TrinityJayOne
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2014
- Messages
- 3
Trade routes- I don't like 'em. I didn't like them in Civ V either, I think the plain old vanilla system of connecting cities via roads = gold bonus and rail = hammers bonus was spot on. Easier (and more realistic) to render unuseable in wartime by just destroying part of the route, not waiting about for the caravan. I also don't like how other civs can form trade routes with you and you have no say in the matter, short of declaring war with them. (If there's another way I'd like to hear it)
If you ask me they should be removed entirely*, perhaps with some very slight tuning to the basegold energy & science to compensate if required. The main problem, apart from the annoying barrage of route reselection prompts, is that they're all reward for almost zero risk. If one somehow gets lost, who cares? You drop 310 energy or whatever insignificant amount it is and one turn later it's back up & running. With the old system, if a barbarian or whoever pillages your route you gotta get out there with a worker + combat units, remove the threat and repair your investment. Trade routes as they are currently are no investment as that would imply a modicum of risk, they're a 'push for free energy & science' button. The only reason I use them at all is because the ridiculous returns basically force you to, as the game has clearly been tuned towards using them.
Moving right along, wide vs tall. Tall builder here, and I was tanking in my first game because I only had 3 cities and struggled to maintain a positive health score (admittedly due in part to not knowing the mechanics yet) despite building all the clinics, gene smelters, etc that I could. Next game I had 6 cities and never went negative once, averaging at around 20 health and peaking at forty once I got deep into...whatever the green virtue tree is called, and that was with 2 annexed cities. It's funny that the Civilopedia even states that two cities with 1 pop each is unhealthier than one city with 2 pop, but we all know this doesn't scale properly once you chuck in a few buildings.
From what I can tell, assuming no other modifiers from virtues etc, you get -3.2 health for each building, -0.75 for each pop, and my game shows +1 per city as well but I'm sure that's a modifier from something (a wonder maybe?). Anyways, my math says that at 13 pop a city will break even on health- (-13 x 0.75) + -3.2 = -12.95, as to my knowledge a city can only generate as much health from buildings as it has pop. 13 pop is hardly an outrageous figure to attain as I manage it without trying, and again remember this isn't taking into account the 'free' health you get based on difficulty or any of the modifiers.
The only real solution I can think of is that negative health needs to increase exponentially with each city, or it at least needs to scale somehow.
* I agree with the above poster that the intention (a new economy mechanic) is admirable and welcome, but the implementation is broken and annoying to use.
If you ask me they should be removed entirely*, perhaps with some very slight tuning to the base
Moving right along, wide vs tall. Tall builder here, and I was tanking in my first game because I only had 3 cities and struggled to maintain a positive health score (admittedly due in part to not knowing the mechanics yet) despite building all the clinics, gene smelters, etc that I could. Next game I had 6 cities and never went negative once, averaging at around 20 health and peaking at forty once I got deep into...whatever the green virtue tree is called, and that was with 2 annexed cities. It's funny that the Civilopedia even states that two cities with 1 pop each is unhealthier than one city with 2 pop, but we all know this doesn't scale properly once you chuck in a few buildings.
From what I can tell, assuming no other modifiers from virtues etc, you get -3.2 health for each building, -0.75 for each pop, and my game shows +1 per city as well but I'm sure that's a modifier from something (a wonder maybe?). Anyways, my math says that at 13 pop a city will break even on health- (-13 x 0.75) + -3.2 = -12.95, as to my knowledge a city can only generate as much health from buildings as it has pop. 13 pop is hardly an outrageous figure to attain as I manage it without trying, and again remember this isn't taking into account the 'free' health you get based on difficulty or any of the modifiers.
The only real solution I can think of is that negative health needs to increase exponentially with each city, or it at least needs to scale somehow.
* I agree with the above poster that the intention (a new economy mechanic) is admirable and welcome, but the implementation is broken and annoying to use.
It's super flattering to know some of the greats of the CiV C&C forum are enjoying my work. 
