What shall we research next?
- Thread starter Rhye
- Start date
thadian
Kami of Awakened Dreamers
wow, i was challenged my game mechanics instead of by calling me a newb... but you have a very valid point, and i found an answer.
"So that every civ which may be squatted upon would be doomed to obscurity and collapse?"
no - but you know more about coding than i ever will. so i will let you refute me, as you often do
I believe that like with RFC Rand, your capital should be given a "Capital Area", much like your core area. so what happens you ask, when the vikings take themselves over to London and settle?
1. England, naturally, would be forced into ireland, where it would be given a new core area. It would declare on the vikings with the goal of "reclaiming the homeland." It will be treated as though the vikings DOW'd the newly spawned "Irish", who would begin receiving units from the vikings. this will continue naturally, and there would be an unhappiness penalty of these brito/viking citizens. they will know they are being held by foreign powers.
ok, that sucks i admit it. truth is, i don't really have a response for you - because there is no right answer.
however there needs to be more leniency in how squatting should work.
if im greece, and i want Byzantium as my capital, why should i suffer?
if im babylon and i choose to migrate to ukraine before settling, why should i suffer? if im japan and i settle some pacific islands instead of japan, why should i suffer?
i don't want the typical squatting debate because im not trying to defend my views, only to give Rhye feedback on what i think should be done - and i think squatting should be permitted to an extent. with a capital zone, in a squatted game, many civ's may wind up displaced - but still playable countries who are capable of performing as well as they already do.
so outside of capital spawn zones - i can only suggest that each country can settle any of its historical area without penalty. if germany squats out netherlands, then netherlands should spawn in another one of its historical locations, maybe austrailia - the pacific islands, south africa, brazil etc.
EDIT: I chose to edit this post instead of adding another one.
Blizzrd is right on, the quests are impossible. you should either completely remove all reference from the code and thus from the game (cleaning up the code) - or - make them dooable. maybe even make a few special RFC specific quests?
"So that every civ which may be squatted upon would be doomed to obscurity and collapse?"
no - but you know more about coding than i ever will. so i will let you refute me, as you often do
I believe that like with RFC Rand, your capital should be given a "Capital Area", much like your core area. so what happens you ask, when the vikings take themselves over to London and settle?
1. England, naturally, would be forced into ireland, where it would be given a new core area. It would declare on the vikings with the goal of "reclaiming the homeland." It will be treated as though the vikings DOW'd the newly spawned "Irish", who would begin receiving units from the vikings. this will continue naturally, and there would be an unhappiness penalty of these brito/viking citizens. they will know they are being held by foreign powers.
ok, that sucks i admit it. truth is, i don't really have a response for you - because there is no right answer.
however there needs to be more leniency in how squatting should work.
if im greece, and i want Byzantium as my capital, why should i suffer?
if im babylon and i choose to migrate to ukraine before settling, why should i suffer? if im japan and i settle some pacific islands instead of japan, why should i suffer?
i don't want the typical squatting debate because im not trying to defend my views, only to give Rhye feedback on what i think should be done - and i think squatting should be permitted to an extent. with a capital zone, in a squatted game, many civ's may wind up displaced - but still playable countries who are capable of performing as well as they already do.
so outside of capital spawn zones - i can only suggest that each country can settle any of its historical area without penalty. if germany squats out netherlands, then netherlands should spawn in another one of its historical locations, maybe austrailia - the pacific islands, south africa, brazil etc.
EDIT: I chose to edit this post instead of adding another one.
Blizzrd is right on, the quests are impossible. you should either completely remove all reference from the code and thus from the game (cleaning up the code) - or - make them dooable. maybe even make a few special RFC specific quests?
blizzrd
Micromanager
I voted for new UHVs, because I would most like to see them over anything else in the list -- but I would like to see all of the above really.
Specifically on 1 though, it would be great if RFC included inquisitor units (or whatever name) who could remove religions from cities.
EDIT: Oh, and I sincerely hope that any new patch corrects the incorrect change to the quest mechanics which was implemented in the last patch. Quests are currently broken in RFC, which is sad.
merijn_v1
Black Belt
I like the new UHV's, 1700 AD start and the Antiquity. I don't like the others very much. But I can't chose between these three.
Wessel V1
Emperor
Believe it or not, but the AI already can squat. When I tried to conquer Greece as Carthage, they only had an Italian colony. Then Rome spawned, the city didn't flip. If that's the rule now, that you only city can't flip, nevermind then. And if you're interested, I've 1.181 still installed on my computer, next to 1.184. I could upload it somewhere if you'd like to.
AnotherPacifist
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Messages
- 4,878
Actually, thadian's idea is kinda novel. What if the Dutch were Boers rather than true Dutch (if there is such a thing)--impossible historically but still interesting? What if the Angles and Saxons were wiped out completely by the Vikings and "England" became Norse? (Then we will still have Celtic Ireland if the Vikings didn't kill them too). The Romans were latecomers in the grand scheme of things (Etruscans, Greeks and Phoenicians were there first) so maybe they would have been based out of Medliolanum instead of Rome.
More interestingly, where would the Japanese and "barbarian" tribes represented by Khmer spawn if the Middle Kingdom expanded really rapidly? Okinawa? Philippines? Australia?
All this coming from a committed squatter, of course.
More interestingly, where would the Japanese and "barbarian" tribes represented by Khmer spawn if the Middle Kingdom expanded really rapidly? Okinawa? Philippines? Australia?
All this coming from a committed squatter, of course.
sedna17
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,091
I voted for Rhye's and Fall of the Greek world, because I'd love to see that (and development might give useful cross-pollination to RFC Europe). However, I was also really torn to vote for "Further Development of RFC", because things like better treatment of religious schisms would be awesome.
I would prefer nations to be given an easier time when it comes to founding colonies. I don't know about others, but the real charm in RFC for me is both remaking and rewriting history. Colonies play an important part in this and the AI-controlled British Empire often can't grasp even a portion of the landmass the historial Empire once did - even a human player is facing trouble trying that. This is the problem.
So what do I propose? Lessen the penalties for settling into foreign lands by a great deal (if they aren't exactly centres of civilizations like Paris or Rome), increase the foreign nations' interests for those lands and maybe cut the colonies' maintenance costs while you're at it? I would like to see more differences between colonial and a continental empires and perhaps stability and maintenance costs could be what would portray this. (Cities have cut maintenance cost when not in the same continent as the palace?)
I can't name what thread it was in but I can recall a case of brainstorming taking place about colonies that suggested that they could be built in the same fashion they are in Final Frontier - through a non-settler unit's initiative (Worker) and more so being settlements or trade ports rather than actual metropolises. (It also suggested being able to buy your population to move in the new settlements.) The problem I see with the current system is that right now it follows the principle of starting a metropolis that takes care of it matters all by itself. Behind this is calculated maintenance costs that are based on the total number of cities, city's size and other similiar factors and so, it will often take time before a city will start paying itself back. I want this to change by cutting the costs a little because colonies are supposed to enstrengthen an empire. Badly managed ones never do that but even the good ones require a tremendous amount of effort on some of the most historically important city sites. South Africa and the Indian coast come to mind.
One more thing, instead of giving research penalties starting from the 11th city you own, the giga empire penalty could be replaced with increased maintenance costs. (Of course, this is just what I think and I'm sure it's been discussed to death already.) Even if that meant your cottage-based empire's economy would be utterly decimated with the first plague you come across.
Hope the post isn't too fragmented.
So what do I propose? Lessen the penalties for settling into foreign lands by a great deal (if they aren't exactly centres of civilizations like Paris or Rome), increase the foreign nations' interests for those lands and maybe cut the colonies' maintenance costs while you're at it? I would like to see more differences between colonial and a continental empires and perhaps stability and maintenance costs could be what would portray this. (Cities have cut maintenance cost when not in the same continent as the palace?)
I can't name what thread it was in but I can recall a case of brainstorming taking place about colonies that suggested that they could be built in the same fashion they are in Final Frontier - through a non-settler unit's initiative (Worker) and more so being settlements or trade ports rather than actual metropolises. (It also suggested being able to buy your population to move in the new settlements.) The problem I see with the current system is that right now it follows the principle of starting a metropolis that takes care of it matters all by itself. Behind this is calculated maintenance costs that are based on the total number of cities, city's size and other similiar factors and so, it will often take time before a city will start paying itself back. I want this to change by cutting the costs a little because colonies are supposed to enstrengthen an empire. Badly managed ones never do that but even the good ones require a tremendous amount of effort on some of the most historically important city sites. South Africa and the Indian coast come to mind.
One more thing, instead of giving research penalties starting from the 11th city you own, the giga empire penalty could be replaced with increased maintenance costs. (Of course, this is just what I think and I'm sure it's been discussed to death already.) Even if that meant your cottage-based empire's economy would be utterly decimated with the first plague you come across.
Hope the post isn't too fragmented.
Here's the link to the threadhttp://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=300786&highlight=Final+Frontier
SadoMacho
spanker of civilizations
#1 seems nice, expanding the religions is something many people like. Some other stuff still could be added, people still have a lot of idea's.
I've always wanted to see a Rhye's and Fall of modern Civilizations. Not just a 1700 AD start (what would be nice to) but a actual mod starting in 1815. Decolonization, world wars, and nationalism could give the rise and fall of some civs and more time to play in the modern age.
I've always wanted to see a Rhye's and Fall of modern Civilizations. Not just a 1700 AD start (what would be nice to) but a actual mod starting in 1815. Decolonization, world wars, and nationalism could give the rise and fall of some civs and more time to play in the modern age.
blizzrd
Micromanager
Not any more, since I upgraded my PC.
Why not Rhye's and Fall of Colonization? That's why I've voted "other". Especially because colonization is a very interesting stand-alone but would definitely need many "historical-feel" improvements. And there are only one other serious mod (that i don't like much).
Else, all proposals are quite interesting but many are too "classicals" to my mind. Actually, i think RFC can be regarded as finished now, even if there are always some minor details we would discuss...I would definitely prefer a new project (based on RFC ideas of course), like The Greek world one.
And ideally, i would like you to work on further Firaxis projects...
Else, all proposals are quite interesting but many are too "classicals" to my mind. Actually, i think RFC can be regarded as finished now, even if there are always some minor details we would discuss...I would definitely prefer a new project (based on RFC ideas of course), like The Greek world one.
And ideally, i would like you to work on further Firaxis projects...
Lone Wolf
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 9,908
With the AI the problem is that the AI is bad at colonizing uninhabited lands discovered not in the early game. See Brazil in Earth18, which remains uncolonized for a very long time.
Rhye gave them free settlers, and that's the reason they manage to found some early colonies at all. Britain also suffers from the fact that some of her colonial cities always flip to America. Then she declares the pointless war on flip, and, depending on the American AI, can lose her other colonies in the American continent as well.
Ambassador
Peacemonger
Dear Rhye,
I'd suggest improving RAND as well. To me it's even better than normal RFC because it brings that sense of uniqueness in every new game, while in normal RFC you know what will happen because you know the map and spawning places (to avoid settling them for instance).
I'd like to see more Civs starting in RAND with more flexible starting dates (say, a range of a 100 years or so). Space is always there, plus speed isn't much of a problem.
And yes, as Tigranes, I think that your modell and ideas about RFC have to influence next CIV5 in significant way. You added some gameplay mechanics like stability and different time bound starting dates that I think many Civ players were waiting for since Civ2. I hope Firaxis will ask you to be lead conceptual designer in CIV5 (after you finished your exams, of course ;-) )
I'd suggest improving RAND as well. To me it's even better than normal RFC because it brings that sense of uniqueness in every new game, while in normal RFC you know what will happen because you know the map and spawning places (to avoid settling them for instance).
I'd like to see more Civs starting in RAND with more flexible starting dates (say, a range of a 100 years or so). Space is always there, plus speed isn't much of a problem.
And yes, as Tigranes, I think that your modell and ideas about RFC have to influence next CIV5 in significant way. You added some gameplay mechanics like stability and different time bound starting dates that I think many Civ players were waiting for since Civ2. I hope Firaxis will ask you to be lead conceptual designer in CIV5 (after you finished your exams, of course ;-) )
Rhye
's and Fall creator
welcome! You must have been here only recently, as I've been very active for years on these forums
RAND, as well as RFC, will be patched BEFORE anything else decided on this poll will ever start.
So, also squatting, stability and events should not be discussed here and shouldn't forward votes into #1, cause bug fixes and adjustments will have the priority anyway.
In my humble opinion, you should think strategically, Rhye. I suggest to think big. I suggest to think about the future of the Civ games in general. Think about Civ 5. Now think about how your idea's can influence the future Civ.
Let's see a big picture. Civ widely considered as one of the best games of all times. After Firaxis included your mod with 2 others in BTS you sealed your name in history. I don't want to sound critical, but the very fact Firaxis included fun created material as a commercially distributed package suggests that they are running out of steam. Colonization remake is another indication of that. Both Brian Reynolds and Soren Johnson left Civ. I really would like to know what Firaxis will research next...
So I suggest you to further concepts of RFC, gradually introduce new once, and promote your concepts (not just the mod) so that Firaxis would make it an integral part of Civ 5.
I am sorry for this post being so long
And I think that RFC, as it is, can already influence the future Civ
So let's deepen that impression.
For that matter, I've finished my exams long time ago, but what you say should be told to Firaxis, not me.
I have no idea of what they're doing; I haven't been contacted in years, so if they are making civ5, I'm absolutely not involved in it.
That said, I think my motivations should be this community, and the fun for me, as it has always been. Not helping or inspiring Firaxis. I don't think such a big company needs a single person.
JujuLautre
Deity
I must say I'm not that much enthusiast about the new UHVs; however, the 1700 start and the alternative history stuff strike me as being what I would like to get first
Of course, in the end, you chose.
Otherwise, I remembered that, when you first mentioned RAND, I imagined something more like Vanilla BTS but with RFC features. When, in the end, it's more RFC with an alternative map.
Did you ever think about making something similar to the former? Like incorporate stability, plague, civ switching, independents or civ spawning into vanilla BTS ? There's also something I'd like to see, starting a game right at some advanced date with several units, techs, given buildings... But at the same time without the predictability of history like it is in Rand now. Ok, perhaps that's a little bit too "Civ5" and I'm only dreaming, but why not
Of course, in the end, you chose.
Otherwise, I remembered that, when you first mentioned RAND, I imagined something more like Vanilla BTS but with RFC features. When, in the end, it's more RFC with an alternative map.
Did you ever think about making something similar to the former? Like incorporate stability, plague, civ switching, independents or civ spawning into vanilla BTS ? There's also something I'd like to see, starting a game right at some advanced date with several units, techs, given buildings... But at the same time without the predictability of history like it is in Rand now. Ok, perhaps that's a little bit too "Civ5" and I'm only dreaming, but why not
Similar threads
