I haven't noticed that behavior on the part of the AI personally. That said, that mod would cripple the prehistoric era and scouting/hunting greatly, so I don't think adding it to C2C would be the best idea.
City Limitations via Civics
- Thread starter strategyonly
- Start date
I haven't noticed that behavior on the part of the AI personally. That said, that mod would cripple the prehistoric era and scouting/hunting greatly, so I don't think adding it to C2C would be the best idea.
MagnusIlluminus
Emperor
Unless the distance could vary by unit class. A large number for Scouts & Hunters, but smaller for others. Could the distance vary based on what Civics you have?
JosEPh_II
TBS WarLord
So it would remove the AI's ability to try to stake out an area to claim except for only adjacent cities. That would make starting placement for AI and Player very very critical for survival. Too critical if a tundra start is the placement.
I don't think this limiting range idea is a good one.
JosEPh
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
See first image in here. I have seen it happen in about half of the games I play but usually only one nation does it. Luckily I play with Rev on so eventually that city revolts and the original nation can grow again.
Yes it was double the range for recon and hunters. It was based on what you had - so baskets would double the range and pottery increased it by even more.
As usual: Don't try to fix AI issues by changing mechanics.
Instead provide a case showing the bad behavior to Koshling and he will improve the AI considerations.
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
It is a mechanic we discussed much earlier around v19. The idea then was that it may be an interesting addition but low priority. Now it appears to not be interesting so it will stay in my low priority pile.
I still consider it interesting (especially the supply mechanic) but not for the reason that it improves AI city placement.It is a mechanic we discussed much earlier around v19. The idea then was that it may be an interesting addition but low priority. Now it appears to not be interesting so it will stay in my low priority pile.
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
Can a new game option be added for a "Strict City Limits"? Ones that no matter how big or small your map is and that will not allow you to build more cities beyond the civic limit.
Note this would not be for people like JosEPh_II who like to expand. But would be more for people like perilousride who want the AI to have room to expand even if other civs get there first.
I would like them to be set at ...
Anarchism = 3
Chiefdom = 6
Despotism = 9
Monarchy = 12
Republic = 12
Theocracy = 12
Democracy = Unlimited
Totalitarianism = Unlimited
Technocracy = Unlimited
Thanks in advance to whomever can get this made.
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)
So since its possible, the AI knows how to use it and the code is still there could someone please add the the option of "Hard City Limit" to the custom game choices?
Thanks!
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
I've stated I will. I just need time to clear the projects I'm entangled in.
Raven Destroyer
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2010
- Messages
- 597
i usually hate it when cities overlap and only with a lot of weighing i allow 1 tile overlap or maybe 2 but i was wondering how the City vicinity things work as i noticed that cities grow anyhow (Example one source of Gold two cities can work on does that mean Both can make the Spanish culture or any other Gold in City vicinity thingy?) if that isn't an issue then i would loosen up my limits 
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
Yes it does. Very useful at times. Only one gets the worked plot but both get access to the buildings.
I'll do it, but I'll wait until we see if we are going to make some sort of option categorization system first. It is quite simple to do.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
It is but you won't be able to apply it on the setup screen - that game setup screen is out of our realm of moddability. We do have other ideas but do you know python screen design? I figure we're waiting for AIAndy on that one. And yes, I'd be more willing to once that's in effect too.
LumenAngel
King
I m not sure the "cityl limits" are in the right civics category.
In XIX century, England was one of the largest empire, and it was a monarchy. And today, it's still a monarchy. With a parliement, but onot a democraty.
And even today, there are a lot of King or Emperor (England, Japan, Morocco, Spain, ...) and some are or was big country.
In XIX century, England was one of the largest empire, and it was a monarchy. And today, it's still a monarchy. With a parliement, but onot a democraty.
And even today, there are a lot of King or Emperor (England, Japan, Morocco, Spain, ...) and some are or was big country.
Which is why Monarchy should not have city limits.
But I do think that they are in the right category, who will run Tribalism anyways in the Modern era?No large states in the modern world are operationally monarchies. Places like Britain are constitutional monarchies, which basically means the monarch is a figurehead who helps boost tourism and diplomacy. The queen of England has no real power and almost no impact whatsoever on governmental decisions.
The largest state I can think of that is actually a monarchy in an peritoneal sense is Saudi Arabia.
CIVPlayer8
Prince
I disagree, I can't really think of any other category that would fit them better than government. Maybe Society? I dunno, but your "Government" is really the most basic part of your civic choice, and it is, in many ways, a "tech up", so if we put the Limits in government, we can be sure you'll have ever expanding Limits.
Which is why Monarchy should not have city limits.
Well, maybe. But if that was changed, than Monarchy would be the "go-to" Government Civic, and nobody would ever switch away from it. The last of the real Monarchs with power lost it in the "Industrial Era". It's still a good civic for expanding in the mid game though
Well, maybe. But if that was changed, than Monarchy would be the "go-to" Government Civic, and nobody would ever switch away from it. The last of the real Monarchs with power lost it in the "Industrial Era". It's still a good civic for expanding in the mid game though
I'd question though what the difference in the Government civic would be between a Louis XIV monarch and a dictator in the 20th century. Certainly there are differences elsewhere with that but that IMO would be in other civic categories.
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
Well with the British Empire the question comes up, if such a large empire is actually part of the empire but Vassals of the British Empire?
Arkenor
Warlord
Historically, there was a sort of sliding scale between Absolute Monarchy and Constitutional Monarchy, with the monarch's powers slowly being chipped away over the centuries. Queen Victoria had rather more say in things than our current Queen (who has almost none, really), and her predecessors more yet.
That slow decline on Monarchistic power probably first became noticeable with Magna Carta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta) in 1215, which theoretically (and along with a few other things that were going on around that time) ended the monarch as all-powerful despot. That'd make a great World Wonder, btw. (Perhaps reducing anarchy time for some sorts of civics? Or improving noble specialists.)
The Monarchs during Britain's Imperial period were Emperors in both title and fact. But the conquered variety of vassalage does probably represent that well enough.
I'm currently playing a game on Emperor level, and have discovered that the AIs seem completely immune to revolutions, and thus also completely unconcerned with city limitations. Bit of a shame, as I like a bit of churn, and revolutions usually stop the AIs from amassing ridiculously large numbers of cities early on. The Celts (on a different continent to me) are taking over the world with 38 cities right now (still in the Classic period), and no real instability. I suspect they only stopped getting bigger because they ran out of people to conquer over there. The game is a bit of a lost cause at this point, with them running off into the distance. I'm guessing they're avoiding revolutions because they have crazy numbers of town watchmen in every city, (and no money concerns at all at that difficulty level that would otherwise prevent having so many watchmen. They're sitting on about 50K gold at the moment.) and the built in stability points they provide are making revolutions implausible. Perhaps having Town Watchmen (and their policing promotion upgrades) reduce crime (which reduces instability in and of itself) AND reduce revolt chance makes them overpowered for their time period.
In addition, my nearer neighbours, who are also far bigger than I could risk being without bankruptcy or rebellion, are absolutely terrible at invading me, even though they have the technological edge from having so many cities. So many of their forces are town watchmen (which cannot attack, and aren't actually that great at defending after a while) that they just don't have the muscle to invade me properly, or defend against my counter-attacks. The AI seems to be following the logic that if 1 Town Watchman reduces revolution chance by 10%, then having 10 of them per city is a brilliant plan. Which it is, if you can afford it, until you want to fight someone with a proper army. Anyways, I suspect that Town Watchmen are at the core of several strange/annoying C2C issues.
Hmm, that might be a bit off-topic. I'll post it in the bug/issue forum.
That slow decline on Monarchistic power probably first became noticeable with Magna Carta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta) in 1215, which theoretically (and along with a few other things that were going on around that time) ended the monarch as all-powerful despot. That'd make a great World Wonder, btw. (Perhaps reducing anarchy time for some sorts of civics? Or improving noble specialists.)
The Monarchs during Britain's Imperial period were Emperors in both title and fact. But the conquered variety of vassalage does probably represent that well enough.
I'm currently playing a game on Emperor level, and have discovered that the AIs seem completely immune to revolutions, and thus also completely unconcerned with city limitations. Bit of a shame, as I like a bit of churn, and revolutions usually stop the AIs from amassing ridiculously large numbers of cities early on. The Celts (on a different continent to me) are taking over the world with 38 cities right now (still in the Classic period), and no real instability. I suspect they only stopped getting bigger because they ran out of people to conquer over there. The game is a bit of a lost cause at this point, with them running off into the distance. I'm guessing they're avoiding revolutions because they have crazy numbers of town watchmen in every city, (and no money concerns at all at that difficulty level that would otherwise prevent having so many watchmen. They're sitting on about 50K gold at the moment.) and the built in stability points they provide are making revolutions implausible. Perhaps having Town Watchmen (and their policing promotion upgrades) reduce crime (which reduces instability in and of itself) AND reduce revolt chance makes them overpowered for their time period.
In addition, my nearer neighbours, who are also far bigger than I could risk being without bankruptcy or rebellion, are absolutely terrible at invading me, even though they have the technological edge from having so many cities. So many of their forces are town watchmen (which cannot attack, and aren't actually that great at defending after a while) that they just don't have the muscle to invade me properly, or defend against my counter-attacks. The AI seems to be following the logic that if 1 Town Watchman reduces revolution chance by 10%, then having 10 of them per city is a brilliant plan. Which it is, if you can afford it, until you want to fight someone with a proper army. Anyways, I suspect that Town Watchmen are at the core of several strange/annoying C2C issues.
Hmm, that might be a bit off-topic. I'll post it in the bug/issue forum.
