Cities in Development (Obsolete)

Natan35 · Oct 3, 2016

That's very similar to the concept of power, already found in that mod, except for the fact that what you're suggesting is basically that each city would have its own power sources, making it a local resource. That might be more complicated to implement and use than the current power mechanism...

Akinaba · Oct 3, 2016

Natan35 said:
That's very similar to the concept of power, already found in that mod, except for the fact that what you're suggesting is basically that each city would have its own power sources, making it a local resource. That might be more complicated to implement and use than the current power mechanism...

More complicated and.. maybe more intersting. I'm not insist, but the power generating and distributing via LPT mechanism is far more tacical ineresting then current methinks.

Oh and let's not forgen the Natural Gass resource. It can be really usefull specific resource, and there are plenty of sations using it out there.

zahfares · Oct 3, 2016

hi,
got a question plz, why when a city increases in level, more development is requiered, like capital 30% and new city 0%, shouldn't it be the other way around, what is the gameplay designed by the mod other for this? starve or not grow (stagnate) my city till i have good infrastructure?

+ a noob problem, in city view when hover over the loyalty bar, i get the text_key_......_shortde......( tried reinstalling many many time, not working )
and the happiness one only shows the req above needed only!, example:
0.12 science above needed .... but when hover over city in map says
city too dangerous(2), when previously it shows me all the reqs, whether I have it or not

++ one last question, does playing in historic mod breaks the flow designed or its just fine, and as time passes does my cities even reach a level of health more than disease cuz i never saw that!! (I only tested till medieval)

tnx

Chrisy15 · Oct 3, 2016

zahfares said:
hi,
got a question plz, why when a city increases in level, more development is requiered, like capital 30% and new city 0%, shouldn't it be the other way around, what is the gameplay designed by the mod other for this? starve or not grow (stagnate) my city till i have good infrastructure?

+ a noob problem, in city view when hover over the loyalty bar, i get the text_key_......_shortde......( tried reinstalling many many time, not working )
and the happiness one only shows the req above needed only!, example:
0.12 science above needed .... but when hover over city in map says
city too dangerous(2), when previously it shows me all the reqs, whether I have it or not

++ one last question, does playing in historic mod breaks the flow designed or its just fine, and as time passes does my cities even reach a level of health more than disease cuz i never saw that!! (I only tested till medieval)

tnx

Development is a cap; you want your pop value to be as small as possible compared to your development to get the most bonuses. Higher level provinces make that easier; too tired to remember how exactly.

Are you using the CBP? That sounds something like their happiness system. Unless you're referring to Crimes, in which case that's how much you're losing per turn because of crime.

You'll be lucky to have healthy cities before Modern; that's by design.

zahfares · Oct 3, 2016

ok
1.great, so less pop compared to dev means less crime and healthy cities awesome and makes sense, i just hope the ai gets the same effect, i don't wanna try to keep a limited pop while the ai spams up hammers and science with millions in his cities!

2. true bout the happiness system but what about the loyalty ui any fix?!!

3. historically speaking that's more accurate

but i was wandering what determent how many turns a plague ravage a city?

Chrisy15 · Oct 4, 2016

zahfares said:
ok
1.great, so less pop compared to dev means less crime and healthy cities awesome and makes sense, i just hope the ai gets the same effect, i don't wanna try to keep a limited pop while the ai spams up hammers and science with millions in his cities!

2. true bout the happiness system but what about the loyalty ui any fix?!!

3. historically speaking that's more accurate but i was wandering what determent how many turns a plague ravage a city?

1. Yeah, AI is affected too

2. Clearing cache might fix it - I think I've had that problem before.

3. It's based on your Disease output on the turn the plague hits.

zahfares · Oct 4, 2016

so if my disease was a +7 for example before the plague, the next turn a plague will ravage my city for 7 turns?

Chrisy15 · Oct 4, 2016

zahfares said:
so if my disease was a +7 for example before the plague, the next turn a plague will ravage my city for 7 turns?

Give or take a turn due to internal workings, yes.

zahfares · Oct 4, 2016

OK to be honest and after some testing (tnk god for IGE), development doesn't make much sense!

-the civolopedia doesn't do a good job explaining the dev nor does the wiki (it's entry is empty!!)

-why are citadels and forts that good in dev? citadels +2 / forts +1 (I barely use them and if I do, only for my frontal cities if borders are close); yet buildings 0.4 which you need to have a 2 that counts as 1 dev (that means 5 buildings) for 1 development! for 1 citizen.

Fine lets even say we can manage some plague early in the game and have up to 6 citizens with 1 dev, but damn that's a lot!, especially in my capital.

-instead of forts and citadels, why not put villages and towns (as the civolopedia suggest yet they have no effect!).

-and why i don't have the ability to change the req number of buildings in the user_settings?! (more than 0.4)

*btw, cache clearing fixes the loyalty ui

Chrisy15 · Oct 4, 2016

zahfares said:
OK to be honest and after some testing (tnk god for IGE), development doesn't make much sense!

-the civolopedia doesn't do a good job explaining the dev nor does the wiki (it's entry is empty!!)

-why are citadels and forts that good in dev? citadels +2 / forts +1 (I barely use them and if I do, only for my frontal cities if borders are close); yet buildings 0.4 which you need to have a 2 that counts as 1 dev (that means 5 buildings) for 1 development! for 1 citizen.

Fine lets even say we can manage some plague early in the game and have up to 6 citizens with 1 dev, but damn that's a lot!, especially in my capital.

-instead of forts and citadels, why not put villages and towns (as the civolopedia suggest yet they have no effect!).

-and why i don't have the ability to change the req number of buildings in the user_settings?! (more than 0.4)

*btw, cache clearing fixes the loyalty ui

Buildings give very little because back when they gave more Development was a complete non-issue; you're not going to be able to instantly have no deficit, and neither should you; nor should it have a huge impact on your game. Citadels and Forts give Development as an incentive to build them, and Villages and Towns do give Development - that's the point of them. This can be seen from the Development breakdown tooltip in the CityView.

TBH it could be added as a setting; if you really want to change it, you'll probably find the modifier in one of the Lua files.

steemroller · Oct 4, 2016

Chrisy15 said:
Buildings give very little because back when they gave more Development was a complete non-issue; you're not going to be able to instantly have no deficit, and neither should you; nor should it have a huge impact on your game. Citadels and Forts give Development as an incentive to build them, and Villages and Towns do give Development - that's the point of them. This can be seen from the Development breakdown tooltip in the CityView.

TBH it could be added as a setting; if you really want to change it, you'll probably find the modifier in one of the Lua files.

I'm admittedly still getting used to coping with the frequency of the plagues, but I think that's just the point: get used to coping with them. Buildings are mostly an incentive toward growth, not toward stopping the spread of disease. Exceptions to that should be fresh water, sewage removal and effective disposal of bodies, before the discovery of how disease is spread.

As an aside, I don't understand why aqueducts give a health bonus to rivers (not that rivers might not get one -- to a point), but the aqueduct doesn't interact with the river system.

As to enhancement: two things should be factored in (I have not looked at the code): specifically, in pre-modern times, its going to be harder to spread disease through cold weather where individuals are sequestered waiting out spring, and (2), cold regions should be more much more inclined to stockpiled food because of winter, making them better able to cope with not working during virulent outbreaks. I'd suggest there be some (literal) latitude adjustment to the spread of contagion.

JFD · Oct 4, 2016

zahfares said:
OK to be honest and after some testing (tnk god for IGE), development doesn't make much sense!

-the civolopedia doesn't do a good job explaining the dev nor does the wiki (it's entry is empty!!)

-why are citadels and forts that good in dev? citadels +2 / forts +1 (I barely use them and if I do, only for my frontal cities if borders are close); yet buildings 0.4 which you need to have a 2 that counts as 1 dev (that means 5 buildings) for 1 development! for 1 citizen.

Fine lets even say we can manage some plague early in the game and have up to 6 citizens with 1 dev, but damn that's a lot!, especially in my capital.

-instead of forts and citadels, why not put villages and towns (as the civolopedia suggest yet they have no effect!).

-and why i don't have the ability to change the req number of buildings in the user_settings?! (more than 0.4)

How so? Development == Population capacity, you must have as many X (Buildings/certain Improvements) as Population to meet this capacity, having extra Development leads to benefits, having less Development than needed leads to maluses.

Citadels and Forts are of the same value as Towns and Villages. Here, we take some licence in order to balance the numbers against the incentive to build them.

The Development entry in the pedia states that Villages and Towns give Development.

Because that's not a good way to get feedback on the value. That said, I'm not sure you're appreciating the system for its intended design. If it doesn't add anything for you, disable it. As Chrisy said, a higher value to Development will render the system moot.

steemroller said:
I'm admittedly still getting used to coping with the frequency of the plagues, but I think that's just the point: get used to coping with them. Buildings are mostly an incentive toward growth, not toward stopping the spread of disease. Exceptions to that should be fresh water, sewage removal and effective disposal of bodies, before the discovery of how disease is spread.

As an aside, I don't understand why aqueducts give a health bonus to rivers (not that rivers might not get one -- to a point), but the aqueduct doesn't interact with the river system.

As to enhancement: two things should be factored in (I have not looked at the code): specifically, in pre-modern times, its going to be harder to spread disease through cold weather where individuals are sequestered waiting out spring, and (2), cold regions should be more much more inclined to stockpiled food because of winter, making them better able to cope with not working during virulent outbreaks. I'd suggest there be some (literal) latitude adjustment to the spread of contagion.

Rivers required a health bonus, but having this be immediate - as was originally the case - proved overpowered. Hence, the shift to the Aqueduct.

I don't see how any of the things you point out translate well into gameplay terms.

steemroller · Oct 4, 2016

JFD said:
Rivers required a health bonus, but having this be immediate - as was originally the case - proved overpowered. Hence, the shift to the Aqueduct.

I don't see how any of the things you point out translate well into gameplay terms.

Agreed, that the original river bonus was overpowered. My suggestion is that that aqueducts not work like health "irrigation," rather just provide a single bonus, like the apothecary. Said another way, the benefit of the aqueduct should not scale with the number of adjacent river tiles.

There are already latitude-based differentiation baked into the game at in terms of terrain, feature and resource. I'll give you "storage" is not a simple to implement gameplay concept, but disease spread through northern/southern latitude isn't that hard to grok and would be a recognizable benefit to a temperate or worse settlement.

DarthDoman · Oct 4, 2016

I'm getting ctd at turn 156 while playing with JFD's The Papal States. Beside this problem everything is fine. My logs are below.

LUA

Spoiler :

Database

Spoiler :

JFD · Oct 4, 2016

steemroller said:
Agreed, that the original river bonus was overpowered. My suggestion is that that aqueducts not work like health "irrigation," rather just provide a single bonus, like the apothecary. Said another way, the benefit of the aqueduct should not scale with the number of adjacent river tiles.

I get it, but that would overlap with the already existing Health building line. Are you suggesting this purely from a conceptual standpoint? Or do you find the Health bonus from Aqueducts too strong as it stands?

Chrisy15 · Oct 4, 2016

steemroller said:
Agreed, that the original river bonus was overpowered. My suggestion is that that aqueducts not work like health "irrigation," rather just provide a single bonus, like the apothecary. Said another way, the benefit of the aqueduct should not scale with the number of adjacent river tiles.

Except that's what the Cistern does. That building that's the downgrade to the Aqueduct for people who don't settle on rivers...

Huh, so the new forum tells you when you've been ninja'd now. That's boring

[Edit] Old smileys are back!

steemroller · Oct 5, 2016

JFD said:
I get it, but that would overlap with the already existing Health building line. Are you suggesting this purely from a conceptual standpoint? Or do you find the Health bonus from Aqueducts too strong as it stands?

There are situations, confluences of several rivers, where aqueducts would could become considerably unbalanced. Otherwise, it runs a health-specific gambit from under-to properly-balanced.

steemroller · Oct 5, 2016

Chrisy15 said:
Except that's what the Cistern does. That building that's the downgrade to the Aqueduct for people who don't settle on rivers...

Huh, so the new forum tells you when you've been ninja'd now. That's boring

[Edit] Old smileys are back!

Not sure that I'm following you.

zahfares · Oct 5, 2016

JFD said:
How so? Development == Population capacity, you must have as many X (Buildings/certain Improvements) as Population to meet this capacity, having extra Development leads to benefits, having less Development than needed leads to maluses.

Citadels and Forts are of the same value as Towns and Villages. Here, we take some licence in order to balance the numbers against the incentive to build them.

The Development entry in the pedia states that Villages and Towns give Development.

Because that's not a good way to get feedback on the value. That said, I'm not sure you're appreciating the system for its intended design. If it doesn't add anything for you, disable it. As Chrisy said, a higher value to Development will render the system moot.

hmm, I don't think you understand my problem:

-cit and forts are a rare site in my empire as I like to work the land with even more improvements, as for town and villages, no effect in my cities!!

-my issue with the dev is that I love following up the pop limit, sure I'll surpass it by a few more, but not too much. In the mean time mr.AI is spamming up (even with plague and crime), in higher diffs, not a gameplay issue, but a balancing one.

as a suggestion, why not include improvements (farms and plantations especially), that add to the value of dev (just like civ6's housing)

- since i'm using vox populi, I don't get the crime nor the health bonuses from the policies, and yes I did activated the CBP in the usersettings manually. :confused:

OrderofOlav · Oct 5, 2016

But it finally gives you an incentive to build forts and citadels! I normally almost never use my great generals for citadels, this addition however made it easier for me to choose to use that ability anyway. I think it is a pretty neat way to make underused improvements more viable

Cities in Development (Obsolete)

Mayor of St. Natansburg

Warlord

Chieftain

Flower, Beautiful

Chieftain

Flower, Beautiful

Chieftain

Flower, Beautiful

Chieftain

Flower, Beautiful

Chieftain

Kathigitarkh

Chieftain

Chieftain

Kathigitarkh

Flower, Beautiful

Chieftain

Chieftain

Chieftain

King of Procrastination

Similar threads