Thanks for all the answers (and sorry for such a late response).I like your lines of thinking, there's few good ideas I've been thinking as well.
Jacew, I find some of your ideas interesting, they could be a better way to address the suggestions I mentioned. You mentioned playing with a ruleset, is it a custom one?
Here are some comments for each one of the six topics:
1) I agree "Shared Vision" could be dealt differently. I don't think it is a problem by itself, I just think it should happen only in later tech levels, with the possibility of such a mechanic linked to techs like Computers, or something. Until them, shared maps could be the way to go.
There is already a mechanic for stealing maps trough espionage, complete with functions like Maps_Stolen_Pct from 3.1.0 to better control this effect; what if there was the possibility to purchase maps? The mechanic could be pretty much the same as the map steal one, only that you exchange the possibility of a failure (and its relationship penalty) with a guaranteed monetary exchange. The other player could refuse, but at least this wouldn't cause a worse relationship.
2) Yeah, I agree my idea could leave to explosive levels of micromanagement. Not to mention the problem with AIs. Your idea could be usefull, it is simpler to work with.
I wonder if such a penalty would be interesting with naval units, in which early naval units (from the discovery age) suffers the terrain penalty when in high seas, deep water tiles maybe. This could make naval explorations more interesting, perharps? This would make such sea explorations a risky, uncertain endeavour, kind of like they were in real life: too many unlucky ships would eventually be lost at sea, trough terrain damage, and the loss of said unities would incur into the happiness penalty I mentioned in the combat section. So, before investing in such endeavours, the player should take into account the risk of annoying its empire with so man failed expedictions. Further techs and naval units would eventually be spared of such terrain penalty. The player might want to wait until such times to brave the seas without risk; but this would mean letting go the chance of expansion, allowing risk-averse players to possibly reap some good results.
3) I think such a mechanic should be easy to implement. Whenever a unit is killed in combat, applies a penalty to your civ satisfaction, perharps with an additonal penalty to the unit's home city. A single loss shouldn't be that bad, but too much units killed in combat adds up the happiness penalty, so the player should go easy with suicide missions. And if one really wants to carry such a mission on, avoid using units from a single city; its inhabitants won't like seeing their family and friends being killed en masse.
4) Maybe the "find territories detached from the capital" is a little hard to add in the code. One other possibility that could work, and perharps it would be easier to add (at least I think so, as a layman): find the city's trade connectiveness to the capital. This means check if the city is connected to your capital by trade routes; or it is eventually connected. For example, city A may not be connected directly to your capital; but it is connected to city B, which is connected to city C, which is connected to city D, which connects to the capital. It's kind of like a tree agorithm with a root at the capital city, I guess? A city not connected to your capital in such conditions would, perharps, suffer penalties in its efficiency. Perharps a penalty of happiness, perharps a penalty in production or costs.
Then again, the high corruption and unhappiness you mentioned in your ruleset could easily deal with this.
Statistics: Posted by Eusebio Ptolomeu — Mon Nov 11, 2024 1:16 pm