A couple of ideas about obsolete units, possibly affecting human players only.

Not sure if these ideas are programmable or not, but here goes.

1. Upgrading.

You can upgrade a unit any where within your cultural borders. IMO this has always seemed odd. It would be more realistic if you could only upgrade a unit in a city that had a barracks (re-trainingg etc.) for land units or drydocks for naval units.

Now the AI would probably not be able to handle this well, so why not leave the AI upgrades as it is and make it a bit more harder (more planning needed) but more realistic for the human player.

2. Disbanding units.

Currently the only benefit to disbanding a unit is you do not pay for its upkeep (if any).

Consider this.

Captain: "General, what do we do with all these men now that we have disbanded the unit - just let them fend for themselves?".

General: "Look they are in the city, so they should be able to find some work to do."

Captain: "And what about all that old equipment and uniforms stacked over there?"

General: "Well the army does not want it. Give it to the people in the city I am sure they will be able to re-use some of it."

My idea is this.

If you disband a unit in a city you get some small payback both to population growth (the soldiers) and production (the recycled equipment).

This could be a percentage of its original cost - say 25%.

So a unit that cost 100 hammers to build would add 25 hammers to the production of the city and 25 food to the population growth.

A unit disbanded outside a city gives nothing as is the case now.

I do not think this would be too unballancing to the game and if the payback percentage was low enough,it would curb a possible exploit: of building a unit in a high population city and disbanding it in a low population city.

A way to stop this possible exploit would be to give nothing for disbanding a unit that can still be built.

Again the AI may not be able to handle this, so keep the AI code as it is. They get cheap upgrades any way, so wont be too disadvantaged by the differance.

So lets here your views on these ideas.

hmm the disbanding idea is good. But I like uprading people in culteral borders. I think you should be able to upgrade in any Friendly borders aswell.

I think the disband idea is a good one for sure. I don't think it should involve food and it would have to somehow be hard coded so the hammers could not be put towards wonders or buildings.

NaZ

The units don't cost pop to build in the first place - if they give it when disbanded, it'll be some virtual citizens. As for production/gold, we're already discussing this idea (for the ships ATM).

Hello,

if I understand it correctly than you argument that handing out WEAPONS to the CIVIL population is benefitting population GROWTH and production ??

This is a very obscure and certainly wrong interpretation of "Swords to Plowshares".

It is certainly true that retired legionairres did a great deal in settling the uncharted areas of the Roman Empire (or it also known that Alexander populated 'his' cities with his men and their descendants).
But to translate this into a generic 25% bonus is too much, especially as this bonus works also in 5 mio cities which suddenly would have 1 Mio more inhabitants because I disband a 1.000 soldier unit ... doesnt make sense, even soldiers can not f.. that much.

Maybe you simple add a certain number of food beacons for a certain number of turns in the city (this can be easily coded by establishing a special building that appears after disbanding a unit and diminishes after a number of turns )

The production bonus I would completely rule out. The help of these retired soldiers is already translated into the population growth and no sane ruler would hand out their weapons to the local population but would most likely destroy them as soon as possible. We talk about weapons, man ! You suggest something that leads to Kongo and Afghanistan.

Just imagine the disbanded Russian units (after 1990) would have channeled all their tanks, fighters, AK-47, hand grenades to the local population .. not funny ! Already a lot got lost in the process and is now reappearing in the Caucasus, Chechnya, Afghanistan and Moscow's Underworld. Just imagine ALL would have got there !

even soldiers can not f.. that much.

Nice one ;)


I personally dont like this idea much. Its just spam units and than use them all to buil a wonder, or make new city grow 14 in one turn. It will lead to many "cheat" oportunities, and setting bonus low will result in the idea unworthy. Sometimes its better to save unupgraded unit for weakening invadors, and use new unexpirianced units to killem off and gain expiriance.

What I would like to see is the ability to "merge" units. You get a new unit fresh out of the barracks and a battle veteran one, then simply transfer the exp and promotions to the new one while disbanding the old unit.
At least upgrading-wise financial civs are still in a very good position, while in many cases you could simply build a few new units instead of working on wealth to make the gold for upgrading.
Thinking about it, upgrading costs 20+(hammer diff.)*3 if I remember right, so definitely building wealth is pretty much ineffective unless you dont have anything better to do or the hammer difference is low.

I would even support the idea to have to move in your unit to a city and keep it there while the city builds an "upgrade project" (basically build a new unit but when its finished it replaces the old one with its exp instead of making a new one). Actually that would be the most realistic way of modernizing your army, not just magically putting new equipment on them. :)

And I know that the main problem is coding this.

Many units (mostly naval) will not be upgradable.

Besides, how do you think, that a swordsmans expiriance will help rifleman ?
If you have 10xp swordsman and spend his 4 lvls on combat, bashing II, cover I. Now you upgrade him to rifleman. In rifleman era, its hard to meet melee or archery units (aside from Impi or colonizing America).
With your idea, swordsman will give xp to newelly created rifleman. So rifleman got +7xp from buildings/traits/civics and now gets +10 xp from swordsman. So we now have 17xp rifleman (thats 7 xp more than swordsman had) and he can frelly use them. So he goes combat I, Urban II, "vs gunpowder units" II. So i ask, what happened to Shock II ? What happened to expiriance in fight with melee that swordsman had.

Do you see my point ?

I can see this disbanding units for production work if you could somehow restrict the use of this production to units.

If you could disband an archer and get some hammers and these hammers could only be used to build another unit, then I can't think of a way to exploit that. Of course, the hammers should work like the hammers provided by a great engineer, so no overflow. Is it possible to let the game check the building queue for what is being build and only give the hammers to the city if the building project is a unit? Is it possible to teach the AI that disbanded units can give hammers to units in production. I guess that last part might be exceptionally tricky. It's probably too hard and not worth the effort, but just asking...

No Anaztazioch, you got me wrong. I didnt mean to transfer the pure exp, but the promotions (and the exp too of course). Same happens now when you upgrade a unit.
Or Ill put it this way: you can build a project in cities that will upgrade a unit the same way it does now when you click the upgrade button. Just this way it takes time and you actually have to build the new equipment, you wont just buy it from some mysterious source.

And if you upgrade units with promotions that are useless in the current era that is your problem. I personally never take those melee/archery/mounted promotions, to avoid such problems.


Many units (mostly naval) will not be upgradable.
Why? I see this in many games that naval units are highly discriminated when it comes to upgrading. Ships are the equipment for these units, so if you can rearm a swordsman to fight with firearms, then where is the problem putting the crew from one ship to another? Even from a galley to a destroyer, the crew should have less problems handling the new equipment than in case of swords to firearms.
(Btw, what always made me wonder is why cavalry upgrades to helicopter. I actually like that it can, but its still a bit far fetched.)

(Btw, what always made me wonder is why cavalry upgrades to helicopter. I actually like that it can, but its still a bit far fetched.)

Two reasons.

1. Gameplay. When you can produce Helicopters - infact long before that - Cavalry are no longer usefull and are an obsolete unit.

2. Historical. A lot of countries disbanded cavalry units after WW1 - except for cerrimonial duties. Later when helicopters began to be used, some countries started to use the old cavalry unit names for the helicopter units.

Naval component is completelly reworked.
So far each naval unit is upgradable.

Naval component is completelly reworked.
So far each naval unit is upgradable.

Just can't wait... can't wait to see that

I feel sorry for Hian - hes the one putting new ones into old tech tree... and after that he will have to move em all to new tech tree.

Guess how many ships are we planning to add and i will give you name of one of them :D

I feel sorry for Hian - hes the one putting new ones into old tech tree... and after that he will have to move em all to new tech tree.

Guess how many ships are we planning to add and i will give you name of one of them :D

As the second person responsible for adding ships, I can say that I wouldn't even dare guessing! :D :D

Seriously, though, guys, looks like new version is going to be very big on units.

Wanna tease 'em some more Walter ? ;)

These ideas remind me of civ II :).
From memory I think it was tied into difficulty levels and back then wonder rushing was illegal (I think). You might be able to just make it count for non-wonder buildings.

upgrading units is too damn expensive. just wanted to say that first off. a better way to handle this may to use the buildings like barracks, archery range, stable, etc. that are specific to the types of units as a place upgrade the units. by moving the units into the city with the building required you can use the upgrade button and wait a couple turns (longer for more expensive units) with a little gold cost as well (lets say the cost of the unit in hammers?)

Seriously, though, guys, looks like new version is going to be very big on units.
Which means changing the way upgrading works will be even more important. ;)

Also if you plan to make more steps within a unit category, then at least removing that fixed 20 gold would be nice.

I definately agree on the expense of upgrading units, it seems way out of proportion in comparison to building them new, that said I only tend to build 'wealth' when theres nothing else worthwhile to build so perhaps the upgrade cost is still less then the production cost of the same unit.

(For the readers who don't know the upgrading formula: It is 3*difference in production cost measured in hammers + 20. )

I agree with removing the fixed 20 gold upgrade cost (have done that myself already). There's no good reason to have that in the upgrade cost. It makes it more attractive to not upgrade at each step (archer -> longbowman -> musketman -> rifleman -> infantry) but to upgrade directly from archers to infantry and avoiding the repeated 20 gold cost of each separate upgrade. There is no realism in that at all.

Lets put it this way: If the fixed 20 gold upgrade cost wasn't in the vanilla game, I doubt anyone would have suggested to introduce it in this mod.

Even 3* hammer difference seems steep, we only get 1 gold per hammer after all (Unless its multiplied of course).

Even then I tend to be running on no money anyway in order to max research and enjoy a hammer heavy economy. It would be cool if you needed to upgrade units with a barraks and hammers instead of gold. Perhaps just this as a discount and you can pay through the nose if you want to upgrade your units in the field, feels realistic to me aswell.

You really can't go lower than 3 gold per hammer for upgrading because with building wealth in a city with a forge, factory, power plant of some sort and that modern steel forge thingy, you already get more than 2 gold per hammer. In the modern age, upgrade costs are no problem. It's in the ancient and classical age that the costs are very high. One of the reasons is the lack of commerce production in general during that period of the world, but also the fixed 20 gold cost is relatively far more influential on the upgrade cost. 20 gold on a total upgrade cost of 80 hurts much more than 20 gold on a total upgrade cost of 300.

A bit off topic, but still related:

At the moment with rush buying every hammer costs 7 gold. The fact that upgrading 'only' costs 3 gold per hammer already allows an exploit where you build obsolete units (disconnect a resource) and then mass upgrade them. You avoid the steep 7 gold per hammer cost and 'only' pay 3 gold per hammer.

At least, this is a way to avoid the high rush buying costs. But I guess that no one ever rush buys stuff in this mod as it is so expensive.

Well, as there are no multiplayer TR tournaments around, removing non-obvious (to an average player) exploits is not a priority. Those who know it can restrain themselves from using it (or not - if they prefer it that way). The 20 gold fixed part, OTOH, seems like stuff worth doing. As you say you fixed it yourself, could you point me to the right file to remove it, so I don't have to search myself?

You really can't go lower than 3 gold per hammer for upgrading because with building wealth in a city with a forge, factory, power plant of some sort and that modern steel forge thingy, you already get more than 2 gold per hammer. In the modern age, upgrade costs are no problem. It's in the ancient and classical age that the costs are very high. One of the reasons is the lack of commerce production in general during that period of the world, but also the fixed 20 gold cost is relatively far more influential on the upgrade cost. 20 gold on a total upgrade cost of 80 hurts much more than 20 gold on a total upgrade cost of 300.

A bit off topic, but still related:

At the moment with rush buying every hammer costs 7 gold. The fact that upgrading 'only' costs 3 gold per hammer already allows an exploit where you build obsolete units (disconnect a resource) and then mass upgrade them. You avoid the steep 7 gold per hammer cost and 'only' pay 3 gold per hammer.

At least, this is a way to avoid the high rush buying costs. But I guess that no one ever rush buys stuff in this mod as it is so expensive.

Roman Empire, once it stopped conquering new lands, its wealth lowered drasticly. That becouse conquest was main source of commerce, and same thing is in TR.
The higher "hammer cost" was made to weaken Financial trait. Not only it was giving 1:commerce: on plots with 2, now it needs plot with 3. Remember Vanilla Tactics ? Cottage, cottage, cottage and what a suprice, COTTAGE ! Dont care for production (hammers), you can as easilly if not easier, just hurry it with gold. In TR other improvements are also an option (especially with longer cottage growth)

Well, as there are no multiplayer TR tournaments around, removing non-obvious (to an average player) exploits is not a priority. Those who know it can restrain themselves from using it (or not - if they prefer it that way). The 20 gold fixed part, OTOH, seems like stuff worth doing. As you say you fixed it yourself, could you point me to the right file to remove it, so I don't have to search myself?

Very short post as I have to go:

It's in Globaldefines.xml

<Define>
<DefineName>BASE_UNIT_UPGRADE_COST</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>20</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>

Very short post as I have to go:

It's in Globaldefines.xml

<Define>
<DefineName>BASE_UNIT_UPGRADE_COST</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>20</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>

Thank you. That was useful. :goodjob:

It would be cool if you needed to upgrade units with a barraks and hammers instead of gold. Perhaps just this as a discount and you can pay through the nose if you want to upgrade your units in the field, feels realistic to me aswell.

This is essentially what i was thinking of, although i didnt clarify it as having to build an upgrade. its a good idea, but probably would require some solid sdk?/python? work.

Maybe it could work by giving the unit a "being upgraded" promotion if you click an upgrade with hammers icon (not the current with gold one). After that if you move the unit into a city and change to "Upgrade" production (something like wealth/research/culture) it would eventually be built. Overflow goes to gold.
And Im not talking about the coding here, but the way it could be managed. At least this one wouldnt require different projects for each different upgrade possibility.

Roman Empire, once it stopped conquering new lands, its wealth lowered drasticly. That becouse conquest was main source of commerce, and same thing is in TR.
The higher "hammer cost" was made to weaken Financial trait. Not only it was giving 1:commerce: on plots with 2, now it needs plot with 3. Remember Vanilla Tactics ? Cottage, cottage, cottage and what a suprice, COTTAGE ! Dont care for production (hammers), you can as easilly if not easier, just hurry it with gold. In TR other improvements are also an option (especially with longer cottage growth)

You seem a bit irritated by my post, but I could be reading your post wrong. Maybe I shouldn't have brought the subject to this thread, but since the exploit that I described is linked to gold rushing and someone was suggesting to lower the upgrading cost of units thereby increasing the strength of the exploit, I thought I should mention it.

I can understand what Walter Hawkwood is saying. People should restrain themselves from using exploits. It is of course preferable to remove the exploits but sometimes that can be extremely hard and maybe not worth the effort.

On the subject of gold rushing: After a few games of vanilla civ4, I had already decreased the benefit from the financial trait from 1 extra commerce for every tile that is producing 2 commerce to 1 extra commerce for everytile that is producing 3 commerce. It was one of the first personal modifications that I did in this game, so you really don't have to defend that modification to me. I perfectly agree.

However I must disagree with the increase in cost of gold rushing from 3 gold for every hammer to 7 gold for every hammer. It has made gold rushing an extremely inefficient way of production. Even with banks and marketplaces and groceries and fully developed towns with the best civics to increase the output of towns, it is still way less efficient than the normal production from mines and workshops increased by forges, factories and such.

There are 2 civics in your mod that allow gold rushing (as one of their benefits), but I wonder if anyone ever uses the ability to gold rush stuff. And if no one ever uses the ability to gold rush stuff, then you should wonder if it wasn't maybe nerfed a bit too much. I have already done some calculations on the effectiveness of gold rushing in this mod in another thread and you disagreed with me there so there's no reason to repeat all of that here. I can't present my arguments better than I did there, so I guess I'll just leave it at that.

Oh, by the way, good luck with the next version with all of the new units!

I often rush gold, especially as France, Germany and Russia. Russia has lowest production of all (aside from Moscow, Tatar, and if they buiod south, they have hammers only from forests).

When i play as Russia, i build Moscow for production city, St.Petersburg for cottage spam, and city to south to be cottage spam with some production.

In turn 200, i end with +7 gold income and no currency at 100% resarch. With marketplace, i have +24 gold, and with wealth in all cities i get even +100, so im allowed to upgrade one archer to longbowman almost every turn.

But as Mansa Musa im best in gold rush. +37 gold at 100% reasarch and no currency, 4 cities. And +148 gold/ turn with wealth (and still not cut out jungle north of Congo). And thats my profits in TR.

In vanilla i often had 100% resarch and did not know what to do with my 1k gold in tresury and another 100+ gold/turn income...

PS: I was not iratated by your post, its the way of my words. Im NOT a nice person... well sort of ;)

I often rush gold, especially as France, Germany and Russia. Russia has lowest production of all (aside from Moscow, Tatar, and if they buiod south, they have hammers only from forests).

When i play as Russia, i build Moscow for production city, St.Petersburg for cottage spam, and city to south to be cottage spam with some production.

In turn 200, i end with +7 gold income and no currency at 100% resarch. With marketplace, i have +24 gold, and with wealth in all cities i get even +100, so im allowed to upgrade one archer to longbowman almost every turn.

But as Mansa Musa im best in gold rush. +37 gold at 100% reasarch and no currency, 4 cities. And +148 gold/ turn with wealth (and still not cut out jungle north of Congo). And thats my profits in TR.

In vanilla i often had 100% resarch and did not know what to do with my 1k gold in tresury and another 100+ gold/turn income...

PS: I was not iratated by your post, its the way of my words. Im NOT a nice person... well sort of ;)

Good to hear that you were not irritated. :)

I never play on the world map so I don't know the terrain around these cities.

Would you lower your science rate and increase the gold rate to gold rush stuff? Because if you're gold rushing while doing 100% science, then you're not gold rushing with any of the cottage income. You're just using money that can't be used in any other way, money that is being generated by your holy city and maybe wealth. The main reason to weaken gold rushing would be to not make cottages + gold rushing more effective at building stuff than workshops.

I always play at high difficulty levels and I'm never able to sustain 100% research rate. Maybe if I used wealth, but I'd rather build new stuff (buildings or units to conquer new cities) than use wealth. It's even more difficult in this mod because the opportunity to get multiple holy cities was removed.

The real reason why civilization 4 is suffering from the 90-100% research rate is because building upkeep was removed from civ3 to civ4. Now cities have a similar upkeep at the start of the game and near the end of the game, but the income of cities grows dramatically during a game of civ. The inclusion of city upkeep in civilization 4 was good to stop the rapid expansion as the dominant strategy in civilization, but the removal of building upkeep has dramatically reduced the importance of buildings like banks, markets and groceries. The 25% or 50% increase in gold production aren't very useful when you're using a 0% or 10% gold income (markets and groceries also have another more important use, but I'm focusing on their gold increasing properties here).
This of course isn't related to your mod, but is just a 'problem' of civilization 4 in general.

Since you have buildings that introduce a fixed production increase (sawmill), would it not also be possible to reintroduce buildings with a gold upkeep in civilization 4? That would make markets, groceries and banks more important again. It might take some thinking on how to balance this, but I don't see a real problem with introducing this into the game.
The AI might have problems with it, but I don't expect this. Especially not when you only introduce upkeep cost to the more advanced buildings which will only be build in the well developed cities.

We have some gold consuming building - miltary ones. Every military building increases maintanance by 1%. Now that you mentioned i didnt notice that 1%. In Civ3 i think it was -1 gold.

But if i have +25 gold/tun with 100% resarch, whit is with 0%. Often as Ottomans im lowering resarch to 25% and get arroun 110 gold (thats the cost to upgrade archer to longbowman, so its somewhere arround middleages. Actually more arround rush Oracle and use it to get Feudalism ;) )

In World Map problem lies that there is lots of resources, especially in Europe. Every city in Europe can easilly get 16 population, and have quete a nice production. Also our wealth converts 100% hammers to gold, while vanilla converts only 50%. I dont like this much, but when your European empire dont go over 3 cities, you can set one to produce wealth, other to build things, like defenders.

We have some gold consuming building - miltary ones. Every military building increases maintanance by 1%. Now that you mentioned i didnt notice that 1%. In Civ3 i think it was -1 gold.

But if i have +25 gold/tun with 100% resarch, whit is with 0%. Often as Ottomans im lowering resarch to 25% and get arroun 110 gold (thats the cost to upgrade archer to longbowman, so its somewhere arround middleages. Actually more arround rush Oracle and use it to get Feudalism ;) )

You won't notice the -1% gold from your military production buildings as long as you don't actually have a percentage of your economy spent on gold. If you're running at 100% science, 0% gold, then a city with a barracks (-1%), stable (-1%) and archery range (-1%) will only get 97% of 0 gold which still amounts to the same as 100% of 0 gold.
You will notice the -1% gold in your holy city because it has a gold income even when you're running at 100% science, 0% gold. Depending on how well you have spread your religion, it would be 1 or 2 gold per turn in a good holy city.

If you were to introduce upkeep for buildings, then it should happen in the renaissance and later eras (IMHO). That's when the cities start becoming increasingly wealthy and the city upkeep and civic upkeep start to become inconsequential. If you were to introduce building upkeep, then it should replace the concept of inflation in the game. The concept of inflation in this game has nothing to do with real world inflation. It's just a mechanic to increase cost in the game and a pretty artificial one if I must say (each turn, inflation increases a little).

An example would be:
factory (-3 gold)
coal plant (-2 gold)
airport (-2 gold)


The easiest way to balance this would be to determine a percentage of your income that you want to spend on upkeep in the design phase of this upkeep feature (say 20 %). Then load a few game saves at various points in the game and look at how much money 20% of your commerce is in an average city. And then you know how much money you can spent on the upkeep of buildings

In World Map problem lies that there is lots of resources, especially in Europe. Every city in Europe can easilly get 16 population, and have quete a nice production. Also our wealth converts 100% hammers to gold, while vanilla converts only 50%. I dont like this much, but when your European empire dont go over 3 cities, you can set one to produce wealth, other to build things, like defenders.

Vanilla civ4 has a 50% conversion rate, but warlords has a 100% conversion rate of hammers into gold. Building wealth was considered fairly useless in vanilla. I still never use it in warlords, but it could be somewhat useful. I would only use the build wealth feature of the Total Realism mod when I were to be completely isolated on a island and nothing useful left to build. Since the game moves slower with the Total Realism mod, this (nothing useful left to build) can happen more often than in Warlords.

I never liked the fixed upkeep cost of building in previous civ games, so I personally dont want it back. If building would be to cost you money than they should raise the city maintenance by some percent. Also much more realistic since far out cities would need more money to keep things running.

Another way to make use of gold is to add a fixed gold cost for the "foundation" of certain buildings.

interesting idea, so like a factory costs 30:commerce: + 160:hammers: or something. No idea if I like it or not.

Btw I never thought the rush cost equation was linear, like to rush a project with no progress costs 22 pop but at about 1/6 progress its already dropped to 12 pop (rough guesses from last game for example)

I myself would like to see cottages removed entirely. Maybe replaced with a building that gives a small amount of production for the early game maybe 1 production but upgradeable like the cottages. this way people would be more likely to actually build.

edit.. And my workers wouldnt constantly spam what I believe to be an unimportant improvement.

Well, cottages are a powerful thing - just less so on resource-rich maps (like our World Map). One can have a very powerful economy running on towns - with proper investment of time, labor and research, of course.

But at that it kind of takes some of the strategy out of the game I still stand by my statement that they should be replaced with something that provides a small amount of production if someone really wants money instead of production than a coastal city is a better choice. I feel that it would just add more strategy. And the production instead of money would eliminate the need for buying everything as you would have some production in your cities no matter how harsh the climate.

no matter how harsh the climate.

I dont like the sound of it and our mods name.

I dont like the sound of it and our mods name.

I understand that but think about this. Deserts and tundra. There are civilizations living in these climates today and they still produce what they need to survive. People can live in extreme climates, it is our ability to adapt that sets us apart. I cant see how those tiles would be a money making proposition thats why I suggest production over money.

To use plots with production, you need to have population. Point me out how you want to make a high population in tundra, with farms giving max of 3 food and 4 from deer.

To use plots with production, you need to have population. Point me out how you want to make a high population in tundra, with farms giving max of 3 food and 4 from deer.

You also have to work the tile to get the money from cottages as it is now.

What about limitation for cottages like this: 1.Cottages cannot be build next to city
2.Cottages cannot be build next to each other
So max cottage number per city will be 6 on flatlands.
This will guarantee no more cottage spam and lanscape looks so great in this way:)

I dont think that making such restriction is a good idea.
If you have a city whitch is surrounded by resources and has 2 plots adjecant to them selves, normally you could build 2 cottages there, but with this restriction not.

Besides, AI does not care about "not allowed to build cities in 1 and 2 plot range. The proof on World map is Korea whitch build often on closes continental hill to Ishikari. It may also be not aware of cottage restrictions.

Besides, AI does not care about "not allowed to build cities in 1 and 2 plot range. The proof on World map is Korea whitch build often on closes continental hill to Ishikari. It may also be not aware of cottage restrictions.

There's an exception to this rule when the cities are on two different continents/islands and the exception is for both the AI and the human player.

Well i dont have such an option :o My build city button is darkened

Well i dont have such an option :o My build city button is darkened

Really? I have in some rare cases build a city on an island very close to another city of mine on the main land. The cities have to be on different continents for it to work.

Here's a screenshot that I just created in Warlords 2.08. I gave myself 2 settlers on the right locations (Worldbuilder) and founded the cities.

Close cities.JPG

Hax
will have to take a look at that...

I think it is an intended effect. Sometimes you have these 1 tile islands just of the coast and in some situations the coastal tiles close to these cities would be lost when you wouldn't be able to found a city on that 1 tile island. It could also lead to a situation where you can't build a city on your continent because someone else has build a city on another continent. I can imagine that some people in the early beta-testing of vanilla civilization complained about such a thing.

Or maybe the distance counter automatically ignores sea tiles.

Btw, do you know how exactly the game decides what is same continent and what is not when it comes to coastal islands?

Or maybe the distance counter automatically ignores sea tiles.

Btw, do you know how exactly the game decides what is same continent and what is not when it comes to coastal islands?

Probably some code that gives each land tile that is connected through land with another land tile the same number. You could code that fairly efficiently by just checking each land tile and giving it a number and identifying two groups of numbers if they happen to connect at some point when going through the algorithm. All the tiles with the same number are called a continent.

Cities can only be build close to oneanother when they are on land tiles with a different number.

Why do you want to know what code the game used? Do you suspect it is making a mistake in some cases? I don't actually know how the game does it, but the above method could be used. That's how I would do it, but I'm no programmer, so...