BenitoChavez
Elderly Tortoise
Can a ranged unit shoot through the tunnel? If so, and if they have a range of two or more do they still need to be next to the tunnel in order to attack through it? Can units be attacked through tunnels?
[GS] Livestreamer Previews Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Eagle Pursuit
- Start date
Can a ranged unit shoot through the tunnel? If so, and if they have a range of two or more do they still need to be next to the tunnel in order to attack through it? Can units be attacked through tunnels?
NegativeZero
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2017
- Messages
- 260
DWilson
Where am I? What turn is it?
Makes sense. You can go through a tunnel to burst into a city and raid or capture it, but don't expect your projectiles to be able to make it all through very easily.
tedhebert
Emperor
I understand why they don't want CSs to become Civs...
but personnally, I'd still let them be able to take cities and make them into Free Cities... if you goofed enough to have CSs or Barbs beat your city to 0, you
deserve to lose it ;-)
leandrombraz
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2014
- Messages
- 1,443
I think I found the cede a city mechanic doing what the cede mechanic does in Marbozir's Maori video. He have 18 grievances against Sweden by the time he is going for peace. He ask her to cede two cities. After the deal is done she has 114 grievances against him. It requires more tests to be sure that the grievances came from her ceding the cities but I bet all my diplo favors that it was. If we confirm this, then ceding cities probably still the same piece of garbage of a mechanic that serve no purpose whatsoever and I would love, love to know why in the name of the crab god this still a thing.
Disgustipated
Deity
Sounds like the same bug that Victoria found with cede city giving more warmongering penalty in the current version of the game. I still think this is a bug, surely it can't be intended. I had really hoped they fixed this, the new grievance mechanics would have been the perfect opportunity to fix this bug.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 16,938
They just redid the warmongering system to grievances and it still makes them hate you more. It must be the intended effect. Piss off the AI, I guess.
DWilson
Where am I? What turn is it?
I tweeted at Ed, but unless we ask en masse, they tend to ignore bug/odd behavior questions. I'll let you know if I do get a response though. Feel free to also tweet at him/civ game/Anton.
Anno
Warlord
I’m probably just misunderstanding something but what’s the bug? Incurring additional grievances for taking someone’s cities seems like it would be intended behavior? Or is it just the degree of change?
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 16,938
It's when you ask them to cede a city to you in the peace treaty.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,901
And the walls came a tumbling down.....Urban sprawl sweet thingWell, that's odd. As if Medieval + Renaissance Walls needed another reason to not be built. Build all three levels of walls for +300 and then have them all go obsolete shortly thereafter to be replaced by a +200 automatic defense.
So to me, as I think @Eagle Pursuit pointed out, they just changed the WM points to grievances and the same ‘wonderful’ mechanic is underneath... if you cede you feed more grievances, don’t cede and it does not count for a points victory.
DWilson
Where am I? What turn is it?
As is, the cede mechanic functions only as a penalty, with no benefit. If you don't get them to cede, you get a diplo penalty- but, no real control penalty outside of normal loyalty trouble (at least after the war). If you do cede, you get a higher diplo penalty, and no corresponding boost (such as city ownershipo or more control of the city).
DWilson
Where am I? What turn is it?
This is generally the guess, and most of us would be fine if it were true.
That said, in MP that could cause headaches.
Trav'ling Canuck
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2018
- Messages
- 2,959
I have to expect that it was intended for there to be negative consequences to retaining a city that isn't ceded, and those negative consequences may be what hasn't yet worked properly.
Regardless, though, being seen as a bigger warmonger / getting more grievances because the other side agreed to cede a city to you, and having fewer warmonger points / grievances because you kept a city without the other side ceding it, is non-intuitive.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,901
The fact that it does not count to victory points is one thing but you have to be playing for a points victory for that to be relevant and so it is in essence a mechanic that is not used.
For me... city punishment is too much.... Now if you gained LESS WM for a cede rather than more... or more importantly if you did not gain the -18 for you occupied my city then cede would make much more sense and these would be about the right balance to me.
For me... city punishment is too much.... Now if you gained LESS WM for a cede rather than more... or more importantly if you did not gain the -18 for you occupied my city then cede would make much more sense and these would be about the right balance to me.
Trav'ling Canuck
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2018
- Messages
- 2,959
Even if you received the same warmonger points / grievances for keeping the city after the peace, and the sole difference was -18 diplo relationship for occupied unceded city, -8 diplo relationship for occupied ceded city, that would make sense.
Jewman
Prince
Potato just made China's capital flip to a free city in one turn using two indie rock bands. It was very deep into Chinese territory and very late into the game lol
leandrombraz
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2014
- Messages
- 1,443
I just did that too, good idea. After testing, if nobody do it first I totally intend to create a thread about it, hoping that they finally reconsider this mechanic that is just horrible. I already can see all the "Are you kidding me!!" threads, mostly on the steam forums, with people that was looking forward to use the grievances system, completely mad that the AI still hate them even though they was careful not to bite more than they could chew. They will say "Where is this grievances coming from? Why the game is punishing me for defending myself!! I thought grievances was supposed to fix this!!!", completely unaware that their mistake was asking the AI to cede the cities.
Disgustipated
Deity
As for the Cede mechanic, maybe it's not a bug, because maybe they do want the player to take more penalty for permanently taking an opponent's city. It's just the UI needs to be more clear what the purpose of this is. And that if you don't have it ceded to you, you take some kind of penalty to growth and production (not in the game now, but probably should be). That's the part that's missing. Taking more warmongering/grievance penalty is probably fine. You just need to give us a reason to actually force the AI to cede.
I know Marbozir was able to capture 2 Swedish cities (including the capital) in his Maori game and still end up ahead in grievances, but I can't remember if he got the Cede city in the negotiations. This might actually be too lenient. LOL. They should be ticked you have their capital.
I know Marbozir was able to capture 2 Swedish cities (including the capital) in his Maori game and still end up ahead in grievances, but I can't remember if he got the Cede city in the negotiations. This might actually be too lenient. LOL. They should be ticked you have their capital.
