Petra is a local wonder, therefore it makes sense for all other wonders to be local?
Temple of Artemis is currently one part local, one part global, right?
Hey G, what sort of "very careful planning of growth and yields" do you mean? The only thing I've seen that sort of works is forcing cities to have no population growth until they get more buildings, and then restart the pop growth. The default setting for which tiles a city chooses to work seems to be pretty good ....because when i change those tiles by locking them manually, i seldom affect happiness by more than 1 after changing 3 or 4 tiles.
Yeah but like Gaz said, tall is better for lower difficulties. As you get better at the game you start to go wider and play on higher difficulties. It means having to micro more but micro becomes more efficient as you get better at the game.
Here is a mod I use to help me better understand happiness changes. I like it a lot but it probably needs more work. It is designed for VP mod by me and works perfectly. It pops up a notification of what has changed in happiness the instant it changes. It actually adds a lot of flavor because you get an instant reaction from your citizens when a road is pillaged or whatever
Could you publish this to Civ 5 downloads page? I like to watch resources and stay updated on them.
Around one and a half year ago, focusing growth was a valiable strategy to overcome the plenty bonuses of the AI, if the human wanted a relative peaceful game. While sacrificing the lead and yields in midgame, having much more population in the lategame gave a lot of advantages. I dont want to discuss if it was really too strong, maybe, but a lot of changes were made afterwards, which makes a game with a focus on growth kinda....... well yeah, you get blamed as noob everytime if you say you like to grow your cities. (Maybe because everyone thinks your working 20 farm tiles on grasland and nothing else....
)
Around one and a half year ago, focusing growth was a valiable strategy to overcome the plenty bonuses of the AI, if the human wanted a relative peaceful game. While sacrificing the lead and yields in midgame, having much more population in the lategame gave a lot of advantages. I dont want to discuss if it was really too strong, maybe, but a lot of changes were made afterwards, which makes a game with a focus on growth kinda....... well yeah, you get blamed as noob everytime if you say you like to grow your cities. (Maybe because everyone thinks your working 20 farm tiles on grasland and nothing else....
At the moment, playing growth oriented is hard to play. Still trying to do so is a difficult task and often not really rewarding.
Discussing this in an already finished game may be meaningless, because your running against windmills. But this is a living and changing mod and we should think about balancing different playstyles. Per definition, theres only one optimal way to play/win the game. But in a greatly balanced game, different ways to play lead to a similar good result. I see no reason why a growth oriented playstyle should be hard to play or not rewarding in the end. In general, and not only based on the values by this version. A focus on growth punishes you at the moment you focus on it, cause your food output comes from the sacrifice of other yields, like science and culture. This decreases your ability to do better in other areas but you do it to get an advantage in later stages of the game. Absolutly logic and nothing wrong with it. In second place, based on the yield per citizen connection to happiness, your unhappiness rise, cause every additional citizen cant work as efficient as the previous citizen. This effect alone is a strong factor which increase your unhappiness by more population cause we have a yield per pop based happiness system. Its ok.
But something I cant understand is the population modifier to the needs of the population, which is a third punishment for additional citizen. I can understand you want a realistic behavior of population and infrastructure management. But this is already represented by the yield per pop mechanic, why an additional exponential modifier?
I think we can make a great step forward, if we are able to balance point one and two of the punishments. If we are able to do so, we dont need any population modifier anymore and also such strange, artificial "save-the-median" mechanics.
At the moment, new players are running again and again in the trap of growing and self destruction by unhappiness. Instead we should try to create a corridor, which balances the invested and gained yields better. If I invest too much in growth, I fall back too much in midgame and will have a hard time to face technological and cultural superior enemies, but may be rewarded with a very strong lategame. If I invest not enough, I may be strong in midgame, but fall back in lategame due to taller nations. If the new player see, hes lacking population, science or culture in one part of the game or another, he may adopt his strategy and get closer to the optimal play. But now, he plays the game typical to industrial age, his unhappiness falls like a stone and then give up to happiness. And nothing was learned.
I actually did have problems with happiness swings in my last game, and they were quite hard, like from +15 to -20. But i was playing Fealty-Rationalism, i was 10 techs ahead of everyone and i neglected Zoos and some other buildings that reduce Boredom need. Also i was under heavy ideological pressure. And on top of that everything started when i took Order's +3 population in every city while having 10 non-puppet cities.
Growth not in general, but count how often people say "you played bad cause you let your cities grow too big". Or something similar.
Wrong. No matter if you have build everything in your city and work only improved tiles, with villages on roads, GPTI and specialists. If you cross a population of lets say 35, nothing will help you to decrease the unhappiness by your cities. Remember, its an exponential modifier. Even if your yield to pop ratio may stay relative constant, an increase from 25 pop to 35 is able to triple your unhappiness in that city.
This hits the nail. Beginners and mediocre players dont know all the mechanics in the back. How are they able to know? It would be necessary to follow the forum all the time. I dont think its a good thing to use the happiness system as a teaching tool for city management. There are still too many hidden variables in the game, which denies the option to learn from it.
