Dracosolon
King
Leoreth, this is as good as any an opportunity to ask: do you have some sort of general design philosophy over how much historical "railroading" you want in this mod, and how you judge if there's too much/too few of it?
Or just completely remove city distance limit?Just wondering is it ok to make “city movement” possible? Sometime settlement distance limit can be disappointing e.g, playing as China from 600bc, having Nanjing and not being able to build Shanghai later.
I guess it would be better if players can move settled city like about 1 tile for some pop and building maybe stability lost, or just simply disband city during peace. It can represent “town-to-city” competition in a small area. Some evolution in human settlement, I think.
Also, is it possible to have some food transportation between cities? This will help a lot in simulating a more modern world.
It's for programming or gaming reason? Just asking.No, sorry.
What about a defensive pact with a nation's superior state aka you have a defensive pact with X whose vassal is Y, can you rebase to a city owned by Y?No, this has been changed. You either need to have a defensive pact or vassal relationship.
I'd like to suggest a change for Multilateralism/Defensive Pacts:
As we all know, late game is often riddled with constant warfare on a global scale due to how Defensive Pacts tend to construct a very complex web. The downside to this is the huge amount of negative stability you gain from running Multilateralism and being dragged in to those huge wars through Defensive Pacts. The AI especially struggles with this, as it wants to both sign a lot of Defensive Pacts and run Multilateralism. I honestly see a couple of options here: Either change Multilateralism's bonus in a way that it no longer requires you to sign Defensive Pacts in order to gain the full value of the civic or just change how Defensive Pacts work later on in the game (or both!).
My first suggestions is that instead of a Defensive Pact giving the 100% income bonus, the bonus in Multilateralism would be tied to having Friendly relations with another civilization. I feel this would still be in line with Multilateralism representing a goverment willing to co-operate with other nations while not requiring you to sign those Defensive Pacts. It would also promote a "peaceful, non warring and welfare civilization" -type of play. Imo you can easily be a Multilateral country even if you don't agree to go full on war every single time any nation happens to calls for it.
And as I mentioned, my other proposal is in regard to how Defensive Pacts work. The current way Defensive Pacts work if I understand correctly, is a left over from original RFC. I do like how RFC/DOC -style Defensive Pacts work for the WW1/WW2 era, and I think they help a lot in creating those global scale wars. And don't get me wrong, I DO ENJOY having a WW1 and WW2, but once time moves on and the game is "past that point", I feel something should change so as to prevent a full on global world war beginning again and again every few turns until the end of time. Perhaps the construction of the United Nations or some bill passed in it could change how Defensive Pacts work from that point on for ex. returning the Defensive Pact rules to vanilla BtS rules or something of the sorts?