Vox Populi Congress Proposal Workshop
- Thread starter Recursive
- Start date
-
- Tags
- vp congress
redrum68
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2013
- Messages
- 68
The downside of this is you might not have enough NW to specialize all cities unless we have a lot more NWs.
Nah, we can already hide buldings.
I really like this idea. Or National Wonders with stronger, more % effects (I think some national wonders give flat yields, or yields everywhere, which doesn't help with specialization).
Only in EUI
notaspambot
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2020
- Messages
- 199
Purely text-related idea this time- Rename Gurukulam to Religious Schools. Gurukulam has three issues with its current naming:
1. Gurukulam is a word that is likely unrecognisable to most English speakers
2. Beliefs have no flavour entries in the civilopedia, meaning players have no way to discover what it means in-game
3. Unlike something like the Pata-Pata, the is a generic component, and we should hold to a higher standard on the recognisability of words for generic components compared to unique components.
Religious Schools is simply my take on "anglicising" the name, although other people might have better alternatives.
1. Gurukulam is a word that is likely unrecognisable to most English speakers
2. Beliefs have no flavour entries in the civilopedia, meaning players have no way to discover what it means in-game
3. Unlike something like the Pata-Pata, the is a generic component, and we should hold to a higher standard on the recognisability of words for generic components compared to unique components.
Religious Schools is simply my take on "anglicising" the name, although other people might have better alternatives.
pineappledan
Deity
Vanilla had a belief called guruship. But I’m not really fussed if players of the mod inadvertently learn about something new.
No reason not to have this also in the regular UI. Just not implemented yet. Anyway, that's not a reason against the idea.
Relatyve Mind
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2025
- Messages
- 103
I would love for there to be many more national wonders, allowing different cities to specialize in various ways. Maybe have some that are terrain-dependent? Or policy-dependant? Cities of Marble is a good step in the direction of more NW's, but I'm not keen on the "all new cities start with this building" part of that mod.
notaspambot
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2020
- Messages
- 199
New idea: Increase the number of coal deposits by 11% (reduce frequency divisors in AssignStartingPlots.lua by 10%).
There's been a constant feeling of a shortage of coal on the map in my playthroughs. Not necessarily in the game, because there's a fair amount of coal tied up in refineries, and etc., but off-map resources tend to support playing tall more than playing wide, and there often isn't enough coal on the map to support the latter. The numbers proposed are intentionally modest in hopes that they'll generate less controversy, but I wouldn't be mind having a bigger increase either.
There's been a constant feeling of a shortage of coal on the map in my playthroughs. Not necessarily in the game, because there's a fair amount of coal tied up in refineries, and etc., but off-map resources tend to support playing tall more than playing wide, and there often isn't enough coal on the map to support the latter. The numbers proposed are intentionally modest in hopes that they'll generate less controversy, but I wouldn't be mind having a bigger increase either.
Last edited:
I cant agree with that. Abundant resourse allocation leads to less interesting gameplay. Resourses are limited, and in real world countries have to adapt to that fact.
Also, there are ways to increase your coal stockpiles by trading, building special buildings and wonders.
notaspambot
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2020
- Messages
- 199
Then would you prefer if I also added in a nerf to refineries then? A standard 6 city tall civ can already afford a single coal building in all cities with just a single deposit, and both with Soho Foundry/Order. The "abundant resourse allocation" situation arguably already exists, but for tall civs precisely because of things like "special buildings and wonders".
If being honest, i would nerf many things
But i stand by my view on resourses: they should be limited and players should have strong incentive to fight for them.notaspambot
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2020
- Messages
- 199
You're not answering the question though. Would you be okay with the idea if it ends up redistributing existing coal from refineries onto the map, instead of a flat increase? And if not, why?
Because right now, you're ultimately just arguing for the status quo here, and I'm not sure how your argument of "resources should be limited" applies.
Because right now, you're ultimately just arguing for the status quo here, and I'm not sure how your argument of "resources should be limited" applies.
I specifically amswer by stating that resoyrces should be limited and players should have very strong incentive to fight or at least to make a strong competition case for them.
For instance, if you play on some "Pangea plus" map and you find yourself in a predicament when there is only 1 source of coal on your territory you will have incentive:
a) to search for coal resources in other territories (including uncharted ones) and found cities there which in turn urge you to think about how, where and when carry on expeditions, where to found cities, how to develope those cities, which army you need to deploy in those newly founded cities, how to connect those newly founded cities with your capital etc.
b) to look for your rival territory and realize that your neighbor got 10 (!) sources of coal and whats the best thing - that neighbor does not even know yet about that since no required technology being discovered. Over thorough consideration you are eager to start a short war in order to capture 2 cities with rich coal sources around them.
c) to peruse your territory and your closest neighbor territory and realize that you are both so unlucky of having only 1 source of coal. Then you will search for coal elswhere and realize that in very distant lands Inca got embarrassement of riches and monopoly on coal. The problem is that Inca been so far away from you all that time you have not even cared to interact with them. But now you have a very strong incentive to make deals with them, which in turn might require Declaration of Friendship, and you might want to reach that agreement before your poor closest neighbor does. But wait, if you reach that DoF with inca, that might infuriate your poor closest neighbor and he could attack you.... hm.....
There are also d's, e's, f's and other incentives in this scenario. But, all those incentives suddenly disappear when you got 20 coal sources and all you have to do is click on your worker to build a mine. I think, you got the point.
Regarding refineries: there is a reason you can build a limited amount of those in your empire and you might need to build them in case you have shortage of coal but that coal you get from refineries shold meet only your basic requirements, for a much better life you might want to resort to those incentives a just listed above.
notaspambot
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2020
- Messages
- 199
What you're talking about isn't resource scarcity, but resource density/distribution. To make this a scarcity issue would mean that coal is so abundant as to make its distribution meaningless. Which it isn't- if it were, I wouldn't have brought up my suggested changes.
Also, the current situation is even worse in that aspect, because up to 40 units of coal (in a standard 8 player game) is currently tied up in special buildings that require no competition whatsoever, and can't be competed for in the first place. And it results in a gamestate where the civs that don't compete for land and resources are in a better situation than the civs who do.
I mean, I'd ultimately still be happy to change the idea to increase the size of coal deposits instead of their numbers if that's what makes people happy though.
Also, the current situation is even worse in that aspect, because up to 40 units of coal (in a standard 8 player game) is currently tied up in special buildings that require no competition whatsoever, and can't be competed for in the first place. And it results in a gamestate where the civs that don't compete for land and resources are in a better situation than the civs who do.
I mean, I'd ultimately still be happy to change the idea to increase the size of coal deposits instead of their numbers if that's what makes people happy though.
Plz, reread my post, think, then think hard again, then realize that my point is if everyone got enough resources for everything the game becomes boring.
Not even going to argue with you anymore, i will just downvote any proposal of this kind.
notaspambot
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2020
- Messages
- 199
All I'm reading is you throwing polemics at some theoretical situation that doesn't exist, and trying to grandstand me about game design when all I'm trying to discuss is some simple numbers change. While being awfully biased about it too, considering you're still refusing to acknowledge to wide-tall discrepancy I've mentioned. But yes, have it your way then.
Moderator Action: Please be civil with each other. If this is impossible, then save the discussion until a proposal is made.
Similar threads
