Rome Gives independence to ROME!

[troyDoogle7]

I am playing as Rome and I have just gave a small island independence. Its new leader is Austus of Rome.... There are now 2 rome civs in the game....

Also a couple of the cities on the mainland are repeatedly asking to join the vassal. Including a major city with wonders and huge production (my 4th most productive city)

 

[vodlaian]

This happened to me and a few others as well.

 

[Proteus]

Wouldn´t call it a bug but rather a feature.
Altohougb it would have been naice if they had ben able to make an addition to the name of the second country (for example"East-" before the nation name of the second rome.

 

[jkp1187]

My preferred solution is to have the player give the civilization its own unique name upon independence. So if de Gaulle grants independence to a colony, he could name it (for instance) Quebec...so even if the leader is Monty, it still (in an aesthetic sense) is a little less jarring.

 

[t_NB]

Maybe the bug is that the cities can't tell between the player rome and the vassal rome, and so they think they want to convert to the vassal.

 

[Pyrion]

Maybe they don't care, think about it, you're creating your own vassal civ, you're trading away all of that direct influence and control for the lower maintenance cost. It's not that cities can't tell who the master and who the slave are, it's that the slave likely has the dominant local culture, so they convert to it instead of to the master, which makes sense.

 

[crossmr]

doesn't make sense. I've had Augustus spawn while Charlemagne is already in game, and then have one of my cities (playing Korean) persistently want to join Augustus. Its a city I founded with a settler (wonsan)

 

[ainwood]

I've recorded this as a possible bug, but on reflection I think it might be a game decision. There are only certain civs that each civ can split to form - eg. I doubt you'll see tokugawa splitting-off an american civ. To keep a number of viable options, they needed to do it like this. But I guess we'll see if they change it in the patch!

 

[crossmr]

Well the americans spawn from someone late game (current game I'm in, but they're dead now). I've had the ottomans split, the french, and the romans all split in one game. Makes the leader board a little messy.

 

[mjs0]

I've recorded this as a possible bug, but on reflection I think it might be a game decision. There are only certain civs that each civ can split to form - eg. I doubt you'll see tokugawa splitting-off an american civ. To keep a number of viable options, they needed to do it like this. But I guess we'll see if they change it in the patch!

Not sure splitting the same civ is (or should be) a bug but as I pointed out in another thread (quoted below) it certainly makes for some interface problems (bugs) in other places which do need to be fixed if the duplicate Civ name is allowed to stand.

This 'feature' has some very unfortunate effects however. There are many places in the game where one civ refers to another by name only...not by leader.

So...in my most recent game there were two Americas.

When Civ A asks me to go to stop trading with the Americans - Did they mean Roosevelt (my deadly enemy since the start of the game) or Lincoln (a recent colony of my friends the English)?

When Civ B asked me to go to war with the Russians- Did they mean Catherine (my very powerful but friendly neighbour) or Stalin (who I would be happy to assist in wiping out)? Russian roulette anyone?

I think the problem (I would call it a bug because it significantly affects gameplay) with this is clear.

The worst situations are modal dialogs where I can't even refer to the advisors to make an educated guess as to which of the possible Civs might be meant. AP and UN votes are good (bad) examples of this.

 

[ainwood]

Yes - thanks for that. I've linked to your post from the consolodated bugs thread as good arguments as to why this is a problem.