Leoreth, does historical territory get counted as core population, as I kept having troubles in an Incan game, where I literally had all my territory in historical territory up to the point I decided it was time to kick Spain's ass in the 5 turns they had til they got rifling(which I had managed to get before them, through massive useage of gold and spies, followed by simply getting the tech researched first), yet I had over half of my population as non-core pop. Which only got worse when stopped whipping my people to get things built and my cities ballooned to near 14 pop for many.
No, all non-core territory counts towards periphery population. The main benefit of settling historical tiles is to avoid further penalties from settling ahistorical sites.
Inca might be another civ that's disadvantaged by its small core and lack of food in it.
size is city's ''game'' pop, around 20-30 but population isn't linear with size, when you bring your mouse to city name you will see; it's calculating differently like 33 size city has 33 million pop, but 34 size city has 36 million pop
it isn't important in game mechanics, only for representing demographics
Oh, okay, then it's using what you refer to as size ("population" in the game code, while the "realistic" numbers are referred to as "real population").
China 3000 BC .. I just built 3 cities .. The capital in my core and two in historic area .. I was with a reasonable army ..Without losses for barbarians..GPD in 1 .. but always with low stability
^ I played half a test game with China yesterday with the new Stability mechanics. I had no problem staying Solid with my usual setup of 3 Core, 4 Historical, and 1 Foreign cities. Razed Pataliputra and Hanseong.
I get occasional messages saying "China is experiencing a minor Territorial Crisis" but nothing happens beyond that.
Later I acquired 2 more cities along the Silk Road - Dunhuang and Bukhara for my own Tang Empire goal but still Solid.
Emperor/Normal 3000BC start, btw.
In some of my autoruns to test EDCNs though, AI Persia would collapse completely before 300 BCE. Not from Greek conquerors - just from Barbs. I have ideas about buffing Persia, especially against Barbs, but I don't know if Leoreth has time for it or not right now.
Only if all of these colonies are on historical tiles, and then that's fine by me. They get +1 modifiers for different original owner, different majority culture, ahistorical territory and foreign cores.
I mean size as in number of citizens in the city (number of tiles it can work) with population meaning millions of people. So a city with size 10 has population 1 million, whilst size 20 has population 8 million.
Just wondering which of those is counted in the stability calculations.
In some of my autoruns to test EDCNs though, AI Persia would collapse completely before 300 BCE. Not from Greek conquerors - just from Barbs. I have ideas about buffing Persia, especially against Barbs, but I don't know if Leoreth has time for it or not right now.
AI Persia always seems to have problems with barbs at Emperor level. I've played India games with multiple SVN versions, and always see them collapse in the face of endless hordes of Horse Archers.
I mean size as in number of citizens in the city (number of tiles it can work) with population meaning millions of people. So a city with size 10 has population 1 million, whilst size 20 has population 8 million.
Just wondering which of those is counted in the stability calculations.
Don't know if it's been said yet, but Far East civs collapse too much easily, imo. On the other hand, I often saw Byzantines live through Konstantinoupolis fall.
AI Persia always seems to have problems with barbs at Emperor level. I've played India games with multiple SVN versions, and always see them collapse in the face of endless hordes of Horse Archers.
There shouldn't be more Barbs on Emperor. In fact I think the number of Barbs should be same across all difficulties.
Also Middle Eastern barbs during the Classical Era should be reduced in general. The huge stacks of Parthian Horse Archers should only spawn if Persia (AI or Human) is dead - after all Parthia is a Persian dynasty and represented as one of Persia's DCNs. It makes little sense for the Parthian Empire (represented by the civ of Persia in this game) to be fighting hordes of Parthian Horse Archers.
More generally, barbs in certain areas should on spawn if the dominant civ in that area is dead, or at least Unstable/Collapsing. If Rome is Solid (or at least, alive) for example, fewer number of Germanic Axemen should spawn since they would be intimidated by Rome's might.
Leoreth, with your permission I could rewrite Barbs.py with these suggested modifications.
It's the ingame number that shows up directly next to your cities. Of course there's a weighting attached to them so historical territory is almost negligible for expansion while foreign cores and conquest increase the impact.
I'm aware that the system doesn't suit every civ right now and especially Tibet seems to be in a bad position with only one food poor core city and a UHV goal that requires rapid expansion with only foreign cores as a possible option. So there definitely needs to be an accomodation for them, I just don't know how I'll do it yet.
Agree with this. The challenge of higher difficulty levels is stronger AI rivals. Stronger barbs seem to hurt the AI more than the human player, which counters the higher difficulty in some cases.
More generally, barbs in certain areas should on spawn if the dominant civ in that area is dead, or at least Unstable/Collapsing. If Rome is Solid (or at least, alive) for example, fewer number of Germanic Axemen should spawn since they would be intimidated by Rome's might.
I agree with this in principle, but not with your example. The Germanic barbarians were less intimidated by Rome's might, as they were attracted by her wealth. That's an example that, imo, would work the other way round - more Germanic barbs would spawn as Rome gets larger and richer, to reflect external forces trying to conquer rich Roman territory. Tho' this should probably only apply to the player, as AI Rome would be overwhelmed by all the barbs.
What should be adjusted is the AI civs' ability to handle the increased barbarian activity depending on the human player's choice of difficulty setting.
What should be adjusted is the AI civs' ability to handle the increased barbarian activity depending on the human player's choice of difficulty setting.
Right. Instead of giving the patient a drug to make his constipation go away, let's try to build him a new colon.
You are as illuminating as always.
Moderator Action: Don't flame other users. Not only is it rude and a violation of the forum rules, it also directly counteracts your goal to convince others.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Allow me to illuminate you as to how arrogant, annoying and incorrect you are, as usual then.
If you even played on Emperor, which you don't because you aren't a good enough player to actually do so, you would be able to appreciate just how much harder the increased barbarian activity is - not because it can collapse AI civs but because it can collapse your civ.
The AI already has factors which it uses to "cheat" all sorts of issues that the human player has to deal with manually. My suggestion of applying a similar factor when it comes to barbarians therefore has a reasonable basis. Unlike your post above.
Allow me to illuminate you as to how arrogant, annoying and incorrect you are, as usual then.
If you even played on Emperor, which you don't because you aren't a good enough player to actually do so, you would be able to appreciate just how much harder the increased barbarian activity is - not because it can collapse AI civs but because it can collapse your civ.
How delightful it is to have someone who can both teach me, and who knows more about me than myself. Thank you.
I'll let you in on a secret, since you already know so much about me. I play on a customized Prince$s difficulty that is actually easier than the Settler difficulty from vanilla BTS. Instead of units all AIs have flowers, that turn into Goody Huts when my units step on them. True story.
I didn't teach you anything, clearly. Not that I was even trying to, but that's your impression.
You managed to clearly prove my point to be correct just fine with your response though.
As well as failing to talk about the content of the discussion thread with your nonsense posts. Which is against the forum rules. Have you read them lately?
Barbarians, remember, well you probably don't actually. Not flowers or illumination or what anyone knows or cares about yourself.
It would be a crime against the DoC mod if Leoreth adopted your suggestion on barbarians.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
