Going Wide - Possible Strategies and Loadouts

[KrikkitTwo]

Well what I can see from the 3 economic virtue trees that is Uniquely useful for Wide v. OCC
Bolded seem really useful

PROSPERITY
Tier1
Wide: all useful (starter less so)
OCC: Starter, worker, faster worker (fast outpost+Settler Useless on OCC)

Tier2
Wide: +Health, +Staring Pop, +Tiles (more local than foreign trade routes*, and your explorers can probably refill easily)
OCC: +Health, +Tiles,+Explorer, Foreign Trade routes* (+Starting pop is Useless, your explorers won't easily make it back to refill)

*Not sure on this, stations might be better for OCC, and an overabundance of trade routes in wide might need foreign trade routes (stations are limited to 1 per civ)

Tier3
Wide: -Unhealth, +Resource Health, +Production,
OCC: -Unhealth, +Resource Health, +Specialists,

Not sure about Terrascape

Depth 1= OCC
Depth 2= Wide
Depth 3 = OCC

KNOWLEDGE
Tier 1
Wide: none particularly useful (culture/pop might help expansion)
OCC: Culture/pop, Science/pop, Culture/health? (later on you might have more health than you can grow into)

Tier 2
Wide: -City tech cost, - city virtue cost, energy for culture? (lots of buildings cost lots of energy?)
OCC: Health per pop (-city cost is Useless for OCC) health per pop is poor conversion rate..but they will have a lot of pop..and that earns combining bonuses with -25% unhealthy

Tier3
Wide: Nothing Particularly useful
OCC: +culture from Wonders (you will probably have a lot of them, and that flat bonus helps your virtues more

Depth...non particularly good for OCC/Wide

INDUSTRY
Tier 1
Wide: +building, +rome bonus, +resource energy (wonders and energy from capital are meh)
OCC: +Building, +wonders, Energy from Capital (+rome bonus is Useless for OCC)

Tier 2
Wide: +Trade Health, +Internal trade routes (only 1 trade route/station/civ.. so that won't be as useful..partially depends on any limit to # of foreign trade routes)
OCC: +Station Trade Energy (internal trade routes strictly useless on OCC, and stations are probably better than foreign trade)

Tier 3
Wide: +health/building (you will have a lot of buildings)
OCC: +hammers/pop, +health/buildings (you will have a lot of pop and your one city will have many buildings)

Synergy
None particularly useful



Wide bonuses
Tier 1
10 Virtues: OCC

Tier 3
10 Virtues: Wide

The rest seem about the same for both

 

[MadDjinn]

You said earlier that you think Industry works better with Polystralia going wide. Say I am playing Polystralia and I invest heavily in that as my core Virtue Tree, going far enough in to grab Magnasanti; exactly how much of Prosperity would you recommend grabbing? Only Tier Is or some Tier IIs? I think I would probably want to grab Gift Economy at the very least.

Depends on other choices.

If you have a situation where you can negate the unhealth from cities via layered bonuses, then the only thing left is population.

 

[Karl0413]

Depends on other choices.

If you have a situation where you can negate the unhealth from cities via layered bonuses, then the only thing left is population.

True, with the bonuses from Industry there is no need to grab Nature's Bounty or Hands Never Idle so Gift Economy would be the last thing needed from Prosperity to capitalize on Polystralia's UA. Probably would go for some Knowledge or maybe Might Virtues depending on the situation.

 

[Acken]

"[..] you may want Community medicine as your cities reach reasonable pop numbers. If you get at least 6 and then 12 pop per city it is definetely a very good virtue."

1 health every 6 pop is a horrible conversion.

If you're going super wide, then you want the Prosperity 2 kicker and the 25% reduction in unhealth at the end of the tree. The extra +7 health and +1/basic resource are just bonus after that.

Do you speak from experience or it's just guesses ?

Because we really don't know if it would be overkill or not. In civ5 it really wouldn't be.

Unless by wide we mean 20 cities at pop 3, I'd expect a 8 cities empire to reach pop 6, making medicine as good as the tier 2 prosperity. Many cities at low pop was bad in civ5, Id expect the same in civbe.

 

[MadDjinn]

Do you speak from experience or it's just guesses ?

Because we really don't know if it would be overkill or not. In civ5 it really wouldn't be.

Unless by wide we mean 20 cities at pop 3, I'd expect a 8 cities empire to reach pop 6, making medicine as good as the tier 2 prosperity. Many cities at low pop was bad in civ5, Id expect the same in civbe.

I's 1 health for every 6 pop. That means you still need to cover the other 5 pop to benefit properly from the extra health.

Tier ii prosperity just needs the city, so it requires nothing. If you're assuming that the 1 health is being used for the city, then you need to cover 6 pop which means needing other sources of health to afford a source of health.

Plus, this is something you'd have to choose vs just getting with other prosperity bonuses.

 

[3of5]

I's 1 health for every 6 pop. That means you still need to cover the other 5 pop to benefit properly from the extra health.

Tier ii prosperity just needs the city, so it requires nothing. If you're assuming that the 1 health is being used for the city, then you need to cover 6 pop which means needing other sources of health to afford a source of health.

That is not correct, every city seems to need 4 health right off the bat, i wouldn't call that nothing. This is balanced because many buildings early on give flat boni (+3 gold, +2 science) that don't depend on city population. With the prosperity 10 virtue bonus and artists or aristocrats as colonists you can shave that down to 2 net health costs for founding a city, which makes it very managable. Community medicine shaves the health cost of 6 population down from 4,5 to 3,5 which is not that bad (around -25% so its comparable to the prosperity virtue (but i gess that one would count for oil wellls and manufactories too)), but you would begin to really notice it later on, when cities are bigger.

 

[MadDjinn]

That is not correct, every city seems to need 4 health right off the bat, i wouldn't call that nothing. This is balanced because many buildings early on give flat boni (+3 gold, +2 science) that don't depend on city population. With the prosperity 10 virtue bonus and artists or aristocrats as colonists you can shave that down to 2 net health costs for founding a city, which makes it very managable. Community medicine shaves the health cost of 6 population down from 4,5 to 3,5 which is not that bad (around -25% so its comparable to the prosperity virtue (but i gess that one would count for oil wellls and manufactories too)), but you would begin to really notice it later on, when cities are bigger.

in this he was making a direct comparison between the Prosperity II kicker and the 1/6 health/pop virtue.

4 unhealth per city, yes, but the prosperity kicker directly removes one of those, while the other one requires growing to 6 pop first. At which point, you need to cover those 6 pop. Ie, for a period of time, you won't have the +1 health.

and yeah, I can assume 'nothing' in this case, because in both instances, you need that city. So it's implied that both cases have a city requiring the 4 health.


originally he called it a 'good virtue' for health, but by comparison to the other ones, it's the least useful due to needing pop growth and then paying for that Pop with other health sources. It's not 'nothing', but it's not 'good', health wise.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I think the point is 1 for 6 health is not good for going wide.

It helps all strategies somewhat, but it helps Tall a lot more. (tall has more population unhealth:city unhealth)

If you are getting Wide Knowledge, I'd only get the Datalinks, and Memeweb (and Tier3..but that's good for everyone)

 

[Acken]

I's 1 health for every 6 pop. That means you still need to cover the other 5 pop to benefit properly from the extra health.

Tier ii prosperity just needs the city, so it requires nothing. If you're assuming that the 1 health is being used for the city, then you need to cover 6 pop which means needing other sources of health to afford a source of health.

Plus, this is something you'd have to choose vs just getting with other prosperity bonuses.

I'm aware it is not a bonus that you'd get immediately when settling, but you get 6 pop per city at some point then it's worth 1 health per city at that point. I'm not sure why it would make you believe it's bad due to that. It's bad early but can become useful later on. The only reason would be if other health sources are enough to sustain city numbers and growth all game long, which is why I ask where you have information that it would be enough ? If prosperity 2 and the -25% are enough then yes, assuming you invested in prosperity, you probably won't need secondary sources of happiness.
If civ5 is any indication, you will probably even have cities reaching 12 pop in a wide game. And in civ5 getting 1 to 2 happiness per city is worth one policy.

Yes there are more urgent stuff like prosperity 2 which is better at the start or the -25%, I'm not arguing against that. But that policy can be easily acquired if one invests in knowledge, making it an option at some point in the game if health is tough for wide games. Never said someone should rush for it.

 

[MadDjinn]

I'm aware it is not a bonus that you'd get immediately when settling, but you get 6 pop per city at some point then it's worth 1 health per city at that point. I'm not sure why it would make you believe it's bad due to that. It's bad early but can become useful later on. The only reason would be if other health sources are enough to sustain city numbers and growth all game long, which is why I ask where you have information that it would be enough ? If prosperity 2 and the -25% are enough then yes, assuming you invested in prosperity, you probably won't need secondary sources of happiness.
If civ5 is any indication, you will probably even have cities reaching 12 pop in a wide game. And in civ5 getting 1 to 2 happiness per city is worth one policy.

Yes there are more urgent stuff like prosperity 2 which is better at the start or the -25%, I'm not arguing against that. But that policy can be easily acquired if one invests in knowledge, making it an option at some point in the game if health is tough for wide games.

to be clear, if you happen to wander through Knowledge on the way to tier 3, then sure, get it, but if you're looking for another source of health, even the military one is better.

 

[Acken]

Of course it is if you play knowledge. You may look again that my original post was a direct response to somone picking knowledge and prosperity
And digging for it I also clearly said that it's an option IF your cities have reasonable sizes:

If you take Cohesive Values (which value is questionable) you may want Community medicine as your cities reach reasonable pop numbers. If you get at least 6 and then 12 pop per city it is definetely a very good virtue.

 

[MadDjinn]

Of course it is if you play knowledge. You may look again that my original post was a direct response to somone picking knowledge and prosperity
And digging for it I also clearly said that it's an option IF your cities have reasonable sizes:

yeah, I'm just taking issue with the 'very good' part of that. It could be much better as a virtue that benefits tall play if it didn't also cost more health to cover the other pop on the way to the next health point.

Ie, instead of 1 health/6 pop, it could be 'reduce population unhealth by x%'. That would be better, even if if worked out to the same amount, just due to always being part of the formula -- even when you've grown 5 out of the 6 pop.

 

[manu-fan]

Does Science and Unhealthiness get produced the same as in Civ 5, based off city population?

Sorry, yes, I mean Unhealthiness.

 

[OldEarthRelic]

Unhappiness = Unhealth - yes. Science - To be determined

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Unhappiness = Unhealth - yes. Science - To be determined

Yes, so far science seems to come from

Pop-1 science each

Buildings (mostly giving a flat bonus so far..some give a bonus to resources)

Improvements (Academy..which costs energy)

Diplomacy (buy it off someone)

 

[Acken]

yeah, I'm just taking issue with the 'very good' part of that. It could be much better as a virtue that benefits tall play if it didn't also cost more health to cover the other pop on the way to the next health point.

Ie, instead of 1 health/6 pop, it could be 'reduce population unhealth by x%'. That would be better, even if if worked out to the same amount, just due to always being part of the formula -- even when you've grown 5 out of the 6 pop.

Yes it would be better of course but one every six looks good enough (based on civ5).

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Yes it would be better of course but one every six looks good enough (based on civ5).

Civ 5 had a lot more happiness from luxuries and early virtues (like Monarchy... 1 per 2 population)

Here the only source of healthiness seems to be
0. difficulty level
1. Buildings
2. Virtues
3. Terrain improvements (which are costly.. ie 2 energy per health)

 

[Acken]

So if health is harder to manage than happiness its even better

 

[KrikkitTwo]

So if health is harder to manage than happiness its even better

No, because you have to pay 6 unhealthy to get 1 health

There are much better ways of getting 1 health
Build a health building

Virtues/synergies that are 1 health per city or a fixed amount of health, or health per military unit, or trade unit


I imagine it would be good for a tall or OCC, but for wide, there will be usually be better virtues to take

 

[Acken]

I don't want to restate the same stuff over again jesus. I never said it would be a good policy to get early or to go into knowledge just for it.

Once you have enough cities reaching 6 or 12 pop it's worth a certain amount of health. If health is easy to manage it won't be useful, if health is tough to manage it will be useful since it will be worth at least 1 per city at that point and is easiy acquired if soeone went knowledge. Please read the precding argument with Maddjinn.