New Version - September 9th (9/9)

[Funak]

CSs aren't edited or changed in terms of production/growth, though I can buff em a bit if there's demand.

G

I think that would be a good idea. I also noticed that for some reason that city-states completely ignores monuments for some reason. (Even in industrial era, grabbing a city-state with merchant of venice, the city doesn't have a monument.).
Might be related to the fact that puppets usually ignore monuments as well, I have seen them working farming when they don't have monuments and stuff like that. Eventually the puppets get monuments however.

 

[Gazebo]

I think that would be a good idea. I also noticed that for some reason that city-states completely ignores monuments for some reason. (Even in industrial era, grabbing a city-state with merchant of venice, the city doesn't have a monument.).
Might be related to the fact that puppets usually ignore monuments as well, I have seen them working farming when they don't have monuments and stuff like that. Eventually the puppets get monuments however.

Can't recall if MoV triggers the % chance of buildings disappearing or not (i.e. conquered cities penalty). In any case, CSs are a strange beast. They are restricted from a ton of the more advanced AI logic to make their CPU use more lean, yet this makes them rather dumb. I'll pump up their production/growth a bit to compensate.

G

 

[Strigvir]

In regards of City-States, can we have "buy a tile" diplomatic option on allies? It triggers me how in late game some cities have a resource next to their border and they expand on it like forever.

 

[Funak]

Can't recall if MoV triggers the % chance of buildings disappearing or not (i.e. conquered cities penalty). In any case, CSs are a strange beast. They are restricted from a ton of the more advanced AI logic to make their CPU use more lean, yet this makes them rather dumb. I'll pump up their production/growth a bit to compensate.G

They keep all buildings when grabbed by a MoV. (I guess it could be possible that the monument is destroyed and everything else is kept, but that seems unlikely)

 

[Gazebo]

In regards of City-States, can we have "buy a tile" diplomatic option on allies? It triggers me how in late game some cities have a resource next to their border and they expand on it like forever.

To clarify, a 'buy an unowned tile for them' button? Perhaps, I'll need to look at the lua hooks for that.

G

 

[Strigvir]

Yes, of course for the increased cost.
Bonus points if it will work with America UA.

 

[Apostremo]

Yes, of course for the increased cost.
Bonus points if it will work with America UA.

America denying the best tiles all over the globe? That would be evil

 

[Gazebo]

Yes, of course for the increased cost.
Bonus points if it will work with America UA.

Quick glance at code presents a problem - city ownership is a requirement for the interface mode to buy specific tiles. I could, however, probably do a 'random' button that buys the next tile in the CSs tile acquisition queue. Probably not worth the hassle, though, if it isn't what you had in mind.

G

 

[Finarvi]

Well maybe the same system that checks if CS is guarded could check if CS wants peace? If it is not guarded then it usually means that it can defend.

But locking peace wouldn't prevent player to declare war to grab worker and then fight for XP, gold and GGs anyway.

 

[Gazebo]

Well maybe the same system that checks if CS is guarded could check if CS wants peace? If it is not guarded then it usually means that it can defend.

But locking peace wouldn't prevent player to declare war to grab worker and then fight for XP, gold and GGs anyway.

The function isn't quite so flexible. In any case, as you noted, there's really no 'penalty' to forcing peace for 15 turns. I'd rather make the cost of war more expensive (as it is now), rather than making it a silly 'always 15 turns' cooldown.

G

 

[Gazebo]

Hotfix uploaded for Deals issue (necessary boolean value didn't pass into the compiled version properly for some reason) for CP. Also adjusted happiness from enhancer belief to 1 per 2 cities (was 1:1) and buffed minor civs a little.

All should be savegame compatible, just make sure to clear your cache first.

G

 

[Funak]

The function isn't quite so flexible. In any case, as you noted, there's really no 'penalty' to forcing peace for 15 turns. I'd rather make the cost of war more expensive (as it is now), rather than making it a silly 'always 15 turns' cooldown.

G

This is kinda off-topic, but a option to capturing city-states would be nice. I mean if a civ declares war on you and he has a city-state ally on your border, you're pretty much forced to deal with it. So adding an option to just beat them down and force them to abandon their ally (and make peace with you) might reduce the massive number of city-states getting captured in the mid to late game.
What I'm trying to say is that an option for where you capture a city-state and choose between puppeting or annexing, you could have a third option that forces the city-state into a peacedeal (and you don't suffer a diplo-penalty for it like you normally do), maybe something like you killing off their leader or forces him to abandon his sworn ally.
Note, this would not make you the ally of the city-state, this would place you at neutral 0 (maybe it should place everyone at neutral 0, that would still be preferable to to the city getting captured)

 

[Strigvir]

Nah, it will defeat the purpose of accumulating influence points.
Use the spies to switch allegiances mid-war.

 

[Gazebo]

This is kinda off-topic, but a option to capturing city-states would be nice. I mean if a civ declares war on you and he has a city-state ally on your border, you're pretty much forced to deal with it. So adding an option to just beat them down and force them to abandon their ally (and make peace with you) might reduce the massive number of city-states getting captured in the mid to late game.
What I'm trying to say is that an option for where you capture a city-state and choose between puppeting or annexing, you could have a third option that forces the city-state into a peacedeal (and you don't suffer a diplo-penalty for it like you normally do), maybe something like you killing off their leader or forces him to abandon his sworn ally.
Note, this would not make you the ally of the city-state, this would place you at neutral 0 (maybe it should place everyone at neutral 0, that would still be preferable to to the city getting captured)

Agree with Strigvir here – being able to negate influence through brute force would completely change the diplomacy game, and not in a good way.

G

 

[Funak]

Agree with Strigvir here – being able to negate influence through brute force would completely change the diplomacy game, and not in a good way.

Eh, you already completely negate influence through brute force by conquering the CS.


And you can't use spies to change city-state allegiances mid-war... you're automatically at -60, making all coup-attempts 0%.

 

[Strigvir]

Conquering the CS doesn't give you usual CS benefits.
Coup success depends only on difference between your influence and CS ally influence. And you can change it, because I did so.

 

[Funak]

Conquering the CS doesn't give you usual CS benefits.

Neither does what I suggested, it robs the enemy of that bonus, just like conquering would do. Pointing this out again, you would not become the ally of the city-state, in fact you could even drop down to negative influence for all I care, I just want to avoid all the silly cross-map AI-wars that end up consuming most of the city-states around midgame.

Coup success depends only on difference between your influence and CS ally influence. And you can change it, because I did so.

Coup depends only on the difference between your influence and the CS ally influence, Yes that is correct. But your influence while at war is an automatic -60 while the allied civ is at least at +60, since that's the requirement for ally status. and with 120 influence difference between you, the coup-chance is always 0%

 

[Strigvir]

Pointing this out again, you would not become the ally of the city-state, in fact you could even drop down to negative influence for all I care, I just want to avoid all the silly cross-map AI-wars that end up consuming most of the city-states around midgame.

Why is that silly? If AI doesn't have CS-based UA, it doesn't need to care much about city-states and it's for the best interest to deny other CS-based civs from their power. Also stacking diplomats isn't a problem past mid-game, and, unlike your opponent, you can do it easily on a freshly "switched" city.

But your influence while at war is an automatic -60 while the allied civ is at least at +60, since that's the requirement for ally status. and with 120 influence difference between you, the coup-chance is always 0%

It doesn't actually drop to -60, you just get blocked from peace with a city as long as you are DoW with its ally. Otherwise how would you explain me getting the friends with them instantly after a truce with their ally? And more importantly, how would you explain me flipping CSes mid-war if it's literally impossible?

 

[Sub6]

One With Nature: Mountains now produce +1 Faith/Culture for every 3 in your borders (don't have to be worked to gain bonus)
Observatory: City must be within two tiles of a Mountain. City gains +1 Science for every Mountain tile within its borders.
Machu Pichu: +15% Gold from City Connections. City gains +1 Food, Production, Culture, and Faith for every Mountain tile in its borders.

I received yields from Mountains claimed by other civs.
Does "within its borders" mean "within 3 tiles of a city (regardless of land ownership)"?

 

[Gazebo]

I received yields from Mountains claimed by other civs.
Does "within its borders" mean "within 3 tiles of a city (regardless of land ownership)"?

Correct. I intended to update the description appropriately and then...forgot.

G