C2C - UEM - Ultimate-Earth-Map 100% MOD and SVN update compatible by Pit2015

[Pit2015]

A building that has that and perhaps +3 will in 1000 years after it's built give +6 .

What will give you a large culture city rate later in game then only expanding the territory? Any more cool effects later in game to focus on culture? (Besides culture victory or culture flipping) I read something if you have alot culture a city will get a third useable ring, useable plots in city?

This option is on: "Larger Cities without Metropolitan Administration: C2C allows the third rung of city radius to be worked by the city once you have achieved the right to do so. This option determines what grants that access. With this option ON, the right to work the third tile out is given purely by reaching Influential culture level. With it off, you need to reach the tech that gives you access to the Metropolitan Administration and build it in the city."

 

[Toffer90]

What will give you a large culture city rate later in game then only expanding the territory? Any more cool effects later in game to focus on culture? (Besides culture victory or culture flipping) I read something if you have alot culture a city will get a third useable ring, useable plots in city?

The third ring is the pinnacle of what culture can provide, not much else to it than territorial expanse, but we would like to one day use culture for more creative stuff in C2C.

 

[Thunderbrd]

1. On civs that loos all there workers, they will not rebuild them fast enouth if there land gets plundred and all of ther developed plots are lost, then they keep building buildings but they should build workers to develop there land plots again to build these buildings faster. Feels like the AI weight changed the AI to build more buildings and less units/workers. (May be a problem that if the AI loos all workers and developed land plots, that it cant understand that correctly keeping building buildings slow)

If an AI is in the middle of a build it never reevaluates until that build is completed so it is possible for the workers to be lost and the lands to be razed after it queued up some things and it may take a while to get through that queue before it realizes it. Changing this would add some 5 minutes to each end of turn. I'm exaggerating to explain why I won't.

2. AI builds a bit less citys now after the AI weight change and less units now after the AI weight change AI is building more buildings then units now.

It always should've. It was failing to construct numerous buildings it should've been building. The blanket desire to construct them all might be a little bit of a hindrance but since the primary valuation system was failing and wasn't coming up with value on critical needs, the way it is now performs much better in the long run. The AI might not be growing as fast because of this, perhaps, but it still outgrows most human players unless those players are reckless and ignoring a lot of buildings they shouldn't be then ending up with undertrained units (quality matters more than quantity) and a failing economy once it catches up to them.

 

[Thunderbrd]

The third ring is the pinnacle of what culture can provide, not much else to it than territorial expanse, but we would like to one day use culture for more creative stuff in C2C.

It still helps a lot with Developing Leaders (which I think will mean a bit more soon)

 

[Pit2015]

Maybe a free culture promotion can be done for every culture lvl for units, and/or a commerce or gold increase +1% or something per culture lvl. Increasing with culture lvl...

 

[Pit2015]

BUG/PROBLEM:

When i switch to monarchy all my chief huts are no longer function (Red message building stoped working) bug or? Can you fix it? Should only disable construction of the chiefs hut, when i switch, all builded before the switch should still work. If i have it for free by wonder it should work with monarchy. Monarchy should only disable the construction? I have the chiefs hut by wonders in every city for free. If i switch to specialised it disables my omega child crew building but looks like the ones i builded before the switch still working, no red message warning.

 

[Toffer90]

BUG/PROBLEM:

When i switch to monarchy all my chief huts are no longer function (Red message building stoped working) bug or? Can you fix it? Should only disable construction of the chiefs hut, when i switch, all builded before the switch should still work. If i have it for free by wonder it should work with monarchy. Monrchy should only disable the construction? I have the chiefs hut by wonders in every city for free.

It is by design, not a bug.

 

[Pit2015]

It is by design, not a bug.

But why it is not making omega child crew not working anymore with red message warnings? So will disabling construction make the full building not working or only the construction not working? How is that wanted now?

 

[Toffer90]

But why it is not making omega child crew not working anymore with red message warnings? So will disabling construction make the full building not working or only the construction not working? How is that wanted now?

I don't know if that is by design or not. Maybe Omega Child Crew should stop working without the community work civic, but there are probably arguments for leaving it active too.

The chiefs hut represent a strong chief, without chiefdom the chiefs hut becomes just a regular hut because there are no chiefs; that's why there are no arguments for keeping the positives it brought without chiefdom.

 

[tmv]

I don't know if that is by design or not. Maybe Omega Child Crew should stop working without the community work civic, but there are probably arguments for leaving it active too.

The chiefs hut represent a strong chief, without chiefdom the chiefs hut becomes just a regular hut because there are no chiefs; that's why there are no arguments for keeping the positives it brought without chiefdom.

It still doesn't make sense. The Chief Hut is the residence of the local leader, the civic is about the central leader - is there any reason why there cannot be local chiefs under a king as opposed to a "Great Chief"? The central leader resides in the palace, not to mention that the Chief Hut is not a National Wonder and can exist in every city.

And if a president can reside in a palace (like it has been with these games ever since Civ 1), why should a governor not reside in a Chief Hut?

 

[Toffer90]

It still doesn't make sense. The Chief Hut is the residence of the local leader, the civic is about the central leader - is there any reason why there cannot be local chiefs under a king as opposed to a "Great Chief"? The central leader resides in the palace, not to mention that the Chief Hut is not a National Wonder and can exist in every city.

And if a president can reside in a palace (like it has been with these games ever since Civ 1), why should a governor not reside in a Chief Hut?

The chief of chiefs resides in the palace, but each city can have its own chief, comparable to a governor. ^^
Even if we consider there only to be one chief, who has a honorary hut in each settlement; what would be the point of these huts without a chief to use them? Those huts would just be regular huts with no function whatsoever.

Without chiefdom the local leader might be a lord of some kind, imagine a feudal lord living or working in a hut.

 

[tmv]

The chief of chiefs resides in the palace, but each city can have its own chief, comparable to a governor. ^^
Even if we consider there only to be one chief, what would be the point of the chiefs huts in the different cities without a chief to use them? Those huts would just be regular huts with no function whatsoever.

Without chiefdom the local leader might be a lord of some kind, imagine a feudal lord living or working in a hut.

A system of local chiefs is not limited to one where the central authority is a chiefdom. In fact, there is at least one monarchy (Saudi Arabia, cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_chief#Arabia) and many republics (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Chiefs or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_chief) whereas what you speak of is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramount_chief (probably the most well known in history would be Genghis Khan).

Again, the local chief resides in the Chief Hut, not the Paramount Chief (otherwise the building would have to be a National Wonder, require the Palace or - most likely - be the palace). And local chiefs can exist under different forms of central government, as long as the central laws don't forbid that kind of rulership (the US states have to be republics, cf. http://constitutionus.com/#a4s4).

In the Dark Ages there were quite a few examples of chiefs under a king - the term for them was "jarl", from which "earl" was derived.

 

[Thunderbrd]

A system of local chiefs is not limited to one where the central authority is a chiefdom. In fact, there is at least one monarchy (Saudi Arabia, cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_chief#Arabia) and many republics (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Chiefs or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_chief) whereas what you speak of is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramount_chief (probably the most well known in history would be Genghis Khan).

Again, the local chief resides in the Chief Hut, not the Paramount Chief (otherwise the building would have to be a National Wonder, require the Palace or - most likely - be the palace). And local chiefs can exist under different forms of central government, as long as the central laws don't forbid that kind of rulership (the US states have to be republics, cf. http://constitutionus.com/#a4s4).

In the Dark Ages there were quite a few examples of chiefs under a king - the term for them was "jarl", from which "earl" was derived.

Then this needs to be represented by a different civic in a different category I think. One which also opens up the Chief's hut. But I'm completely convinced that the common concept of a Monarchy means we've moved past the administration, both local and national, of 'chiefs' particularly from Huts.

 

[Toffer90]

A system of local chiefs is not limited to one where the central authority is a chiefdom.

Then the chief hut should not require the chiefdom civic to be buildable.

But since it does one would have to assume that the chiefs hut is tied to the chiefdom civic in some way.

 

[Pit2015]

Will be cool if it displayed in game if something disables only the construction or also makes the building not function anymore.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Will be cool if it displayed in game if something disables only the construction or also makes the building not function anymore.

I'm not even sure what makes a building disabled vs just disqualified from being built. I know some tags do both and some tags only disable construction. Depends on the prereq tag in use. It could be done to add some display code to state the difference but there's not a lot of room on tooltips so it would only be something you'd see in the pedia description. Furthermore, it's not a simple project but a very complex multi-tag research project. Could take weeks just to complete this sort of thing and doesn't carry much in terms of impressiveness factor and also isn't going to make the game process better. It would be nicer for the player, yes. I'd like that myself. So perhaps when we are working on matters of this low priority we'll get around to addressing it.

 

[raxo2222]

Will be cool if it displayed in game if something disables only the construction or also makes the building not function anymore.

Three buildings aren't disabled by civic change but require civic to be built:
Bandit's and Higwayman hideout or something like that and Omega Child Crew.

They don't have this tag: bRequiresActiveCivics
If its on (1), then building is disabled if you don't have civic enabling it anymore.
If its off (0 or not present in building define), then you just can't build building, if you don't have required civic on.

In game it says "Requires civics to be active" or something like that, if building has bRequiresActiveCivics set to 1 in its definition.

 

[tmv]

Then the chief hut should not require the chiefdom civic to be buildable.

Exactly.

But since it does one would have to assume that the chiefs hut is tied to the chiefdom civic in some way.

Considering that you are part of the mod team, isn't that begging the question? What about the possibility that the civics got it wrong, especially because Monarchy doesn't disable the Hill of Tara? The HoT does nothing besides "building" Chief Huts everywhere, so both the building and the Great Wonder should exist under the same civics.

But I'm completely convinced that the common concept of a Monarchy means we've moved past the administration, both local and national, of 'chiefs' particularly from Huts.

What about the examples I gave you, which are both historical ("jarl") and current (Saudi Arabia)? And if you all are so keen on the term "Chief Hut", what about the "Palace", which exists even in democracies in C2C, and in fact in every Civ game from on? The Romans continued to use their word for tribal chief (tribus => tribunus) during the entire existence of their Republic / Empire with different meanings. When I want to save a file in a Word Processor I use an icon of a Floppy Disk, but I certainly don't store on FDs anymore. The term "blueprint" doesn't refer to the original (cyanotype) blueprint process today, the Trojans in myth were the victims of the Trojan Horse, not the perpetrators, and can you remind me of the title of the US Presidential Anthem?

 

[Toffer90]

Considering that you are part of the mod team, isn't that begging the question? What about the possibility that the civics got it wrong, especially because Monarchy doesn't disable the Hill of Tara? The HoT does nothing besides "building" Chief Huts everywhere, so both the building and the Great Wonder should exist under the same civics.


What about the examples I gave you, which are both historical ("jarl") and current (Saudi Arabia)? And if you all are so keen on the term "Chief Hut", what about the "Palace", which exists even in democracies in C2C, and in fact in every Civ game from on? The Romans continued to use their word for tribal chief (tribus => tribunus) during the entire existence of their Republic / Empire with different meanings. When I want to save a file in a Word Processor I use an icon of a Floppy Disk, but I certainly don't store on FDs anymore. The term "blueprint" doesn't refer to the original (cyanotype) blueprint process today, the Trojans in myth were the victims of the Trojan Horse, not the perpetrators, and can you remind me of the title of the US Presidential Anthem?

Hill of Tara is a religious wonder that provides +2 great prophet points, +1 happiness with state religion, and 4 culture which becomes 8 culture after 1000 years, when it obsoletes (at heraldry) it will continue to provide 4 culture indefinitely.
I don't know the reasoning for why it was made to be especially good for a chiefdom society by giving the chief hut for free, but it may have been because the hill of tara was created in a society that most likely was a chiefdom and that the wonder was a bit boring without that effect. The hill of tara is more a place of significance than a concrete building and has been significant for at least 5000 years, but it held more significance later when it became the seat of the high king of ireland, so it is obviously not tied merely to chiefdom.

The chiefs hut has been tied to the chiefdom civic for as long as I can remember, I see no reason to question that design choice.

The palace is not a concrete building, more an abstract idea that signifies the capital center of a society. It could be renamed to simply "Capital" or perhaps "Seat of Power", but it would break with civ tradition more than most would like.

You obviously don't like that civics have unique effects on cities through buildings, but I would like to see much more of it as it makes the civic choices more interesting.
Having all the civic buildings could be thought of as having a well developed civic, when changing away from that well developed civic you then have a poorly developed civic that may not be better right away, but may get better when it is fully developed.
A revolution from a mature chiefdom into an immature monarchy should have some downsides right away.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Three buildings aren't disabled by civic change but require civic to be built:
Bandit's and Higwayman hideout or something like that and Omega Child Crew.

They don't have this tag: bRequiresActiveCivics
If its on (1), then building is disabled if you don't have civic enabling it anymore.
If its off (0 or not present in building define), then you just can't build building, if you don't have required civic on.

In game it says "Requires civics to be active" or something like that, if building has bRequiresActiveCivics set to 1 in its definition.

Ok so it's already in place. Thank you for explaining that so I don't have to go researching it further!

What about the examples I gave you, which are both historical ("jarl") and current (Saudi Arabia)? And if you all are so keen on the term "Chief Hut", what about the "Palace", which exists even in democracies in C2C, and in fact in every Civ game from on? The Romans continued to use their word for tribal chief (tribus => tribunus) during the entire existence of their Republic / Empire with different meanings. When I want to save a file in a Word Processor I use an icon of a Floppy Disk, but I certainly don't store on FDs anymore. The term "blueprint" doesn't refer to the original (cyanotype) blueprint process today, the Trojans in myth were the victims of the Trojan Horse, not the perpetrators, and can you remind me of the title of the US Presidential Anthem?

I think those terms are just holdovers from earlier times but since the civic changed, the original manifestation of what they meant changed with them. The power of the 'chief' becomes a different thing at that point and a more complex system emerges and the power afforded a 'chief' changes its nature. Even in Roman days, they wouldn't tell their people to go see the Tribus in his hut. They said Tribunus because it was an advancement of the concept and he certainly didn't work out of a hut. The point is really that the building was intended to be part of the game balance benefit in the Chiefdom civic, thus why it's there and then disabled when you change civics. I didn't design that myself but I'm not trying to question it either and it sits well with me that it works this way. I guess I'm wondering why it doesn't for you? What's so important about keeping the hut active on other civics? Is there game purpose in your argument?