I agree. There's always debates over puppet verse annex. And I'm not getting a good example because I'm playing as Rome this game. But I can tell you, as Rome acquiring all the buildings, I'm seeing no reduction in my overall policy and technology turns to completion. And once resistance ends, I feel the overall progress has improved as opposed to puppeting the city. I did not take the imperialism policy that improves puppets however. I would not be opposed to occupied cities having incurable unhappiness. Perhaps an even more extreme amount before a courthouse is built. This would make the process of puppeting much more essential.That is what I mean. There doesn't seem to be a downside in annexing all cities, even if not straight away, which certainly didn't used to be like that. Must have been vanilla, where it was very problematic taking over to many cities direct, & would nearly always puppet them. Seems to have gone completely the other way.
Will the new spy system work if I turn off events?
Is it intended that when an incan unit goes from flat land to a hill that is across a river, that the incan unit ignores the river cross penalty?
What happens if I capture a city-state, where another civ has established their embassy? I know they lose their +1 vote from the embassy, but do I get that embassy vote?
And what if this city-state is captured by another city-state, one that I am allied to? Is that embassy vote still lost for the other civ?
Pretty sure this isn't true. But now I got to fire up my game to be sure lol You get them from occupying the city state don't you? Or has this changed?I believe you only gain embassy votes by eliminating the original builder from the game. If any civ has captured a CS the vote disappears, but the embassy tile is quite nice.
If another CS captures a CS only one embassy can be built in their lands. If both Cs's already have embassies my expectation is that only one vote is awarded.
Pretty sure this isn't true. But now I got to fire up my game to be sure lol You get them from occupying the city state don't you? Or has this changed?
With the Byzantium's UA I can choose any belief, also if already chosen by other players; I would like to know if it is true the reverse, if a belief already chosen by Byzantium yet can be chosen by other players
You are 100% correct.Apart from the last point, about multiple embassies in one CS's land due to conquest, I fairly confident that the other points were correct at one time. Also, a quick search of change logs didn't find any changes.
If you do any testing (and be aware that some categories of votes are only updated at the start of a turn), please let us know what you find
That was it, thanksWar Weariness?
Good question. Well there is really no reason to spread the other Religion unless you like it's benefits. I'll say in most cases the usual tactic is to eradicate any opposing religion. There's not many benefits for having multiple religions, in fact religious differences is one of the unhappiness modifiers. But again it's worth noting if you think the other religion is better, feel free to fully convert to it. Send the proper inquisitors and you'll be all set. As far as I know, as long as you control the holy city you're getting the score value just the same as if you would have founded it.I just captured an enemy capital that was also a holy city. Now that I am the head of 2 religions what should I be aiming for with my citizens? one predominant or a mix of both? How should I try to spread it, both equally? Should I push for one to be the world religion?
So if I have Iron Fist does that mean the AI Vassal will not Liberate under any circumstance? Could I feel safe giving them back a large number of their cities besides the capital to ensure a domination victory??