Is it worth to always keep the luxuries' rate bigger than zero % ?

[Craftsman]

Hello from Brazil!

This is my first post here. Thanks for the opportunity!

Well... I just want to know if is it worth to always keep the luxuries' rate bigger than zero % - no matter the situation - for the purpose of a bigger final score. Or... If doing this doesn't matter (i.e.: raising the luxuries to 100% at the last turn has the same effect on the final score).

Thanks in advance for all your comments!

Best regards,

Craftsman.

 

[IbnSina]

Welcome to CFC

Keeping the luxury rate always >0 would only enhance your score if your people tend to be unhappy, i.e. if you do not have enough luxuries available, marketplaces built, etc. In general, you can keep your people very happy by trading for luxuries, building marketplaces, building J.S. Bach's, or even building temples, cathedrals, and colosseums. It all depends on your goals in the game. If you really want to maximize your score, then you'll be fighting to get your land area up to the domination limit, and in that case you won't be building so much infrastructure, but you will be acquiring luxuries. Once you have luxuries and marketplaces, you'll find that keeping the luxury rate high is redundant.

 

[WackenOpenAir]

It does help your score a little if it makes people happy.

It helps your score only very little though, using cash to rushbuild units then conquer more land helps your score a lot more.

Another small benefit could be a we love the king day. This also is not really worth the lux though.

Score is an average of your whole game. Changing the lux slider the last turn or last few turns will help, but only very little.

 

[Craftsman]

Thanks for the welcome, IbnSina!

And thanks for you two, IbnSina and WackenOpenAir, for the help. I always invest a lot on infrastructure. So, as my people's moods always seem to be ok, I have never saw the need to pull up the luxury rate.

So, with wonders, lands with luxuries, and a proper infrastructure, a bigger luxury rate is thus redundant.

Thank you!

Best regards,

Craftsman.

 

[AA-battery]

Luxury above 0%? Not if I want to win by histograph. Also depends on government.

 

[microbe]

Raise the lux if you have happiness problems.

 

[Tomoyo]

...and lower it when the problems go away.

It would be an interesting variant - you have to keep lux at 50% or more for the entire game!

 

[microbe]

It would be an interesting variant - you have to keep lux at 50% or more for the entire game!

Which was exactly Epic42.

 

[Tomoyo]

Oh yes, the "Relaxed" one with automated workers, right?

 

[citizen001]

But when you have happiness problems don't you use entertainers, as lux rate costs more gpt?

 

[Tomoyo]

Entertainers cost food, shields, and gold.

 

[WackenOpenAir]

The cost of an entertainer:

Espescially in early game, try to prevent the use of entertainers when possible.

See it this way:

1 shield is worth around 3 gold or so. (look at rush building and upgrading, but also what the shields can get you by conquering stuff etc)

1 food is worth 2+ shields in early game. an extra citizen for 20 food is an extra citizen that will be producing shields for a long time while shields now are only some shields right now. This i cannot make so obvious, but i am sure all of the good players will agree with me.

So that makes 1 food worth 6 gold.

Now 1 entertainer on average takes away he production of: 2 food, 1 shield, 2 commerce.
making a total worth of 17 gold.

As the game moves on, the cost decreases as food gets less significant. (until it is not at all significant when your city is max size)

 

[Frollo]

[...]

Now 1 entertainer on average takes away he production of: 2 food, 1 shield, 2 commerce.
making a total worth of 17 gold.

Now that's an interesting point of view!
All I see when I raise the lux slider, is the immediate effect: my research goes down. I never thought of looking at it in terms of food and shields in the long run.

I guess that's why I don't consider myself a good player...

 

[microbe]

Now that's an interesting point of view!
All I see when I raise the lux slider, is the immediate effect: my research goes down. I never thought of looking at it in terms of food and shields in the long run.

Research is not important at the beginning. Expansion and growth are. After you settle all your cities you can care more about your research.

 

[Frollo]

Research is not important at the beginning. Expansion and growth are. After you settle all your cities you can care more about your research.

I understand.
Now I did (kinda) try this approach for my last few games or so, but it still pains me to stall my research in the early game. I'll just have to get used to it, I guess

 

[citizen001]

Entertainers cost food, shields, and gold.

if you look at it that way, is it bad to use specialists at the beginning?

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Another small benefit could be a we love the king day. This also is not really worth the lux though.

Oh, very well it is. WltKDs mean half waste; so if 10 or 20% Lux will get 20+ half-corrupt cities productive (faster Courts, Markets, whatever), the lost income is well-invested.

Not worth it above 30%, though.

citizen001: Yes, absolutely. One single Scientist is often fine, since it saves 10% Research if you're doing a minimum run, and often you'd have to rise Lux for one city only.
But neither a Clown nor a Taxman are really worth it. Clowns NEVER, Taxman rarely, to be exact.

 

[Choffy]

Does WLTKDS have any impact on city population growth... I think there was something like that in Civ2 or Civ1?

It is said that WLTKDS reduce corruption. Do you know exactly how it works more exactly? Is it still the case when WLTKDS is over?

Thanks.

 

[tR1cKy]

Doc, sometimes taxmen and even clowns are really useful. In emperor or deity level, they may be needed to avoid civil disorder for a few turns, until a worker or settler is built.
If the overpopulation problem affects only 1 city, it's better to turn a pop unit into a clown or taxman rather than increasing luxury spending.

 

[punkbass2000]

Does WLTKDS have any impact on city population growth... I think there was something like that in Civ2 or Civ1?

It is said that WLTKDS reduce corruption. Do you know exactly how it works more exactly? Is it still the case when WLTKDS is over?

Thanks.

If you were a democracy in Civ2 you would gain a pop point every turn your city remained in WLT*D, as long as you had enough food to support it (IIRC).