Minor Suggestions Thread
- Thread starter Lokolus
- Start date
Ace of Spades
GEM Fanboy
How about a small Crusade Event, similar to the Conquerors Events?
Something like: Once the Civilization that controls the Apostolic Palace researches Divine Right, if the Christian Holy City is controlled by a Civilization of a different faith, they spawn a small army next to the city and automatically declare war on this civilzation (maybe along with all the other Christian civs).
Regards,
Ace
Something like: Once the Civilization that controls the Apostolic Palace researches Divine Right, if the Christian Holy City is controlled by a Civilization of a different faith, they spawn a small army next to the city and automatically declare war on this civilzation (maybe along with all the other Christian civs).
Regards,
Ace
I can't remember posting this here, although I did somewhere else so here goes:
A celtic city should be around la Coruna in northwestern Spain for the 3000BC starts for Rome to conquer.
I was also thinking, shouldn't there be native cities around Indonesia? People have populated the area for thousands of years and if you went to a Dutch colony there you didn't see Dutch people.
Obviously the Americas should be colonised since if you went to a North American colony of Britain you would see Europeans unlike an African or Asian colony.
I'm not asking for loads of independants or natives, perhaps just one on Sumatra so that Khmer's culture in Malaysia/Singapore doesn't spill over it. Or maybe one around Jakarta(?) The cities would also be nice for Islam to spill over to them since you never see an Islamic Indonesia.
A celtic city should be around la Coruna in northwestern Spain for the 3000BC starts for Rome to conquer.
I was also thinking, shouldn't there be native cities around Indonesia? People have populated the area for thousands of years and if you went to a Dutch colony there you didn't see Dutch people.
Obviously the Americas should be colonised since if you went to a North American colony of Britain you would see Europeans unlike an African or Asian colony.
I'm not asking for loads of independants or natives, perhaps just one on Sumatra so that Khmer's culture in Malaysia/Singapore doesn't spill over it. Or maybe one around Jakarta(?) The cities would also be nice for Islam to spill over to them since you never see an Islamic Indonesia.
wilcoxchar
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2005
- Messages
- 188
And in BTS, Jayakarta is usually founded by Khmer or Arabia.
I saw Arabia found Padang once and Islam didn't even get to it as far as I know.
The Dutch should settle some and conquer Jakarta and Padang (for a Khmer buffer.) Islam should have a high chance of spreading prior to Dutch arrivals.
Jayakarta (or Padang) would be a good independent city. The Srivijayans were very historically significant in the area, at least as much so as the Khmer.
Panopticon
Utilitarian
The city name "Al-Hartum" in CityNameManager.py should read "Khartoum" for England's entry. Similarly, "Al Iskandariya" should read "Alexandria" and "Tubruq" should read "Tobruk".
Also, is this a renaming typo?
Also, is this a renaming typo?
Code:
elif sName == 'Wilmington':
city.setName('Nieuwer-Amstel', False)That happened to me once, except w/o the Apostolic palace and divine right part. Rome the Crhistian holy city was controled by indipendents and i got an event to go conquer it
I think there should be a higher chance for the Arabian AI to found Basra (in Iraq) in the 600 AD start, When the Babylonians respawn they should have 3 cities: Baghdad, Basra and Mosul. not because of historical accuracy, It's they usually have only 1 city and don't survive more than a few turns as a Turkish vassal.
The are too many penalities for large empire/ lots of cities, even if the cities cover a similar area, but are just close together; Increased Maintenance, Lower Stability, Higher research costs, Worse AI trade deals, More defenders neaded, Higher Vulnarability to the plague(as units are spread out).
This stops me building more cities closer together.
E.g. if I am playing in the middle east I never build any cities in Arabia and only keep mecca (except I am forced to have Sana'a as Arabia), I build a fort instead of a city for my Suez canal, I never build Basra, Try to destroy Alexandretta, etc...
This stops me building more cities closer together.
E.g. if I am playing in the middle east I never build any cities in Arabia and only keep mecca (except I am forced to have Sana'a as Arabia), I build a fort instead of a city for my Suez canal, I never build Basra, Try to destroy Alexandretta, etc...
AnotherPacifist
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Messages
- 4,878
Ditto. In fact a barb horse archer did me the favor of razing Sanaa which is a waste of a city, now that it can't even get the fish due to indy Aksum.
Maybe instead of the number of cities giving the science/maintenance penalty it should be the size of the area controlled that counts. (I can cover the whole of Arabia with just Mecca, and all the Midwest/South NA with 3 cities.
I think that rather than number of cities (adversely affects compact empires) or area controlled (there's little impact on commerce production after BFC), the science rate should be determined by population.
The basic reason large empires are a problem science wise is because more tiles are worked and more specialists can be hired thus producing overwhelming commerce. This is more directly affected by city size than anything else. With the status quo, we all know that new cities have an immediate negative impact on your science rate yet won't make up that deficit for a long time, if ever, discouraging city founding after a point. With a population based system, a new city will have negligible impact until it grows - at which point it will hopefully be producing enough commerce to balance it out.
Essentially, what I think would be an ideal system is one where new cities (after the cap) have NO IMPACT on the science rate - that is, if they produce an average amount of commerce it should almost exactly balance the penalties. You could then still improve your science rate as usual by building science buildings and commerce improvements.
The problems with this is that it could be prohibitive performance-wise, potentially requiring a check on empire size every turn, and also it would make it rather tricky to accurately predict how long it might take to research a tech for the human player.
The basic reason large empires are a problem science wise is because more tiles are worked and more specialists can be hired thus producing overwhelming commerce. This is more directly affected by city size than anything else. With the status quo, we all know that new cities have an immediate negative impact on your science rate yet won't make up that deficit for a long time, if ever, discouraging city founding after a point. With a population based system, a new city will have negligible impact until it grows - at which point it will hopefully be producing enough commerce to balance it out.
Essentially, what I think would be an ideal system is one where new cities (after the cap) have NO IMPACT on the science rate - that is, if they produce an average amount of commerce it should almost exactly balance the penalties. You could then still improve your science rate as usual by building science buildings and commerce improvements.
The problems with this is that it could be prohibitive performance-wise, potentially requiring a check on empire size every turn, and also it would make it rather tricky to accurately predict how long it might take to research a tech for the human player.
Zimzollazim
Chieftain
Rhye, i've noticed that some of european cities under Roman control don't change their names. Eg Berlin should be Berolinum, Lisboa - Olisipo.
Here is the txt.
(added) And how about to make Civs are more likely to bribe each other to go to war? or at least make 'declare war on Civ' in diplomacy screen not red? It's red all the time because 'we have enough on our hands right now' and 'we cant betray our friends'. But in real life they did betray their friends... Often.
Here is the txt.
(added) And how about to make Civs are more likely to bribe each other to go to war? or at least make 'declare war on Civ' in diplomacy screen not red? It's red all the time because 'we have enough on our hands right now' and 'we cant betray our friends'. But in real life they did betray their friends... Often.
The former means they are already at war, which is a good reason not to get into another one, without a good reason. One thought: do natives, independents, Byzantines etc... count toward this? If possible I would make them not count.
As for the latter, that depends on the leader, just like in Civ IV, AFAIK
As for the latter, that depends on the leader, just like in Civ IV, AFAIK
Similar threads
