I read in some thread that Miss Moonsinger would race to Genetics for Longevity so that she had a little extra population for a bit in her histographic games. But, I noticed that in her 88k game 2050 AD save, she hadn't build Longevity. I know the number of happy citizens has a significant effect on your total score. Do you lose points for the turns when your city starves thus loses the "We Love the Leader Day" effect?
Longevity in histographic games
- Thread starter Spoonwood
- Start date
Does not have to be as long as citizens still all are happy. Ofcourse you lose the points for the lost citizen. Without Longetivity it's easier to keep cities at constant size, less work. Besides, usually by the time you can build it most cities will be maxed out allready so no real need for it.
(disclaimer... that's rather clearly untrue, so it's a joke).AutomatedTeller
Frequent poster
Say that analysis is right and with longevity, you get .29 points/turn from the extra food and without it, you get .33.
If you have 512 cities, for 200 turns, on SID, your score will be 121 points higher without longevity than with it. (512*.04*2*200*8/540)
So, as I see it - if you have a lot of growth to go when it's time to build longevity, go for it. If you are maxed out already, ignore it.
If you have 512 cities, for 200 turns, on SID, your score will be 121 points higher without longevity than with it. (512*.04*2*200*8/540)
So, as I see it - if you have a lot of growth to go when it's time to build longevity, go for it. If you are maxed out already, ignore it.
I don't know where else to put this sort of question of mine. I've read many times that on an archipleago map there exists a higher domination limit, so it works out better for a histographic game. But, no doubt it works out slower in several respects. You need to put shields towards ships, taking/razing AI cities takes longer... meaning fewer (happy) citizens early on, and other than fish tiles, sea squares don't do a whole lot. By this I mean you can't irrigate and rail them, nor can you forest and chop them for shields towards say a marketplace in a corrupt area. So, slower growth, and happy faces come in slower. On top of this, trading/obtaining luxuries early for happy faces doesn't work out so easy. Of note to me the current #1 histographic game on a standard sized map used 7 opponents and what seems like a pangea map (though I don't know on that). Any conclusive calculations that the domination limit matters more than earlier happy faces, better food, and a little more shield production?
According to Seed Beast, Rysingsun's Deity Standard Histographic game with score 25358 is on a 60% Pangaea, Wet, Warm, Old.
No conclusive evidence, but my gut and limited experience suggests it depends on level.
At a higher level, I'd think that naval invasions would become more problematic for gathering territory, you get land in general slower because the AI is tougher, and so you might do better with a pangaea type of map.
At lower levels, naval invasions should be easy enough (you can conquer most of the world before they get rails, so establishing a beachhead should be easy enough), and you can reach the domination limit with a lot of the game still to go, so having more domination tiles is important because you'll benefit from them for a longer period of time.
TheOverseer714
Overseer
I just finished a game at Emperor level, and Arabia was on an island. I tried invading with Infantry and Cavalry and was unsuccessful due to the WW from the number of Swords and Horses that eventually killed most of the troops I sent. I eventually succeeded with Mech Infantry, Tanks and Bombers. My conclusion: any game where you use Republic and want happy people should avoid D-Day invasions, the higher the level the more so.
Northern Pike
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2003
- Messages
- 6,673
Well, this depends on how much work the player is willing to put into elaborate measures such as phony wars for war happiness and diversionary landings. If the player uses all the tools at his disposal, republic needn't rule out anything except AW.
TheOverseer714
Overseer
Point taken, its not impossible, but very difficult. My second go around on Arabia had many less counterattacks, though the AI will attack MIs with Cavalry. I also had Bombers and Tanks to mow down the slow movers. I can imagine how difficult it would have been if I were facing Deity level troop numbers. I am watching Chamnix on his HoF game with interest for some of his war happiness tricks.
TheOverseer714 said:
Interesting that you say that. Although I don't know the details, from what I've seen of the highest scoring game of all time, it would beg to differ. How much artilery did you take along with you and of what class? Did you land with any armies and if so of what type?
TheOverseer714
Overseer
First landing was botched by having no armies and not enough artillery, but the main reason I abandoned that attempt was not military failure, it was the instant WW caused by 30+ defensive battles each turn. NP made a good point about decoy landings and phony wars, but those were not doable under the circumstances. I still won the war and the game, but not by enough to make my top ten.
