Beta UHV discussion

[AbsintheRed]

Having prebuild independent cities in the place where the capital should be is very restricting, if the city flips automatically as the capital.
This way the player don't have the freedom to move it's capital a few tiles if he/she wants to play differently.

One option is to add the mechanics from RFC, and raze every city on spawn in the new civ starting position's 3*3 radius. This way we can have indies before the spawn anywhere we want to
But would still feel strange if the new city isn't settled in the same place the indy city was, or if this means razing one of the player's city in that 3*3 tiles

 

[Opera]

Automatic capital flip would however prevent squatting

 

[AbsintheRed]

Automatic capital flip would however prevent squatting

I don't think squatting is that common.
Also, if you change capital (build another palace) in the tile where another civ should spawn, wouldn't it still prevent them from spawning?
I prefer to have an option where to settle my capital, it greatly improves replayability

 

[Opera]

I think that's an overstatement. "Greatly" improves replayability? I think how the game unfolds, without determinism, improves replayability. Of course, the choice of settling your capital where you want is part of it but only a small teeny tiny part that only concerns the player, since the AI will never move its initial settler. Also, you guys try to make it so the starting point of a civ is in the perfect capital spot, so I really don't see what you're trying to achieve by saying that moving the capital is good in itself.

 

[AbsintheRed]

I think that's an overstatement. "Greatly" improves replayability? I think how the game unfolds, without determinism, improves replayability. Of course, the choice of settling your capital where you want is part of it but only a small teeny tiny part that only concerns the player, since the AI will never move its initial settler. Also, you guys try to make it so the starting point of a civ is in the perfect capital spot, so I really don't see what you're trying to achieve by saying that moving the capital is good in itself.

I should have been clearer, naturally that's only for the player. This of course won't cause huge differences in how the game plays out overrally.
But for me, moving a capital 1-2 tiles results in moving almost all my cities 1-2 tiles, as I like to have as optional city placement (with only a few overlapping tiles) as possible.
I'm sure many players like to try out different city placement in the different games they play with the same civ.
A preplaced capital takes away from this freedom

 

[Opera]

Takes it away as much as flipping takes away city placement. Or as much as Cordoba's UHV takes away capital placing. Choice may be good but sometimes lack of choice is the best for gameplay.

That said, I don't mean I agree on preplacing cities that would be capitals. I think a compromise would be to use cottage-line improvements to represent areas already inhabitated. I only fear it may mess up AI city settling if they want to settle on an unimproved tile.

 

[dragodon64]

I think the destruction of a 3x3 square where the civ spawns is already in this mod (or at least RFCE++). Arabia had founded Al-Qahira, but on Egypt's spawn, the city was destroyed and had to be rebuilt.

 

[3Miro]

I think the destruction of a 3x3 square where the civ spawns is already in this mod (or at least RFCE++). Arabia had founded Al-Qahira, but on Egypt's spawn, the city was destroyed and had to be rebuilt.

The 3x3 cleanup happens only when the Human first spawns. When the AI spawns, there is no "cleanup".

 

[Just6040]

The 3x3 cleanup happens only when the Human first spawns. When the AI spawns, there is no "cleanup".

What do you mean? That AI spawns don't autoraze? Because I've seen otherwise.

 

[3Miro]

What do you mean? That AI spawns don't autoraze? Because I've seen otherwise.

AI doesn't autoraze, the Human does, however, you don't see that since it happens during the autorun.

 

[dragodon64]

AI doesn't autoraze, the Human does, however, you don't see that since it happens during the autorun.

I usually insert an independent Wien and Moskva via Worldbuilder, and they always get destroyed when Austria and Muscovy spawn.

 

[3Miro]

I usually insert an independent Wien and Moskva via Worldbuilder, and they always get destroyed on when Austria and Muscovy spawn.

I haven't dabbled in the spawn code that much. I is possible that there is some cleanup like that happening in other cases.

 

[AbsintheRed]

So, just to be sure from now on:
What's the exact mechanics ATM?
New civ spawn destroys every city in the starting plot's 3*3 radius, only exception is if another civ has it's capital there?
If it's not it's an easy exploit to the player. Just find a city where the new civ should spawn, and you will seriously weaken the new civ.
You may even lose your city eventually on spawn flips/revolts, but the AI has to found it's capital in an unoptimal place, in some cases not even in it's core area

 

[3Miro]

So, just to be sure from now on:
What's the exact mechanics ATM?
New civ spawn destroys every city in the starting plot's 3*3 radius, only exception is if another civ has it's capital there?
If it's not it's an easy exploit to the player. Just find a city where the new civ should spawn, and you will seriously weaken the new civ.
You may even lose your city eventually on spawn flips/revolts, but the AI has to found it's capital in an unoptimal place, in some cases not even in it's core area

There are 3 scenarios, spawn in empty land (Bulgaria, Kiev), spawn in mostly empty land (Burgundy and Genoa) and spawn in the middle of an enemy (Ottomans and Dutch). Those are the usual civs, but any civ can spawn in any of the 3 scenarios.

In RFC, paying as Spain and building your capital at Lisboa was a great exploit. You can do similar things in RFCE. At this stage I don't know if I should remove that or not, it may be simple, but if it is not I should just leave it there. People always have the World Builder exploit, so the player can chose to play "fair" or not with or without the exploit.

 

[merijn_v1]

There are 3 scenarios, spawn in empty land (Bulgaria, Kiev), spawn in mostly empty land (Burgundy and Genoa) and spawn in the middle of an enemy (Ottomans and Dutch). Those are the usual civs, but any civ can spawn in any of the 3 scenarios.

In RFC, paying as Spain and building your capital at Lisboa was a great exploit. You can do similar things in RFCE. At this stage I don't know if I should remove that or not, it may be simple, but if it is not I should just leave it there. People always have the World Builder exploit, so the player can chose to play "fair" or not with or without the exploit.

In the latest version of RFC, capitals can flip. (if you have more cities than just the capital.)

@ 3Miro
I removed the animals. Do I also have to change any python (except XMLconsts.py, which I also updated)

 

[civ_king]

You can also reload the autosave before the flip to make it not happen

 

[3Miro]

In the latest version of RFC, capitals can flip. (if you have more cities than just the capital.)

@ 3Miro
I removed the animals. Do I also have to change any python (except XMLconsts.py, which I also updated)

Check with Barbs.py, there may be some references to animals for random spawn around the map. There should be no other calls to the animals.

 

[AbsintheRed]

There are 3 scenarios, spawn in empty land (Bulgaria, Kiev), spawn in mostly empty land (Burgundy and Genoa) and spawn in the middle of an enemy (Ottomans and Dutch). Those are the usual civs, but any civ can spawn in any of the 3 scenarios.

In RFC, paying as Spain and building your capital at Lisboa was a great exploit. You can do similar things in RFCE. At this stage I don't know if I should remove that or not, it may be simple, but if it is not I should just leave it there. People always have the World Builder exploit, so the player can chose to play "fair" or not with or without the exploit.

It's not perfectly clear for many players which new elements of RFCE are exploits and which are intended.
"Squatting" might even be a feature, especially for newbies.
On the other hand, using world builder is definitely cheating. Or reloading the given turns autosave to avoid the spawning of a civ.
It's much clearer in these cases what are the boundaries of a fair game.
IMO we should set clear ground rules for civ spawns too

In the latest version of RFC, capitals can flip. (if you have more cities than just the capital.)

Cities flip, or there is a city razing function in the 3*3 area of the starting point?

 

[merijn_v1]

Cities flip, or there is a city razing function in the 3*3 area of the starting point?

IIRC, the city flips.

 

[Tigranes]

Finished the game as Spain (1568) -- and I must say one should not finish as Spain in 1580s, as given by the current 3rd UHV. In general number of civs could be given a task achievable somewhere in 1750s -- and Spain is one of them. Spanish ambition was to deny any Colony to anybody (except Portugal) -- so I propose "No Colonies until 1750 (except for Portugal and Vinland)" . This can be achieved by building colonies as Spain (I had 6 when I won, nobody else had one) and by sending Armadas to England and crushing Dutch -- all the ambitions in one challenging goal!

The 2nd UHV can be the current 3rd one (without no Protestant countries part, leave it for Austria) or recreate the actual European part of the Empire. Which makes a sense: Reconquista -- European Empire -- World Empire.