City Limitations via Civics

Yes, but consider that there are already 2 City Limits options, neither of which are extremely obvious what effect they have on the game when looking at their descriptions. I presume in this, you mean population limits established by civic? I think the others deal more with # of city limits (cross and there's a penalty) but I'm not sure because I don't play with arbitrary limitations if I can avoid them.
 
Yes, but consider that there are already 2 City Limits options, neither of which are extremely obvious what effect they have on the game when looking at their descriptions. I presume in this, you mean population limits established by civic? I think the others deal more with # of city limits (cross and there's a penalty) but I'm not sure because I don't play with arbitrary limitations if I can avoid them.

No, no, not population limits, the number of cities you can have. Meaning if you have Chiefdom you can have 6 cities.

In addition that had code where if you switch civics and then get more cities, such Despotism with 9 but you want to go back to Chiefdom, you could not because you have too many cities.

And yes I know there is already a "soft" city limit. This would be a "hard" city limit like we originally had back a few versions ago. But unlike a few versions ago it would be an option and not mandatory.

Basiclly there would be 3 settings ...

- No City Limit (Optional)
- Soft City Limit (Default)
- Hard City Limit (Optional)
 
No, no, not population limits, the number of cities you can have. Meaning if you have Chiefdom you can have 6 cities.

In addition that had code where if you switch civics and then get more cities, such Despotism with 9 but you want to go back to Chiefdom, you could not because you have too many cities.

And yes I know there is already a "soft" city limit. This would be a "hard" city limit like we originally had back a few versions ago. But unlike a few versions ago it would be an option and not mandatory.

Basiclly there would be 3 settings ...

- No City Limit (Optional)
- Soft City Limit (Default)
- Hard City Limit (Optional)

Well... hmm... I'd have to understand the current city limit options better but now that we have incompatibility that can be established between options, this would be possible. I can put it on my list but I warn that it can't take extraordinarily high priority over more immediate goals on the agenda.
 
We originally had a hard city limit and its still there in the code, just not in the form of a game option. Currently you can switch to hard civic limits by changing the 'iCityOverLimitUnhappy' in a civic to 0, while still leaving its 'iCityLimit' non-0.

We could turn this into (<sigh>yet another</sigh>) a game option very trivially by having presence of the option modifiy CvCivicInfo::GetCityOverLimitUnhappy() to return 0 when the 'hard limits' option is set.

If someone feels like doing this go ahead - the AI will be fine with it (it still has hard limit handling code)
 
Why do ppl think we need this extra layer?

All it's going to do is cause confusion down the road. Why can't it be just a simple thing. Either City Limits are On or Off period. These are the Only Options needed.

JosEPh
 
Why do ppl think we need this extra layer?

All it's going to do is cause confusion down the road. Why can't it be just a simple thing. Either City Limits are On or Off period. These are the Only Options needed.

JosEPh

I agree with this entirely (with the exception of course that the Scaling option is a good idea). The issue is not city limits, and we do not need to fight this fight again like we did in V16. The issue is that there aren't good enough ways for weaker civs to catch up to stronger civs.
 
Personally opinion incoming. I hate the idea of a hard limit that's just crazy. Just make it higher maintainence fees, which kinda already factors in as chiefdom would have higher maintainence cost per city than later civics.

I think the bigger problem is the number of buildings. Specifically science producing buildings. It is so unbalanced. Just thinking about a civ with one city with only one stone tool maker/elder council etc compared to a civ with three cities and all of those buildings in everyone is just crazy. This is what needs adjusted/balanced in my opinion.
 
We originally had a hard city limit and its still there in the code, just not in the form of a game option. Currently you can switch to hard civic limits by changing the 'iCityOverLimitUnhappy' in a civic to 0, while still leaving its 'iCityLimit' non-0.

We could turn this into (<sigh>yet another</sigh>) a game option very trivially by having presence of the option modifiy CvCivicInfo::GetCityOverLimitUnhappy() to return 0 when the 'hard limits' option is set.

If someone feels like doing this go ahead - the AI will be fine with it (it still has hard limit handling code)
Wow... that makes things very easy there! Thanks Koshling!
Why do ppl think we need this extra layer?

All it's going to do is cause confusion down the road. Why can't it be just a simple thing. Either City Limits are On or Off period. These are the Only Options needed.

JosEPh

I agree with this entirely (with the exception of course that the Scaling option is a good idea). The issue is not city limits, and we do not need to fight this fight again like we did in V16. The issue is that there aren't good enough ways for weaker civs to catch up to stronger civs.
I don't really see the need for the option either BUT at the same time I also feel no resistance to being able to provide for those who want to play a game under any given ruleset they feel it should have. So arguments that state that it shouldn't be necessary are imo, immediately trumped by one that states that it is. Thus why its an option.

I know we're getting a lot of them. I've been discussing with AIAndy a way to make the game option setup a bit more user friendly in the face of a lot of options because really, its far more common for there to be disagreement that can easily be sorted out via options than it is to come to a consensus on the rules of C2C.

Limiting ourselves because the option list gets too long or overwhelming simply means, to me, that we need a solution that helps us when setting them to keep them more organized and to have option sets saveable and reloadable. That should open up our willingness to add more. And, in respect for your opinions, maybe an option like this one should wait until we have that sort of functionality.

Personally opinion incoming. I hate the idea of a hard limit that's just crazy. Just make it higher maintainence fees, which kinda already factors in as chiefdom would have higher maintainence cost per city than later civics.

I think the bigger problem is the number of buildings. Specifically science producing buildings. It is so unbalanced. Just thinking about a civ with one city with only one stone tool maker/elder council etc compared to a civ with three cities and all of those buildings in everyone is just crazy. This is what needs adjusted/balanced in my opinion.
I didn't really mind the hard limits that bad... and I can see why someone would like them. But again, definately should not be enforced on those who wouldn't want them.

Please give us some more details, however, on your last comment. In my playtesting last night (duel on Noble level - crushed my opponent on the very round I hit Sedentary Lifestyle and entered the Ancient Era with Agriculture!) I found its definately true that the game forces a player to omit a lot of buildings they could build - but then again that was on Normal speed which is pretty much lightning fast.

I CAN see what you mean about the stone tool maker and perhaps it should be a national wonder...
 
Well yeah normal speed is basically impossible to play realistically. Yeah the Stone tool workshop should be a national wonder, for sure. I know people will disagree with me, and admittedly I'm no too much of a builder, but the number of buildings in C2C has destroyed the balance of normal civ. Also with all of the production and food buildings that give you like +1, +2 or even more to that yield the huge aspect of managing what tiles are worked is basically nullified. Which was one of my favorite parts of vanilla.
 
<snip>
I didn't really mind the hard limits that bad... and I can see why someone would like them. But again, definately should not be enforced on those who wouldn't want them.

Please give us some more details, however, on your last comment. In my playtesting last night (duel on Noble level - crushed my opponent on the very round I hit Sedentary Lifestyle and entered the Ancient Era with Agriculture!) I found its definately true that the game forces a player to omit a lot of buildings they could build - but then again that was on Normal speed which is pretty much lightning fast.

I CAN see what you mean about the stone tool maker and perhaps it should be a national wonder...
Hard limits were made in the first place to be a sticky-tape patch for the underlying issues in game balance and progression. They did not help solve the problem, they only delayed it a bit.
 
I CAN see what you mean about the stone tool maker and perhaps it should be a national wonder...

It's a two-edged sword though. If you build up a very tool-maker supported economy things get painful when you start researching through the mining->iron working sequence. Similarly for elder councils at writing.

They ARE very powerful, but they have a limited duration of usefulness, and you invest quite a lot to get them early on.
 
We originally had a hard city limit and its still there in the code, just not in the form of a game option. Currently you can switch to hard civic limits by changing the 'iCityOverLimitUnhappy' in a civic to 0, while still leaving its 'iCityLimit' non-0.

We could turn this into (<sigh>yet another</sigh>) a game option very trivially by having presence of the option modifiy CvCivicInfo::GetCityOverLimitUnhappy() to return 0 when the 'hard limits' option is set.

If someone feels like doing this go ahead - the AI will be fine with it (it still has hard limit handling code)

That would be great! And yes I do. I liked the original "hard limit" and was very sad to see it turned into a "soft limit". People like perilousride, Snofru1 and I want it. So there must be more players out there that would prefer to play on a "hard limit" setting.

Why do ppl think we need this extra layer?

All it's going to do is cause confusion down the road. Why can't it be just a simple thing. Either City Limits are On or Off period. These are the Only Options needed.

JosEPh

Seems simple to me. Plus is it any more confusing that the various Trait settings? And you of all people should know the importantance of optional settings. Your always saying "don't force this setting on me!" and "don't make me play this way!", well now you don't have to. But for those of us that DO want to play this way we should be able to. Especially if the code is still in there from before.

I agree with this entirely (with the exception of course that the Scaling option is a good idea). The issue is not city limits, and we do not need to fight this fight again like we did in V16. The issue is that there aren't good enough ways for weaker civs to catch up to stronger civs.

Its not about that. We have the "soft limit" setting which would be default and the no limit for those who don't like even the soft setting. The whole point of the "hard limit" is for those who what that extra challenge. Just like how there is a 1 City Challenge or Raging Barbarians. Its less about balance and more about the challenge.

Hard limits were made in the first place to be a sticky-tape patch for the underlying issues in game balance and progression. They did not help solve the problem, they only delayed it a bit.

Again, this would be OPTIONAL. I would that it was extremely fun to play with the "hard limit" on and that challenge is what made for good game. Even the AI did better in that there were not 1 or 2 top AIs but LOTS of top AIs.

I am not sure why some of you are freaking out. I mean its practically already made and its an optional setting. Seems like an easy no brainier to me.

I mean when JosEPh_II fought to have a No Limits setting I did not come in and say "No you can't it would leave the game unbalanced and unchecked! Don't make such an option! It will be too confusing to have yet another option to choose from!" It seems like you guys a being a bit hypocritical not to allow for the other extreme. Especially when is also an optional setting. :shake:
 
It's a two-edged sword though. If you build up a very tool-maker supported economy things get painful when you start researching through the mining->iron working sequence. Similarly for elder councils at writing.

They ARE very powerful, but they have a limited duration of usefulness, and you invest quite a lot to get them early on.

I agree. They are made to help you along and eventually get worse over time. They are one of the more thought out buildings and I do not think they should be a national wonder.
 
Seems simple to me. Plus is it any more confusing that the various Trait settings? And you of all people should know the importantance of optional settings. Your always saying "don't force this setting on me!" and "don't make me play this way!", well now you don't have to. But for those of us that DO want to play this way we should be able to. Especially if the code is still in there from before.

Hydro you know as well as I do that this will eventually lead to some sort of City Limits getting enforced on every one. It is another layer of obfuscation and sure enough someone in the future will say, hey we have 2 layers of City Limits why not get rid of the No City Limits because we want this or that to happen.

Why muddy the water with a 3rd option when 2 will suffice. Koshling doesn't really want a 3rd option.
We could turn this into (<sigh>yet another</sigh>) a game option ...

I fought for a clear cut difference, either On or Off.

Your always saying "don't force this setting on me!" and "don't make me play this way!", well now you don't have to. But for those of us that DO want to play this way we should be able to. Especially if the code is still in there from before.

I'm not taking anything away that you Did Not already have! So don't try to lay a blame game on me, that's totally unfair and untrue.

It seems like you guys a being a bit hypocritical not to allow for the other extreme. Especially when is also an optional setting.

How is it hypocritical if you Already have the Other extreme? I didn't change the code. I did not make the Civics. I fought for a clear and simple choice, not a convoluted path. All I see is an end around to one day removing the No City Limits. Mark my words! That Is the Goal here.

I'm done being hammered for wanting clear cut choices, for wanting some simplicity instead of duplicity.

JosEPh
 
Hell no that wouldn't be the goal here! I'm certainly not against facilitating people getting the games they want and that has absolutely nothing to do with trying to expand a bubble of control that will eventually make what they want a default or the only way to go about things.

Going that far would be far beyond the intention of making a third option here and imagining that this is the intention for including the third option I think ends up being completely unwarranted fear. (I, for one, would NOT agree to hard OR soft limits being non-optional as I find either one usually not the sort of game I'd want to play!)

So if the only argument we can get against a third option is that there's concern it paves the way for removing one of the other two possibilities, I don't see that as being a point of persuasion at all.

I CAN understand feeling like we're getting simply too many options but with the incompatible options method we now have it would not be terribly confusing to have the three settings, and with further work to categorize options and make predefined option sets saveable and loadable into the game setup stage on the horizon, I simply don't see any real good reason NOT to have this third option if we have any players who would prefer having it.

As for 'clear cut choices' it will be made very clear by the process that establishes option incompatibilities. Part of that setup is to include a notification of the incompatibility in the option help hover. It will very clearly indicated to the player in red lettering that option A does not allow option B. So if you go ahead and select both anyhow, option A will override option B and force option B off when the game is initialized.

And I don't find simplicity to be at a value higher than functionality and the ability to provide what has been requested by players and mod team members. In fact, simplicity takes a fairly low rank in general in all of C2C does it not?
 
Hydro you know as well as I do that this will eventually lead to some sort of City Limits getting enforced on every one. It is another layer of obfuscation and sure enough someone in the future will say, hey we have 2 layers of City Limits why not get rid of the No City Limits because we want this or that to happen.

Why muddy the water with a 3rd option when 2 will suffice. Koshling doesn't really want a 3rd option.

I fought for a clear cut difference, either On or Off.



I'm not taking anything away that you Did Not already have! So don't try to lay a blame game on me, that's totally unfair and untrue.



How is it hypocritical if you Already have the Other extreme? I didn't change the code. I did not make the Civics. I fought for a clear and simple choice, not a convoluted path. All I see is an end around to one day removing the No City Limits. Mark my words! That Is the Goal here.

I'm done being hammered for wanting clear cut choices, for wanting some simplicity instead of duplicity.

JosEPh

1a. No it won't. That's like saying we should not have One-City Challenge option because it eventually lead to some sort of One-City Challenge getting enforced.

1b. He said it was fine. Plus the AI still knows how to do it.

If someone feels like doing this go ahead - the AI will be fine with it (it still has hard limit handling code)

2. Having a default, plus 2 options is not going to be too confusing. Plus if we make sure the hover description makes sense then there should be no problem. Out players are not idiots. Plus you fought for an alternative. There was no talk of a 3rd option when we discussed this stuff originally.

3. Blame? I am stating that of all people you should understand wanting to get an optional setting added. I would have expected you to be the first one to stand up and say "make it optional!"

4a. The so called "other extreme" is the middle. The "hard limit" would be the other side of the extreme. If on a chart ...

<- No Limit - Soft Limit - Hard Limit ->

The Soft limit was a compromise brought on by much of your debating. Because originally we started off with a hard limit. It was not only moved over to the center but the No Limit was added to even appease people like you that did not want to have ANY limitations.

Like the No Limitations, the Hard Limitations who disliked the Soft Limit (and of couse the no limit).

4b. I had hoped that it was originally going to be very simple with No Limit or Hard Limit. But debates by you (and others) kept moving to to the middle and watered down the limitations to where they hardly matter now. In fact I see hardly any difference from the soft limit and no limit since the limits that are in place are almost impossible to reach! And there is so much :) that any :mad: you get from going over the limit it doesn't really matter.
 
And there is so much :) that any :mad: you get from going over the limit it doesn't really matter.

I would have to agree on This. The AI (which is WAY better now, but still needs more defensive attitude IMO) has like 5-10 cities over the limit (for the top AI that is, not for the LOW AI though, which from i read is HARD to "control" whether or not they dont do much anyways). ie: Only like 2 out of 10 will compete in a game in early era's.:eek:
 
Fine, go for it. I won't bark at it any more.

JosEPh
 
Back
Top Bottom