Would love to see that.
Vox Populi Civilizations Compatibility Request Thread
- Thread starter Enginseer
- Start date
Would love to see that.
pineappledan
Deity
Thinking about what I posted it's still weak compared to the base civs. Easilly lowest tier.
Coming back to it, the goths would need a reward for conquering any city in addition to the golden age triggered by capitals. Something to reflect either Alaric's freeing of the slaves after sacking Rome, or the decline of Roman civilization his conquests precipitated.
New UA - Sacker of Rome: All units can use roads in enemy territory. Population loss & resistance duration in conquered cities is reduced by 50%, and the selling price of all destroyed buildings in conquered cities is converted to production for your nearest city. Conquering enemy capitals triggers a golden age.
New UU - Gadraught: Replaces swordsman
Free shock I and drill I promotions
Double healing from pillaging tiles
UB - Hov: Replaces stable
+2 prod
+3 prod, +1 faith from horses, sheep, cattle and deer
+15% production to land units
+1 faith in city for every workable tile with no improvements
+10% unit supply cap
available earlier (Philosophy)
no tile requirement for construction (ie. no improved source of cattle, sheep or horses necessary)
Last edited:
Blue Ghost
King
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2016
- Messages
- 710
Since we've got multiple requests for the Goths, I could try taking a stab at them in between my other projects, to sharpen my modding skills. I would like to negotiate the changes to be made, if I may be so bold.
The original UA is pretty weak, and I don't think the proposed changes bring it up to line with the higher power level of VP civs. One idea is to completely eliminate resistance, population loss, and building loss from conquest. That would allow them to integrate conquered cities into their war machine and sweep through empires faster. Not sure how historically accurate that would be. An alternative would be a simple bonus (culture? faith?) from conquering cities.
The proposed UU looks fine.
For the UB, I don't really like the idea of bonuses to unworked tiles. It seems like it would be a pain to code, and from a gameplay perspective, penalizing building improvements doesn't sound fun. The rest of it looks decent. But maybe the UB would be better as an earlier building, like the granary or barracks? The Goths were at the height of their power in the classical era, so having the production bonus to military come earlier will allow them to have an edge in classical warfare as in real life.
The original UA is pretty weak, and I don't think the proposed changes bring it up to line with the higher power level of VP civs. One idea is to completely eliminate resistance, population loss, and building loss from conquest. That would allow them to integrate conquered cities into their war machine and sweep through empires faster. Not sure how historically accurate that would be. An alternative would be a simple bonus (culture? faith?) from conquering cities.
The proposed UU looks fine.
For the UB, I don't really like the idea of bonuses to unworked tiles. It seems like it would be a pain to code, and from a gameplay perspective, penalizing building improvements doesn't sound fun. The rest of it looks decent. But maybe the UB would be better as an earlier building, like the granary or barracks? The Goths were at the height of their power in the classical era, so having the production bonus to military come earlier will allow them to have an edge in classical warfare as in real life.
pineappledan
Deity
Terrific! I have no modding experience, so I'm glad to hear this might be given attention. The Goths have always been my favorite modded civ.
Eliminating building loss is already a UA of Rome. I don't like the idea of outright eliminating resistance. The gates to the city were not left open for them; they were a 'barbarian' horde after all.
Perhaps my proposal of converting destroyed buildings into production would be more in line if the production was given to all cities instead of only the nearest one?
Alternatively, scrap the lower pop and resistance and make a combat bonus for every level of influence the enemy civ has against you. 10% for exotic, up to 50% for dominant. This reflects the Romanization of the Goths, and the sentiment that the fall of Rome was brought about by its failure to completely absorb barbarian cultures while it equipped them with Roman logistics and tactics. Alaric himself spent time in the Roman army and was personal friend to several Roman generals. I don't know if this would be that interesting though, since it actively disincentivizes culture. On the other hand, rewarding the player for losing the culture game feels pretty 'barbarous'.
The above UA could work equally well for science. For every level of influence a civ has over you, you receive +5% science
I actually really like the idea of bonuses to "virgin" tiles as long as you don't have to work them. The UB would be very good early game, then taper off as faith becomes less important. This somewhat reflects the Christianization of Gothic culture; the degredation a culture's spiritual core as it gives way to civilization and industry.
There must be existing code for city yields based on unimproved tiles; the hov acts in an almost identical fashion to the G+K Celt UA, even providing the same yield.
I agree, however, that the bonuses come too late; stables are a much later tech in CBP than vanilla. There are too many improved tiles by Philosophy for it to be a good tradeoff. How about this:
Hov - replaces temple
+5 faith
+2 production
+1 culture and +1 gold from Incense, Wine and Amber.
+1 faith and +1 prod on horses, cattle, sheep and deer
+1 faith in city for every unimproved workable tile
+10% unit supply cap from pop.
Reduces Religious Unrest
Generates +25% religious pressure
Available earlier (Masonry)
No maintenance cost
This would put their UB on the military side of the tech tree and earlier (at same level as their UU)
I like to keep the bonuses to horses, etc. because it reflects their horse-based military culture. The Germanic and Celt were the cavalry of early roman armies (Romans did not train or field their own cavalry initially)
If it really is too hard to code, you could replace the +1 faith per unimproved tile to a flat 10% production towards military units
Last edited:
Blue Ghost
King
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2016
- Messages
- 710
Would a flat bonus on conquering cities work for the UA? It would achieve much the same effect as your proposal of converting destroyed buildings to production, and be much easier to code, and to track in gameplay.
Adapting building abilities to a UA is fairly straightforward; the other way around is not as simple. I don't think the existing UA code is going to help much.
The Hov is a religious building, so making it a temple would be fairly historically accurate. Making the UB a temple replacement will give the civ a strong religious flavor. I'd like to keep the +10% production toward military units, and granting that to a temple replacement feels off aesthetically. But that's a minor issue; shouldn't provide any balance issues or difficulties in coding.
My counterproposal would to make it a barracks replacement, with the +1 faith and production to horses, cattle, sheep, and deer, and the +10% production toward military units. Less historically accurate, but it can be justified as the hof was also apparently used for housing. I think that's better for gameplay, as it keeps the civ's focus tighter on military, and is more relevant in the era in which the Goths were historically dominant.
Adapting building abilities to a UA is fairly straightforward; the other way around is not as simple. I don't think the existing UA code is going to help much.
The Hov is a religious building, so making it a temple would be fairly historically accurate. Making the UB a temple replacement will give the civ a strong religious flavor. I'd like to keep the +10% production toward military units, and granting that to a temple replacement feels off aesthetically. But that's a minor issue; shouldn't provide any balance issues or difficulties in coding.
My counterproposal would to make it a barracks replacement, with the +1 faith and production to horses, cattle, sheep, and deer, and the +10% production toward military units. Less historically accurate, but it can be justified as the hof was also apparently used for housing. I think that's better for gameplay, as it keeps the civ's focus tighter on military, and is more relevant in the era in which the Goths were historically dominant.
pineappledan
Deity
The more I think about this the less I like my own idea. It feels like re-hashing Assyria with a prod/faith focus instead of sci/culture. I really like the idea of this being a barbarian civ which gets culturally dominated, but remains very militarily threatening.
UA: All units can use roads in enemy territory. +10% combat strength for every level of influence the opposing civilization has against the Goths. Capturing any city for the first time reduces the cost of subsequent social policies by 2% (up to 20% max) and capturing a foreign
Capital triggers a 
Golden Age and grants a free social policy.Would it be difficult to have the cost of social policies reduced by conquering cities? Alternatively, city capture could reduce only the next social policy by 25%. I bet a flat reduction in policy cost is easier to code though. Having a mechanic like this would incentivize the player to neglect culture for a military edge and help mitigate the loss of policies. You'd just have to contend with tiny borders.
It looks like this civ is dual-focused on faith and military, so I think it would be fine. I don't see much issue with adding military-focused bonuses to a temple though, especially given that Gothic paganism worshipped the AEsir, an overtly militaristic pantheon. Regardless, I think the barracks is a little TOO early, as the goths are definitely not an ancient era civ. You're the guy coding though, I won't complain if you go with your gut. If you prefer the barracks you could do something like this:
Hov - replaces barracks
+1 production
+2 faith
+1 prod & +1 faith from horses, cattle, sheep, and deer
+10% production towards land units
+20 unit XP
-20% crime modifier
+2 unit supply cap
no maintenance
unlocked at construction (instead of military theory. This puts it in the prerequisite tech line for the UU)
If it's a barracks replacement, you could also do a unique promotion for units built in that city:
Blessing of Donar (production in capital from pillaged tiles equal to gold, +10% combat strength vs. barbarians)
As I said, you the boss; I'm just the non-coding pleb. I'll be happy with whatever you decide on.
Edit: A note on the historical period of the Goths.
The earliest recorded account of the Goths is of their displacement of Germanic peoples southward, which precipitated the Marcomannic Wars in 160 AD. They sacked Histria in 238 and lost badly at Naissus in 268.
The beginning of Medieval era in western culture is traditionally demarcated by the fall of Western Rome in the 5th century. The sack of Rome by Alaric was in 410, and the entire Italian peninsula was an Ostrogothic kingdom starting in 493. The Visigoths continued west and set up various kingdoms in Iberia starting in 418, until their eventual conquest by the Moors. Gothic culture remained, however, and Spanish royalty trace their lineage to the preceding Gothic states, which were re-established after the Reconquista.
So TL;DR, the Goths are the very definition of an early medieval civ, but late classical can fit in a pinch. Given that context, the hov being a replacement for later techs like temple or stable isn't far off, except that the hov harkens back to their pre-romanized culture.
Last edited:
The more I think about this the less I like my own idea. It feels like re-hashing Assyria with a prod/faith focus instead of sci/culture. I really like the idea of this being a barbarian civ which gets culturally dominated, but remains very militarily threatening.
UA: All units can use roads in enemy territory. +10% combat strength for every level of influence the opposing civilization has against the Goths. Capturing any city for the first time reduces the cost of subsequent social policies by 2% (up to 20% max) and capturing a foreign
Would it be difficult to have the cost of social policies reduced by conquering cities? Alternatively, city capture could reduce only the next social policy by 25%. I bet a flat reduction in policy cost is easier to code though. Having a mechanic like this would incentivize the player to neglect culture for a military edge and help mitigate the loss of policies. You'd just have to contend with tiny borders.
It looks like this civ is dual-focused on faith and military, so I think it would be fine. I don't see much issue with adding military-focused bonuses to a temple though, especially given that Gothic paganism worshipped the AEsir, an overtly militaristic pantheon. Regardless, I think the barracks is a little TOO early, as the goths are definitely not an ancient era civ. You're the guy coding though, I won't complain if you go with your gut. If you prefer the barracks you could do something like this:
Hov - replaces barracks
+1 production
+2 faith
+1 prod & +1 faith from horses, cattle, sheep, and deer
+10% production towards land units
+20 unit XP
-20% crime modifier
+2 unit supply cap
no maintenance
unlocked at construction (instead of military theory. This puts it in the prerequisite tech line for the UU)
If it's a barracks replacement, you could also do a unique promotion for units built in that city:
Blessing of Donar (production in capital from pillaged tiles equal to gold, +10% combat strength vs. barbarians)
As I said, you the boss; I'm just the non-coding pleb. I'll be happy with whatever you decide on.
Edit: A note on the historical period of the Goths.
The earliest recorded account of the Goths is of their displacement of Germanic peoples southward, which precipitated the Marcomannic Wars in 160 AD. They sacked Histria in 238 and lost badly at Naissus in 268.
The beginning of Medieval era in western culture is traditionally demarcated by the fall of Western Rome in the 5th century. The sack of Rome by Alaric was in 410, and the entire Italian peninsula was an Ostrogothic kingdom starting in 493. The Visigoths continued west and set up various kingdoms in Iberia starting in 418, until their eventual conquest by the Moors. Gothic culture remained, however, and Spanish royalty trace their lineage to the preceding Gothic states, which were re-established after the Reconquista.
So TL;DR, the Goths are the very definition of an early medieval civ, but late classical can fit in a pinch. Given that context, the hov being a replacement for later techs like temple or stable isn't far off, except that the hov harkens back to their pre-romanized culture.
Hov should be temple replacement.
Blue Ghost
King
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2016
- Messages
- 710
New proposal (shifting some things around):
UA: +15% military unit production in all cities. All units have the Sackers of Rome promotion (Can use enemy roads, and double healing from pillaging). Capturing a foreign capital triggers a Golden Age.
UU: Replaces swordsman. 17 combat strength (up from 15). Drill I. -25% damage from cities, and gain Gold from attacking cities.
UB: Replaces Temple. 5 Faith (up from 3). +1 Faith and +1 Production from Horses, Cattle, Sheep and Deer. Conquering a city gives +30 Culture, Faith and Golden Age Points, scaling with era.
Thoughts?
UA: +15% military unit production in all cities. All units have the Sackers of Rome promotion (Can use enemy roads, and double healing from pillaging). Capturing a foreign capital triggers a Golden Age.
UU: Replaces swordsman. 17 combat strength (up from 15). Drill I. -25% damage from cities, and gain Gold from attacking cities.
UB: Replaces Temple. 5 Faith (up from 3). +1 Faith and +1 Production from Horses, Cattle, Sheep and Deer. Conquering a city gives +30 Culture, Faith and Golden Age Points, scaling with era.
Thoughts?
Thats the best UA yet.
pineappledan
Deity
If you just go for a flat bonus to unit production I would increase it to 20%. Maybe only make it for land units and increase to 25%? There are records of Gothic pirates, but on the whole Goths didn't boat so good. I mean, after sacking Rome Alaric I got on a boat and promptly died. It's a bit flat IMO; straightforward bonuses like those belong on buildings.
I'd like some comments, rebuttals, etc. on my ideas w.r.t. incentives to tank culture through warmongering:
UA: All units can use roads in enemy territory. +10% combat strength for every level of influence the opposing civilization has against the Goths. Capturing any city for the first time reduces the cost of subsequent social policies by 2% (up to 20% max) and capturing a foreign
I think that could be a really neat and unique mechanic, and has great historical relevance. Gothic culture was engulfed by Roman influence; almost none of their culture or language has persisted, even in places they ruled for centuries. CBP basically makes culture king, so a civ that can LOSE that race and remain competitive would be interesting.
I really like the 17 combat strength, which puts them exactly at parity with a Roman Legionary. Germanic people including the Goths formed the majority of Rome's legions during Alaric's time so this makes a ton of sense.
They should have both drill I and shock I, since regular swordsmen get shock I by default.
The -25% damage from cities and gold from attacking cities is exactly the same as Denmark's UA. Combined with the pillaging-centered UA it looks a bit weird. It's fine, but it's already been done.
I like this. In addition think there should be a flat +2 or +3 to production and no maintenance cost.
I am still a bit culture-phobic. I'd rather the instant bonus be to production, since I would try to stay away from assisting the culture game in any way.
Last edited:
Blue Ghost
King
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2016
- Messages
- 710
Yeah, 25% for land units would be good.
If it were just that the civ didn't get inherent culture bonuses and had to put in extra effort to keep in the culture game, that would be an interesting weakness to work around. But I don't think "being bad at culture" works as a selling point or something that you can build a civ around.
The culture race isn't about raw numbers, it's about social policies and how quickly you can acquire them. In that regard, discounts to policy costs work exactly like straight culture gain. A civ that gets free policies and lots of discounts to policies isn't "weak in culture," even if the raw numbers are lower. The only difference is that you'll be easier to influence, but that's pretty marginal, and "easy to influence" isn't really a trait that you can take advantage of in ways that lead to interesting gameplay. Besides, getting discounts to social policies doesn't really disincentivize culture. Trying to disincentivize a core aspect of the game is dangerous. More often than not it makes the game less fun.
I assume that UUs and UBs have all the features of the base unit/building class unless otherwise specified.
Yeah, it's a bit similar to Denmark. I like the idea of making the extra heal from pillaging part of the UA, since it ties into the theme of turning the enemy's infrastructure against them. That means that we need something new to give to the UU. Do you have any suggestions?
Yeah, that sounds fine. An extra +2 production won't hurt. And making the instant bonus to production works.
pineappledan
Deity
In keeping with turning infrastructure against them, you could give the Gadraught a combat bonus while on roads and +1 move when starting a turn on roads. Another possibility is killing units damages adjacent enemy units and heals adjacent friendly units. Damage/heal is equal to the strength of the defeated unit.
I meant culture race strictly as cultural victory. Your cumulative culture is supposed to represent 'domestic tourism' as a measure of cultural resilience, and that is the only score this was designed to depress. It reduces the cost of ignoring culture by allowing the civ to accrue policies at a lower culture output, and reward players for doing so.
Every policy choice, event, build order, etc. carries an opportunity cost; every amphitheater or archaeologist is one less library or war machine. If you ignore the combat strength from enemy influence you could get policies quicker than any other civ I suppose, but that's why the 'carrot' has to be really good.
Last edited:
Maybe meele only?
Blue Ghost
King
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2016
- Messages
- 710
I don't like the idea because it's highly dependent on what the enemy does, which you don't have control over. If your enemy isn't focusing hard on tourism, it's useless.
If you really want to push the 'weak culture' angle, one idea is to give bonuses against civs with more social policies. Every civ cares about culture, so all you would need to do is focus on it a little less than your opponents. It's still quite a dangerous idea, as encouraging players to tank culture seems like the kind of thing that leads to unfun gameplay. But I think it's more workable than being dependent on enemy tourism.
pineappledan
Deity
Great point. You'd have to keep pretty close tabs on what civs are focusing as a way of prioritizing targets, then pivot to pumping out culture once you've erased all the prissy civs, otherwise it becomes a race to the bottom. It's not as fun having to react to an AI; this would work way better in multiplayer. The only way I can think of making this work is if you added a malus, +50% modifier to incoming tourism. sort of a reverse of Japan's Sakoku.
I think you've convinced me, this was a bad idea.
I still don't like the idea of giving such a flat % production bonus on a UA. I prefer to keep the triggered bonuses to the UA and have more consistent bonuses on the UB. Going back to the idea of the Goths freeing the slaves during their conquests. Maybe bonus to population for captured cities? That way you could raze cities and recover population from them:
This would, in a way, reward players for not focusing tourism, since population lost is mitigated by influence. It would not affect culture production.
After checking the wiki for the Goth's, the reductions in resistance are off the table since it would interact with the events and decisions mod, which has no resistance as a reward (link: http://civilization-v-customisation.wikia.com/wiki/The_Goths_(Alaric))
Historical notes:
Der Krieg ernährt is a shortened German form of bellum se ipsum alet (The war feeds itself). Effectively the opposite of scorched earth policy, and quite fitting for how this works mechanically
Foederati was the Roman term for barbarian satellite states. The Visigothic kingdoms started formally as foederati. Romans often used the term interchangeably to refer to bands of barbarian mercenaries which were billeted and settled in nominally Roman land. I initially thought it could be a 5% CS bonus for every turn in enemy territory, capping at 30%, but that sounds hard to code.
Last edited:
Blue Ghost
King
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2016
- Messages
- 710
That's an interesting concept for a UA. The effect would be that you build up a massive capital, with growth supported by conquest. Such a capital-focused UA might lend itself to a Tradition strategy. If that works, I'm fine with that.
I'm pretty new to modding, and I don't know how easy that UA would be to code. I can take a stab at it (and maybe get Enginseer to help me), but no guarantees.
I'm pretty new to modding, and I don't know how easy that UA would be to code. I can take a stab at it (and maybe get Enginseer to help me), but no guarantees.
pineappledan
Deity
Thank you! I'm glad you like the idea. I think it still favours authority on the whole, getting free pop doesn't take advantage of the 35% growth rate from tradition, but might help you keep up with those crazy tall empires. It seems like the best use of it would be to offset a sluggish growth rate and let you focus on specialists.
Just a few final questions:
Do you think that shuffling the hov's location on the tech tree would be a good idea? At one point I suggested we could put it down in Masonry, so it is on the military side of the tech tree.
I'm not sure how giving a free drill I promotion to the UU would interact with Alhambra's free drill I. It would either result in a free 'drill II', Alhambra would not give the UU any promotion, or the computer explodes. Maybe just scrapping Drill I is best choice after all, just to avoid the headache?
We've thrown out a ton of other ideas we could use to replace it; I'll summarize:
billeting - no maintenance in enemy territory
drauhtinon - +1 movement when starting on roads, +10% damage on roads
foederati - +5% combat strength for every turn in enemy territory (caps at 30%)
laeti - Receive Food and production yields on occupied tile in enemy territory as gold income every turn
sacker of Rome - -25% damage from cities, receive gold for attacking cities equal to 100% damage dealt
solitudenum fasciunt - on killing a unit, deal damage to adjacent enemy units for that unit's CS and heal adjacent friendly units for the same amount.
verwüsten- 10 less hp healed by adjacent enemy units per turn, +40% against fortified units
Just a few final questions:
Do you think that shuffling the hov's location on the tech tree would be a good idea? At one point I suggested we could put it down in Masonry, so it is on the military side of the tech tree.
I'm not sure how giving a free drill I promotion to the UU would interact with Alhambra's free drill I. It would either result in a free 'drill II', Alhambra would not give the UU any promotion, or the computer explodes. Maybe just scrapping Drill I is best choice after all, just to avoid the headache?
We've thrown out a ton of other ideas we could use to replace it; I'll summarize:
billeting - no maintenance in enemy territory
drauhtinon - +1 movement when starting on roads, +10% damage on roads
foederati - +5% combat strength for every turn in enemy territory (caps at 30%)
laeti - Receive Food and production yields on occupied tile in enemy territory as gold income every turn
sacker of Rome - -25% damage from cities, receive gold for attacking cities equal to 100% damage dealt
solitudenum fasciunt - on killing a unit, deal damage to adjacent enemy units for that unit's CS and heal adjacent friendly units for the same amount.
verwüsten- 10 less hp healed by adjacent enemy units per turn, +40% against fortified units
Last edited:
Blue Ghost
King
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2016
- Messages
- 710
I wouldn't mind shuffling the hov's location on the tech tree, though I don't think it's necessary. Putting it at Masonry would put it in direct competition with the Water Mill and the Arena, two other high-priority production buildings. Maybe Currency or Metal Casting, if you want it closer to the bottom of the tree?
I'm pretty sure Alhambra won't stack with the UU's free Drill I. That shouldn't be much of an issue, since Alhambra is medieval, and the UU will be mostly obsolete by the time you get it.
In coding the UU, sticking with existing unit abilities is much simpler than making new ones. There are a lot of potential options using existing promotions or combinations of their traits. Not at the computer right now, but I can look at promotions and get some ideas.
I'm pretty sure Alhambra won't stack with the UU's free Drill I. That shouldn't be much of an issue, since Alhambra is medieval, and the UU will be mostly obsolete by the time you get it.
In coding the UU, sticking with existing unit abilities is much simpler than making new ones. There are a lot of potential options using existing promotions or combinations of their traits. Not at the computer right now, but I can look at promotions and get some ideas.
pineappledan
Deity
In that case, enemy defection might be worth a look. 50% chance of healing 10HP per turn when in enemy territory. It's an existing mystic blade promotion for kris swordsman
Probably just leave the hov where it is then.
Probably just leave the hov where it is then.
Similar threads
