Vote for squatting

[Rhye]

OK, as Pacifist seems so worried by this change and he's going to leave this forum, I want now to hear other people's opinion on squatting.

Honestly, I don't care that much about this issue, so I could in fact restore previous settings, leaving to the player the choice to be honest or not to be (but in the current state, squatting is actually still possible, at the cost of a war, anyway).

 

[Maaximillus]

I think its exploit and should be fixed (like it has been already) and so far i havent seen anyone but pacifist worry about it. And you could always release file that makes it possible for thoose who like to use exploits.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

Voting--damn representation and universal suffrage. Police state all the way!

Anarchist Colin Ward comments: "Squatting is the oldest mode of tenure in the world, and we are all descended from squatters. This is as true of the Queen [of the United Kingdom] with her 176,000 acres as it is of the 54 per cent of householders in Britain who are owner-occupiers. They are all the ultimate recipients of stolen land, for to regard our planet as a commodity offends every conceivable principle of natural rights."[2]

I wish we could give it a better name than squatting. The Soviets would have called it a natural right of the working proletariat.

 

[kairob]

It is essentially cheating so I am glad that it is fixed.

 

[dionysos2048]

I don't care all that much about it, but I just think squatting adds a bit more variety to the kind of games one can have with RFC. And anyone who considers it as cheating just should be happy the way it used to be as nobody forced them to squat and the AI never does it.

 

[cider]

Can someone please explain what exactly squatting in the game is ? To kill a Nation before it spawns ?

 

[sennomulo]

Squatting means you build your capital in the spawn zone of another civ. It used to be your capital was unflippable; now any city in the spawn zone will flip even if it's your capital, unless you only have the one city.

I voted no. I don't really see a reason for it, game-wise or historically speaking. If you don't like the land your civ is supposed to start on, play another civ.

"Our prophets have foretold of the coming of a great civilization on the Italian peninsula. If we settle over there first instead of over here, the prophets say we can doom them to being nothing more than a footnote in the history books."

 

[Heathcliff]

I voted for to restore so it's allowed. For they only reason that AnotherPacifist seems to care alot for it. Therefore it could be up to the player. But I have never and will never use it in my own games.

 

[blizzrd]

Quite a while back I posted a poll as to what was considered cheating, and I personally voted that squatting was in my opinion cheating.

I have since used it, but it felt wrong to do so (although it was very successful!).

I voted to not allow it.

The only way a civ should be eliminated is if you can destroy all of their starting units when they spawn. This is usually a big ask and takes some preparation work and usually a significant amount of hammers. But moving your palace around (or simply starting with it in Lisbon or Breme) does not and I view it as an exploit.

 

[Jet]

Wasn't the rule that capitals can't flip originally added for some incidental reason anyway?

 

[Charles Martel]

Squatting capitals shouldn't flip, unless, perhaps, you're very unstable or collapsing.

How about this compromise: if your capital is located within another’s civ spawn area, you take a severe stability hit when that other civ spawns (such a stability hit could be similar to that experienced during anarchy: permanent penalty plus temporary drop), and the capital flips only if you fall below a certain stability threshold.

Since squatting seems to be the only way to win conquest/domination on emperor, I wouldn't be so quick in calling it 'an exploit'.

 

[Rhye]

isn't squatting still possible, but at the cost of fighting?

 

[simakis]

I never used it and most likely never would even if it was reinstated so doesnt really matter to me.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Since squatting seems to be the only way to win conquest/domination on emperor, I wouldn't be so quick in calling it 'an exploit'.

That demonstrates too harsh expansion penalties, not the fact that it isn't an exploit.

isn't squatting still possible, but at the cost of fighting?

Not really, since it is too hard to fight the deserting units. You can still destroy a civ by destroying it right at start, trough, which to me is borderline, but ultimately not exploitive.

 

[Cethegus]

I voted for to restore so it's allowed. For they only reason that AnotherPacifist seems to care alot for it. Therefore it could be up to the player. But I have never and will never use it in my own games.

Same here. I think it should be made possible (maybe a separate file?) but I've used it only once myself when playing as the Spanish. I denied Portugal their rightful land but avoided doing it ever again; it's just a very cheap way to play. Maybe it's necessary on Emperor or in conquest/domination games, but a regular Monarch UHV style of play should remain honest.

Besides, doesn't exploiting come up with a cost? Every exploit that I've heard so far (early American colonization, squatting, destroying a civ right at the start) isn't really very cheap, although using them is.

Personally I don't see squatting as such a big exploit as whipping your Roman cities below the size of 5 in the olden days used to be, so you could bypass the UHV requirement. I say make squatting possible, it's up to the player to use it anyway (although it doesn't make very much historical sense to be honest).

 

[Lone Wolf]

early American colonization, squatting,

Those two aren't even comparable.

Besides, doesn't exploiting come up with a cost?

Move your French settler to Breme, settle it. Where's the cost? One turn?

 

[Ekolite]

I think it should be allowed. If people don't like it then they just wont do it.

French squatting at Breme rules.

 

[FenrirWolf]

I'm going to keep playing Bablyon with Civs spawing all around me so I'm not too pushed as I'll never use it. Would it not be simpler just to say where the line in the python is (approximately) and then people can switch it on or off as they wish. We're all (or nearly all) changing things to suit our playing style anyway (Rhye's explanation notes in the python are greatly appreciated) and this way Rhye isn't having to change, not change, change back, twirl on the spot etc for something we'll all end up editing anyway.

So Rhye, which file and which command?

Babylon on three continents in 1858 does not happen without stability changes ... but by golly its fun


.... Some time later

Just looked through RiseAndFall Python file. Found two references to
if (city.getOwner() == iHuman):
if (not city.isCapital()):
humanCityList.append(city)
before getting totally lost in other talk about Capitals.

So basically I suspect my suggestion isn't as simple as increasing the bonus for having Free Religion and Emanciapation. Apologies if any offense caused.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I think it should be allowed. If people don't like it then they just wont do it.

By that logic, why not allow people to build an 1-turn Modern Armor from the start? If people don't like it then they just wont do it.

 

[onedreamer]

Squatting is silly. Let's see if "we" can win conquest games without it ? Maybe starting areas will finally be used properly