Quick Questions , Quick Answers

@irishhombre you are in the Information Era(Don't have game up atm )?

And what Game speed are you using please?
 
Here, save plus my custom asset files. And before you ask never touched mountain mine assets.
 

Attachments

Here, save plus my custom asset files. And before you ask never touched mountain mine assets.
Found severe error:

@Toffer90 or @Thunderbrd enemy units shouldn't prevent city from working on plot.
Or at least let players and AI know that.

Also seems like improvement upgrading can get stuck.
Spoiler :

Civ4BeyondSword 2021-04-27 19-07-55-99.png

 
An issue that's been known since H&S was introduced. It's a minor bug so no one-s looked into fixing it.
Enemy units are supposed to prevent a city from working on a plot. That said, it would be good if unseen enemy units don't. That shouldn't be too hard to fix but I'm not in a mode to fix it right now if you want to log it into the bug list @raxo2222.

I wasn't as aware of this being a problem personally - that or forgot about it long ago.
 
Enemy units are supposed to prevent a city from working on a plot. That said, it would be good if unseen enemy units don't. That shouldn't be too hard to fix but I'm not in a mode to fix it right now if you want to log it into the bug list @raxo2222.

I wasn't as aware of this being a problem personally - that or forgot about it long ago.
In that case unit was visible.
So you can prevent city from working on land huh.
Sieges could be much more realistic if food income was determinated mostly by LAND yields.
 
In that case unit was visible.
So you can prevent city from working on land huh.
Sieges could be much more realistic if food income was determinated mostly by LAND yields.
I'm EXTREMELY surprised you thought it WASN'T.
Like, that's baseline Civ function since, well, forever.
Though in C2C you have so many buildings for EVERYTHING (production, food, resources), that this becomes nearly unimportant more often than not, lol.
 
So you can prevent city from working on land huh.
Sieges could be much more realistic if food income was determinated mostly by LAND yields.
That's why vanilla food income mostly IS determined by land yields - it still is tbh, and to some extent I have some ideas to get us back to that without destroying some of the building ideas in place.
 
I
Though in C2C you have so many buildings for EVERYTHING (production, food, resources), that this becomes nearly unimportant more often than not, lol.
Yeah that's what I meant - food from land becomes less important too quickly.
 
Well, most buildings have some resource/trade network requirement, if you completely surround a city, cutting it off the trade network, most of its buildings will be temporarily disabled. If you strategically destroy certain suppliy chains like grains, the whole bread production chain is disabled. I like this side of C2C, very lifelike strategies come into play. The issue with laying proper siege is how effectively city defenses decimate whole armies :shifty: hit and run with overwhelming forces is almost mandatory.
Maybe we need some unit that can provide stack protection against city defenses, like siege engineers or something like that.
 
Well, most buildings have some resource/trade network requirement, if you completely surround a city, cutting it off the trade network, most of its buildings will be temporarily disabled. If you strategically destroy certain suppliy chains like grains, the whole bread production chain is disabled. I like this side of C2C, very lifelike strategies come into play. The issue with laying proper siege is how effectively city defenses decimate whole armies :shifty: hit and run with overwhelming forces is almost mandatory.
Maybe we need some unit that can provide stack protection against city defenses, like siege engineers or something like that.
Lesson number siege: Never approach a developed city without a siege army capable of at least "-100% defense reduction per turn", or BETTER.
Of course, if you're gonna rely on a siege junk that reduces like 5% per turn - that's literally suicide against serious cities.
Note that there is a GAME OPTION that simply doesn't even ALLOW you to attack a developed city UNLESS you reduce its defense to a very low level.
That was done for a reason, even if I always play without it, precisely BECAUSE I hate how realistic the siege process is in C2C, lol.
Just think of how ACTUAL stone castles worked against medieval-tech-level troops, it helps a lot to realize how it kinda also does in C2C.
And that's really good, mod-wise, even if, again, I myself never use that option.
 
If you take a space step back from the city and surround it from that range, you'll have it sieged. Nobody camped right up against the walls in a siege (though I know this takes a little analogous thinking where strategic distancing is concerned.)
 
All fair points, I guess deep down there isn't really a point to "lay siege" to a city for a long time in Civ, other than role playing I guess, normally you want to capture cities as soon as possible and either take them or raze them. And if you're in a war where you can't take a city with your army stack, you probably have bigger things to worry about...
In other strategy games, wars of attrition, land occupation, razing towns or farmlands may be things that have a deep strategic impact... in civ not so much, and if you really want to do it spies or criminals are a better way to go about it.
 
Yes, but you can seriously mess up the AI by such a siege. Your stack might get wiped out, but that civ will be less competitive in the long run.
 
In most (and that means total majority) cases, you want to CAPTURE that city, so you want to do it as fast as possible, and without harming its resources.
Sure, you may want to "play" with the "unfortunate" civ for whatever "role-playing" reasons, but that's always counter-productive game-wise.
If the enemy civ is so strong that you need to get rid of their resources - you have a much bigger trouble to deal with.
And in C2C (or at least on Pit's map), in most cases pillaging isn't gonna help you much ANYWAYS.
 
All fair points, I guess deep down there isn't really a point to "lay siege" to a city for a long time in Civ, other than role playing I guess, normally you want to capture cities as soon as possible and either take them or raze them. And if you're in a war where you can't take a city with your army stack, you probably have bigger things to worry about...
In other strategy games, wars of attrition, land occupation, razing towns or farmlands may be things that have a deep strategic impact... in civ not so much, and if you really want to do it spies or criminals are a better way to go about it.
More realistic siege would starve and cause disease. With Outbreaks and Afflictions plans in the works, the disease factor will become more possible to introduce. The idea is to get them to feel like they simply have to attack to have any chance at all or their units will die to weakening without a fight.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom