Linkman226
#anarchy
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2007
- Messages
- 2,493
Idk, the alternative of Crimean or Mesopotamian capitals doesn't seem much better. Maybe the Turks can flip Constantinople?
Bug reports and technical issues
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
Idk, the alternative of Crimean or Mesopotamian capitals doesn't seem much better. Maybe the Turks can flip Constantinople?
The Diocletian
Fire Fly
You could farm that grassland to the NW. And you get two free food from the city tile.
What more do you want?
You're right. Forget Denver guys, I just found the new god city.
Anti-historic, but then, so is Levant/Crimean/Meso capitals.
The fact the the player must siege Constantinople for several turns, during which several... less then optimal city spots have the opportunity to become the capital is a problem, coupled with the fact that Constantinople is contested for the Turks mean a capital move is non-viable. In vanilla RFC, Ankara in my experience would flip and become my capital, but from several games trying the Turks, this seems to be no longer the case. In my games, the cities around the Black Sea would flip, with no "Cities in the area have joined our rising empire!" message, and a turn or two later, Ankara flips with that message. Ankara isn't an ideal capital, but it's miles head of any city on the Black Sea one would flip.
I suspect this has something to do with the Turkish UP, although this is just a baseless guess.
I kind of like Trabzon myself if I can't get Constantinople. Of course, if you can't get Constantinople you're basically doomed anyway.
As for why the Turks first flip certain cities, I believe they've got a special flip to go with their no settler start. They flip indies and Seljuq cities right away before they get their historical flip.
As for why the Turks first flip certain cities, I believe they've got a special flip to go with their no settler start. They flip indies and Seljuq cities right away before they get their historical flip.
The Diocletian
Fire Fly
Which is good, but I'd like the order to be reversed, to prevent craptastic captials like the one I got. I'd at the very least like to have Ankara as my capital.
Alternatively, delay a flip of any kind for around five or so turns to allow the player to siege Constantinople. (therefore making it his capital)
Since there is an Anatolian city in both the 3000 BC and 600 AD scenarios, I would suggest that Turkey, whether AI or Human, begin with this city as their capital location. If the city in question has been razed by the time of Turkey's spawn, they should receive 1 settler in the starting stack. The AI should pretty much be forced to settle in place, and the human can choose what to do with this unit.
Building a palace in Constaninople is historically correct, and an interesting gameplay. The city that is the capital before Constaninople doesn't matter, since it changed many times. I think there isn't any bug in the game. It is just what it should be. In my opinion the human player shouldn't control Constaninople from the beggining, and they should build the army that will conquer it.
The Diocletian
Fire Fly
Oh, I agree that one should have to take Constantinople by force; it's historically accurate and more challenging to the player then it just flipping from the Byzantines. The thing is though, since Constantinople is on a contested tile for the Turks, moving your capital there results in an arbitrary stability hit. If I want to avoid plummeting my stability within the first 25 turns of spawn, I have to move my palace instead to Ankara/Konya, which is the only really viable capital city in the Turks area, Core or Historical.
Ottoman empire was unstable, so this is historically accurate, but it makes the gameplay really tough. If Byzantines were a rebirth of greeks, the Byzantium tile could be historical for both greeks/byzantine and ottomans. An alternative is that the blue mosque or topkapi palace gives some stability
The Diocletian
Fire Fly
This may sound like sacrilege, but I vote for gameplay > realism here. I vote for Constantinople being historical for Ottomans, or delaying any kind of city flips for around 5 turns to let the player siege the city.
Correct. They don't get a stability hit.
Personally I'd say stopping the Turks from capturing Constantinople before the flip would be good for gameplay. With their UP, Constantinople will be a massive city, ready to pump out units and buildings pretty much straight away. I've always felt the Turkish game was enhanced by needing a bit of time to capture the city, and thus having to spend a bit of time focusing on securing the core, rather than just starting conquering straight away.
The only changes I would make would be to add Konya / Ankara back in central Anatolia as the Turk's starting capital, perhaps with a couple more food resources to make it a better city (sheep on one of the plains hills would be good), and shift the UHV deadline for four wonders in the capital back to 1600AD (Blue Mosque wasn't built till 1616 and this gives the Turks more time to build a palace in Const).
Linkman226
#anarchy
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2007
- Messages
- 2,493
How about the AI? Does it move the capital?
DC123456789
Deity
The AI gets its capital automatically moved to Constantinople for the Turks whenever possible, I think.
Barbuesque
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2011
- Messages
- 306
Not sure if it is working as intended, but right now losing pagan temples as the Aztecs from religion spread is making you regress on the UHV check. It seems it counts pagan temples owned, not built. Kinda hard to avoid getting converted before 1650 AD.
Barbuesque
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2011
- Messages
- 306
All right thanks!
Also, and I think it`s good change if that's the case, but is it intended that it's no longer possible to avoid conquerors with a screen of work boats and galleys meeting the old world before they see your border?
Linkman226
#anarchy
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2007
- Messages
- 2,493
I think that was changed by Rhye himself in one of the later patches
