A neat bug

[pvzh]

Palace as Tourist Attraction

Palace as Tourist Attraction

Actually, I already tested in my personal mod that I play sometimes and I forced to drop it.

Bonus increases very very fast turn-wise.

This had several effects.
1. It is very easy to keep capital content using luxury slider if you build a wonder in the capital.
2. Literature is very important. Building library ASAP is very very benefitial (you have ~10+ commerce from TA at that time).
3. Ancient age flying really fast.
4. If you archer rush AI capital, you putting it in far bigger hole than in normal game.
5. You really really should not walk around with your first settler.

TA might be used for small wonders like FP, since it comes sigificantly later, or HE; however, this will require removal of "require victorious army" flag and putting a tech requirement on (Writing? Literature? Philosphy?), so AI will not build it too early.

Edit: Small wonders are a valid choice for TA flag since it is not greyed out for them, so we do not circumvent any game mechanics by using it.

[JimiD]

From the editor I understood TA increased every 100 turns, is this still correct?

[pvzh]

to The Pirate: No

TA kicks in on the next turn after 1000 years is past, than it add another +2 every 200-250 years or so (number of turns is irrelevant). I do not remember all details, but I am sure that +14 commerce is max (after 2500 years) and the first +2 you get on he next turn as 1000 years are past.

TA is commerce: it is reduced by corruption, allocated by sliders, multiplied by respective tax and science improvements.

[Moonbars]

adding the bonus to a palace is pointless, because every civ starts with one, and hence would get the same bonus - no advantage to be made with it.

[Modo44]

Originally posted by Moonbars
adding the bonus to a palace is pointless, because every civ starts with one, and hence would get the same bonus - no advantage to be made with it.

Oh, but it does. Only the human will deliberately Palace-jump. This would be an incentive not to do it. Also, the bonus means more (% of total income) for small civs, making it just a bit harder for large civs to dominate the game.

The drawback is, the cash could become quite big, as the Palace starts in 4000 BC. It could hurt the balance between governments, allowing a small Republic to survive with relatively large military.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Modo44

Oh, but it does. Only the human will deliberately Palace-jump. This would be an incentive not to do it.

I haven't seen any evidence of players' palace jumping so often that we need to provide an incentive not to do it. Rather, whether or not to do it is an interesting strategic choice, and I think dramatically devaluing that choice would do more harm than good.

[Moonbars]

Originally posted by nbarclay


I haven't seen any evidence of players' palace jumping so often that we need to provide an incentive not to do it. Rather, whether or not to do it is an interesting strategic choice, and I think dramatically devaluing that choice would do more harm than good.

Lol, you beat me to it I agree.

The cost of a new palace is more than enough to detere the human re-positioning his capital.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Moonbars

The cost of a new palace is more than enough to detere the human re-positioning his capital.

It sounds like you may not be familiar with the free palace jump trick. If you disband your capital city, the palace will automatically move to another city without your having to build a new palace. Which city it will move to is determined by a combination of city size and (as a lesser factor) how many other of your cities are nearby, so it is possible to control where the capital will move to by having the target be bigger than other cities. That's a whole lot faster and cheaper than building a palace, but the fact that it requires disbanding an established city that probably has some improvements in it still makes the tactic expensive enough that players have to think twice about it.

[alexman]

Palace jumping was very much worth it in PTW. In fact, I used to plan for it in most of my games (so that I didn't have to rely on leader luck to get an early efficient empire).

In C3C, however, the new corruption model for the FP has made the Palace jump tactic all but obsolete.

[Moonbars]

Originally posted by nbarclay


It sounds like you may not be familiar with the free palace jump trick.

Wasn't aware of that! Sounds a bit excessive, disbanding a whole city, to move your palace. Also sounds like bug/exploit/cheat to me!!

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Moonbars

Wasn't aware of that! Sounds a bit excessive, disbanding a whole city, to move your palace. Also sounds like bug/exploit/cheat to me!!

Compared with the cost of building a palace the normal way, it's not excessive at all, at least if you do it early before the capital is all that well developed. As for the bug/exploit/cheat issue, I'd feel a lot worse about using it if Firaxis hadn't made the cost of moving the palace the normal way so absurdly expensive.

[pvzh]

Sounds a bit excessive

Nothing really excessive. It costs you a granary, a settler and maybe barracks: grand total of 90-130 shields. However, as alexman noted you rarely need it in C3C due to corruption model. You need to see the situation that lend itself to it very early: from a strating position or so.

In C3C I did it only once with seafaring civ (Vikings): being on penisula I archer rushed Chinese along with some rexing, I jumped to location close to more productive and well-centred chinese land.

[joncnunn]

I'm kind of late to the Colosseums discussion, but:

1. Making Colosseums Militerstic.

2. Making any normal city improvement a tourtist atraction

This should result in Milterstic civs building Colosseums instead of Catherdrials. (Are at least first)

As for making the Palace itself a Tourist Attraction my guess is that it would be much more noticable on a small empire than a big one.