Discussion in 'Rise of Mankind: A New Dawn' started by ichbinsehselber, Jun 26, 2011.
I would love this implementation.
I would love this as well.
What about tiles that are not part of some citys influence but claimed via units or forts?
Tough. They are being held by military force. You need to address those the same way (would be my take on that question)
As far as I understand it, this would still not allow for a cultural swap in peace (which should be the goal in my opinion). Even if the city revolts it does not flip to the player. So I see a lot of implementation work with little gain.
I would recommend to keep it simple. -> Less work, fewer bugs...
A simple solution to allow the original cultural flips to happen seems very little work (unless I do not know something important) and make many people happy.
All I can say is that when you capture a city, that is owned by an empire using Monarchy or lower Gov't and you are using republic and above, it's really seem ridiculous that tiles completely away from the main body of the enemy is still under his control. Even though they show up as rows of single tiles around the captured city.
In C2C discussion thread I've posted screenies of this very thing happening. The city is surrounded by a single row of tiles on my immediate border and on a neighboring empires border. I can not get reinforcement to the city without re engaging in war (I accepted a peace treaty after I captured it). Turn after turn the tiles stay under his control when in fact they are isolated from his empire. And the tile directly adjacent to my border are in fact the outer row of my attacking citie's fat X. Those tiles should have reverted Back to me. Instead they sit in a no mans land. And I can't place a unit to claim them back. I even went so far as to go into WB and manually assign those tiles to my territory. After saving and then going back to the game the very next turn they all reverted back to the enemy that had the FB. This version of FB is even resistant to WB.
I really am not a fan of Enforced FB. And if the solution is only thru using REVDCM then the mod is becoming even more limited. And imho this will make the mod even more of a modmod for REVDCM. Many ppl Love REV but again there are those of us who do not.
Culture is hampered and FB is OP. So now you have empires that will only grow to a max of 12 cities (if they have Monarchy). Their borders are impervious until they are Totally destroyed. Even when their empire looks like swiss cheese their Border control supersedes what it should not. And this is called "realistic"? I don't think this was the "Vision" for FB in the 1st place. But that's were it is at right now.
So the 2 problems voiced in this thread are entwined, Culture and FB. And Culture is still being handcuffed.
How about if the fixed border effect only operated on tiles tha have direct 'line of sight' to a cultural source of the owner without passing through any other owners tiles? It's not entirely obvious how that would be defined since a tile grid makes the definition of 'line of sight' a bit vague. I'd probably implement it like this - if there exists a path to a city of the current owner which only visits tiles they own, and which is no longer than the geometrically shortest path, irrespective of tile ownership, then fixed borders operate, else they don't.
The effect would be that fixed borders work as now in terms of other empires pressing in on you, but if cities are captured that somewhat isolate tiles from their owner's cultural centers, then it would cease to operate on those tiles.
This is going into the right direction.
But wouldn't it be even better to check, when a city changes ownership which tiles would be owned from this city and reassign those tiles to the new owner of the city?
It's not really well-defined. Tiles accrue culture from several sources (including things like battle influence) throughout the game. You can't tell what part of it was due to a particular city. What I guess you **could** do is figure out what the cultural footprint of the city is at time of capture, and transfer that much in each tile from the previous to the new owner, and if the new owner becomes cultural owner of a tile as a result then the tile flips. This won't always flip anything though if the captured city is close to old and big other cities which may dominate anyway. However, this goes against the grain of what happens to culture in a city generally on capture (it gets reset to 0 and starts again from there).
We can experiment with different variations on these approaches, but I need a good test case to work with, which I currently lack. It would need to be a save from just before a city capture that gives what we agree is a 'bad' result. Save games I've had so far haven't really met that criteria, since the surroundings were all culturally dominated by the original owner anyway, irrespective of fixed borders. Of course, we may decide to agree that this is a wider issue than just fixed borders, in that capturing a city inside a dominant culture area won't flip tiles apart from the 8 immediately around the city more or less whatever (even if its a large city, provided here are other large ones nearby leading to cultural dominance over the one captured).
Edit - see also http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10772529&postcount=3668 (though you'll have to picture it in your head because I couldn't get a sreenshot to work)
The whole idea behind using strong culture in the original game (vanilla / BTS / ROM / AND) and in all versions where it remained available (until now) was to expand borders in order to gain access to other resources and create an extra buffer zone against your opponents should they declare war on you.
The aforementioned proposition does not alter this at all, as it does NOT expand my borders, precisely the purpose of having a strong culture. Let fixed borders remain optional for those who want to play with that game mode on. And let everyone who wants to play the "old fashioned" way which allows them to expand their borders peacefully through culture have the free choice to be able to play with that option.
I dont realy get why one shouldent be able to play without it.
Partly it's because options that have major effects like this mean we're effectively supporting two mods. It just generates a lot more work (mostly to get the AI to be sensible in both variants). However, that's more a generic argument about (major) options than one about FB specifically. Afforess may have other reasons specific to the FB case (I don't know)
As I understand it the next coming release will be Afforess's final release. So long term support of 2 versions is not really a valid argument either.
I would loath to see the final version of AnD tainted by an enforced version of FB that would reduce one of the most enjoyable aspects of the game. If the upcoming version was not final, I would not be so vocal about my concerns.
still, this bug isn´t fixed.
If some one can provide a max compat save game of the turn in which its going to happen (which would imply autosaves obviously since you can't know in advance) then I will take a look at it.
quick comment before getting to the point: Awesome mod! It has made civ4 interesting for me again for the first time in ages.
I agree that fixed borders should keep borders in their place UNLESS the corresponding city revolts and decides to join another empire for cultural reasons, in which case the tiles with 50.1% of the new empire's culture should join it, possibly excluding forts. The city is the local upholder of that empire's borders and when it changes allegiance, the borders should be affected as well. That is the sensible way to do it, both for gameplay and realism. Of course a city rebelling should be grounds for war against the recipient.
question is: Is it possible to do? If yes, when will it be ready?
secondary question: will there be any changes to make culture more useful?
Separate names with a comma.