I agree on both points. I still don't understand how the resources a city has have no effect on ITRs (at least as far as I can tell anyway), you'd think that would be a good thing to tie yields to. Even if they don't want to do something that potentially complex I really feel they need to do SOMETHING. Need to grow your brand new city? Micro your capital to all production and the new city to all food for a few turns and watch the thing take off. In the game I just took those screenshots from the 7 turns (7!) it took me to build a second colonist in Magan were enough to get Ayaan just shy of 5 pop with a little microing. That's 5 pop in something like a dozen turns and if that isn't incredibly dumb for what are supposed to be balanced ITRs I don't know what is. It isn't more balanced, it's just more micro intensive in the least obvious way it possibly could be.
Civilization: Beyond Earth fall update is now live!
- Thread starter FXS_MisterKevin
- Start date
Yeah, the reports of needing a TD to receive trade yields are busted - and to some degree you could always go into your city screen and monkey with your pop/tiles to increase the yields you wanted - and then assign your TR, and after go back into the city and reset your workers to how they were with no ill effect on the ongoing TR yield.
That hasn't changed from vanilla despite the nerfs. This is just badly designed code/logic, if I can have a #2 bigger than my cap at turn 30-40, them TRs ain't exactly 'fixed'. At least in vanilla it went both ways.
That hasn't changed from vanilla despite the nerfs. This is just badly designed code/logic, if I can have a #2 bigger than my cap at turn 30-40, them TRs ain't exactly 'fixed'. At least in vanilla it went both ways.
Are you refering to the yield difference having an effect on the ITRs? Or a difference by having specific resources or resource variety?
I think it's clear by now that the output of the city has an effect on the TRs (although the formula is not yet known), but I don't think it matters which resources (or indeed buildings) the yields are coming from. There is no specific advantage over having a trade route between city A with resource X and city B with resource Z over both having resouce X (given similar yields of the resources). If there is, it's well hidden in the game atm.
Having a difference in yields from TRs when one city has access to a resource the other city hasn't would enhance the depth of the TRs as well as city placement imho.
I strongly disagree. Having specific resources affect the ITR outputs in that manner only plays a role in where you place the city, not in how you improve the tiles, which buildings are built, and whether the city's focus is changed. The current implementation accounts for all of that. Purely resource-based ITRs would not. They would be simpler and have less depth, not more.
I certainly wouldn't want that to be the ONLY factor, rather a modifier on top of another system (for example the current system).
They sometimes say: "keep it simple", well that's what I'd do here. Because it's not simple, but it is stupid.
So, I'd assign every city a value relative to its awesomeness - size, buildings, wonders - no more no less; then I'd create a function that took that value and turned it into a fixed yield that it poops-out to the other end of any TR.
The end, done.
So, I'd assign every city a value relative to its awesomeness - size, buildings, wonders - no more no less; then I'd create a function that took that value and turned it into a fixed yield that it poops-out to the other end of any TR.
The end, done.
Yea I'd say this is a pretty big issue. Again, I'd still say all they have to do is reverse the flow of yields and divide the number by two and I could live with ITRs (actually I'd quite like them), but somehow I don't see that happening. It's a shame, the system is set up in a way to reward city specialization (which I like, and thought was missing from CiV) but in a really stupid, backwards way, with yields that are still way too easy to get stupidly high. ETRs still need some work imo, and I still find it ridiculous that trade depots can't be purchased for whatever arbitrary reason, but it would be a good step forward.
not quite true, trade route yields change every turn, based upon the differential between the cities... Reseting your works will have an effect upon your trade routes.
The nerf to trade routes does not slow down my win times... and as I play with ways to improve, my win times on Apollo, have dropped to the (should read 225 to 235)125 to 135 range. And since there is nothing like the national college, to boost science, it really does not matter which city becomes the population capital...
the setting up of the first two cities, the capital a production, and #2 a food, will grow #2 to a size 12 by turn 50... great for science.. while the capital builds settlers, which again boost both cities. As far as I can tell, sending a production TR between #3 to #2 does not affect the trade route from #1 to #2. This gives one the ability to have a high pop city, build all the health and science and food buildings, while avoiding the production buildings, and control the health penalties..
Gamewizard
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2011
- Messages
- 1,234
You are winning standard Apollo games in 125 turns?
opps should say 225 to 235... corrected original post also
Specializing the capital as a production centre and the second as a food one is map dependent. Most of the time, titanium won't be in the capital. It is far more likely to be in the second city, so it's actually often more plausible to reverse the roles in the current patch. Capitals often start with food resources more than production resources. I have never yet rolled a titanium start, though I assume it's possible.
Needles to say, making a colonist in a production-poor site, growing a food-poor site, and then using that as a colonist pump is... not as ideal. Faster times are always dramatic when the terrain hands the win to you on a silver platter.
Needles to say, making a colonist in a production-poor site, growing a food-poor site, and then using that as a colonist pump is... not as ideal. Faster times are always dramatic when the terrain hands the win to you on a silver platter.
Eh I wouldn't say titanium is especially necessary (although it's certainly optimal); some fibre, chitin, and hill fungus would probably be enough to make it entirely feasible to devote your capital to production for at least long enough to get your satellite cities up to 5-6 population before reversing the focus. The issue ends up being that early on the extra production from your headquarters and inevitable trade depot in the capital are too much for a secondary city to overcome, so you kinda have to make your capital a production center early.
What if you land on 2 Tubers and generic hills and plains? That happens pretty often. I've had a start where I only had Algae in the first two rings, and that was the best thing in the entire landing zone. You need Fibre and Chitin and a third resource thing, and you need a food-heavy second site, and third, and fourth, and fifth, if you're going to have them all be food-centric to jive with the Capital's production focus. That's an incredibly specific set of circumstances; and you have to care about placement (which I have always maintained).
Sigh. Alright. Carry on. I guess two steps at a time was a little much to ask.
Moderator Action: Please address the issues of the thread, not the other people posting.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Moderator Action: Please address the issues of the thread, not the other people posting.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Yes, yes, you're just oh so much more clever than everyone else and I understand it must be very painful to try to talk down to the level of the insolent children here who refuse to acknowledge your wisdom. I think if you just take on a slightly more condescending and self-important tone in your posts maybe things will work out better next time, but that's just my take on it.
Moderator Action: Please do not troll other users. If you can't post in a constructive and civil manner, don't post.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Moderator Action: Please do not troll other users. If you can't post in a constructive and civil manner, don't post.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Gamewizard
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2011
- Messages
- 1,234
We are still waiting to find out which is more optimal:
- Couple of good cities with a couple 1 pop garbage cities to trade with, or...
- A handful of equally developed cities
Which gets the job done better?
- Couple of good cities with a couple 1 pop garbage cities to trade with, or...
- A handful of equally developed cities
Which gets the job done better?
Similar threads
