Game mechanics

[Nelphine]

Oh right. Yes I agree, militarist seems to have been the biggest source of wars, so without it the whole game feels different. But I haven't played enough of the new diplomacy to say if something needs to be tweaked to bring more wars back.

I'd still add peaceful allies into the 'low relations' restriction, even though its not low relations - it definitely feels like its a very similar type of war.

[Seravy]

City data byte 17h looks unused, I checked the entire game code and couldn't find a reference to it (which doesn't mean it's guaranteed to be unused, but it's very likely).
An even safer bet would be to split byte 16h which is 0 for "no building sold" and 1 for "building sold, keeping this function in the first bit and storing the "bought" status in the second.
btw, how much should the increased unit buy cost be? 4x instead of 2x?

[zitro1987]

My preference would be 3X (4X seems overly harsh)

[Nelphine]

I would definitely do the '4-6x if less than 50% of production is done; 3x if 50% or more is done'. The purpose is to avoid rushing units, but finishing off one that's barely short of completing next turn isn't really a problem.

[Seravy]

One more question, what about settlers? Buying them for gold is certainly a powerful tactic (which I do often) and I have no problem with making it more expensive (it encourages building some basic infrastructure first), the problem I see with that is, delays typically mean the AI gets to the destination first, wasting the settler.

I don't want a variable cost based on completion percentage.

At 3x cost, a typical good unit like a magician or slinger still costs only 300-360g. That's easily affordable after a conquest, though spamming multiples might not be. I think it should be in the 4-6x range somewhere.

[zitro1987]

Buying settlers could have the same higher multiplier cost as military units, lessening the incentive somewhat.

[Seravy]

The unit buying cost change will be up for voting because I found people who don't want it (Hadriex included). I think it would be good but honestly, I'm only 75% sure myself. It's such a fundamental change, I can't even imagine all the consequences.

EDIT : Poll is up on my site!

[Domon]

4x/6x range, sure. but make some high-end buildings reduce it, maybe?

[Seravy]

Meanwhile, new ideas!
Since we need storing new data for the city anyway and I found a way to do so...
what if, instead of buying units becoming more expensive, we had restrictions on when it is allowed to buy stuff in general?

A. Buying units is disabled after a city changes controllers for X turns : you cannot buy new garrisoning units in the enemy city right after you conquered it to fix the problem with not needing reinforcements
or
B. Producing units is disabled in this case instead, not just buying them - might be a bit too drastic but might even work better
and/or
C. Buying units is disabled for X turns after you bought something already : so you cannot spam-buy the same unit over and over again in the same city. (buildings are fine)

I'm not a fan of C, but A makes sense, it shouldn't be possible to rush produce quality military in a city you're still in the process of taking control of. You have to find an appoint suitable new leaders and stuff, it isn't like the enemy wizard's governors will stay in the city and organize the production for you after your dragons march in and set things on fire.

(in all cases this would apply to the AI as well)

On a philosophical side,  I always wondered why is it even possible to buy a unit for money. I mean, the weapons and horses I understand, but no amount of money makes a random peasant into a trained paladin who knows how to use a sword instantly - though following the same logic, no amount of "production" should either.

[GermanJoey]

I picture it as you buying the equipment and then putting it on some mercenary, or something like that.