How about explorers and city trading?

Post by **wieder** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 11:14 am

LT35 didn't have explorer as a start unit but instead more workers. Should we keep that for LT36 or how about adding one?

City trading is another matter the last few games didn't have. How about adding that to LT36? Would it be too powerful?

edrim · Post by **edrim** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 12:06 pm

wieder wrote:City trading is another matter the last few games didn't have. How about adding that to LT36? Would it be too powerful?

This would bring ugly moves to our game again.
How about to set size -5 after conquering or bribing? maybe after trading too if it will pass to bring city trading.

Post by **Corbeau** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 1:25 pm

I am definitely in favour of city trading because it is the most natural thing to do.

However, I'm aware of abuses it can bring. But the abuses could be countered.

Wonders:
simply make all wonders worthy of such abuse "Small Wonders". Also, is it possible to set that, after a city changes hands by any means, a wonder is destroyed?

Making it impossible to bribe cities by giving them to an ally with democracy:
"Bribe city" option is highly unrealistic and overpowered and I wouldn't mind it flying out the window, either completely disabling it or making it extremely difficult.

Any other abuses?

Post by **wieder** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 2:09 pm

Bribing a city is not that easy since the players can build the mausoleum of mausolos that will prevent bribing cities. It's effective for a reasonable long period of time but not forever.

In addition to that the 2nd palace small wonder prevents bribing the city it's located in.

With city trading I don't really know how to shrink the cities if they are traded. Another abuse with it is giving units to another player and also giving the less developed cities to a player who can build more advanced buildings and troops in it.

Giving units works like this: home the units you want to give to a city you are about to trade and once it's traded home the units to some other city. After that you can give the city back.

Post by **Corbeau** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 4:02 pm

wieder wrote:With city trading I don't really know how to shrink the cities if they are traded. Another abuse with it is giving units to another player and also giving the less developed cities to a player who can build more advanced buildings and troops in it.

Giving units works like this: home the units you want to give to a city you are about to trade and once it's traded home the units to some other city. After that you can give the city back.

That is not abuse. This way someone still has to spend resources to build stuff. If two players are allies, it doesn't really matter if one has to spend 120 shields for something and the other has to spend 30, or if they have to spend 75-75. The final result is the same.

Post by **wieder** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 5:03 pm

From that point of view it's not an abuse but that still makes it possible to build better units for the same amount of shields. There is a difference if you build diplomats or spies while using the same number of shields.

Post by **Corbeau** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 7:15 pm

wieder wrote:From that point of view it's not an abuse but that still makes it possible to build better units for the same amount of shields.

And you are paying for them, or the one that is building them is.

Nope. There Ain't No Thing As A Free Lunch here.

You haven't convinced me, but it's your game. You will do as you please, as always.

cgalik · Post by **cgalik** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 7:37 pm

I too don't think we should have city trading. As it allows for strategies of one player that has mausoleum hold the cities for 22.9 hours of the turn so enemy can't bribe the city, but then right before TC trading it back to other player just for the TC. Then trading it right back.

Post by **wieder** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 9:37 pm

It's not really about getting a free lunch or not but about getting some advantage. I really think building improvements like SDI for a player without the tech for SDI gives some advantage. Or something similar to that.

Yeah, holding the cities for most of the turn is one way to abuse city trading. Probably better not change that setting and leave city trading off.

Bringing back the explorer might be better than leaving it out but let's see about that once I get the map settings about right. For LT35 it was kind of more fair

to leave out the explorer since it was a team game and the team was able to help if there was a problem with founding the cities. It may not be an issue if the map is right but yeah...

Lord_P · Post by **Lord_P** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 11:46 am

Maybe we could make more use of the 'nationality' of citizens in cities. I find it already a bit unrealistic that a player can quickly capture a lot of cities then move on leaving a tiny garrison to hold them. if there was more effect from citizens revolting in newly acquired cities, also with a percentage chance that the city will revert to its previous owner if not subdued, then that would also make bribing and city trading less effective. Sure you could give someone a city, but then they will have to invest time and units to prevent it switching allegiance.

Post by **Corbeau** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 11:57 am

^----------- this!

Post by **wieder** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 12:18 pm

Does anyone know how (and if) this nationality can be done with 2.5?

Post by **Corbeau** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 12:50 pm

Hm, interesting enough, I found this in cities.ruleset in civ2civ3 folder:

Code: Select all

[citizen]
nationality   = TRUE            ; account for the nationality of the citizens
convert_speed = 50              ; base probability 50/1000 -> once every 20 turns
partisans_pct = 75              ; percentage of own nationality to inspire partisans
                                ; if 0, original city owner information is used instead

...which should mean it's already switched on. Lord_P, did you notice any effects when you were conquering cities?

Post by **wieder** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 12:58 pm

If the owner of the city is also the original founder of that city then there will be partisans if that city is conquered. This of course requires thet the owner of the city knows communism and at least one player in the game has found guerilla warfare. However I'm not sure what the convert speed means. Maybe something has been changed from 2.3.

This game should have plenty of surprises to everyone

Post by **Corbeau** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 1:13 pm

If I'm reading it right, (every?) citizen of a conquered city has a probability to convert to the new owner's nationality each turn.

I'm not sure about the other one. What you said works in the old version.

HanduMan · Post by **HanduMan** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 4:59 pm

When a city is conquered all of it's remaining citizens hold the nationality of the former owner. They are gradually converted under the new owner's flag. Corbeau's interpretation sounds about right to me.

"base probability" usually implicates that there could exist some effect type for increasing or decreasing the value. A quick browse on current effect types revealed only this one

Enemy_Citizen_Unhappy_Pct
During war, citizens of enemy nationality are more unhappy. Value of this effect tells how many percents of the enemy citizens in cities get unhappy because of the war.

Does not really sound like a modifier to convert_speed but still interesting in this context.

The other one is the he percentage of current (or in fact, previous) owner's national ctizens required to be able to inspire partisans if conquered. As it says in the comment. I think the originality of the owner does not count anymore.