New City States

What's random is enforcing a set ratio if city state types. How does that affect gameplay? If one type if city state needs to be more prevalent than others on the map then the script should account for that. The pool of city states doesn't need to reflect an intended ratio.

The fact that there IS a ratio makes it fairly clear that the map script DOES NOT account for that.
 
The fact that there IS a ratio makes it fairly clear that the map script DOES NOT account for that.

If the ratio is intended to enforce more of one type then its existence does reflect the absence of such measures in a script yes. I'm just saying it could be done in the script and it might be better that way since the way it is now probably lends itself to adding more city state types rather than individual city states. Are we sure there is a gameplay balance issue with (judging from the type ratio) having too many Militaristic city states on the map? Or are those ones just harder to come up with?
 
If the ratio is intended to enforce more of one type then its existence does reflect the absence of such measures in a script yes. I'm just saying it could be done in the script and it might be better that way since the way it is now probably lends itself to adding more city state types rather than individual city states. Are we sure there is a gameplay balance issue with (judging from the type ratio) having too many Militaristic city states on the map? Or are those ones just harder to come up with?
I see two things, 1. City-States have the long-term purpose of being central to the diplomatic victory. They may be trying to discourage the Diplomatic Warmongers by having a smaller amount of militaristic city-state. 2. Religion is designed to peter out in the late game, so it's natural you won't want as many religious city states (they'll also be less useful later).
 
Militaristic CS can also gift UUs and getting free units may or may not be OP in some situations.
 
Honestly I'd be disappointed if Venice becomes a new civ. Not because they don't have a fascinating place in history, but because it seems to me that they are a (if not THE) prime example of why the city-state concept was added to Civilization in the first place.
 
If the ratio is intended to enforce more of one type then its existence does reflect the absence of such measures in a script yes. I'm just saying it could be done in the script and it might be better that way since the way it is now probably lends itself to adding more city state types rather than individual city states. Are we sure there is a gameplay balance issue with (judging from the type ratio) having too many Militaristic city states on the map? Or are those ones just harder to come up with?

Coming up with City States is certainly not the limiting factor. The fact that they've brought in so many new city states since the beginning is testament to that. Think about it this way, on release there was 28 city states, 3 replaced over the course of the DLC, and a further 4 replaced with Gods & Kings plus some 14 new city states. We've already seen a new what... 6 city states at this point in time for Brave New World, and are expecting more still, so that's what... 28 new city states since release, and counting. There are plenty more that could be added too.
 
Coming up with City States is certainly not the limiting factor. The fact that they've brought in so many new city states since the beginning is testament to that. Think about it this way, on release there was 28 city states, 3 replaced over the course of the DLC, and a further 4 replaced with Gods & Kings plus some 14 new city states. We've already seen a new what... 6 city states at this point in time for Brave New World, and are expecting more still, so that's what... 28 new city states since release, and counting. There are plenty more that could be added too.

That's good I would like to see a plethora of city-states added. It does seem like they are suppressing Religious and Militaristic city-states but I think unless this can be determined to be a game-breaking issue using mods it's a bogus statistic. It's like determining Judgement Day using Biblical numerology. There's a pattern but it may not have any actual effect.
 
They generally pick cities by historical and cultural significance, as well as regional significance, rather than just a list of cities by population. Ragusa (Dubrovnik) only sits 13th in Croatia for population as well.

The cynic in me says that if they can put a Civilopedia entry for the Italian Ragusa in vanilla on release, they could mix them up here as well. That said, Ragusa is UNESCO World Heritage listed as part of Val di Noto, it certainly isn't insignificant, even if the population is small.

Even if it is a valid choice, there are plenty of other valid choices for a city-list that don't necessitate converting the Dalmatian Ragusa back into the Sicilian one and then removing it. If they skipped the Italian city of Ragusa, no one would be upset by it.
 
That's good I would like to see a plethora of city-states added. It does seem like they are suppressing Religious and Militaristic city-states but I think unless this can be determined to be a game-breaking issue using mods it's a bogus statistic. It's like determining Judgement Day using Biblical numerology. There's a pattern but it may not have any actual effect.

It's not just patterns, they specifically chose to have it with a certain distribution. I don't know why, but that's what they did. That's not numerology, when I look over to my neighbours house and see that the grass has been cut, I shouldn't need to considering the possibility that: "Maybe it was an accident" or "Maybe it was a coincidence", he clearly mowed his lawn because he wanted the grass shorter.

If there were a distribution like 7-11-5-8-9 rather than 10-10-10-6-6, then maybe it might suggest something else, but they clearly picked a distribution and filled it with city states. Of course, this was up from 10-10-8 for vanilla as they added two new city state types. But again, it's clear that they have a pattern for it, and whilst they may have changed it to have maybe 10-10-10-8-8 this time, it certainly isn't just a case of them having a distribution based on what came off their heads at the time.

Even if it is a valid choice, there are plenty of other valid choices for a city-list that don't necessitate converting the Dalmatian Ragusa back into the Sicilian one and then removing it. If they skipped the Italian city of Ragusa, no one would be upset by it.

Changing it from Ragusa to Ragusa [D] was entirely a cosmetic change. It's possible it was one not even made by the team that put Ragusa in as a city state. Maybe they forget which Ragusa it was and considered that they both wanted it in and thought it would be odd to have an independent Ragusa in the change with a full Italian Civ in.
 
I think my point is, when they made the Italian city-state list, they would get to Ragusa and go "oh wait, that's already in the game, let's just go with something else." I find it swap out a city by thinking of the Italian Ragusa (especially since, even by historical standards, there are plenty of other great choices - my city-list was more historical than modern and I included more than I had to).

That being said, even if they went with Italy as a Civ, that would incorporate Venice and, by extension, possibly Ragusa.
 
Top Bottom