# India Total Peaceful Photojournal

Discussion in 'Playthroughs and Photojournals' started by Minh Le, Oct 31, 2018.

1. ### YukiNChieftain

Joined:
Sep 3, 2018
Messages:
361
Location:
Singapore
Interesting how you chose to use the rivers as defence rather than settling on them. I wonder if this means waterwheel should come earlier in the tech tree.

2. ### crdvis16Chieftain

Joined:
May 2, 2013
Messages:
644
This is correct- at some point, adding more cities with scientist slots will not result in an extra great scientist being born within the time frame of a game.

Also, even if every new city quickly comes up to speed in population/infrastructure, at some point adding new cities cannot mathematically overcome the tech cost penalty. If the tech cost increase is 7% then I think the soft limit on cities is 14 (and that's assuming the city is instantly producing the average science of all cities right from the turn it is settled). In practice, the actual soft limit is probably much lower, like 9 or 10 I would guess, as it takes a while for a city to get up to speed and dig you out of the hole of settling it.

Bromar1 likes this.
3. ### Minh LeChieftain

Joined:
Aug 20, 2018
Messages:
793
Gender:
Male
If I plan to kill Korea early, I will settle on river, but Im planning to just defend myself so definitely no. Settle on river means enemies ranged can shot my city from 2 tiles away and my troops must cross the river to get them, and Hwacha is no joke.
Assuming each addition city produce average total amount of yield equal to 50% of your capital and increase cost by 7%, we have total cost is 1.07^N, and total yield is 0.5N where N is number of new cities. Solve the equation: 1.07^N=0.5N we have N=46. So the break even point is 46, less than that number any addition city bring benefit

vyyt likes this.
4. ### Tzar SashaTzar of Nowheresville

Joined:
Dec 10, 2003
Messages:
451
Location:
The Frozen Tundra
Total peace? Does that mean game over if another civilization declares war on you? Cause in my book, war is war no matter who started it.

5. ### Minh LeChieftain

Joined:
Aug 20, 2018
Messages:
793
Gender:
Male
No I cant do that ofc, it just means Im not gonna declare war on anyone (what I do frequently )

6. ### OwlbebachWarlord

Joined:
Jun 5, 2016
Messages:
1,727
Location:
Moscow
those 7% are additive, not multiplicative, so it is 1,07 for 2 cities, 1,14 for 3 and 1,21 for 4 cities.
For both of you - back in time my friend made a formula for that, you can see it here https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/new-version-october-9th-10-9.623188/page-4#post-14887300
You only need to adjust numbers, it was 10% per city back then, and i believe thanks to this formula people understood that 10% is too much

7. ### Minh LeChieftain

Joined:
Aug 20, 2018
Messages:
793
Gender:
Male
Wow its too complicated. Im not that good at math. I guess Im gonna play the way I feel right then

Erikose likes this.
8. ### YukiNChieftain

Joined:
Sep 3, 2018
Messages:
361
Location:
Singapore
Additive means there is no real cap from science and culture unless the city is really bad. Multiplicative means each new city needs to be 7% of your current empire's yields, which is a lot more challenging. Do we a source that conclusively states which it is?

crdvis16 likes this.
9. ### OwlbebachWarlord

Joined:
Jun 5, 2016
Messages:
1,727
Location:
Moscow
It is additive. For sure. You can easily check it in game

YukiN likes this.
10. ### crdvis16Chieftain

Joined:
May 2, 2013
Messages:
644
I think that formula is written such that puppets increase tech costs as well? I think that was the case back then but no longer is, right? My understanding is that puppets do NOT increase tech/policy costs (puppet's only drawback is some unhappiness and severely reduced city yields). So I'm not sure that formula is helpful or not.

Also, my understanding was that every new non-puppet city increases current tech costs by 7% which would be multiplicative in my mind, and which is why you can't go much beyond 10ish non-pupper cities or so on a standard map before you start hindering yourself.

If it's additive then at 14 non-puppets your next non-puppet would only need to hit ~3% of your total science to be helpful I think.

11. ### crdvis16Chieftain

Joined:
May 2, 2013
Messages:
644
Just did a quick check in-game and it seems to be additive, NOT multiplicative (the rounding of science/culture costs makes the curve a little noisy but it definitely seems to follow the additive curve and not the multiplicative curve). That makes it a bit easier for newly settled cities to become net positive in science and culture. It would be an interesting exercise to track the science/culture output (and maybe all of the other yields as well even though they don't suffer from diminishing returns) of cities in a game to see how long it takes from when they were settled until they become a net positive.

Perhaps I'll do that in my next game to get a better idea of how wide is optimal and I'll report back what I find.

12. ### OwlbebachWarlord

Joined:
Jun 5, 2016
Messages:
1,727
Location:
Moscow
No it is not. In that formula N is number of non-puppets and M is number of puppets. And i have only N in denominator

13. ### chicorbeefWarlord

Joined:
Dec 26, 2017
Messages:
1,228
Gender:
Male
Is Love really that bad? I've never actually picked it but it seems like it can scale pretty well later on.

14. ### GazeboLord of the Community Patch

Joined:
Sep 26, 2010
Messages:
16,982
Location:
Aquidneck Island
Love is all you need.

G

15. ### yogiebereCivilization City Planner

Joined:
Jan 7, 2010
Messages:
406
Location:
Seattle, WA
From the link Owlbebach included, here's the updated formula for science (and culture too I suppose) for annexed/puppeted cities (m=puppet,n=annexed). Of course assuming all cities are equal and not including capital bonuses, wonders, policies, trade routes, etc.

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+y+=++(n+m*0.2)/(1+0.07*n)+from+0+to+20

Analysis: pretty much always a good move to annex over puppet for the raw culture/science, not factoring in maintenance costs or happiness.

Here's a little exercise if you say a capital + policies + TRs + other bonuses adds 3 cities worth of science/culture and that cities after your top 5 only contribute .7 (assuming they just never reach the same potential as a core city that has more time to hit higher populations. Even then! It still gets to the point where you need to hit the ~12 city mark to make puppets better in terms of science/culture.

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+y+=++(3+m*0.2+n-.3*Max[n-5,0])/(1+0.07*n)+from+0+to+20

I think I might be going for more than 8 cities in my next warmonger game! Maybe 10 or 11 depending on how many are prime locations

Last edited: Nov 1, 2018
swapoer, vyyt, Galbias and 1 other person like this.
16. ### OwlbebachWarlord

Joined:
Jun 5, 2016
Messages:
1,727
Location:
Moscow
Yeah, thanks. Actually i remember doing that in the past and 3 is a very good assumption for all non-city yields.

17. ### Bromar1Chieftain

Joined:
Feb 26, 2015
Messages:
625
You get to plant a lot more early academies as Tradition, which further boosts later great scientists

18. ### YukiNChieftain

Joined:
Sep 3, 2018
Messages:
361
Location:
Singapore
How so? Bulbing only depends on how many you planted, not when you planted them.

19. ### crdvis16Chieftain

Joined:
May 2, 2013
Messages:
644
There is added complication on top of this that is a bit harder to model:

1) the number of turns it takes for the nth city to have its science/culture be a net positive, and then how many turns after that it takes for the city to make up for all the previous turns when it was a detriment. That total turn number needs to be less than the game length, preferably far less as early yields are typically stronger than later yields

2) science/culture per turn is only one aspect of tech/policy acquisition. There's also all of the other sources of science and culture: instant yields and great person generation. Is the nth city also contributing enough in those areas? It's probably behind in great people but doing well in instant yields is my guess but it's hard to model.

3) non-science/culture yields. There's no penalty on faith, gold, production, or military supply so more cities are probably always better in those areas. There are some diminishing returns for tourism where you might start hurting yourself by settling more cities, though, especially since it might be harder for the nth city to ever contribute well in tourism given the limited sources for it.

20. ### yogiebereCivilization City Planner

Joined:
Jan 7, 2010
Messages:
406
Location:
Seattle, WA
Certainly wide is not good for tourism. But I was mainly talking about War or Science victories where you need a good balance of science/culture.