Current (SVN) development discussion thread

[Leoreth]

Please make sure to have your Python exceptions enabled. 99% of all interface errors, especially when stuff is missing, is because an exception is getting in the way. Just describing the symptoms doesn't help me find the cause.

Last but not least a ssuggestion: when releasing a civ, it should have at least a huge relation bonus to you. I've released morocco because i didn't want to keep that crappy city, and they hate me >.< i regretted releasing them, fack them!!

I don't want releasing civs to become too much of a beneficial strategy. Otherwise it would be too easy to conquer your enemy, release them and gain a friend. Releasing a civ should only be a last resort in case you can't take the expansion penalty, and come with a cost.

 

[Leoreth]

New commit:
- fixed the BUG city screen bug
- fixed the BUG great person bar bug
- removed unavailable civics and buildings from the 1700 AD scenario

 

[Oregon Lee]

I don't want releasing civs to become too much of a beneficial strategy. Otherwise it would be too easy to conquer your enemy, release them and gain a friend. Releasing a civ should only be a last resort in case you can't take the expansion penalty, and come with a cost.

Perhaps a civic should allow this then? When I envision freeing a civilization, I think of stepping into World Wars to free OTHER civilizations from dying.
And this happens all the time and all throughout history. It is a little beneficial, but often other factors get in the way of making the AI still despise you. You spend several units to increase diplomacy a little, although it might be at the cost of getting another civilization to like you less.

Enough of a boost to make it realistic, so the nation isn't furious at you for trading with Mansa Musa. It isn't enough to make them friendly. Hell, you get a +4 boost just from trading maps. Why not FREEING THEIR ENTIRE NATION?

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

Leoreth, when you updated the Mughal GP list, which list did you use?

 

[Leoreth]

Royal Tenenbaums latest list, but I'll change it to your revised version later.

 

[Malchar]

Perhaps a civic should allow this then? When I envision freeing a civilization, I think of stepping into World Wars to free OTHER civilizations from dying.
And this happens all the time and all throughout history. It is a little beneficial, but often other factors get in the way of making the AI still despise you. You spend several units to increase diplomacy a little, although it might be at the cost of getting another civilization to like you less.

Enough of a boost to make it realistic, so the nation isn't furious at you for trading with Mansa Musa. It isn't enough to make them friendly. Hell, you get a +4 boost just from trading maps. Why not FREEING THEIR ENTIRE NATION?

I like this idea. If a city is controlled by one player but has a lot of culture for another player then you have the option to return it to the rightful owner when you capture it. However, if the "rightful owner" is dead then they won't have any culture there, so you don't get that option.

I think that the new system works great for releasing cities that you already control, but having another option for when you capture a city would be great. It would let you punish enemies that over-expand without having to over-expand yourself. This could be particularly useful against the expansionist civs like Russia and the Ottomans who may have received a boost with the stability update.

 

[Danwood]

Perhaps a civic should allow this then? When I envision freeing a civilization, I think of stepping into World Wars to free OTHER civilizations from dying.
And this happens all the time and all throughout history. It is a little beneficial, but often other factors get in the way of making the AI still despise you. You spend several units to increase diplomacy a little, although it might be at the cost of getting another civilization to like you less.

Enough of a boost to make it realistic, so the nation isn't furious at you for trading with Mansa Musa. It isn't enough to make them friendly. Hell, you get a +4 boost just from trading maps. Why not FREEING THEIR ENTIRE NATION?

Yeah, a +4 bonus would not harm, and would at least give the player the "emotion" of being "rewarded" for doing that.

 

[billyleeback16]

Perhaps a civic should allow this then? When I envision freeing a civilization, I think of stepping into World Wars to free OTHER civilizations from dying.
And this happens all the time and all throughout history. It is a little beneficial, but often other factors get in the way of making the AI still despise you. You spend several units to increase diplomacy a little, although it might be at the cost of getting another civilization to like you less.

Enough of a boost to make it realistic, so the nation isn't furious at you for trading with Mansa Musa. It isn't enough to make them friendly. Hell, you get a +4 boost just from trading maps. Why not FREEING THEIR ENTIRE NATION?

Yes I think tying that to a late democratic civic like Egalitarianism or Public Welfare would be a good idea. Voluntarily granting independence should have some kind of diplomatic bonus. Historically the 20th century decolonization happened when the colonial powers were running those civics and that would be a good way to show that.

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

Yes I think tying that to a late democratic civic like Egalitarianism or Public Welfare would be a good idea. Voluntarily granting independence should have some kind of diplomatic bonus. Historically the 20th century decolonization happened when the colonial powers were running those civics and that would be a good way to show that.

Decolonization is not as rosy as it seems, even in the "voluntary" cases
and whether or not the civ in question was democratic or not.
Decolonization happened in the 20th century because colonial powers such as France & Britain could no longer
effectively hang onto their colonies by force. Not out of altruism.

But otherwise, mechanically, I agree that releasing a civilization should give you a relations bonus, but not so much if you have been the primary holder.
This is more in line with the view from my perspective, when you go to war with another civ, and liberate territory belonging to a dead civ whose territory is under your adversary's control.
(i.e. You are Ethiopia, Portugal holds the Kongolese core and you occupy all the Kongolese cities. Subsequently, reviving Kongo is an option.)

 

[Danwood]

t otherwise, mechanically, I agree that releasing a civilization should give you a relations bonus, but not so much if you have been the primary holder.
This is more in line with the view from my perspective, when you go to war with another civ, and liberate territory belonging to a dead civ whose territory is under your adversary's control.
(i.e. You are Ethiopia, Portugal holds the Kongolese core and you occupy all the Kongolese cities. Subsequently, reviving Kongo is an option.)

That's what happened to me. As Rome i've conquered morocco from spain and freed it, now they hate me because i've traded with their worst enemy. Maaaaaaaaaan i've freed you, [snip] you want more?

 

[Bocator]

I had a python exception while playing with the current version.
Happened in the following turn of my save, I've updated with SVN just one hour ago, I hope it could help :

Spoiler :

 

[Leoreth]

New revision is up:
- fixed civ release bug
- Phoenicia starts with Alphabet
- every civ gets a limited version of the Turkish UP effect on city conquest
- cities don't spread culture into foreign cores unless they are themselves inside the foreign core
- independent cities benefit from the 80% rule for cultural control if they're in the core of a dead civ

 

[apenpaap]

- cities don't spread culture into foreign cores unless they are themselves inside the foreign core

So no more culture-crushing of neighbours? But that makes Cultural Victories fun in crowded Europe.

 

[Leoreth]

Well I loathe that you couldn't win the Italian UHV without disbanding the whole HRE

 

[Oregon Lee]

Big blow to Poland's UP. Now it only really works against Germany and a tile or two from Russia
What's wrong with disbanding the Holy Roman Empire? Italy moving into Germany and destroying nearly all of Central Europe is backed up by history and science. It makes sense that for you to settle in the swamps of Venice and making a decent city that you would need to slaughter and burn Berlin to the ground.

 

[AdrienIer]

Maybe their UP could be expanded to the BFC of all their cities ?

 

[Oregon Lee]

That would allow them to take over a country by settling.
Imagine them settling cities 1 tile away all the way to the Pacific Ocean. Going straight through civilizations.

I just think Poland's UP is obsolete now. Maybe re-add the religion one

 

[borhap88]

Well I loathe that you couldn't win the Italian UHV without disbanding the whole HRE

It was the reason why I hated Italian UHV. By cultural bombing, it made unhistorical the rest of the game, with an obscene Italian Central Europe .

 

[Leoreth]

The current Polish UP was invented to deal with the problem this change is intended to solve for everyone.

So I think it's not a loss to change the effect. With the new stability mechanics it makes sense to have all Christian denominations count as your state religion for religious unity.

 

[Oregon Lee]

Perhaps give Poland the Kazimiers world wonder to take advantage from all the religions?