The Sinister Scheme of Dr. Fu Manchu

I had always assumed that we were settling vranasm's spot 1NW of the Horses (actually, I thought the entire roster had implicitly if not explicitly agreed to that), and therefore you can't settle 'black dot' as well as the cities are too close (two tiles), and 1S of 'black dot' even more so!
 
Oh right. The 1NW horsey spot. I guess that makes some kind of sense to me. Kind of... :confused:

Ok, I re-read the posts with screenshot open in front of me. They make a little more sense now. So Are we still going to settle 1NW of horses? Can we even due to the culture there? Plus, thanks to V Frown, It doesn't look doable anymore anyway. What about settling on the Stone? Just a random thought, thrown out for shirts* and giggles... :D
 
Oh right. The 1NW horsey spot. I guess that makes some kind of sense to me. Kind of... :confused:

Ok, I re-read the posts with screenshot open in front of me. They make a little more sense now. So Are we still going to settle 1NW of horses? Can we even due to the culture there? Plus, thanks to V Frown, It doesn't look doable anymore anyway. What about settling on the Stone? Just a random thought, thrown out for shirts* and giggles... :D

If we apply V's logic - fast development short-term, long-term L4-L5 city, its OK - enough tiles for both Troyan Horse city and V Frown. So, it's doable. The hidden cost is in settling Troyan Horse city (THC) in the STEAD of another city. And losing potential to grow as the THC will in 40-50 years (after Bureacracy, at the latest) be deprived of the tiles with cottages, that will go over to the capital (they will provide 50% more income when worked by it then, as compared to being worked by THC) from this point on - and till biology at least, but more likely - till the end of the game, THC will be mostly working the remaining 3 grasslands, the horses and a hill or a cottaged plain, as there will be no surplus food to work other tiles (incidentally, it might work the 2 shared (w/ Snarl) cottaged FPs, but that's incidentally. That is to be compared for a long period of time of another, higher level food city, working 3-4 additional cottages, turned into towns, or close to that. Of course, we might not live till that time, but most probably we will make it through these 80-100 turns where the balance of gold production will be reversed - between a hypothetical OTHER city and the THC - and will more than offset the short-term advantage of settling the THc. Now, with time comes inflation and the increase in value of techs, the so called scaling, IIRC, or interpret correctly. But we are talking also about a lot more turns to pass AFTER the 80-100 turns of counterbalancing, too. Again, it's possible that we are victorious around 1000 AD , but we might very well not be that by that time.

V argues that it's clear as daylight that no other option is preferable. I think this is not a clear-cut issue, and if we have a longer game, then settling THC might very well be a mistake.

I'll post an example below, with comparing roughly the settling of the dot just below (1S) of the lake in our SW (below Nottingham), where it might become somewhat more clear.

Let me emphasize once again: if we were not talking about a city with no good food source in its fat cross, being sure that we shall use even the only two surplus-food tiles, the FPs, for cottages, AND if there was a real strategic resource (like the horses, but w/o us already having them from another source) I won't be objecting. I don't do overlapping cities if I am not pressed to do this, but I understand more or less well the advantages that it might bring and consider that not considering this option carefully is a weakness of mine.

I will conclude this post, before going into the comparison between the THC and the Evil Gold City (see above, the dot below the lake in our SW), that I am far from convinced that settling the THC is a good decision, although I might need to settle it anyway during my turn if nobody else supports the EGC as 4th settlement: see Cam's post above (seems this is the current dot for 4th settlement that has most support, I haven't discarded it completely, too: see my reference to the carte blanche that V was given before he forfeited the last 7-8 turns of his turn set).
 
I have put my explanation why the horse city with 2 FP's overlap is our best bet right now. If it doesn't convincing enough, fair.

You do realize that the SW city (1S of lake) is 5 tiles away, meaning 10T for roading to the place. Another 4T for improving pigs.
Needs monument (depending on food) will probably grow to size 2 in 7T, whips monument, pops borders at +10 (17T after settling) at which point you need another 4T for improving gold (we will suppose that the place will be already preroaded), meaning we won't get from this place any kind of commerce and happiness until 21!! turns after settling the spot?

meaning if you go with settler now, whip it in 3T (+- could be maybe 4) + 5T going in the place making the place effective in awesome 29(30) turns? that means 3 turnsets from now on we will wait and watch the city to make any kind of impact!
The clams will come at first border pop too.

And no the city doesnt secure our left wing, if anything it does it actually WEAKENS our position from strategic point of view, due to logistics (5T for reinforcements).


On the other hand MY horsey city is 3 tiles away from capital, river connected (no roading needed!!), have preimproved cottages around capital to work good tiles from get go (you did make the cottages, right?) and is productive right after settling (works cottages which are 3F3C that's 6 yield tiles and eventually gets better!).

From strategic point of view is easily defendable and just makes our empire more compact.

Let me try to compare in more detail the settlement of the dot 1NW of the eastern horses - the Troyan Horse City, THC - with the settlement of the dot 1S of the lake below Nottingham in our SW - the Evil Gold City, EGC.

Before that, let me say that, roughly, we need something like 24-25 turns to get EGC functional with regard to it being roaded to the capital - and BoS at least - with a pasture and a gold mine all working. Granted, 5 turns earlier is not that big deal, and in deed, it's more the effect AFTER that, that makes the difference.

Scenario:
Comparison of the $-effect of settling THC vs EGC

Assumptions:
roading 1 tile takes 2 turns,
cottage on fp takes 6 turns,
cottage on plains takes 5 turns,
cottage on grass takes 4 turns
pasture takes 4 turns, mine takes 4 turns
start is at one and the same moment with 1 settler and 1 worker available in Snarl
available - already built - cottages on THC FPs are deemed inexistant, as they are already used by Snarl, and we compare what are the consequences of settling two different dots,
we compare gold / income outcomes only (not food and/or hammers) and aim at max gold production

Possible turnset (there might be inaccuracies, but this should give the rough picture of what we are talking about:

t1: settlers start running to the dots, THC worker starts cotage #1, EGC worker makes haste toward the pigs
t2: THC founded
t4: EGC founded, EGC worker starts pasturing pigs, EGC starts monastery at 2h+1f10
t6: THC cottage #1 finished, THC worker moves onto 2nd FP and starts 2nd cottage
t7: EGC pigs pastured
t8: EGC worker starts road from pig pasture to Snarl's cow pasture (3 tiles, 6 turns)
t10: EGC becomes L2 (4*1f+3*6f=22f) and whips monument (not sure this is possible at that exactly moment, however)
t12: THC cottage #2 finished, worker starts cottage #3 on plain by river
t13: EGC worker finishes hooking up the EGC with Snarl & BoS
t14: EGC worker moves onto tile 1W of EGC
t15: EGC worker starts roading the Gold mine (2 tiles, 4 or 5 turns)
t16: THC cottage #1 becomes hamlet
t17: THC worker finishes cottage #3
t18: THC worker moves onto grass and starts cottage #4
t20: EGC pops culture, worker starts mining gold
t21: THC worker finishes cottage #4
t22: THC cottage#2 upgrades to village
t23: EGC worker finishes mine

So, on, or about t24 we have: 2 villages and two cottages functioning in THC, and a pasture and a gold mine functioning in EGC (please, note that the idea was also to buid first a monument in THC, so no big differences arise from buildings in the cities.

Now, what is the situation around t24:

THC produces (w/o center) 2*4+2*3 gold, or 14 gold

EGC produces 8 gold.

Besides, the THC has already produced (w/o center, a couple of $ could be added due to later start of EGC) about 120 gold.

That's a speed-up, and a very cosiderable amount to invest, of course.
And THC is currently producing more gold and will increase the production of gold from running cottages.

However, the LUX resource allows for an additional cottage in min three of our cities: Snarl, BoS and EGC. Ina couple of turns, this means 3*3 - 9 gold. This already is AN ADDITIONAL COTTAGE from that moment on. Road the Frown, you get one more ADDITIONAL COTTAGE, settle a 5th city, or conquer a city, and you get an additional cottage in the balance of EGC vs THC.

Note: with only one additional cottage, the next 40 turns even up the balance. With two, it's the next 20 turns or so.

Now, THC has almost dried up its potential of development, read: more cottages. Even if these are to be set up, they will just REPLACE the 2FPs that will go to the Snarl, and at a lower $-productivity at that!

While with getting fishing - some time later on - and without any investment of worker time we get two $3g additions, add the additional cottages by EGC, and the tiles with only $3 on the coast, and the balance - in the longer-term is in no way clearly in favor of THC ( I have again to emphasize that THC is restricted to a 4-6 L growth as it has no other food resource in its fat cross, while EGC is restricted by and large by its hap and health cap only.)

Even getting inflation and scaling into the picture, there seems to be no doubt that the comparison is hardly in favor of THC in the long-term, not so much as a result of the overlap, as a result of a limited food supply AND an overlap.

As I have already stated in my previous posts, situations change. A potential change might be in THC favor...when? If we gain victory by let's say 1400 AD. If we get another gold in some of our mines (very doubtful), or we get gold mine conquering Korea, America and/or India - again, by 1400 AD, approx. If we lose EGC to the Brits or whomever. And that's about it.

I choose the EGC. What about you?
 
I did computations too and put them in excel and made screenshot of the excel so we can see it.

It's turn by turn simulation of those 2 cities.

I hope i didn't do there any mistakes. The tiles which are run are supposed to be improved at the time of needing them.
One thing is that the lake city could have chopped the grassland forest changing it from 2f1h to 3f0h and am not so sure if it will grow 1T sooner, but anyway the commerce difference is the horsey city produces in next 29 turns 2x the commerce of lake city.

Oops i did there mistake at T27 grows hamlet to village in capital, so there should be more 2C at the end.

The hammers are questionable in which they go.

 
btw one of the problems of gold city is its lack of good tiles to work.

hmm I did there mistake in gold city with not working clams, but that would make the city around 15 commerce better (5x3C on clams in the passage where i work GS).

The city has big food potential, but on size 5 not much good tiles to work.
Would be actually interesting spot for "early" library...

But in this situation i would certainly prefer the city which will generate around 240 commerce over next 29 turns.
 
btw one of the problems of gold city is its lack of good tiles to work.

hmm I did there mistake in gold city with not working clams, but that would make the city around 15 commerce better (5x3C on clams in the passage where i work GS).

The city has big food potential, but on size 5 not much good tiles to work.
Would be actually interesting spot for "early" library...

But in this situation i would certainly prefer the city which will generate around 240 commerce over next 29 turns.

Correct, the big problem with the Lake city is that it has 4 non-workable tiles, 3 tiles are overlap with Nothingham, so won't come handy soon, and there are no good production tiles.

But the L5-size restriction is not there. Even w/o a LH, at +4f from the pigs, +2 from clam, and -2 from the gold mine, it can work those three tiles, lake, 3 grasses and 6 plains / coastal tiles at 0-food surplus. That's a L12 cap, with some 5 cottages at least.

With a LH, that should be available and doable by that time Lake city reaches L12, it can work all tiles but those that are (still) Nottingham's and two of the unworkable tiles (lake+clam+pigs=+8f, gold mine+4 plains, if all N's taken =-6f).

That is a L18 cap with only the pigs producing less than $3 (actually, no gold at all there) if land tiles are cottaged (with the exception of the Gold mine, of course.

BTW, thanks for the nice spreadsheet, well done. I have also calculated the income for these 25 years or so, but didn't put it into the post (that's where the $120 comes from).

I think you have somewhat increased the income from the cottages and speeded up their transformation into villages and hamlets, playing from whatever is already available. That seems to be the correct way to go, as it takes into account the advantage of the overlap with the capital, but then you should be also accounting for the FP tiles being worked form time to time - as it is now, by the capital and not producing the gold you have calculated. However, even with the calculations done the way you have, the difference in income is not much bigger than the $120, which means , most importantly, that all the post-25-turn conclusions I made, hold, more or less: in the next 30 or so turns after the 25th turn from now, or actually, from the time of the emergence of the settler to settle one of the two contending dots, ie, around 60-65 turns from now, the income related to the Lake city's settling, as opposed to Horse city's settling (meaning also the additional tiles, read cottages, that can be worked by all other cities due to the Lux of having Gold) will start to be greater, and will becomegreater, and then much greater, than the one we get from the Horse city (as the latter will never grow beyond L6-7, iirc.

All that said, we are still where we were yesterday.

Now, W, L, if you prefer not to take sides, please, just say so, "I pass" or something similar, on the decision of the next dot to be settled.

If you don't do it within a couple of hours, I'll assume that the circumstances have prevented, and do still prevent you from participating in the team decision-making and will proceed forward with settling the Horse city as supported by Cam and V vs the Lake city as supported by me.
 
the restriction is happy cap and not ability to grow. size 5 hardcap we will have for very long time (it's not hardcap per say, but our target size, since anything above is unproductive eating only gold - each citizen costs gold).

edit;
and I would not mark the 120c difference as marginal in situation where it means that it's basically 2x the amount of commerce.

The lake city will not pay back it's investment before very long time (it's -26g at T29!), where horse city has already paid back and produce 46 gold more in the same amount of time! I am not willing to do extrapolation to guess at which turn the lake city actually finally catches up with horse city, but it will be really long, since the difference in commerce production is only around 20%.

The 2 cottages borrowed will be worked very long time (again due to happy cap issues). It usually is viewed as good game when at 1AD mark (T115) you have capital at size 10.
Capital typically reaches size 20 much much much later. Like around T200 mark.

we are around T62 now...

I am not convinced you really understand the civ mechanics, but I don't want to derail the productive discussion with personal attacks. I just was hoping that after the spreadsheet calculation everything will be "clear".
The mathematical evidence is there and is undisputed.

I can't see anyone argue in this light going with lake city now better then with going now horsey city. If anything we should be hammering our heads against wall because we didn't go with horse city directly as 2nd city.
 
the restriction is happy cap and not ability to grow. size 5 hardcap we will have for very long time (it's not hardcap per say, but our target size, since anything above is unproductive eating only gold - each citizen costs gold).
The mechanics of the game are clearly in favor of bigger-size cities. I will be curious to see a non-organized leader winning a final victory with all her / his cities below L5.

And I don't see how the additional citizen in a L6 city - as compared to aL5 city - which has an additional cottage-hamlet-etc, might COST you gold, except, in some weird way, if you consider everything built as costing you gold, and totally disregard next turns' benefits.

If you mean the investment in additional happiness structures, then it all depends on what you will be getting from and additional tile as compared to what you invest in a temple, for instance. But, however you might be calculating cost, and benefit, you won't be able to prove that early buildings which let you have a higher level city "cost" you more than the addititional tile will let you generate, except in the case of VERY unproductive tiles all around the city. Thinking that way, that it is preferable to keep cities at max L5 all the time, seems a good rationale behind picking the Horse city, but I doubt it has good grounds.

I would gladly learn more on this topic from you or read referenced sources or would be happy to read a clearer explanation about what you might really mean.

edit;
and I would not mark the 120c difference as marginal in situation where it means that it's basically 2x the amount of commerce.).
I have never called it "marginal", I think I called it significant, or something stronger, as I don't underestimate scaling and inflation. Please, do read carefully the posts and kindly try not to distort the meaning of what I have written.

The lake city will not pay back it's investment before very long time (it's -26g at T29!), where horse city has already paid back and produce 46 gold more in the same amount of time! I am not willing to do extrapolation to guess at which turn the lake city actually finally catches up with horse city, but it will be really long, since the difference in commerce production is only around 20%.
You don't seem to understand, or don't want to understand what I have said at least three times in my previous posts: in 60-70 turns the empire as a whole will have generated MORE gold, or a combination of gold and hammers, if we settle the Lake city as opposed to settling the Horse city, and this difference will be increasing ever since that moment till the end of the game, except under some cases which I have pointed out.

The 2 cottages borrowed will be worked very long time (again due to happy cap issues). It usually is viewed as good game when at 1AD mark (T115) you have capital at size 10.
Capital typically reaches size 20 much much much later. Like around T200 mark.

we are around T62 now... .
Look like good points, but without any reference to the comparison of settling the one or the other dot. The significance of working the shared 2 FPs that will let you get a few additional pieces of gold has been imputed in the comparison.

I am not convinced you really understand the civ mechanics, but I don't want to derail the productive discussion with personal attacks..
Glad to hear this, but I guess, I need not thank you for this, or should I?

I just was hoping that after the spreadsheet calculation everything will be "clear".
The mathematical evidence is there and is undisputed.

I can't see anyone argue in this light going with lake city now better then with going now horsey city. If anything we should be hammering our heads against wall because we didn't go with horse city directly as 2nd city.

The spreadsheet proves nothing that was not already in my posts. Either you don't get my point, or I have some VERY GROSS fults in my thinking in the game's terms, or in my general way of thinking.

Anyway, I will not discuss this further, as it is useless. I evidently can't make clearer what I am trying to say, and I don't see reasons to buy what you're saying. If there will be further comments that make clear where I might be making false assumptions of conclusions, I'd be willing to read them carefully, of course. At this point, I am not convinced that going Horse city is better than going Lake city.

Anyway, I have played a few turns, and we are at a juncture due to some expected but significant - in my eyes - developments.

I am posting below the save and am asking for comments on:

(1) whether to still go for the Horse city now that the cultural borders of WK's shrine have moved closer,
(2) whether to go a slow Oracle, incl. non-choping, or continue library, forgetting about the building of the Oracle or go fast and do everything possible to get the Oracle, including chopping

I am also not clear what we might expect to get through the Oracle - if we need to go do our best to get it - after researching HBR.

I hope to get your comments within the next 3-4 hours.

Cam, I am willing to wait longer, to hand over the game to the next in queue, or to proceed in any other way you might consider best.

I'll post a brief report, not that anything spectacular has happened, but I can do this not earlier than in three hours from now, sorry!

Please, mind that the settler hasn't started moving, and no hammers have been invested into the Oracle, as before the turn is finished.
 

Attachments

  • Fu Manchu BC-1320.CivWarlordsSave
    127.5 KB · Views: 20
@FR

the difference between us is that you value some longterm eventuallity more then short term gain in commerce I prefer to use. On higher levels you need to use short term gains to gain longterm gains eventually, because the AI's start to have really good bonuses.

The difference between those 2 approaches is for example attack date with your main unit, where more effective empire will attack for example 20 turns sooner just because every coin you invested you get sooner back.

The difference of attack date then can easily mean attacking archers or longbows (the latter probably meaning wasted war preparation, since you will go nowhere with HA's against LB's).

btw yesterday I run in the earth challenge posted by matrix HA rush (on epic speed, which makes it more favorable for human) starting at 775BC! with 6 cities starting production base (it's a huge map, so on standard we really still talk more about 4 cities as equivalent) first AI (Ragnar), completely wiped him in 20 turns, then started the campaign against Rome.

Problem was that Rome got around 100 BC longbows effectively ending the war with me getting 4 cities out of his 14.

I definitely made there a lot of mistakes.
Mistake 1) too long war with Ragnar. 20 turns for 6 cities is too much, should be more like 10-12 (it basically means i did underestimate the force of ragnar).
Mistake 2) late first attack date, I got Oracle->HBR around 1500BC (I didn't prepare the army quick enough - being it not enough chops or whips)!
Mistake 3) not enough chops and not enough workers leading to first 2 mistakes.

So from campaign where I could sit at 1AD mark with around 25 cities I went out with only 18 (we still talk about huge map, so the next best AI has 16!).
 
@FR

the difference between us is that you value some longterm eventuallity more then short term gain in commerce I prefer to use. On higher levels you need to use short term gains to gain longterm gains eventually, because the AI's start to have really good bonuses.

The difference between those 2 approaches is for example attack date with your main unit, where more effective empire will attack for example 20 turns sooner just because every coin you invested you get sooner back.

The difference of attack date then can easily mean attacking archers or longbows (the latter probably meaning wasted war preparation, since you will go nowhere with HA's against LB's).

btw yesterday I run in the earth challenge posted by matrix HA rush (on epic speed, which makes it more favorable for human) starting at 775BC! with 6 cities starting production base (it's a huge map, so on standard we really still talk more about 4 cities as equivalent) first AI (Ragnar), completely wiped him in 20 turns, then started the campaign against Rome.

Problem was that Rome got around 100 BC longbows effectively ending the war with me getting 4 cities out of his 14.

I definitely made there a lot of mistakes.
Mistake 1) too long war with Ragnar. 20 turns for 6 cities is too much, should be more like 10-12 (it basically means i did underestimate the force of ragnar).
Mistake 2) late first attack date, I got Oracle->HBR around 1500BC (I didn't prepare the army quick enough - being it not enough chops or whips)!
Mistake 3) not enough chops and not enough workers leading to first 2 mistakes.

So from campaign where I could sit at 1AD mark with around 25 cities I went out with only 18 (we still talk about huge map, so the next best AI has 16!).

Thanks for this clarification, V!

It makes sense. Faster development - war - use of the spoils for faster development - war-..., and so on, and so on, might be the way to victory on higher levels, indeed. I haven't got the experience to make a judgment. But the game being "moded" in this way seems the only justification for neglegence of longer-term effects of decisions. I guess this is an analogue of the way earlier versions were "moded" by the inherent strength of expansion.
 
citizens cost you money due to civic costs

here is some math about it

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=148840

I think as a rule of thumb it's generally accepted that 1 citizen ~ -1 gpt which the tile/specialist you work should pay back.

This one I don't buy: repercussion #4 there reads:

"Civic upkeep limits fast expansion. When you start developing your empire, then your cities tend to be small and don't make a lot of money. Still a lot of small cities tend to cost a considerable amount in civic upkeep. When the cities grow, the civic upkeep also grows, but not as fast as the commerce production of well developed cities. A city of size 10 will produce far more commerce than a city of size 1 (say 5-20 times as much, depending on how well it is developed), but it will cost less than 3 times as much in civic upkeep. Clearly large cities can cope with civic upkeep cost better than small cities."

But right now the more important questions are the ones directly dealing with the game situation. I was prepared to settle the Horse city as discussed and stated earlier, but, understandably, after the culture pop of WK's shrine my misgivings are even bigger. Do you still support the settling of the Horse city?

Next, as you were the only one by now to insist on not shopping the Oracle - I guess this has to do with the faster production of units on after-math chopping as well as on having something to chop at all - please, clarify: does this non-chopping go in conjunction with opting not to build the Oracle - in which case library>granary seem the better production in the nearest future, or do you have something else in mind. I can't possibly see how working the cottages instead of the production tiles and avoiding chopping can get us the Oracle.
 
civics costs are something that get easily overlooked since it's hidden in financial advisor, but in reality you can pay the same amount of bucks in civic maintenance as by cities maintenance.

Just check the F2 screen and read all those things there.

That's why is important if the civic has low upkeep or high upkeep and sometimes it's better to drop from bureacracy (50% commerce in capital high upkeep) to nationalism (+2 happy per barracks no upkeep) especially in big empires (this being one of the most obvious things that can be counter intuitive, since nat doesn't produce ANY immediate financial benefit except for no upkeep).

And btw this hidden thing means that financial gets overvalued compared to organized (which is imo much better trait then fin). They actually are probably both top traits with cre, exp and philo.
 
This is manipulated SS from our She-Wolves succession game run in parallel here



As you can see we have there 122 gold civic maintenance. We have 30 improvement types that benefit from financial trait (those 6 windmills could be added too if they are riverside).

So in this situation if we compare Organized x Financial:

Financial gets us 30 commerce (COMMERCE! so not even gold or science directly, has to be split by slider, which is 15g and 15 beakers right now.

Organized would mean we have 61 gold lesser upkeep! From the SS you can see we are at 50% slider -32 gold, that would mean we would be probably running slider on 60% not 50% in that situation we would generate 681 beakers instead of 571 (minus those 30 commerce split in 6:4 b:g)
so we would basically gain around 100 beakers per turn just for having another (undervalued) trait.
 
Report Continuation

1520 BC (t4)
Snarl: as it is at cap, switch from library to settler (9t)
Barb warrior kills itself on our warrior on the forested hill - with a lot of good luck on our side, as it is now 0.0/2.0!!!

1480 BC (t5)
MED>PRIEST (3t), but we'll be at 100% research rate for only one - the next - turn
warrior moved on our territory for faster healing
Everybody is cautious with the Dr - as they should be!
We are connected to the trade networks of Gandhi and WK - only.

1440 BC (t6)
BoS: warrior>chariot(25t), warrior moves to the forested hill to the NW below Gandhi's cultural border
2nd cottage by Snarl ready
@80% research we can still get Priesthood in 2 turns, and at +1gpt

1400 BC (t7)
BoS warrior on top of the FH sees Madras (2 archers and a busy worker)
BoS worker starts first cottage by BoS

1360 BC (t8)
PRIEST>HBR (14t)
Snarl whips settler
Cultural border of WK's shrine city to our immediate East pops

1320 BC (t9)
Snarl Oracle (as a temporary placeholder - 137 t if working the cottage tiles continued)
Barb Archer seen to the NW of the warrior by Madras
Snarl Settler under heavy doubt: should he move to settle the Horse city now?!
Please, NOTE: turn still not completed - settler to move
 
This is manipulated SS from our She-Wolves succession game run in parallel here



As you can see we have there 122 gold civic maintenance. We have 30 improvement types that benefit from financial trait (those 6 windmills could be added too if they are riverside).

So in this situation if we compare Organized x Financial:

Financial gets us 30 commerce (COMMERCE! so not even gold or science directly, has to be split by slider, which is 15g and 15 beakers right now.

Organized would mean we have 61 gold lesser upkeep! From the SS you can see we are at 50% slider -32 gold, that would mean we would be probably running slider on 60% not 50% in that situation we would generate 681 beakers instead of 571 (minus those 30 commerce split in 6:4 b:g)
so we would basically gain around 100 beakers per turn just for having another (undervalued) trait.

Well, I know all this and am visiting the financial advisor not much less frequently than the foreign one. I still don't see the tie-up with aiming to keep all cities at L5 max. Of course this will let you have smaller civic costs, but will also keep your production and research very low. Doesn't make much sense to me. You might be right that in certain situations it might not be worth it - if this is a very distant city (from your capital), you are on very high-cost civics, you get nothing more than a gold piece from the next tile to work, but it seems very far fetched to hold this as THE ground to keep your cities at L5. Keep in mind that at some point the growth comes at a high cost, especially at a later stage of the game, and this needs assessment - yes, but that's about it. Frankly, you are the first one I hear that will by design keep his / her cities at L5...
Not to mention that smaller cities get less trade, no opportunity to whip higher value buikdings or units, in addition to the prod&research potential already mentioned ...
 
I missed probably something somewhere... I think i never said that I hold my cities at size 5 forever!?

Just that in the early game we will have them at size 5 due to the simple fact that we won't have happy sources.

If you have happy sources and good tiles, grow the cities...

What is questionable is building happy buildings (like for example temples 80H for 1 happy) and military units under HR.
 
Top Bottom