Settlements not founded by you

[RaidandTrade]

I have conquered a few settlements in Antiquity and enter the exploration age. I’m looking at a policy for +25% production in settlements not found by you and, with the policy mod, it’s showing no benefit. Sure enough, when I check the city’s production between turns, it shows no difference in hammers. Is this policy (and similar policies) broken or is the condition limited to the age you’re in such that I have to have conquered it in the current age?

 

[Siptah]

The status of conquered city resets at age transition. Hence, what you conquered in antiquity does not count as conquered in exploration and modern.

 

[RaidandTrade]

The status of conquered city resets at age transition. Hence, what you conquered in antiquity does not count as conquered in exploration and modern.

Thanks. Shame really - part of the reason for switching my capital!

 

[queenpea]

The status of conquered city resets at age transition. Hence, what you conquered in antiquity does not count as conquered in exploration and modern.

Ugh, that feels like a mistake.

 

[Siptah]

Ugh, that feels like a mistake.

Why? At some point, cities are well integrated and should not have a happiness penalty or similar. We are still aware that Istanbul, San Francisco, or London were not founded by the same peoples that live there nowadays, but they hardly have a drawback because of that anymore.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think the mistake is in wording. "Not founded by you" doesn't mention current age and causes confusion. Not sure how it should be worded, though.

 

[Siptah]

„obtained from another player during this age“? It‘s for sure wordy, but player in my eyes would also exclude IPs.

 

[queenpea]

Yes, because it’s poorly explained, and this leads to bad player choices as evidenced already in the previous post. The game has so many little guard rails, unspoken rules, and mysterious systems already.

It also weakens the effects of these policy cards greatly.

In an age of 100 turns or so, you first have to build an army, siege down a city, conquer the settlement by occupying all districts, then wait for unrest to die down, then spend gold to turn it into a city in order to benefit significantly from a production bonus.

On a larger scale, this further turns each age into a disconnected minigame. Why shouldn’t the warmongering player have the option to receive these benefits from success in the previous age? Why are is each age cordoned off so? Systems like this that disrupt the continuity of the game “just because” break up immersion and are a general buzz kill.

 

[queenpea]

Why? At some point, cities are well integrated and should not have a happiness penalty or similar. We are still aware that Istanbul, San Francisco, or London were not founded by the same peoples that live there nowadays, but they hardly have a drawback because of that anymore.

If the game wants to cling to this system, then the cities that are considered naturalized should have their names changed to your new culture on the agenda transition. The devs need to find a way to make this feel like it makes logical sense because right now very little does.

 

[Krikkit1]

If the game wants to cling to this system, then the cities that are considered naturalized should have their names changed to your new culture on the agenda transition. The devs need to find a way to make this feel like it makes logical sense because right now very little does.

What would be even better is on age change, you get to choose whether or not to change the names of all your towns from old name to new city list.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Ugh, that feels like a mistake.

One of the better features of the game IMO, I love how the world no longer holds grudges from things that happened before people could write ....

 

[queenpea]

One of the better features of the game IMO, I love how the world no longer holds grudges from things that happened before people could write ....

Then I have bad news for you! Writing is too early in the tech tree to help you.

Also, I am not discussing "grudges" at all, but bonuses which are poorly described on a policy card. More bad news for you still: "grudges" are still very much part of international relations in VII as "relations from the last age" are still weighed heavily against relations in the following age.

 

[CliffCo]

Same with war weariness, you receive a greater penalty for cities not founded by you etc. but it starts afresh in the next era.

 

[Menocchio]

„obtained from another player during this age“? It‘s for sure wordy, but player in my eyes would also exclude IPs.

Perhaps there ought to be three distinctions: "founded by you"—fairly self-explanatory; "not founded by you," that is, any settlement that you acquired from another civ/IP in any Age; "conquered by you," referring to acquisitions in the current Age. This way there would be a sort of replication of being an historic multiethnic empire versus a civilisation expanding and conquering its contemporaries.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Perhaps there ought to be three distinctions: "founded by you"—fairly self-explanatory; "not founded by you," that is, any settlement that you acquired from another civ/IP in any Age; "conquered by you," referring to acquisitions in the current Age. This way there would be a sort of replication of being an historic multiethnic empire versus a civilisation expanding and conquering its contemporaries.

It's not universally clear if "conquered" applies to settlements gained with peace deals.

I'd prefer some specific term to be used for all such settlements, with the term being used in all relevant cases and explained in Civilopedia.

 

[CliffCo]

It's not universally clear if "conquered" applies to settlements gained with peace deals.

I'd prefer some specific term to be used for all such settlements, with the term being used in all relevant cases and explained in Civilopedia.

Those don't count, they have to be actually conquered, but i agree that much of the wording leaves room for improvement.

 

[Yzman]

What would be even better is on age change, you get to choose whether or not to change the names of all your towns from old name to new city list.

Why? Is there even historical precedent for this? I'm not sure where this idea of washing out the past for a civ comes from when they switch but it's certainly not American history or likely most histories.

Look at America. Do you even have to know what states and cities came from Spain / Mexico? How about how almost everything in middle of the country is named after Native American names? The original colonies also have names unsurprisingly like New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey. These names didn't change either.

There is something ironic about you wanting saw Shawnee names to switch to American names...which also include some Shawnee inspired names no doubt. So keeping names of previous civs is good for real history but not in game apparently.

 

[MutilationWave]

Those don't count, they have to be actually conquered, but i agree that much of the wording leaves room for improvement.

That's the thing I think they're getting at. They don't count in some ways but they do in others. For instance they will count toward military legacy path.

 

[Krikkit1]

Why? Is there even historical precedent for this? I'm not sure where this idea of washing out the past for a civ comes from when they switch but it's certainly not American history or likely most histories.

Look at America. Do you even have to know what states and cities came from Spain / Mexico? How about how almost everything in middle of the country is named after Native American names? The original colonies also have names unsurprisingly like New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey. These names didn't change either.

There is something ironic about you wanting saw Shawnee names to switch to American names...which also include some Shawnee inspired names no doubt. So keeping names of previous civs is good for real history but not in game apparently.

Constantinople->Istanbul
New Amsterdam->New York
and for civs
Rome->Byzantium (They didn’t use it themselves but others did)
You should have the choice …since sometimes the name changes and sometimes it doesn’t.

 

[Yzman]

Constantinople->Istanbul
New Amsterdam->New York
and for civs
Rome->Byzantium (They didn’t use it themselves but others did)
You should have the choice …since sometimes the name changes and sometimes it doesn’t.

Aren't some of those due to conquering though? Little different. Also can't you rename cities now? So you can literally do this yourself if you want.