyers, jeps, etc. should be linked to the "oil products" output of the civilization. At the moment, once you have only one oil refinery, you can build as many destroyers, bettleships, tanks, etc. you wish, there is no restriction.

However, there should be a restriction as to how many of these units you can own, based on your production/output of oil products, valcunised rubber, etc. If you have only one oil refinery in your entire civilization for example, you should be only able to produce a certain number of units that use oil. The same should apply for "valcunised rubber", "ammunition", etc., restricting the number of (for example) infantries that you can own per "filling factory" in your civilization, and so on.

This would make it more interesting in terms of managing your buildings in each city, i.e. when to build and which building should come first, as well as in terms of diplomacy, even if you have, say, 2 "oil products" you could still be looking for more and actively try to trade with another civilization.

It could be expanded to gold, silver and the output of other resources. The number of oil resources that you own, for example, should restrict the number of "oil refineries" you can build in your cities (unless of course you import more from other civilizations).

debressac · Dec 29, 2008

When a Great Wonder becomes obsolete, the city that built it should be able to build a "more modern" one.

hlacey · Dec 29, 2008

- New corporations, more individual, perhaps nationally orientated.

- Maybe sapper units? Can build bridges to get rid of cost of attacking over rivers?

- Estimates of casualties during battles? A bit pointless, but it adds to the realism. Also - civilian casualties of bombardments etc., could negatively impact relations with other leaders through accusations of war crimes.

- Expanded UN - more resolutions, more effect.

- More emphasis on economics and keeping inflation down to a reasonable level.

- Perhaps some way to actively combat global warming? However realistic it is, it's seriously annoying.

zappara · Dec 29, 2008

Had some time during weekend and did some changes to RoM...

Working-in-progress notes:

Spoiler :

Version 2.6 discussion

General Know-It-All

Emperor

Chieftain

Prince

General Know-It-All

C2C Modder

Loyal Civ4 & C2C mod player

Warlord

Chieftain

Warlord

General Know-It-All

Chieftain

Chieftain

Prince

Emperor

Chieftain

Chieftain

Chieftain

Chieftain

Mod Designer

Similar threads