Iron, Coal, etc... +1 hammer .... where does it go?

[natxavier]

Here's my lovely city.

...and here's my production.

Here are the Peeps that make my city the lovely place that it is. Thx to the Engie for the +2.

Finally, here are all my resources, the lifeblood of my city. While the luxuries and foodstuffs are giving me plenty of & & , my mined resources (owned or traded for) all say +1, but their effect is nowhere to be seen. As you can see, I have 7 from the worked tiles +2 from my Engie, +100% with Coal Plant + Power, for a total of 18.

In certain cities, it also shows +100% from resources:

I'd point out that the only difference is that you actually have to hover over the resource to see the +1, whereas the other resources just list their effects on the screen [and also by hovering]. This is a very misleading trait.


At any rate, Thanks for the detailed explanation, Polobo, you cleared up a few things for me.

nat

 

[Roland Johansen]

In certain cities, it also shows +100% from resources:

I'd point out that the only difference is that you actually have to hover over the resource to see the +1, whereas the other resources just list their effects on the screen [and also by hovering]. This is a very misleading trait.


At any rate, Thanks for the detailed explanation, Polobo, you cleared up a few things for me.

nat

Whenever you see such a bonus as +100% bonus from resources, you're building something that gets a production bonus from being connected to certain resources. Check the civilopedia entry of the construction and there the bonus will be explained.

You're absolutely correct that the mouseover hammer is misleading. That's the reason you also got a few incorrect answers. The +1 hammer mouseover information is correct when you actually hold the mouse over a tile with for instance iron as the tile actually gets an unimproved production increase of +1 hammer (and even more hammers if you build a mine there). This information should however not be shown when you hold the mouse over the iron resource in the resources list inside a city. In that location, the information is useless and misleading. You could say that it's a small interface error.

BTW, I saw you mention that you got food from being connected to resources. That's not completely accurate, you get health from being connected to certain resources and health is not the same as food (although it's related). You get a +1 entry when you mouse over food resources, but this is the same misleading information that you get when you mouse over the iron resource.

 

[Polobo]

Agreements do prove things. If on a civ matter you believed something one way, but Sid Meier himself said it otherwise, would you ask him to present "evidence" before believing it is so? I would think not. You would believe it is the way he says it is, then perhaps ask out of curiosity of game mechanics, why? Experts do not owe you their expertise on a matter, teachers do.

Another example. Lawyers can bicker back and forth in the court of law. Nothing is actually proven however, until the jury ("Gang" of opposition) comes to an agreement. Their agreement proves the defendant's guilt or innocence.

Since the +1 topic appears to be answered I'll toss in my closing arguments to defend my assertion that (for things that have rightness) using a polling mechanism to discover the truth is a useful but imperfect solution.

There is a difference between being able to prove the rightness (in a court of law or otherwise) and its existence.

Your jury example has already been annihilated so I'll provide you a better one.

Take the shape of the Earth. Before Galileo pretty much everyone and their grandmother believed that the Earth was flat. Without being able to travel into space and look at the Earth it is nearly impossible to PROVE that the Earth was indeed round(ish) but now we now it in fact is. Those people who believed the Earth was flat (a majority of the Earth's population I would bet) were wrong nonetheless.

An expert is an expert BECAUSE he can prove his assertions. If you trust an "expert" without requiring such proof then you share in the blame if you act on such information and it proves to be wrong. For many things this is of minor consequence (or you do not have the necessary skills to interpret the assertion) and thus it is quicker (necessary) to trust in someone (or a group thereof) but once two experts assert differing opinions unless you yourself understand the proofs and logic behind the assertions you are in no position to make or support an assertion of your own.

Even in court an "expert" is required to prove their credentials (and the opposition can stipulate - agreeing that the witness is indeed an expert) before they can be treated as such. In the Sid example; the fact he designed the game would qualify him as an expert and, without a desire to prove him wrong, the average person would take his word regarding game mechanics. I would not, however, take his word regarding investments (I'd rather ask Warren Buffet) . I still trust the guy (I don't think he would lie) but I am unsure regarding his expertise in the subject matter. Even with the game topics, if my observations and tests indicated something different than what Sid told me I would indeed question him to prove his assertion (as well as probably show my own proof that his assertion is indeed false). Sid designed the game, he didn't code it (at least not all of it) and thus must have incomplete knowledge of it workings (not to mention bugs). This is similar to how man did not create the Earth but that is who we must ask to answer such questions since we cannot ask "the creator".

 

[EweezE]

You're absolutely correct that the mouseover hammer is misleading. That's the reason you also got a few incorrect answers. The +1 hammer mouseover information is correct when you actually hold the mouse over a tile with for instance iron as the tile actually gets an unimproved production increase of +1 hammer (and even more hammers if you build a mine there). This information should however not be shown when you hold the mouse over the iron resource in the resources list inside a city. In that location, the information is useless and misleading. You could say that it's a small interface error.

That is the best detailed explanation I've read in the whole thread. Why was this type of information withheld until page 2?

your example is wrong: a jury decision does not prove someone guilty or not. evidence does (to a certain extend). a jury decision is just that: a decision by a number of appointed people to punish a person for a crime they think he did, because they believe the evidence. So agreement does not prove things. It is the underlying facts that prove things. as onedreamer said: mathematics and screenshots are not subject to opinion. agreement/disagreement is.

I thought someone might say that. Even if the lawyers presented NO evidence whatsoever, that jury would still come to an agreement though. The agreement in the instance of NO evidence would prove the defendant was innocent in the court. My example was not wrong. Rigged, maybe.. hehe.

 

[EweezE]

An expert is an expert BECAUSE he can prove his assertions. If you trust an "expert" without requiring such proof then you share in the blame if you act on such information and it proves to be wrong. For many things this is of minor consequence (or you do not have the necessary skills to interpret the assertion) and thus it is quicker (necessary) to trust in someone (or a group thereof) but once two experts assert differing opinions unless you yourself understand the proofs and logic behind the assertions you are in no position to make or support an assertion of your own.

Interesting entire post. I'll reply to this section here in the bold. At the time of my assertion (2nd post), there were no differing opinions. I only thought it worked the same as the poster before me.

I'm glad the case is solved. lol

 

[Polobo]

That is the best detailed explanation I've read in the whole thread. Why was this type of information withheld until page 2?

I thought someone might say that. Even if the lawyers presented NO evidence whatsoever, that jury would still come to an agreement though. The agreement in the instance of NO evidence would prove the defendant was innocent in the court. My example was not wrong. Rigged, maybe.. hehe.

If I killed someone but no one could prove it in a court of law that does not change the fact that I am indeed the killer. In fact, the jury's conclusion is not that the defendant is innocent but rather that the defendant is NOT GUILTY. Our society supports innocence until proven guilty; but being innocent in a court of law does not mean that one is truly innocent of the crime.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is within earshot does it still make a sound?

Your initial assertion is not what I had qualms with; it was your response when a contradictory assertion was made. Instead of saying "I'm right because TMIT agrees with me" it would have been more upfront to say "I don't know if TMIT or Roland is correct since I've never actually attempted to prove either assertion. TMIT's logic is reasonable and Roland didn't really supply any evidence supporting his assertion so I'll stick with TMIT's logic."

BTW: Logic is very helpful as well but (as often with man-made designs) the correct answer is not always a logical answer.

 

[Roland Johansen]

That is the best detailed explanation I've read in the whole thread. Why was this type of information withheld until page 2?

It might have saved us a lot of discussion if my first post had been a bit more detailed, huh.

Normally, I go into more details when I answer a question, but it was fairly late when I wrote that and thus I just gave a short correct answer so that the original poster at least had access to the correct information. The next day, I saw the lengthy discussion. In hindsight, I should have written a few extra sentences. On the other hand, I really hadn't expected such a lengthy discussion.

 

[onedreamer]

Agreements do prove things. If on a civ matter you believed something one way, but Sid Meier himself said it otherwise, would you ask him to present "evidence" before believing it is so? I would think not. You would believe it is the way he says it is, then perhaps ask out of curiosity of game mechanics, why? Experts do not owe you their expertise on a matter, teachers do.

you know what, I am somewhat more emancipated than you, and don't believe what someone in whatever position says is true just because he is in whatever position. You are reasoning like a middle ages catholic blacksmith who believes that Earth is at the center of the Universe because the Pope said so.

 

[EweezE]

you know what, I am somewhat more emancipated than you, and don't believe what someone in whatever position says is true just because he is in whatever position. You are reasoning like a middle ages catholic blacksmith who believes that Earth is at the center of the Universe because the Pope said so.

I'm sure you get into a lot of conversations with catholic blacksmiths from the middle ages.. exactly how old are you, immortal?! You are nothing more than me, a human on this Earth. You fail to see the power of agreement, but that's ok. I don't think of myself as more than you despite your flaw.

 

[asbestosman]

Before Galileo pretty much everyone and their grandmother believed that the Earth was flat. Without being able to travel into space and look at the Earth it is nearly impossible to PROVE that the Earth was indeed round.

Both of these statements are VERY wrong.

Just sayin'