Current (SVN) development discussion thread

Nice try, but the penalty is based on population, not cities.

So that means we can minimize the penalty by starving the city before capturing it? Sounds like it makes surrounding cities more imperative, but it also sounds a little bit gamey.
Haven't tried out the strategy, though.
 
A simple solution could be turning off this mechanic in ancient era, or before your total population reaches 10 or so.
Well, currently the mechanic is balanced around an expected 20% growth for the whole game, and that could change depending on era, for instance.
 
New commit:
- added Polish Vilnius to the 1700 AD scenario
- improved the Italian and Polish city names
- fixed the slavery mechanic
 
Let's make a room for Luanda in 1700 AD game. It's more important than Mbanza Kongo since it is already abandoned in 1678. Or perhaps can there be a room for both M'banza Kongo and Luanda?

And for 600 AD game, to add more variety, let's put jungle in Tumasik (now Singapore) that open in 1400 AD, in which if Spain/Dutch/Indonesian/Portugal found a city there it is called Malaka (later Malacca) and if England/Anglophone found a city it is called Singapore.

To replace the Tumaisk, put space for city settling at Kedah or Tambralinga instead.
Off course, in 1700 AD Tumasik should be preplaced in Singapore
 
There could be room for both if Leoreth looked over some of the African changes from Master Map
 
New commit:
- fixed the Byzantine flip of Roman cities
- players can found a city on their starting spot even if it is covered by foreign culture
 
only on their starting spot? or can found in any other spot beside the starting one? don't tell me you applied citis' founder suggestion completely...
 
I've noticed the spawn of a new civ clears any city within one tile of their starting location. Is this true in general?
 
only on their starting spot? or can found in any other spot beside the starting one? don't tell me you applied citis' founder suggestion completely...
You can of course still move your settler and found wherever you want. But you can only ignore foreign culture on your original spawning tile. Otherwise this would enable exploits like settling deep in foreign territory.
 
I think that the Byzantines should only flip cities controlled by Rome or one of Rome's vassals. It just makes no sense for a city that had been around for ages under Egypt to magically want to join an extension of the Roman Empire.

My suggestion:

-The Byzantines flip all Roman cities east of the historical division line between the West and East.
-The Byzantines don't spawn if the Romans only controls 2 or less cities in the Byzantine flip area.
-The Byzantines only flip Roman cities and cities belonging to Roman vassals.
 
I think that the Byzantines should only flip cities controlled by Rome or one of Rome's vassals. It just makes no sense for a city that had been around for ages under Egypt to magically want to join an extension of the Roman Empire.

My suggestion:

-The Byzantines flip all Roman cities east of the historical division line between the West and East.
-The Byzantines don't spawn if the Romans only controls 2 or less cities in the Byzantine flip area.
-The Byzantines only flip Roman cities and cities belonging to Roman vassals.
This is precisely what happens. Byzantium only flips cities in its core, and all Roman cities east and south of Constantinople.
 
But it flips cities controlled by non-Roman players. That makes no sense.
 
I disagree. It makes just as much sense as any other flip on spawn.
 
New commit:
- Trading Company requires at least one colony
 
I appreciate it, Leoreth.

You see, I think razing most of the "bad" cities I kept would alleviate the problem, but I was in no position to take the stability hit.
I tried to open the save in this post, but got a failure to decompress game data. Which revision is it from?
 
I disagree. It makes just as much sense as any other flip on spawn.

Why? Most historical equivalents of flips were caused by ethnic similarities or conquest upon existence. If China founds a city in Japan, it would be assumed that the small amount of Chinese population would assimilate with the locals, and it would want to join a united nation of that ethnicity. However, Byzantium was not a new ethnic group or nationality coalescing, it was merely a civil division of the Roman Empire. Most people in both halves considered themselves Romans, and the division as merely a political one to manage a new system. When Western Rome collapsed, the Eastern half was known as the Roman Empire, because that's what it was when it was originally started.

Reasons for flips to a civilization fail to make sense in the context of the Byzantines.
-Ethnic/national bond: For previous Roman territories, they would become Byzantine because the Roman Empire would be split in two. However, the only bond uniting the Romans (and Byzantines, to this extent) was the fact that they were governed by a greater power; Rome (later Constantinople). There was no "ethnic Byzantine identity", the national identity of the Byzantines was at first Roman and later Christian.
-Hasty conquest: The creation of the Eastern Roman Empire was done by dividing the existing empire in half to make maintaining a large empire less of a problem. At this point in Roman history, Rome was not expanding at all, it was contracting, and thus no conquests were made by the Byzantines during the beginning of their existence with the exception of a few border clashes with the Sassanids, but that problem had existed with the united empire as well.

Therefore, for the above reasons, the Byzantines should only flip Roman cities.
 
Back
Top Bottom