Learn how easy it is to sync an existing GitHub or Google Code repo to a SourceForge project! See Demo

Close

#149 FF Minuit vs. land claiming

open
nobody
5
2013-05-05
2012-04-18
Pavel Jelínek
No

The release description of 0.10.2 says: "Player colonies no longer greedily claim all the available land, allowing more control of native alarm".

I think that if I have Peter Minuit, it is always advantageous to manually claim all 8 tiles near any new colony (I suppose this will prevent tension from my military units on those squares, am I wrong?)

Is it not strange that the program forces me to do it manually?
Pavel

Discussion

  • Mike Pope
    Mike Pope
    2012-04-18

    > I think that if I have Peter Minuit, it is always advantageous to manually claim all 8 tiles near any new colony

    No it is not. Any land you claim continually increases tension with nearby native settlements. This change was made so that a small isolated colony can claim just the tiles it needs so as to minimize tension. Consider a colony consisting of just the center tile and a silver miner on a silver resource, very close to the Aztec capital --- do you want it to claim 2 tiles or 9 tiles? Because there is no way to `unclaim' tiles, it is best not to claim them in the first place unless you are sure you want them.

     
  • Pavel Jelínek
    Pavel Jelínek
    2012-04-20

    MPope wrote: "Any land you claim continually increases tension with nearby
    native settlements"

    I must admit that this surprises me a lot. Does it increase tension if I don't have Minuit and I pay for the land that I want to use?

    a) If yes, then I feel cheated by the dialog "This land belongs to Aztec; would you like to:", because the dialog does not disclose this.
    b) If no, then I feel cheated by the description of Minuit. And by the fact, that Minuit rids me of the possibility to acquire land without creating tension (if I am willing to pay)

    Am I wrong in this course of deductions?
    Pavel

     
  • Mike Pope
    Mike Pope
    2012-04-20

    I think you are wrong to feel cheated. Minuit avoids the *large* one-time penalty you pay for stealing land. It does not promise that you will live in peace and happiness for ever after. Nor does the Aztec dialog. Paying for the land avoids the stealing penalty, that is all. This is a completely different thing from the small but continual increase of tension that is present every turn when Europeans are near native Americans, and which seems to me to be historically justifiable.

     
  • Pavel Jelínek
    Pavel Jelínek
    2012-04-21

    I would not feel cheated if the tension came from my units. But if it comes from the presence of my _land_ neir theirs, then why did I pay for it? I paid, because I thought it would produce no tension.

    So I agree with you only partly.

     
  • Mike Pope
    Mike Pope
    2012-04-21

    You paid for the land to prevent an immediate nasty reaction. When the natives see what you are doing with it later (building houses, building roads, intensive agriculture, etc) they get annoyed. As I keep saying, your cultures have very different ideas about land use. Then there is also your colonists who are constantly needling the natives, no matter how favourable your official native affairs policy is. Eventually you hear that atrocities have been committed. It seems your two people's have a very difficult time getting along. Expecting a one-off transaction in the distant past to forever prevent tension between two disparate groups in close proximity is optimistic at best.

     
  • pe9298
    pe9298
    2013-05-04

    I regard this as a Bug. I thought I had filed a bug report "Peter Minuit broken" but I cannot find it now.

    This is why I think it is a bug.

    I started my game carefully without taking any Indian land. I was not very close to the Indian villages. I recruited Peter Miniut, then took the nearby Indian, ofc without payment.

    Almost immediately, I was at war with the Indians, which lasted 100 years!

    It was not that the land I acquired had been put to use that the Indians didn't like, they just didn't like me taking their land, the " an immediate nasty reaction" mentioned above.

    It seems to me that Peter Minuit is a disadvantage. He just removes the possibility to pay for land. He has no effect on reducing tension when you take the land.

     
  • Mike Pope
    Mike Pope
    2013-05-05

    I just checked (even adding a logging message, git.b250b97) that with Minuit in congress you do not attract the immediate native tension penalty associated with stealing land. It is working as designed, and as documented for Col1.

    I was not very close... they just didn't like me taking their land, the " an immediate nasty reaction" mentioned above

    This is pretty vague. How close is "not very"? What was the tension with the nearby settlement/s and tribe when you took the land? How immediate is "immediate"? Are you near a native capital? How big is the tribe? Missionaries? Trade? Armed units present? Difficulty level? Stance/tension handling is a complicated system, there are a lot of variables, all unquantified in this discussion. You are going to have a hard time convincing me that something wrong is happening without a saved game, instructions on what you did and what you saw. Be warned however, I am pretty confident that I will find that the tension was already high enough that the extra end of turn tension rise due to more nearby European encroachment was enough to push the natives over into hostility.

    It comes down to this:

    • Do not expect to keep the peace with neighbouring natives without a huge effort. No real world colonial power was completely successful at it, so neither should FreeCol's.

    • Minuit is pretty underpowered, I rarely recruit him. OTOH, apparently his famous purchase of Manhatten is clouded by claims that the selling tribe did not exactly have the best claim to the land anyway. So there is a nice historical parallel for his in-game weakness.

     
    Last edit: Mike Pope 2013-05-05