City Limitations via Civics

[Hydromancerx]

Thanks, that pinned it down. The problem is in tehXML. When Hydro added CIVIC_ANARCHISM (SVN rev 322, Aug 15th, so V16), he gave it:

			<iAnarchyLength>-100</iAnarchyLength>

This specifices the (unadjusted) number of turns of anarchy to make a switch - it doesn't make much sense to have a negative anarchy length, but the AI uses this value as part of its evaluation (higher values devalue the civic) and so subtracts a large negative value, and inflates the perceived value of Anarchism (a LOT). Hence it never switches to anything else.

I'll push a fix to SVN shortly. If you don't use SVN edit your own copy - it's in the file Assets/xml/GameInfo/Civ4CivisInfos.xml for CIVIC_ANARCHISM. Change it to 0.

Note that the fix won't cause an immediate switch as the AI only considers civic switches every 25 or so turns (or on special events like getting a new civic tech), but it should cause them to switch out next time they consider it.

Gah! that was suppose to be the AI weight not anarchy length.

 

[Koshling]

OK am tenting it out again, withOUT city limits.

I really hate this change. The thing that attracted me to C2C in the first place was the fact that you couldn't found new cities at first (because of the tribalism requirement for tribes) and the consequent slower expansion phase. City limits is the same thing. Now you can just spam away like crazy and have massive empires without reasonable governments to support them. Result is neutral land gets gobbled up far too fast and you are forced into wars much earlier.

I get that some people don't like them which is why I was so in favour of the compromise that Nevits suggested that would make them soft limits instead of hard limits, but we seem to always go with the binary choices :-(

 

[strategyonly]

I really hate this change. The thing that attracted me to C2C in the first place was the fact that you couldn't found new cities at first (because of the tribalism requirement for tribes) and the consequent slower expansion phase. City limits is the same thing. Now you can just spam away like crazy and have massive empires without reasonable governments to support them. Result is neutral land gets gobbled up far too fast and you are forced into wars much earlier.

I get that some people don't like them which is why I was so in favor of the compromise that Nevits suggested that would make them soft limits instead of hard limits, but we seem to always go with the binary choices :-(

I agree with you completely, BUT the word "tenting" was supposed to be "testing".
This is what i found out:

WithOUT City Limits, the Barbarian AI, spawn cities much much faster and all over the map,MAYBE it has to deal with the City Limits also, if so thats really bad.
Then theres again Barb Civ and Barb World that is ALSO barbarians with LOTS and LOTS of cities to have and AGAIN doesnt work right because of the limits.

Now i personally really really like the City Limits idea, for the AI especially.

So i see it this way, "we" meaning "YOU" need to find a way for the Barbarian Civilization to have waaaaay better spawning of tons of cities for this to work correctly. Plus then work with Barb World and Barb Civ also.

If you can get these to work, then lets implement Nevets idea(s) also. what the heck.
Again if it doesnt pan out, we can just can it, thats what modular is all about.

But again keeping this in mind of course:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10830720&postcount=3932

Talking of modular (DH) i really know your swamped, am sorry for adding stuff, BUT can you pls add these to the core mod, i believe we have tested them long enough. Thx. Unless of course you need to do more with them.

- Town Watchman
- Guard
- City Guard

- Canoe
- War Canoe

- Early Merchant
- Supply Train

 

[Koshling]

I agree with you completely, BUT the word "tenting" was supposed to be "testing".
This is what i found out:

WithOUT City Limits, the Barbarian AI, spawn cities much much faster and all over the map,MAYBE it has to deal with the City Limits also, if so thats really bad.
Then theres again Barb Civ and Barb World that is ALSO barbarians with LOTS and LOTS of cities to have and AGAIN doesnt work right because of the limits.

Now i personally really really like the City Limits idea, for the AI especially.

So i see it this way, "we" meaning "YOU" need to find a way for the Barbarian Civilization to have waaaaay better spawning of tons of cities for this to work correctly. Plus then work with Barb World and Barb Civ also.

If you can get these to work, then lets implement Nevets idea(s) also. what the heck.
Again if it doesnt pan out, we can just can it, thats what modular is all about.

Talking of modular (DH) i really know your swamped, am sorry for adding stuff, BUT can you pls add these to the core mod, i believe we have tested them long enough. Thx. Unless of course you need to do more with them.

- Town Watchman
- Guard
- City Guard

- Canoe
- War Canoe

- Early Merchant
- Supply Train

I must admit I hadn't thoguht about how city limits would effect barbs. In the implemenattino though, barbs are effectively a player that is always in the basic civics so it probably means it can only found 3 cities world-wide!! (does that match what you saw in your testing?). If so I'm just going to turn city limits off for barbs (NOT for AIs, just barbs specifically)

 

[strategyonly]

I must admit I hadn't thought about how city limits would effect barbs. In the implementation though, barbs are effectively a player that is always in the basic civics so it probably means it can only found 3 cities world-wide!! (does that match what you saw in your testing?). If so I'm just going to turn city limits off for barbs (NOT for AIs, just barbs specifically)

OK try this, make a SEPARATE dll for that for testing purposes only, for JosEph II and me (since "we" never play with Rev on), and let see what happens

 

[Koshling]

OK try this, make a SEPARATE dll for that for testing purposes only, for JosEph II and me (since "we" never play with Rev on), and let see what happens

Try this and let me know what happens when you have city limits defined in the XML (it should apply them to the human and the AI but NOT the barbs).

 

[BlueGenie]

I do have to point out that there are other ways to inhibit city spamming. A simple one would be to set
Anarchy +400% Maintenances
Chiefdom +250% Maintenances
Despotism +100% Maintenances
Monarchy +50% Maintenances

That should stint growth sufficiently in those civics without putting an arbitrary limit.
(though would basically give the first city maintenance cost as well in Anarchy)

I have also been thinking about Monarchy and why it should have a limit. Consider the British Empire which during it's biggest period WAS a Monarchy. Maybe add Representative Monarchy to the Civics to have some kind of monarchy without imposed limits?

Cheers.

 

[EldrinFal]

I do have to point out that there are other ways to inhibit city spamming. A simple one would be to set
Anarchy +400% Maintenances
Chiefdom +250% Maintenances
Despotism +100% Maintenances
Monarchy +50% Maintenances

That should stint growth sufficiently in those civics without putting an arbitrary limit.
(though would basically give the first city maintenance cost as well in Anarchy)

I have also been thinking about Monarchy and why it should have a limit. Consider the British Empire which during it's biggest period WAS a Monarchy. Maybe add Representative Monarchy to the Civics to have some kind of monarchy without imposed limits?

Cheers.

Does Maintenance apply to more than just gold/income? That was always my assumption...

 

[strategyonly]

Try this and let me know what happens when you have city limits defined in the XML (it should apply them to the human and the AI but NOT the barbs).

OK heres the NEW dll with City Limits the way they used to be, this is only 0 turns yet.

Waaaay better than it used to be, this is with Barb World and Barb Civ both ON.

I think this might have solved the problem with barb cities, but like i said, i haven't even had 1 turn yet

 

[Koshling]

OK heres the NEW dll with City Limits the way they used to be, this is only 0 turns yet.

Waaaay better than it used to be, this is with Barb World and Barb Civ both ON.

I think this might have solved the problem with barb cities, but like i said, i haven't even had 1 turn yet

Let me know when you are sure enough that I should push the change to SVN - its not included in the push I just made (only in the test DLL I made for you so far)

 

[strategyonly]

Let me know when you are sure enough that I should push the change to SVN - its not included in the push I just made (only in the test DLL I made for you so far)

I just got to turn 200, and four civs have emerged and the Barbarians are hunching down and protecting their property, like they are supposed to, so GO ahead and push it, works file with City Limits ON.

 

[BlueGenie]

Does Maintenance apply to more than just gold/income? That was always my assumption...

Maintenance only increases your city costs in gold and said increase also affects your inflation total, but not increasing inflation%.

 

[EldrinFal]

Maintenance only increases your city costs in gold and said increase also affects your inflation total, but not increasing inflation%.

The only thing about your idea is that is applies a hefty penalty across the board no matter how many cities you have. So even at the start with just a few cities, you're dinged with that 400% Maintenance penalty.

There is already a built-in mechanic for added maintenance for Number of Cities, Distance from Capital, Overseas Cities, so perhaps you mean a boost to the Maintenance penalty for Number of Cities? That would seem to make more sense.

 

[BlueGenie]

I'm already running my games with more maintenance costs and penalties than what I suggested here and money is not really a problem. Even with hefty costs I'm still able to run with a profit per turn at 100% science while waging wars. Just have to get a few techs with money buildings a few techs earlier than otherwise, and there's actually a good use for merchant specialists (whom I mostly never had to use at all).

 

[velosepappe]

Right now i'm in the early ancient on snail speed, rising difficulty, and I must say that money has been something I have to consider from time to time. I even put my capital and second city on wealth a few turns, normally I would only consider to put it on science. I'm running my economy of 85%, might become less as I get access to more money multipliers.
I have been able to block off nearby germany with one well placed archer or tomahawk thrower but mali, my other neighbour that is leading in tech (not a very big lead) and military (is see 0.4 on my intel ), is giving me a hard time. I allready pay loads for my military but they keep getting ahead, probably because of deity. I'm trying to plug in the access routes which seems to dissuade them from attacking me but I'm affraid that they will overrun me in the near future. All in all this game has been very interesting and satisfying from a tactical and strategic point of view so I'd say thanks to you all for the good times.

 

[EldrinFal]

I'm already running my games with more maintenance costs and penalties than what I suggested here and money is not really a problem. Even with hefty costs I'm still able to run with a profit per turn at 100% science while waging wars. Just have to get a few techs with money buildings a few techs earlier than otherwise, and there's actually a good use for merchant specialists (whom I mostly never had to use at all).

Then... how would that curb city spawning if you're still doing so well with the higher setting?

I believe merchants can be used to rush production though, right? I find that a better use for them than a one time gold payoff.

 

[BlueGenie]

Because I'm not spamming cities. Had I the cost would have been too much. Basically I check my economy before setting any new cities and once I switch civics (from Anarchy to Chiefdom to Despotism to Monarchy and finally to Republic) I find my economy stable enough to put out a few more cities. Usually between 2 and 4 with the extra gold income, more once I've gone Republic.

I was talking about specialist merchants, not Great Merchants or Early Merchants.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Talking of modular (DH) i really know your swamped, am sorry for adding stuff, BUT can you pls add these to the core mod, i believe we have tested them long enough. Thx. Unless of course you need to do more with them.

- Town Watchman
- Guard
- City Guard

- Canoe
- War Canoe

- Early Merchant
- Supply Train

It is on my to do list as is merging some of the others into a single Alternate Timeline module so that when we figure out options they will all be in the one place to modify.

I also want to move the stuff in Buildings and Custom_Processes into the core files as some of them have been there since RoM. There are others that could be merged but there needs to be some discussion on them.

 

[strategyonly]

It is on my to do list as is merging some of the others into a single Alternate Timeline module so that when we figure out options they will all be in the one place to modify.

I also want to move the stuff in Buildings and Custom_Processes into the core files as some of them have been there since RoM. There are others that could be merged but there needs to be some discussion on them.

You got it Buddy

 

[JosEPh_II]

I really hate this change. The thing that attracted me to C2C in the first place was the fact that you couldn't found new cities at first (because of the tribalism requirement for tribes) and the consequent slower expansion phase. City limits is the same thing. Now you can just spam away like crazy and have massive empires without reasonable governments to support them. Result is neutral land gets gobbled up far too fast and you are forced into wars much earlier.

I get that some people don't like them which is why I was so in favour of the compromise that Nevits suggested that would make them soft limits instead of hard limits, but we seem to always go with the binary choices :-(

I'm sorry you don't like me any more.

I could learn to live with nevets idea, but I still see problems even with it. The Whole City Limits idea is based on a flawed perception that everyone will "Spam" cities. For some ppl the eXcitement of the game is in the eXploration and founding of new cities to get those coveted resources before your neighbor does. While other players want to sit still and build military units to go a raiding on their neighbors and acquire cities and resources. It's a matter of play style. The ppl that cry foul over rapid expansion are these that like to sit back and amass Stacks of Doom. I'm not one of those type players. So when you start regulating that my style is bad and yours is better, well disagreement comes into play. Not balance for the game but just plain disagreement. This has been an ages old argument and point of dissension since I started playing RoM back in '07. Luckily I was able to persuade Zappara to make REVDCM an Option for RoM so that both sides could have Zappara's cake and eat it too. Then Afforess came along and almost persuaded Zappara to make REVDCM THE Basis for RoM. In fact he even declared in one post that is was RoM basis. I argued against that too and almost lost. Afforess is a very persuasive talented modder and Zappara was leaning in his direction because of all the new ideas Afforess was coming up with. I was finally able to get Zappara and Afforess to understand the need to keep it as an option.

Now we are here at C2C, the grandchild of RoM and the son of AND and history is trying to repeat itself. I'll argue against City Limits as a mandatory item till "I'm Blue in the Face" as they say where I come from. It makes me unpopular and a seemingly antagonistic player. But I feel strongly that I must stand my ground. Or I will lose my options and this Wonderful Mod will become unplayable for me because the fun I'm having is being restricted and removed. I went thru this also with AND and was ostracized by many Afforess supporters. I actually quit playing AND. Later Afforess and I talked and he admitted that he had lost sight of his long term goals for the Mod and let himself be pulled away from his Goal. And that because of the loss of Focus his mod had become to "predictable" and the Fun was slipping away. He's trying to rectify and simplify his mod now to get that Fun back in it.

Now I've said all that to end up saying let's just make sure that the Mod stays focused and balanced and most of all Fun for the Max number of players. Don't restrict different modes of play to the point of eXclusion. There will always be dissenters and I may be just one of them.

I Greatly Respect your work on this Mod Koshling. You have improved it by leaps and bounds. Just don't cut me out of it.

I hope you understand me better with this post.

JosEPh