Cities in Development (Obsolete)

[JFD]

My city (capital) has a plague that was supposed to go away in 4 turns but it has been there for 8+ turns.

 Runtime Error: C:\Users\Yampi\Documents\My Games\Sid Meier's Civilization 5\MODS\JFD's Cities in Development (v 41)\Components/Health/Lua/JFD_CID_Health_Functions.lua:73: attempt to call method 'SetAdditionalFood' (a nil value)

Latest beta, you need. Read OP.

A suggestion for the next version, could CBP's baths yield health? It would make sense.

Sure, but would that be balanced?

 

[TranquilSilence]

Speaking of the CBP would it make sense to give the Well building a health yield (If it doesn't already have one that is - I have yet to try the CBP with CiD)?

While nothing major it would certainly help to make cities that lack rivers less crippled by disease in the early game.

 

[JFD]

I'm hesitant to privilege the CBP with changes like that. Are non-river cities really that bad?

 

[TranquilSilence]

I think the lack of an early source of power - and thus production from the workshop (and late production/power from the Hydro Plant ) - certainly makes them noticeably weaker, in addition to the much lower health that they already have. TBH the only reason why I suggested a change to the CBP support is that it features the Well at all - it'd be nice to have such a building bridge the gap in 'vanilla'.

I'd be interested in hearing what others think about this - it could be that my perception of balance is way off

 

[JFD]

A Well is such a lame building to have to build - it's like having a 'House' building

I'd also like to hear some thoughts on how to improve non-river cities, then.

 

[janboruta]

Well, a functioning well in a Desert or a Steppe is a godsend irl, I'd say it'd be a cool building to have. Just what would it do? Fresh Water source would be OP. Small amount of Production/Food and Health? And could only be built in cities that aren't built on rivers.

 

[Chrisy15]

Well, a functioning well in a Desert or a Steppe is a godsend irl, I'd say it'd be a cool building to have. Just what would it do? Fresh Water source would be OP. Small amount of Production/Food and Health? And could only be built in cities that aren't built on rivers.

I like the idea of proving a Fresh Water source - if it was also limited to flatland, it could help poorer cities grow. It's worth bearing in mind that FW doesn't affect much until medieval, especially when Gardens might not be affected if they're on the FW.

 

[janboruta]

I'm not a fan of fresh water, because it's a big thing in Tomatekh's Garamantian civ, and tied to only Desert Hills. You make a building available to everyone that gives Fresh Water and suddenly a civ loses its teeth.

 

[Groucho Marx]

Maybe it could increase the yields of Farms adjacent to the City? Seems like a somewhat reasonable compromise.

 

[JFD]

Such a niche effect so early in the game would be too unclean for me.

 

[Kesler]

Build able only on a plains or desert (flat) city?

 

[Revolutionist_8]

Player X's city got captured by player Y. It went separatist, but became Barbarian. Shouldn't have it turned to be player X's again?

On the topic, either Lakes could give Health to be lifebelters, and/or Bath and/or Gardens could give some Health as well. Having CBP experience it wouldn't upset balance in my opinion.

Herbalist giving forests +1 Health would be way too OP, maybe another building for this purpose? Just a random thought.

 

[Reedstilt]

For improving Cities without Freshwater, I'd recommend this:

Cistern. Requires Engineering. City cannot have an Aqueduct. It also stores Growth like an Aqueduct but provides a flat Health Boost rather than the variable bonus based on Rivers that the Aqueduct does. Alternatively, maybe it instead reduces Disease from Population if you want to make it more significantly different.

The obvious problem here is dealing with the Tradition Finisher. My overly complicated solution would be to have the finisher reduce the Production cost of Aqueducts and Cistern, which will be maintenance free in you first four Cities once you build them - assuming that lua could take care of that sort of thing.

To deal with the Workshop issue, you could just drop the Power requirement (especially if Enlightenment Era is active, giving the Power requirement to the Cloth Mill instead).

Alternatively, you could move the Horse Mill a earlier so you could get it in the Medieval Era along with the Workshop.

 

[janboruta]

Horse Mill and Slaves should both probably be moved earlier, for historicity reasons (gameplay explanation could work as well).

I like the name Cistern. Maybe just change the Aqueduct to require Rivers a la Water Mills and the Cistern only available in non-River cities? Would be easier, I suppose, though Tradition Finisher might get finicky. Unless it could be adapted to the Aqueduct-Cistern dichotomy.

 

[TranquilSilence]

I like what is being suggested here, I would point out to Reed though that the Cloth Mill already has a power requirement if EE is active - or at least I'm pretty sure it does

I'd also second the moving of Horse Mills and Slave Workers to earlier on the tech tree.

 

[Reedstilt]

I would point out to Reed though that the Cloth Mill already has a power requirement if EE is active - or at least I'm pretty sure it does

I could well be wrong about that. I haven't had a chance to play with this mods for over a month, so either I forgot or it was in an update I missed. I remember JFD talking about doing that, but not if he ever got around to implementing it.

Also, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of Aqueduct - Cistern pairing, with Aqueducts giving more Health and Cisterns reducing Disease so the player has a more significant choice on which one to go with.

 

[shaglio]

I like the idea of proving a Fresh Water source - if it was also limited to flatland, it could help poorer cities grow. It's worth bearing in mind that FW doesn't affect much until medieval, especially when Gardens might not be affected if they're on the FW.

It would definitely need to be limited to flatland . . . because we all now what happens when you go up a hill to fetch a pail of water

 

[JFD]

If I moved the Slave Worker back on the basis of historicity, I'd have to allow them to be unlocked from the start - and then you'd hardly build a peasant! No, they are balanced perfectly fine where they are.

Cistern could work, however.

 

[janboruta]

If I moved the Slave Worker back on the basis of historicity, I'd have to allow them to be unlocked from the start - and then you'd hardly build a peasant! No, they are balanced perfectly fine where they are.

Quite the contrary.

a) Slave income from clearing Barb encampents tends to be paltry, meaning you can't really buy too many Slave military units. Spending them on Slave workers would be much more useful.

b) By the time of Imperialism tech (or whichever tech is there without EE), Peasants are so cheap to build or buy you can make a carpet of them.

 

[JFD]

Quite the contrary.

a) Slave income from clearing Barb encampents tends to be paltry, meaning you can't really buy too many Slave military units. Spending them on Slave workers would be much more useful.

b) By the time of Imperialism tech (or whichever tech is there without EE), Peasants are so cheap to build or buy you can make a carpet of them.

By balanced, I meant in its relationship to Peasants and, especially, Workers. I'll think about it, but I'm hesitant to disrupt this relationship. In addition, I'd have to then remove my Slavery tech from PIT