Current (SVN) development discussion thread

[shuizhuchenfu]

Thank you for you reply, and I wish the DOC mods can be made better and better~~

[Thor Macklin]

In other news I think it be worth looking at a start later then 3000 BC. Perhaps 1000 BC? Or maybe even 500 BC? If anything it removes the massive variables and outcomes of history.

[Leoreth]

Originally Posted by Tigranes

Noviy Port is located in Siberia according to the mouse over info, and yet it does not count as a "Siberian Port" for the 2nd UHV... It totally makes sense but then you should probably create a new region called Arctics so that people don't get confused.

Oh, that's an oversight then, could you give the coordinates?

[Leoreth]

New commit is up, featuring the new Italian UHV and a more powerful UP (+1 specialist for all cities until the Industrial era). I've also implemented an exception to the religion unhappiness rule for the Hinduism/Buddhism and Confucianism/Taoism pairs (i.e. if one is state religion, the other produces no unhappiness).

The City States problem still persists, I've disabled the effect for now.

[Thor Macklin]

huzzahs!

BTW making some map changes. is there any reason to not remove alexandria and move hesperides to it's proper location? (giving it Alexandria's wonders) Also is there any inherit risk in moving Pagan up one tile?

[Leoreth]

Remove Alexandria? Why?

[Thor Macklin]

Because it's semi cramping on resources. Not a great deal mind you but all in all I find that Hesperides (in the Berenice location) grows faster. Not to mention it provides a better spot for dominating the medi

[DC123456789]

But isn't Alexandria far more important, both back then and today?

[Leoreth]

Originally Posted by DC123456789

But isn't Alexandria far more important, both back then and today?

This. Hesperides/Bengazi isn't all that important. And it certainly won't get Alexandrian wonders!

[Thor Macklin]

Indeed I'm just thinking of actual city use. Not to say alexandria is a bad city by ANY means.

Then in that case could we please REMOVE Hesperides and add in cathargo? It was the last byzantine holding in north africa and I think it's neglected quite alot in favor of Sfax.

[J. pride]

Then in that case could we please REMOVE Hesperides and add in cathargo?

I like that idea, I mean there is no real reason why Hesperides is there in the first place. Its a crap spot but the player needs to conquer in order to get access to the Magherib. I say move Tripoli one tile east and add Carthago

[iOnlySignIn]

There are a lot of differences in the resource distribution & terrain of North Africa between 3000 BC and 600 AD maps, which were created in the first place to accomodate the idiosyncratic city placements.

Should the cities be moved, the resources should be as well. For example, currently 3000 BC Carthage is a much better spot than 600 AD Carthage.

[Thor Macklin]

Which even with my utterly pathetic programming skills could do in oh...5 minutes?

[King Coltrane]

so i booted up a russia game today and just started looking around the world (as i usually do) and noticed something:

China has 5 silk road cities: chiayukuan, yinchuan, baotou, zhangjiakou, and coastal beijing.

conversely, it has only one coastal city other than beijing: sanshan.

now, if im remembering correctly, china used to settle the south and eastern coasts with regularity, up until about the time Leoreth allowed them to get access to the silk road... seems to me, maybe china feels like coastal cities arent important for trade since the northern silkroad cities can cover that role and then some. instead, nanjing and hangzhou are one tile inland, allowing for more access to land tiles, which equals production (hills, plains, etc) or food (farms, bananas). perhaps if the silkroad in the north accessibility was limited (or even removed) it would encourage china to settle the coast again. now im not saying its better that way, im just curious if we could test it and see if im right.

[Thor Macklin]

Question regarding hte silk road cities. Why not just have Wulumqi? or perhaps turfan?

I mean I don't quite understand their purpose in the first place. (Really I am a thorough idiot with game mechanics. does it really help trade?) If anything I think it screws mongolia with crummy cities during their spawn.

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

Originally Posted by Thor Macklin

Question regarding hte silk road cities. Why not just have Wulumqi? or perhaps turfan?

I mean I don't quite understand their purpose in the first place. (Really I am a thorough idiot with game mechanics. does it really help trade?) If anything I think it screws mongolia with crummy cities during their spawn.

Originally, it was observed that Uber-Mongolia was super-prevalent in a lot of the games I started, when I first started testing 1.9 on SVN. After a couple more versions, I have found myself, that it's a lot more balanced now; about a little over half my late-start civ games, Mongolia grows super huge, and in a little less than half, it's China. I think this is a good balance, but I have noticed that China has the tendency to hold about 3-5 Silk Road cities now (or Mongolia, if they managed to get huge). Mongolia tends to get screwed over if I play a medieval/early civ though, as anything I do invariably changes something for them (i.e. playing as a Euro civ, warring with over civs prevents them from dogpiling Russia during the Mongol invasions, or, as Arabia, I roflstomp their hordes). However, as a late spawning civ, I am seeing much more instances of uber-Mongolia. Obviously, because I had no opportunity to even change a single thing, even if I was not intending to (or had no direct effect). The Silk Road cities are only bothersome if you're Japan/Corea/any civ that wants to occupy China, but you know what? That's the same deal we get with Europe and the Middle East. Every civ makes a whole bunch of crappy, little cities for you to slog through.

[Thor Macklin]

Gotcha...so they are just there really?

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

For the most part yeah. Silk Road cities sort of provide a decent economy bonus for a player
(for the Mongolia player; China players should not attempt this) but if you think that's bad, take a look at India every game as well.
It used to be even worse. If you look early in the DoC OMG thread, there's one picture I have where India has two cities directly adjacent to one another.

Partially, this is why I hate, hate, hate that people are seemingly trying to make City States something viable.
Because it does have it's uses for a player, but ultimately, it's encouraging bad behavior on part of the AIs as well.
Having cities 1-2 tiles from one another, sometimes overlapping in the BFC by standards that would make a lot of players cringe.

[Thor Macklin]

Now unfortunately it still works pretty well for germany.

[King Coltrane]

i think the city state mechanic is conceptually flawed. historically, the city states we are trying to represent (italy, greece, phoenicia) were based around colonization. they ALL had far flung colonies spread throughout the Mediterranean. i think encouraging civs to settle close is the OPPOSITE of what city states should do... it seems to me a better bonus for city states would be +200% gold from every naval trade route with your own cities.

but i get that the civic is supposed to represent the myriad cities that werent officially together but were geographically close. it just doesnt seem like this is something civ is suited to represent. better to focus on other aspects of what city-states historically did.