I like your lines of thinking, there's few good ideas I've been thinking as well.
1) This I think simply boils down to the size of the map vs. research speed. If you think about it, Romans, Egyptians, Persians, Greeks etc... had connections to at least a dozen peoples around them. So for a normal Civ game if you manage to map the whole world in Bronze Age, your likely playing small map with not that many opponents, or have very slow research. I often play big maps with 20-30 AI players, and usually the exploring speed is pretty realistic. Now I detest the "shared vision" thing which breaks this. Sharing maps with allies is good and realistic feature though.
2) I've been thinking about this logistics issue, but any tactical addition to it I've come up with does double whammy to game mechanics. It both breaks the AI, and adds annoying micromanagement to warfare, which I think is quite well designed (and expensive) already. I have simply added gold upkeep and a rule that each turn spent on tile that doesn't offer support (mountains, desert, glacier) causes damage to a unit. AI being exempt from it, because it won't understand it.
3) I agree. It could work best as opposite of Republics, where every tile with enemy units in City Radius would make one Citizen unhappy. Wonder if this could simply be done with adding new rule?
4) I think this is currently handled well by corruption, trade and incite cost mechanics. No need the specify far away outposts as "colonies" specifically in my opinion. I'm running high corruption, high unhappiness ruleset, where different governments have much larger effect on them, which produce greatly differing ability to have large empires with colonies, vs. contained highly developed state.
5) Yes! I'm definitely in favor of adding Civil War as a separate rule where you could specify number of factors, including amount of unhappiness in a city, distance to capital, amount of corruption etc... as a inciting factor. Even better if it can be set as 0-100 % chance per turn dependant of said factors. I want to have to fear my citizens!
6) This concept I don't think I've encountered before, and have to ponder a while. Similar effect comes in my games from having dozen different governments and real need to switch them at a times, which can be triggered by new techs.
1) This I think simply boils down to the size of the map vs. research speed. If you think about it, Romans, Egyptians, Persians, Greeks etc... had connections to at least a dozen peoples around them. So for a normal Civ game if you manage to map the whole world in Bronze Age, your likely playing small map with not that many opponents, or have very slow research. I often play big maps with 20-30 AI players, and usually the exploring speed is pretty realistic. Now I detest the "shared vision" thing which breaks this. Sharing maps with allies is good and realistic feature though.
2) I've been thinking about this logistics issue, but any tactical addition to it I've come up with does double whammy to game mechanics. It both breaks the AI, and adds annoying micromanagement to warfare, which I think is quite well designed (and expensive) already. I have simply added gold upkeep and a rule that each turn spent on tile that doesn't offer support (mountains, desert, glacier) causes damage to a unit. AI being exempt from it, because it won't understand it.
3) I agree. It could work best as opposite of Republics, where every tile with enemy units in City Radius would make one Citizen unhappy. Wonder if this could simply be done with adding new rule?
4) I think this is currently handled well by corruption, trade and incite cost mechanics. No need the specify far away outposts as "colonies" specifically in my opinion. I'm running high corruption, high unhappiness ruleset, where different governments have much larger effect on them, which produce greatly differing ability to have large empires with colonies, vs. contained highly developed state.
5) Yes! I'm definitely in favor of adding Civil War as a separate rule where you could specify number of factors, including amount of unhappiness in a city, distance to capital, amount of corruption etc... as a inciting factor. Even better if it can be set as 0-100 % chance per turn dependant of said factors. I want to have to fear my citizens!
6) This concept I don't think I've encountered before, and have to ponder a while. Similar effect comes in my games from having dozen different governments and real need to switch them at a times, which can be triggered by new techs.
Statistics: Posted by Jacew — Thu Aug 15, 2024 6:48 am