Yes, certainly a larger civ will get more resourses, but it's still not enough. Especially the crop resourses that supply only 1 city, more than a half city can't share them. Not to mention the resourses transaction.If you have more cities, would you not also control more land and therefore resources?
Yes, certainly a larger civ will get more resourses, but it's still not enough. Especially the crop resourses that supply only 1 city, more than a half city can't share them. Not to mention the resourses transaction.
Honestly I feel like Indonesia's current UP is really hard to represent with the current game mechanics without making it really unpredictable. The current UP would work best with Civ 5's Trade Routes, and from what I've heard Civ 4's Trade Routes are so resource intensive that I'm not sure if it'd be a good idea to do anything crazy like checking every trade route for whether it passes through the Core.I'm pretty sure I've made Indonesia UP suggestions before, but here's another:
Resources obtained through trade count as one more for the purposes of access.
So, if you acquire gold through trade, you have 2 gold available. However, probably not stacking—if you acquire 2 gold through trade, you're treated as having 3, not 4.
I think this would better show the significance of trade to the region than the current UP, which occurs very rarely and is underwhelming when it does.
Coming up with a more useful Indonesian UP is on the low prio part of my to do list, I will keep this idea in mind for it.I'm pretty sure I've made Indonesia UP suggestions before, but here's another:
Resources obtained through trade count as one more for the purposes of access.
So, if you acquire gold (edit: the resource, not) through trade, you have 2 gold available. However, probably not stacking—if you acquire 2 gold through trade, you're treated as having 3, not 4.
I think this would better show the significance of trade to the region than the current UP, which occurs very rarely and is underwhelming when it does.
I think you raise three mostly independent action items here:Could we stop AI pillaging the improvements of independent cities, especially the fishing boats.
It doesn't really make sense that when AI Germany wants to conquer Poland, they send their navy to pillage the Moroccan fishing boats. They will lose more many to supply costs than what they get from pillaging.
And it makes even less sense to pillage to fishing boat in Baltic sea when they could just do blockade until they have captured Danzig. Especially when the AI don't seem to prioritize building new work boats.
And overall the AI pillages way too much. I only see the value of pillaging strategic improvements.
Too much pillaging makes it difficult for newborn civs to develop.
Another related problem is that AI likes to rebuilt improvements top of existing ones which prevents cottages growing.
They build workshop on top of cottage and then cottage top of workshop,... ad infinitum.
Or even worse, they they do the same thing for deer camp which of course removes the forest.
Coming up with a more useful Indonesian UP is on the low prio part of my to do list, I will keep this idea in mind for it.
I think you raise three mostly independent action items here:
- Stop the AI from pillaging independents: that makes sense all around and is easily implemented
- Reduce overall AI propensity to pillage: might be less easy to change, but I am not familiar with the related code at all. Maybe there is one part of the AI that is responsible for the indiscriminate pillaging that I can limit/disable.
- Stop the AI from constant improvement replacement: I am really not sure what is causing this because I did not touch the code besides adding values for new improvement effects (such as health/happiness), which shouldn't have an impact on the replace behaviour. I encountered this "bug" before and it's really hard to track down what is responsible for it. In general the AI should be able to decide that it wants a different improvement that is regarded as more useful, but I feel like it should be less willing to replace a grown improvement, and apparently the algorithm has issues where the currently present improvement always is worse than some other leading to constant replacement. I tried before to put an end to that but without much success. Maybe the only or at least better way to go here is to start using the K-Mod improvement AI.