Settling Distance

[JosEPh_II]

While not as comfortable as an in game option, you can easily change that global define to whatever you like in the XML file DH mentioned.

With buildings playing such a large role in C2C I am not entirely sure that placing cities very dense is a disadvantage.

In C2C it is not a disadvantage as it allows those cities to "share" a vital resource or 2 and that is Why, GT Ranma, you are see the AI doing it. The player can do the exact same thing. There is no Rule that says cities must be 3+ tiles from each other. That is just player preference. And as we know all player do not have the same preferences.

And I fully "see" what you are saying. But I do not agree with your base premise. And this has been debated before back when C2C Did have the setting to 3 vs 2 in the global defines xml file. That's the Why and When (debate and discussion timeframe) it was put back to the BtS base of 2 almost 3 years ago.

JosEPh

 

[JosEPh_II]

In my game, some civilisations are settling cities only two squares apart, which is really silly on a Large map. I think that the minimum distance apart should be 3.

Having tried out Minimum City Borders, I dislike it being activated (i.e. a city always having nine squares). However, if you build a city next to someone else's fort, that square remains their culture and is not automatically grabbed by the city.

Seems I had it backwards and not you Arakhor. My apologies to you and those in this thread that use Minimum City Borders to Keep their cities Main 9 tile culturally sacrosanct from influence. I just asked 45*38'N for clarification on that Option since he made it for AND.

But as for it's inclusion into C2C I'm now falling to see why C2C needed it! As C2C already had the 9 city tiles sacrosanct. City Flipping here has been a Dead thing for a long long time. And I wish Culture could do here what it does in vanilla BtS and in what it did in the days of Rise of Mankind, allow you to flip or get flipped on ownership/possession of a city by cultural influence. <sigh>

JosEPh

 

[Arakhor]

I did think you were wrong, Joseph, but I confirmed that I dislike that setting just today - I seized a Mayan city right next to his capital, and suddenly nine squares became German grey. That's way too good in my opinion. I'm with you in missing cultural flipping. This is the mod that (probably) has Everything (and its dog), and yet we're missing out on The Joy of Culture, which is especially important for reluctant generals, such as myself.

 

[code99]

I did think you were wrong, Joseph, but I confirmed that I dislike that setting just today - I seized a Mayan city right next to his capital, and suddenly nine squares became German grey. That's way too good in my opinion. I'm with you in missing cultural flipping. This is the mod that (probably) has Everything (and its dog), and yet we're missing out on The Joy of Culture, which is especially important for reluctant generals, such as myself.

+1

i too miss this, not sure why it was removed.

 

[MacCoise]

But as for it's inclusion into C2C I'm now falling to see why C2C needed it! As C2C already had the 9 city tiles sacrosanct. City Flipping here has been a Dead thing for a long long time. And I wish Culture could do here what it does in vanilla BtS and in what it did in the days of Rise of Mankind, allow you to flip or get flipped on ownership/possession of a city by cultural influence. <sigh>

JosEPh

You can't flip cities? WHAT???

 

[JosEPh_II]

You can't flip cities? WHAT???

If you can do it, please post some screen shots so I can try. I just want to see someone/anyone accomplish it in this mod. Give me some Hope!??

JosEPh

 

[GT Ranma]

In C2C it is not a disadvantage as it allows those cities to "share" a vital resource or 2 and that is Why, GT Ranma, you are see the AI doing it. The player can do the exact same thing. There is no Rule that says cities must be 3+ tiles from each other. That is just player preference. And as we know all player do not have the same preferences.

JosEPh

So you are saying, that them having 32 (Edit: 24, I can't count.) squares less to 'work' then my cities does not 'harm' them in any way. I still doubt that, but for now I will pretend that that is ok. If that is true, then it would mean that the AI doesn't have ANY idea how to prioritize their cities when building. Because as I said, my cities are almost always 2x larger then the NPC cities, but they have 2x more then me usually. . .

 

[AIAndy]

So you are saying, that them having 32 (Edit: 24, I can't count.) squares less to 'work' then my cities does not 'harm' them in any way. I still doubt that, but for now I will pretend that that is ok. If that is true, then it would mean that the AI doesn't have ANY idea how to prioritize their cities when building. Because as I said, my cities are almost always 2x larger then the NPC cities, but they have 2x more then me usually. . .

Of course your cities get larger with more plots to work but it is a tradeoff between having larger and having more cities. In early game it is probably better to keep them apart given that the amount of cities you have is quite limited so it is good if they are strong and you want to grab as much land as you can. On the other hand they cannot work many plots anyway because of city size.
When space gets scarce, dense placement means you get to build all the buildings more often and they tend to be a significant factor of city income.

 

[Harrier]

So you are saying, that them having 32 (Edit: 24, I can't count.) squares less to 'work' then my cities does not 'harm' them in any way. I still doubt that, but for now I will pretend that that is ok. If that is true, then it would mean that the AI doesn't have ANY idea how to prioritize their cities when building. Because as I said, my cities are almost always 2x larger then the NPC cities, but they have 2x more then me usually. . .

I am relativley new to this mod, so I do not yet know all the nuiances. But I guess what all the posters are alluding to is, that with all the buildings available (giving all basic the benefits - gold, food, hammers, science, etc.) Your city, unlike in standard BTS - does not need to work many tiles. So tile overlap is not a problem.

I may be wrong - but that is my take on it.

 

[GT Ranma]

I am relativley new to this mod, so I do not yet know all the nuiances. But I guess what all the posters are alluding to is, that with all the buildings available (giving all basic the benefits - gold, food, hammers, science, etc.) Your city, unlike in standard BTS - does not need to work many tiles. So tile overlap is not a problem.

I may be wrong - but that is my take on it.

I am saying I don't agree.

But I do not have any empirical evidence for or against it at the moment. I suppose I should make 2 cities, one with no cities around it, and one surrounded by 4 cities and see how it effects them if they have the same exact ground / resource coverage around them...

 

[JosEPh_II]

I am saying I don't agree.

But I do not have any empirical evidence for or against it at the moment. I suppose I should make 2 cities, one with no cities around it, and one surrounded by 4 cities and see how it effects them if they have the same exact ground / resource coverage around them...

GT you're of course going to see a difference between the extremes you've posted. Especially early to mid game. You're really kind of nit picking here. If 2 cities share a few tiles and the shared tiles contain resources especially resources like horses or copper, etc both will benefit. And if the cites overlapping tiles form a continuous border then that empire has an easier time defending too. This debate has been going on since Civ II. But C2C's expanded resources, larger maps, more types of terrain, expanded buildings, etc. tilts the debate. Go ahead and run your test and satisfy yourself. It won't end the debate.

JosEPh

 

[GT Ranma]

You say nit picking, I say that it is one of the reasons that I have to play the game on the HARDEST difficulty for it to be in any way difficult. Maybe not THE reason. I would say that is most likely because we have a million buildings and the AI can't figure out how to make ones that help the city instead of harming it.
I destroy almost every city I take over instead of keeping it. They all build the dumbest buildings. Between that and horrible city placement, I almost never keep their cities unless I need the culture they have for some reason.

 

[Yudishtira]

If you don't like the buildings in a city, you can demolish any of them (of course only normal buildings, not wonders or autobuilds) at any time using Ctrl-A in the city screen. You can also abandon any city at any time, I think this is also through Ctrl-A but I've only done it once so I'm not sure.

 

[JosEPh_II]

You say nit picking, I say that it is one of the reasons that I have to play the game on the HARDEST difficulty for it to be in any way difficult. Maybe not THE reason. I would say that is most likely because we have a million buildings and the AI can't figure out how to make ones that help the city instead of harming it.
I destroy almost every city I take over instead of keeping it. They all build the dumbest buildings. Between that and horrible city placement, I almost never keep their cities unless I need the culture they have for some reason.

Funny you pick out only the "nitpicking" and don't address the bulk of the post.

More likely it is your Option choices that cause you to "Have to play" at the "Hardest" difficulty level to get a challenge, both Game setup and BUG

Maybe you should use SO's new Option "Nightmare Mod" if you don't feel challenged? And Leave Rev Off and BarbCiv Off to stop generating many weak nations and barbs. Don't use Adv Economy as it is really very broken. Strip it down to a base play and see how it goes.

Or reduce the number of starting AI while increasing the map size. Don't use a GEM or Terra type map. Play a Faster gamespeed setting, like Epic or Normal. So many ways to make the mod play with more challenge.

JosEPh

 

[Arakhor]

What's broken about Advanced Economy? I know that Afforess replaced it along, with trade routes, (which I'd still entirely recommend), but I don't know what problem is with AE.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Would have to go back to the Adv Econ discussion in AND to get the details. Had to do with calculations not being right. The math was wrong per Afforess. Or something like that.

JosEPh

 

[Arakhor]

That would be this thread. Bad maths and opaque mechanics do not a compelling mixture make.

 

[GT Ranma]

Maybe you should use SO's new Option "Nightmare Mod" if you don't feel challenged?

It does sound interesting. But I still have a mild idea that the game should not have to be played on the hardest setting for it not to be 'easy'.

And Leave Rev Off and BarbCiv Off to stop generating many weak nations and barbs. Don't use Adv Economy as it is really very broken. Strip it down to a base play and see how it goes.

Yeah, Rev does nothing atm, not with as many buildings that increase stability. I have it on and I completely ignore it.

Hmm, I think BarbCiv is off. I know Aggressive Barbs needs to be turned off, they kill the AI more then they kill me. They destroy their economy producing a million units and then can never progress.

And ... WHAAT? Adv Economy is broken? . . . I always have that on. . .

If you don't like the buildings in a city, you can demolish any of them (of course only normal buildings, not wonders or autobuilds) at any time using Ctrl-A in the city screen. You can also abandon any city at any time, I think this is also through Ctrl-A but I've only done it once so I'm not sure.

Whaaat? When did this happen. Last time I looked, (it was years ago) we could not delete buildings. It was for some convoluted reason I already forgot. But, if that is true, awesome.

@Jo:
Since we pretty much got completely off topic. I will try to be clear about my reason for this thread.

I would like the option to have the range between building to be set to 2 or 3, depending upon the Users preferences. I personally play on Huge, Marathon, and it gets REALLY tedious dealing with the AI putting a city every 2 spaces on the map. Having an option to select 3 at world creation would be awesome. It would, in my opinion, make the Huge+ maps less crazy. And it would, as you said, allow the PC to dictate that he/she wants the AI to either 'have a lot of small cities, or a few big ones'.

And, as previously said, simply changing the xml file to say 3 instead of 2 would cause problems. So, I would really like a modmod that would do it without and problems. And I do not know enough xml to do it myself.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

And ... WHAAT? Adv Economy is broken? . . . I always have that on. . .

I always have it off but I did not like what it was about to start with and it never impressed me when I played with it on.

Whaaat? When did this happen. Last time I looked, (it was years ago) we could not delete buildings. It was for some convoluted reason I already forgot. But, if that is true, awesome.

It has always been there. It was in RoM. While in the city screen Ctrl-A, I think. It is considered a cheat since the AI can't do something similar.