Mod for the next diplogame

[mzprox]

The next diplogame is probably far away, but I had some ideas for a mod I think we should try and we can do a bit brainstorming about it. I don't know too much about modding but the features I suggest surely can be modded in. (by the time we'd need it I'd have it done.)

The main aim of the mod would be to lessen the gap between good and not so good players, big and small empires, active and not so active players etc. Civ4 has many feaures which work in this direction, all I really want to do is to increase this effect.

There is one change I'm really insisting on, the others are up to consideration. So that change is:

-Increase the science bonus for researching techs known by other civs This science bonus exists in the game, it's about 25-30% if you are researching a tech which is known by every other civs. I intend to increase this bonus to 100%, that roughly means that the first player will pay 100 beakers for a tech the next one 97, then 94 and so on, for the last it will cost about 50. This idea comes from an other mod used in similar type of games than our diplogames. I'm sure this will work much better than our old rule to give away free techs which belongs to ancient eras.

Optional changes:
-More national wonders. National wonders help small empires, since everyone can have only one of those independetly of the empire's size. I have some ideas, one example: national library (I'm not good at names), +10% science + 1 free scientist , it's basically a lesser great library. (I think giving great person points also helps smaller empires, but it's quite complicated and long to explain here how). I also think that the requirement to build national wonders should be lessened somewhat. I mean: we like to play on huge maps, usually one need 8 universities to build the Oxford, but sometimes civs just don't have as many cities so they fall behind even more. (a requirement of 5 would be more resonable)

-Increased maintenance Probably doesn't require much explanation, later in the game with 4 trade routes, possibly free specialists it's just to easy to maintain huge empires without any disadvantage. I may try to find a way to fine tune maintenance so it would increase only late game and not in the beginning.

-altering the yield of goody huts Some of us like to play with huts on, others don't like the luck factor. so as a compromise I would change them a bit: they would only give cheaper techs, a bit less gold, but no barbarians either. So they would be in but with lesser effect.

-Random events: just one change here: we should remove the barbarian invasion events. They can really screw one player if He gets it, not worth risking it.

-No score mod would also be in use, games are better that way.

most of these have been done in this mod:

http://apolyton.net/showthread.php/194703-Destruction-of-Foes-%28DoF%29-Diplogame-Light?p=5984057&viewfull=1#post5984057

So it would be a good base to build on


So what do you think? Would you like to use mod like this? any suggestion? I could come up with many ideas to balance out buildings, civ traits, units etc, but I'd also like to have as few changes as possible so no need to relearn the game.

[Inca (DoE)]

It's a good idea to start this way ahead of schedule

The science bonus one is a good one. The %age might need to be changed, but higher is definitely better.
Increased maintenance is also a great idea.

More national wonders, again, a great idea. I think reducing the number of X needed to build certain national wonders is more necessary. Some civs can't get 8 cities with universities sometimes, so reducing the number to 4 or 6 would be better for the typical maps. Penalizing civs for not having a level 5 (6?) unit for West Point or whatever that one is also kind of sucks. Perhaps increasing the number of wonders per city to 3 would help, or only help the major powers more...

I think removing RE/goody huts is best, but at least they can be altered to something more appropriate and mild (although it's complicated to do).

Ideas I had (but didn't do) for DoF:

• Aforess's diplo mod (mildly game-changing, adds more diplo options! Adds embassies, non-military OBs, contract trading, some sort of unit marketplace, corp HQ trades) [included in DoF and seems solid in SP]
• easy/diplo random events mod (nerf overly negative/positive random events and make it more diplomatic-like)

1. Allowing players to choose the length of all agreements made in the diplo window (eg, 50T peace treaties, 5T gold contracts)
2. Allowing players to make treaties automatically expire at the end of their term
3. Adding gifted gold/etc into the affected players' gamelogs (ie permanent receipts)
4. Adding NAPs to diplo options (basically, a flexible-length unbreakable ceasefire for nations not at war)
5. Allowing players to unilaterally gift tiles to a player with at least 1 neighboring tile and ~15% cultural influence on the tile (and it can be revoked by the gifter when desired, reverting the tile control to vanilla style)
6. More UN options! More AP options!
7. Add "view sharing" to agreements: let others see what you see.

[Robert]

On the Spanish civ site on this forum some people are working on a smartphone mod for bts pitboss.
Then you can follow the game on your android phone, communicate/read diplo messages, etc.

It's quite interesting!

[Carthage (DoF)]

Another: have 2 unique units per civ (one early game, one late)
(this one is not so hard to do..)

Especially if existing graphics are used / combined..

[mzprox]

@Inca, those are nice ideas, but some of those are very hard if not impossible to mod in. And many things can be achieved with IC agreements.

I got an other idea: I think I'd change how many buildings are lost when a city is conquered. I think currently it's 60% of the buildings (or 40) I would change it to 10-20% so losing cities temporarly in the war will not be as big issue as it is now. (and we should really try to play without city razing).

[Carthage (DoF)]

On this city razing: perhaps we could do that razing a city costs 2 happiness..

[Inca (DoE)]

Agreed to buildings lost. I know the ideas are hard to implement, hence their lack of implementation

[mzprox]

I can edit the SDK, with that I can add more buildings, units, change percentages etc, but to add a new features I think it requires more than that, maybe python coding which I can't do unfortunately.

[The Priest]

Thanks mzprox for getting us started on this.

I agree with your basis approach. Diplo games are at their best when there are new people joining us, from the start and throughout, so we need to keep the mod pretty minimal. The test should be 'is this a change focused on diplogames, or just a change we think would improve the game?'. We allow the first but not the second - because everyone will have their own ideas there, and when the mod becomes 'a special mod we like' we cut ourselves off from others.

I would phrase who we are trying to help a bit differently. We don't want to just help small empires, because that just gives extra power to a particular gaming style (e.g. small religious state using shrine income to power through technologies). We also have to think what that would do to victories. I quite like the non-conquest victories, but others seem to want the big wars (e.g. in DoF its the only victories allowed). But we have to recognised you can't get world conqurering empires without them going through the stages of being large, then very large. If we penalise size too much, that will never happen. What we want to support is weak empires.

-Increase the science bonus for researching techs known by other civs This science bonus exists in the game, it's about 25-30% if you are researching a tech which is known by every other civs. I intend to increase this bonus to 100%, that roughly means that the first player will pay 100 beakers for a tech the next one 97, then 94 and so on, for the last it will cost about 50. This idea comes from an other mod used in similar type of games than our diplogames. I'm sure this will work much better than our old rule to give away free techs which belongs to ancient eras.

Great idea. We may need to watch the balance to avoid finding we help greatly a warmongering early expander. Currently if you do that, you fall fatally behind in tech. These changes are intended to help the weak nation behind in tech, we don't want to help the massive conquering nation behind in tech.

-More national wonders. National wonders help small empires, since everyone can have only one of those independetly of the empire's size. I have some ideas, one example: national library (I'm not good at names), +10% science + 1 free scientist , it's basically a lesser great library. (I think giving great person points also helps smaller empires, but it's quite complicated and long to explain here how). I also think that the requirement to build national wonders should be lessened somewhat. I mean: we like to play on huge maps, usually one need 8 universities to build the Oxford, but sometimes civs just don't have as many cities so they fall behind even more. (a requirement of 5 would be more resonable)

Yes. Particularly the point on number requirements for national wonders. I would just get rid of them completely. You stilll can't build more than two in a city (changing that would give unforseen superpowered effects I fear) but let people build them regardless of their empire size. If that allows some new very small empire stategies to work well - bring it on. Extra NW - maybe. For me that probably falls into the 'dont' change too much' category but I wouldn't say never.

Increased maintenance Probably doesn't require much explanation, later in the game with 4 trade routes, possibly free specialists it's just to easy to maintain huge empires without any disadvantage. I may try to find a way to fine tune maintenance so it would increase only late game and not in the beginning.

Tricky - how does someone win? But you are probably right it can be tweaked.

-altering the yield of goody huts Some of us like to play with huts on, others don't like the luck factor. so as a compromise I would change them a bit: they would only give cheaper techs, a bit less gold, but no barbarians either. So they would be in but with lesser effect.

I'm a no hut person, but yeah if that keeps those luck seekers happy. What is really important though is to keep barbarians on - DoF with no barbarians creates a very different game where my enemies just choke off territory and keep it unsettled with no penalty, and send unarmed settlers around the place.

-Random events: just one change here: we should remove the barbarian invasion events. They can really screw one player if He gets it, not worth risking it.

Yes. We want events. None of them are as bad as the nation next to you attacking you. I'm not sure of the dynamics of barbarian invasions so yes you are probably right, as long as it doesn't favour those who have lots of land to expand in mid game. e.g. ifyou are on a world type map Russia needs to have some penalty for having all of siberia to slowly collonise while poor netherlands has nowhere to go.

-No score mod would also be in use, games are better that way.

YES - this is massively better.

Another: have 2 unique units per civ (one early game, one late)
I guess that is more a flavour than a diplo focused change, but it would be fun.

Range of diplomacy option changes
In two minds here. Yes handing more control to us is good, but (a) maybe its hard to mod and (b) we have to be careful that losers are not forced into unfair peace. At the moment you can only be made to agree to peace for 10 turns etc. I worry about someone being told - for peace you have to give us 200 turns NAP, you have to allow me to view your land, so you can never plot against me etc. I worry that more flexibility could strengthen the strong.

I think I'd change how many buildings are lost when a city is conquered. I think currently it's 60% of the buildings (or 40) I would change it to 10-20% so losing cities temporarly in the war will not be as big issue as it is now. (and we should really try to play without city razing).

YES. We need to make wars less final. Even with our limited war rules, you still very rarely find anyone who has lost a war anytime in history becoming one of the most powerful nations. In DoC as Byzantium I was massively saved by India as a matter of roleplaying (or maybe balance preserving kindness) not razing a major city of mine he took. Logic said raise it - he could never keep it - and if he had done it would have meant a big permanent set back for me. As it was India's invasion was a massive blow which scuppered any chance of me winning, but because cities weren't raised, I was still able to make a real contribution to the unsuccessful attempt to stop India win. If we think that causes revolt problems later game, we could tweak those dynamics, but lets try no raising. And yes the other change to percentages is good for the same reasons.

[Inca (DoE)]

Just a note: random event changes will require Python coding. I don't think it's too complex, though. Certainly, I could've managed that if I was up to altering some 150+ events. But I'm not and think it's best just to avoid using them unless someone wants to put in that time (I don't).

[mzprox]

@Priest: Glad we agree on most of the things

We don't want to just help small empires, because that just gives extra power to a particular gaming style (e.g. small religious state using shrine income to power through technologies). We also have to think what that would do to victories. I quite like the non-conquest victories, but others seem to want the big wars (e.g. in DoF its the only victories allowed). But we have to recognised you can't get world conqurering empires without them going through the stages of being large, then very large. If we penalise size too much, that will never happen. What we want to support is weak empires.

I think bigger is always better in civ. Of course in the beginning the maintenance could hold back expansion but later even crappy cities will give more money than their maintenance cost, produce more units etc. The maintenance increase I have in mind is like +50% cost, still would not make large empires impossible just a bit harder.

[The Priest]

@Priest: Glad we agree on most of the things



I think bigger is always better in civ. Of course in the beginning the maintenance could hold back expansion but later even crappy cities will give more money than their maintenance cost, produce more units etc. The maintenance increase I have in mind is like +50% cost, still would not make large empires impossible just a bit harder.

Yes on the whole, though when you won DoC as India, you were far from the largest civ weren't you? I think often enough a well run medium sized empire can get a good way advanced on tech compared to a larger one, and then defeat them.

[mzprox]

Yes on the whole, though when you won DoC as India, you were far from the largest civ weren't you? I think often enough a well run medium sized empire can get a good way advanced on tech compared to a larger one, and then defeat them.

yeah, but it doesn't mean it's the optimal strategy . But you are right of course: size is not a perfect indicator about how powerful/advanced one civ is, but generally bigger civs are usually more advanced because more cities=more income, and they are usually stronger because more cities=more units.

[Russia (DoE)]

-Random events: just one change here: we should remove the barbarian invasion events. They can really screw one player if He gets it, not worth risking it.

Just a note: random event changes will require Python coding. I don't think it's too complex, though. Certainly, I could've managed that if I was up to altering some 150+ events. But I'm not and think it's best just to avoid using them unless someone wants to put in that time (I don't).

This is already done in the Buffy mod - no Arians, no Attila anymore.

[cheapwowgoldshopkebi]

Looked landlord write something really matter share






_____________________________________
wow gold|diablo 3 gold|

Guild Wars 2 gold