Anymore min/max-ing when cities grow?

[Happiness]

In Civ 5, when there is one turn left for a city to grow, you should manually choose and lock down tiles for the city to work on, so that the new citizen (the added tile) doesn't work on a food-only tile, because those food are not counted but hammers and gold are.

I hope they remove this need for min/max-ing. They should just make them (food, hammers, gold, etc.) all count or all don't count. It's not really a strategy. And if it were designed to be so in Civ 5, they should have alerted you when your cities are about to grow instead of right afterwards.

Any idea?

 

[plasmacannon]

Growing actually makes more sense than what they are doing in Civ6.
In Civ6, once your city hits a pop of 1 less than it's max, that city's growth is reduced to 50%.
That's the general theme for all of our cities now.
When does this happen in real life?
All our planet does is increase in population.

Civ6 reduces this further to 25% pop growth rate when over your city's maximum allotted population. How ridiculous is that?

Alerting us when we were about to gain an unhappiness was done in several mods for Civ4.
It probably won't be as necessary in Civ6, because cities will be growing much slower at that point.

 

[killmeplease]

didnt know that
even if i knew i wouldnt bother
such things shouldnt exist

 

[skyclad]

I didnt know it was like this in civ5! But im not surprised. When you build settlers, the food does not get converted into production as in civ4. Its just wasted. But the city still works a surplus...
Surely they will not knowingly bring such bugs/terrible design choices back.

 

[Werewolflord]

growing beyond limits should reduce gold/science/hammers or amenities(and so hammers or whatever) rather than growth itself, it would be more challenging to keeps your pop under the limit not to have slums.

 

[Acken]

Min maxing will always exist. But not necessarily there.

 

[isau]

Civ6 reduces this further to 25% pop growth rate when over your city's maximum allotted population. How ridiculous is that?

It's actually pretty true to history. Historical population growth was not totally unchecked. Not until the Modern era at least. A completely realistic model would actually occasionally wipe out huge swaths of population (wars in Civ kind of do this by halving city populations on city capture). Squalid conditions don't lend themselves to population explosions. Civ VI may use the word "Housing" to describe where people are locating themselves, but a better term might have been "Housing Quality" since it is highly affected by access to fresh water.

 

[King Jason]

I hope they remove this need for min/max-ing.

Except there is no need for it so it isn't really a problem. You can win Deity games without ever once doing this so it's irrelevant.

 

[Haggbart]

Growing actually makes more sense than what they are doing in Civ6.
In Civ6, once your city hits a pop of 1 less than it's max, that city's growth is reduced to 50%.
That's the general theme for all of our cities now.
When does this happen in real life?
All our planet does is increase in population.

Civ6 reduces this further to 25% pop growth rate when over your city's maximum allotted population. How ridiculous is that?

Alerting us when we were about to gain an unhappiness was done in several mods for Civ4.
It probably won't be as necessary in Civ6, because cities will be growing much slower at that point.

Sure, you could remove any cap on city growth and instead link overpop with less efficiency - give hammer, gold, culture, science and/or military maluses. But I think that would be counterintuitive, especially for noobs, and it's easier to simply slow down growth than let the city come to a complete stop if growth was left unchecked for a long time.

Also today's growth rate of cities is not accurate for 4000BC, and I think it's better to have predictable measures of growth and growth limiters rather than random disease and bad harvest wipe out your pop.

And remember that the growth from a pop 1 to 2 city in CiV is from 1000 to 6000, while the growth from 39 to 40 pop is from 28,5 millions to 30,6 millions (IIRC, at least that were the numbers in vanilla). So the huge pop growth of later eras is actually represented in the game, and probably will be in cVI as well.

 

[Ryika]

Except there is no need for it so it isn't really a problem. You can win Deity games without ever once doing this so it's irrelevant.

Until you play competitively and such micro management can make a real difference on your performance.

But even if it's "irrelevant"... there's literally no reason for it being there other than it being programmed badly because the person creating the system didn't think about that problem. It's an "exploit" that should be avoided in Civ VI.

 

[skyclad]

Min-maxing is fine and great when its stuff like linign up your city to grow and finish a building on the same turn ans then Starting a settler.
But not when its to avoid the consequences of a bug which is essentially the topic.