New Version - 3.1.1 (January 1, 2023)

[CppMaster]

So you want to remove/alter a perfectly fine game mechanic because you can use it as an exploit..?

Isn't that a contradiction? If it can be exploited then it's probably not perfectly fine.

 

[skodkim]

Isn't that a contradiction? If it can be exploited then it's probably not perfectly fine.

Isn't that a contradiction? If it can be exploited then it's probably not perfectly fine.

Cheating is always possible. Just use the in-game editor, firetuner, load/save, ...
JJust saying that I think it's worth just fine and I don't see why it should be changed just because someone finds a way to exploit the game.

If I wanted to save money on maintenance I could also build all roads on a long stretch to another city up one turn before the improvement is actually finished before I move the worker to the next tile and in the end move him backwards along the same stretch and finish them all. That way I save x turns of maintenance since 99% finished roads cost nothing. But I don't as it feels like an exploit and gamey...

 

[stii]

I mean if camps are massively more common either the game was horrible unbalanced before or it is now.


the road thing is super minor for a tiny benefit, and we even had a change fairly recently that made it easier, so I doubt anyone cares about it.

 

[Stalker0]

If I wanted to save money on maintenance I could also build all roads on a long stretch to another city up one turn before the improvement is actually finished before I move the worker to the next tile and in the end move him backwards along the same stretch and finish them all. That way I save x turns of maintenance since 99% finished roads cost nothing. But I don't as it feels like an exploit and gamey...

Welcome to Deity, where these crazy little optimizations become a way of life

 

[Rick Drayson]

Hmmm... Perhaps the game should de-spawn camps after a certain number of turns to reduce the usefulness of barb spawn camping?

There is no exploit. Its perfectly valid to destroy armies but not cities/camps. There is a trade off, the gold from barb camps is no mean thing to chose not to collect

 

[skodkim]

Welcome to Deity, where these crazy little optimizations become a way of life

 

[AndreyK]

The CS quest for largest number of new followers doesn't work, when you turn AI to your religion somehow all new followers counts to them. So when I spread my religion it also counts to them and all followers they had before turning adds to their counter. I am the founder and I spread religion but they win quest.

 

[azum4roll]

Are you sure they won the quest? If the quest starts for you late since you discovered the CS after it started, you can never win the quest since you're trying to catch up to yourself.

 

[AndreyK]

Are you sure they won the quest? If the quest starts for you late since you discovered the CS after it started, you can never win the quest since you're trying to catch up to yourself.

Yes, I discover CS later and also I think another part. When I convert 4 out of 8 or 9 cities (they have 30 or 40+ followers not counted for quest) and when I covert their 5th (6th or 7th if they have many cities) next turn somehow they have 60-80+ or more followers (counted for quest).

 

[azum4roll]

You're competing with yourself, the rank 1 in the quest.

 

[AndreyK]

You're competing with yourself, the rank 1 in the quest.

Yes, I compete with myself, but AI get the quest, even as he is not a founder at all.

 

[azum4roll]

Yes, I compete with myself, but AI get the quest, even as he is not a founder at all.

How do you even know who won the quest?

 

[AndreyK]

How do you even know who won the quest?

I hover mouse on CS and I'm leader on religious game - 50+ cities and many followers, while AI have 19, 19 and 18 cities. When I hover over I see that I have 30+ new followers and then later I see that I have 42 and the leader has 112. When I convert another city I hover mouse over CS and it says you have 49 new followers and the leader has 119 new followers.

 

[azum4roll]

I hover mouse on CS and I'm leader on religious game - 50+ cities and many followers, while AI have 19, 19 and 18 cities. When I hover over I see that I have 30+ new followers and then later I see that I have 42 and the leader has 112. When I convert another city I hover mouse over CS and it says you have 49 new followers and the leader has 119 new followers.

The one with 112 and 119 new followers was you. This is probably an oversight, should have a check for whether the CS has met the religion's founder.

 

[tsmith7163]

I've encountered in my last two games a situation where I told the AI that I would not attack them for x turns -- but then during this period they steal my land ( which I'm fine with but it's close) but then they've also attacked my allied CS - so I can't attack them without getting a negative modifier with all civs - I think this should be looked at - if the AI attacks my allied CS and I retaliate I should not get a negative modifier with all civs for breaking my word it actually should give me a boost because I'm protecting my ally - it just does not seem real world (as you could argue WWII stealing land was one thing but attacking Poland was a no go)- in one case I gave troops to CS but it did not help so I eventually put my troops in front of CS to protect them and the AI eventually declared war on me - maybe this is the point as it did require more creative thinking but still.......

Now there may be balancing issues or programming issues I'm not aware of and if that's the case I'm fine-- it just doesn't inherently make sense to me-

 

[Legen]

I've encountered in my last two games a situation where I told the AI that I would not attack them for x turns -- but then during this period they steal my land ( which I'm fine with but it's close) but then they've also attacked my allied CS - so I can't attack them without getting a negative modifier with all civs - I think this should be looked at - if the AI attacks my allied CS and I retaliate I should not get a negative modifier with all civs for breaking my word it actually should give me a boost because I'm protecting my ally - it just does not seem real world (as you could argue WWII stealing land was one thing but attacking Poland was a no go)- in one case I gave troops to CS but it did not help so I eventually put my troops in front of CS to protect them and the AI eventually declared war on me - maybe this is the point as it did require more creative thinking but still.......

Now there may be balancing issues or programming issues I'm not aware of and if that's the case I'm fine-- it just doesn't inherently make sense to me-

Pledge of Protection should cover this case. If another civ attacks a city-state under your protection, a screen of that civ's leader asking you to overlook the pledge comes, with you having the options to indeed overlook (at an influence penalty) or stand for the CS. If you choose the latter, the other civ either backs up from the war or declares war on you; you don't break your promise to not attack them as such. I've had these situations before, in which I get to bypass defensive pacts by pledging protection on a city-state they are attacking; they end in a war against me without their allies, and trigger any defensive pacts I have.

Of course, that requires you to be able to pledge protection, and the 60% military requirement is tough on the human player early on.

 

[AndreyK]

Pledge of Protection should cover this case. If another civ attacks a city-state under your protection, a screen of that civ's leader asking you to overlook the pledge comes, with you having the options to indeed overlook (at an influence penalty) or stand for the CS. If you choose the latter, the other civ either backs up from the war or declares war on you; you don't break your promise to not attack them as such. I've had these situations before, in which I get to bypass defensive pacts by pledging protection on a city-state they are attacking; they end in a war against me without their allies, and trigger any defensive pacts I have.

Of course, that requires you to be able to pledge protection, and the 60% military requirement is tough on the human player early on.

This is not the case at all, I have multiple CS with PtP. When AI declares a war on CS with PtP and I don't look away - AI just continue attack CS, no backing, no DoW on me. It happened many times, even if I pay money for peace, after time passes AI just attacs my allied and protected CS.

 

[Legen]

This is not the case at all, I have multiple CS with PtP. When AI declares a war on CS with PtP and I don't look away - AI just continue attack CS, no backing, no DoW on me. It happened many times, even if I pay money for peace, after time passes AI just attacs my allied and protected CS.

This is weird, the AI should be forced to declare a war against you in order to continue attacking a City-State under your protection. Sounds like a bug.

 

[tsmith7163]

This is weird, the AI should be forced to declare a war against you in order to continue attacking a City-State under your protection. Sounds like a bug.

I thought PtP would protect as well but In my previous game I had PtP and ally- but no option to DOW or look the other way when AI start attacking - I just declared war after a couple turns and got the negative modifier with all civs-- but in most recent game I was only ally as I could not PtP and did not want to declare war to get the negative modifier-

 

[tsmith7163]

Pretty sure the answer to this question is no can't be done or not worth the effort but I figured I would ask it anyways as maybe partly a way to vent ? -- -- but is there any way to clean up the Railroad graphics? I had a beautiful desert, Kasbah civilization that now looks like some malevolent, steroid induced, gross spider web civilization? (I never really noticed this before as normally this isn't an issue as I don't normally play tall, defensive or in the desert)