Quick Answers / 'Newbie' Questions

[ggganz]

Was that in reply to my post or an extenstion of your original?

 

[MyungHee]

OOoh good point about the ini vs ini.bak file! I'm actually over a friend's house and not at my computer but I definitely have to check that out when I get home.

Thanks!

 

[MyungHee]

It was in reply to your first reply where you said "And you won't even be able to keep up with your computer with that!!!!"

 

[ori]

are you sure you used the right .ini? each of the games (Vanilla, warlords, bts) has its own...

 

[Ginger_Ale]

This leads me to another question: when was this change implemented? In v3.13? Bhuric's unofficial patch? In my last game (just with v3.13) I'm pretty sure I had it happen that a civilization I was at war with became a vassal to someone else, putting me at war with both of them, not ending the war.

As I was playing just a few minutes ago (Civ4 BtS v3.13, no Bhuric's patch), this issue occurred. I was at war with Wang Kon in the south of the map. He was down to one city, and I had seen from the diplomacy window he would've capitulated if I had offered it. Since I just wanted to finish him off, I kept warring. However, Hatshepsut (luckily not on my border) swept in and vassalized him. The result? I was now still at war with Wang Kon and became at war with Hatshepsut, who I previously was at peace with.

I attached the screenshot just for reference. In case you can't see, it says: "Wang Kon has agreed to become a vassal state of Hatshepsut." Notice I am at war with both.

Is this the way vassal states are suppose to work or should I have become at peace with both Hatshepsut and Wang Kon?

 

[JujuLautre]

the explanation is simple: Wang just asked Hatchepsuth to declare war to you

 

[Ginger_Ale]

the explanation is simple: Wang just asked Hatchepsuth to declare war to you

Ah...does this always happen or can it sometimes happen where I'll be at peace with both?

 

[ori]

Ah...does this always happen or can it sometimes happen where I'll be at peace with both?

IF
Players A and B are at war with C
AND C becomes vassal to B (aka capitulates)
then A is at peace with both.

IF
Player A is at war with player C
AND B is not at war with either A or C
AND C becomes Vassal to B
then A is at war with both

does this help?

 

[JujuLautre]

IF
Players A and B are at war with C
AND C becomes vassal to B (aka capitulates)
then A is at peace with both.

Unless A and B were at war with each other, in which case they are still at war. Basically, A and B keep the same status as before.

IF
Player A is at war with player C
AND B is not at war with either A or C
AND C becomes Vassal to B
then A is at war with both

Are you sure about this one? That, in time of war, a vassal state is always given as a bribe for war?

 

[ori]

Unless A and B were at war with each other, in which case they are still at war. Basically, A and B keep the same status as before.

You are right - I did not think about all out war

Are you sure about this one? That, in time of war, a vassal state is always given as a bribe for war?

I am pretty sure that this is how it works: one player asks another for help against the enemy in exchange for becoming a vassal. Now I cannot remember if I had this happen to me before or after the 3.13 patch - so I might be mistaken, but I am pretty sure this was not changed...

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Ok, thanks guys, that makes sense (and confirms what I've been experiencing in my games). I haven't had any of those scenarios where two civilizations are at war with a third party and it capitulates as part of war.

 

[MyungHee]

So depending on which patch I'm playing I guess that would be the ini file that the game would run from... makes sense!

Hmm... But I didn't see an Autosave line in the ini file for the Warlord or BTS patches. Should there be one? If not, can I just add the line in?

 

[ggganz]

That means you didn't actually play a game of BtS yet.

 

[dalamb]

2/ Forts now have extended powers, including linking ressources. So with a road, a fort on top of a ressource give you that ressource (as long as it's inside your cultural border and linked to cities obv); as long as the ressource its not in one of your cities fat cross, you don't lose too much.

This sounds like if a resource is outside all of my BFCs I ought to build a fort to protect it better instead of a mine etc. -- EXCEPT for your last comment about "don't lose too much". What do I lose?

 

[ggganz]

More worker turns.

 

[Dero Zero]

What does the space elevator's text "can build at maximum latitude of 30 degrees" mean???

 

[Roland Johansen]

What does the space elevator's text "can build at maximum latitude of 30 degrees" mean???

It means that you can only build it in cities fairly close to the equator. I don't exactly know how many tiles distance from the equator is equal to 30 degrees on the various different map sizes.

 

[6K Man]

What's the deal with Gold and Silver mines? In my games, they seem to yield fewer hammers than regular mines do, despite the Civilopedia saying that they get a +1 hammer/+6 or +4 commerce bonus. Is this intended - and the Civilopedia merely wrong?

 

[Roland Johansen]

What's the deal with Gold and Silver mines? In my games, they seem to yield fewer hammers than regular mines do, despite the Civilopedia saying that they get a +1 hammer/+6 or +4 commerce bonus. Is this intended - and the Civilopedia merely wrong?

The +1 +6 or +1 +4 yield is instead of the normal +2 yield. The yield mentioned for a special resource is always a replacement of the yield of the normal case except when the special yield is just an addition in different area.

So the copper, iron and coal yields of 3 and the gold and silver yields are a replacement of the normal +2 yield. However, in case of uranium the special yield is exactly the same as the yield in the normal case so it is not mentioned and just the extra commerce is mentioned. The uranium case is actual the only exception to the rule. I agree that the civilopedia is vague in that case.

 

[6K Man]

The +1 +6 or +1 +4 yield is instead of the normal +2 yield. The yield mentioned for a special resource is always a replacement of the yield of the normal case except when the special yield is just an addition in different area.

So the copper, iron and coal yields of 3 and the gold and silver yields are a replacement of the normal +2 yield. However, in case of uranium the special yield is exactly the same as the yield in the normal case so it is not mentioned and just the extra commerce is mentioned. The uranium case is actual the only exception to the rule. I agree that the civilopedia is vague in that case.

Thanks. I suppose that makes sense.

Annoyingly, in my current game, I was working 2 mines early on - one of them got the Tin event (+2 hammers for that mine) and subsequently Gold appeared there, reducing the hammer yield.

I know better than to about Gold popping up in my capital's BFC - but it would have been nice if it had popped up in my OTHER mine.