Myths and Tips

[ZombieBiskit]

I don't know if this counts as a myth or not as I only heard it mentioned in one specific thread, but settling on a luxury does not give you the happiness boost. It will give you the luxury to trade or whatever, but no happiness.

 

[Wariat]

These are some fantastic tips! Thanks guys, super helpful.

 

[Lyoncet]

Right now because of the loong, long build times I'm a sucker for bonus food - initially I thought that Granary was meh and omgitcostmaintenance But to have more food like that allows you to focus on production, not working those farms while your gold mine is just sitting there sadly.

Lastly, one small benefit is that you're saving yourself 6-8 worker turns that can be used elsewhere.

The major problem with granaries/mills, as I understand, isn't so much the hammer or maintenance cost, it's that once you get to classical/medieval era and have 4+ (I think?) cities you'll be much better served by just allying with a Maritime city-state. You don't need to spend hammers on it (and of course you don't need to spend worker turns, which mitigates that bonus of food buildings), you pay around 8 gpt (less with Greece, patronage, or a friendly state), and you get an ally and some resources out of the deal too. There's an up-front investment of gold of course to just get to allied, but after that you'll be paying the same or less in upkeep for the same or much greater advantage.

So the problem isn't really that the buildings are bad (although they could stand to be a little better IMO), but that one of the most broken mechanics in the game happens to do the exact same thing better. I suppose that lacking viable maritime states, though, you'd have good reason to build them.

 

[Bibor]

The major problem with granaries/mills, as I understand, isn't so much the hammer or maintenance cost, it's that once you get to classical/medieval era and have 4+ (I think?) cities you'll be much better served by just allying with a Maritime city-state. You don't need to spend hammers on it (and of course you don't need to spend worker turns, which mitigates that bonus of food buildings), you pay around 8 gpt (less with Greece, patronage, or a friendly state), and you get an ally and some resources out of the deal too. There's an up-front investment of gold of course to just get to allied, but after that you'll be paying the same or less in upkeep for the same or much greater advantage.

So the problem isn't really that the buildings are bad (although they could stand to be a little better IMO), but that one of the most broken mechanics in the game happens to do the exact same thing better. I suppose that lacking viable maritime states, though, you'd have good reason to build them.

This is yet another myth.

Even with maritime allies, cities with Granary and Watermill will grow more powerful every turn.
Faster growth
Faster research (science/library is based on pop)
More income (a cizen working a grassland non-river TC makes profit with marketplace)
More production (pop not wasted on farms).

What hospitals do for 15+ pop growth that Granaries and Watermills do in times before hospitals are available. And the effect stacks.

 

[Lyoncet]

It's not a myth; it's an analysis that turns up greater returns on investment than the alternative. There are three scenarios where Maritime doesn't beat out Granaries, and I outlined two:

1) Very small empire/very early
2) No/not enough maritime City-States
3) You have enough happiness and resources to ally with all practical maritime city-states and get granaries/water mills

All of those happen at times, but they by no means relegate the "city states are better ROI than granaries" to a "myth." My point, which is that maritime is, most of the time, the better choice between the two is by no means a myth. The idea that you need to get either granaries or city-states is a myth. The idea that I said you should only get either granaries or city-states is also a myth. If you're just going to label everything that doesn't square with your conceptions at first glance a "myth" without really considering them, there's not much point to you posting.

(Just for clarification: I didn't say that granaries are bad; I outlined their shortcomings compared to other mechanics and when you'd use them. Somehow, this turned into me perpetuating misinformation by saying that you shouldn't build granaries. Which 1) isn't true and 2) isn't useful to the conversation at hand.)

 

[DaveGold]

Myth 6, Social Policies take longer to research for larger empires.

Well, technically this is true, especially early on. But once you are getting towards the industrial age this becomes strongly NOT true. The 30% increase of culture cost will eventually be mitigated by the extra culture produced by new cities.

Sorry but the extra 30% is always a killer. Unless you have a very specific type of empire your new cities will be producing very little culture, much less than your existing cities. If you've got 9 cities already then settling the 10th will add at most 10% more culture if it's immediately as good as your other cities, which it won't be. A large chunk of your culture, perhaps the vast majority, may come from wonders, city states, and specialist culture cities (if you've bothered to make any) and this will not scale up as you get more cities. IMHO, you've got to develop your policies before you expand as the mechanics work against you if you try to gain it afterwards.

 

[Martin Alvito]

What hospitals do for 15+ pop growth that Granaries and Watermills do in times before hospitals are available. And the effect stacks.

The problem with your logic is that you have ignored opportunity cost. Maritime allies are strictly more efficient than 100H, 1GPT maintenance buildings. For the OCC, they are a double Granary with an attached luxury for +/- 7GPT, and it only gets better as you add cities. A resold luxury returns 300G for a 30 turn commitment on a resale, so one luxury in permits you to contract a luxury out at the effective rate of 10 GPT (better if you DOW the recipient before contract end, and better because you can put the lump sum of Gold to work NOW).

Once you have as many Maritime allies as you want/need, the question then becomes whether or not your Hammers/Gold are better spent on a Granary or on alternative buildings and units. It turns out that other early buildings produce better returns on investment, and units also offer better returns due to gold pillaging, puppets and the weakening/removal of rivals.

It really is that simple.

 

[Guardian_PL]

Sorry but the extra 30% is always a killer. Unless you have a very specific type of empire your new cities will be producing very little culture, much less than your existing cities. If you've got 9 cities already then settling the 10th will add at most 10% more culture if it's immediately as good as your other cities, which it won't be. A large chunk of your culture, perhaps the vast majority, may come from wonders, city states, and specialist culture cities (if you've bothered to make any) and this will not scale up as you get more cities. IMHO, you've got to develop your policies before you expand as the mechanics work against you if you try to gain it afterwards.

That's why up till Industrial-Modern age, if I have to conquer my entire continent to save myself from AI idiots (sorry, on Immortal+ so far I've found that it's the only way to have a chance with the other continent) I keep like 3-4 cities, rest are puppets. Yes they build Barracks and other useless stuff, but quite often they also go for Monuments, Temples and so on, which keeps me going.

Once the Industrial/Modern age hits in and I no longer have issues with happiness (thank goodness for Military Caste and Forbidden Palace, in my current game I had to come back from -79 xPPP) I can annex additional few make them culture cities - museums/opera houses etc, finally Broadcast Towers. But before that - puppets own

 

[Lyoncet]

Once the Industrial/Modern age hits in and I no longer have issues with happiness (thank goodness for Military Caste and Forbidden Palace, in my current game I had to come back from -79 xPPP)...

I know some people play by the "ignore happiness" strategy, but this has to set a record for the highest unintentional unhappiness.

Of course it doesn't really do anything more than -10 happy, other than drain golden age points faster, right?

 

[Zechnophobe]

I have edited in a few corrections from the thread, such as food from only cows/wheat and that cultural buildings are lost when you take over a city.

Anyone tried settling on Banana's yet? I never seem to start near to them. (I do disable start bias though).

 

[Guardian_PL]

So far I couldn't find grassland bananas, and on plains it's still 2

I know some people play by the "ignore happiness" strategy, but this has to set a record for the highest unintentional unhappiness.

Of course it doesn't really do anything more than -10 happy, other than drain golden age points faster, right?

I'm sorry sir, but I had NO other option

- I fell a victim to a vanishing luxury resources bug. I'm playing happily on Immortal, standard size low ocean level Continents map, enjoying myself and suddenly... I have no resources! I mean wtf, I can see like three Whales I've got but there's none on the tooltip and my subjects are in riot! On top of that, other civs don't want to trade them to me either!



I'm not the one to give up, though on my land Nappy, Washington and Hiawatha are busy waging war to me and each other. Nobunaga and Gandhi are soon reduced to like two-three cities, so in the end I've decided that the only way to get some more happiness is to obliterate those "bloodthirsty" bastards that are hoarding mine (and theirs) luxuries.



I'm telling you guys, it was the first time I thoroughly enjoyed a game in Civ5. And it was all thanks to a bug!
Wu Zetian is golden. If I wouldn't be playing as China I would be toast because of that -33% combat penalty and literally horde of units to kill. In your own borders that penalty can be mitigated, but without attacking there'd be no chance for victory - on another continent Augustus once again swallowed it nearly whole in his laid-back style (42k of gold and 850/turn O_o) - without dominating my own I'd have no chance to catch up to him.

I've got two words for you: Chu-ko-nu and Great Generals. That saved my hide and allowed continuous campaign outside my territory. That double attack with +45%(+12% really with unhappiness) combat bonus allowed me to not only hold three war fronts at the same time, but slowly push forward!

I've built only one Citadel, but Generals were indispensible - I've had like five separate fighting groups at some point and without their leadership I'd be gone in an instant. After the war I've burned them all on Golden Ages which gave me lots of gold and were compensating for 50% production penalty due to 10+
In the end, fighting xbows, longswords and muskets (luckily only two rifles from opposing City-States) with almost exclusively Chukonus except few Pikes/Swords/Horsemen to take over cities I've managed to weed out all the lunatic company, build/GErush Forbidden Palace, go for Military Caste and sigh with relief

Heh, Hiawatha's last city was coastal on a small peninsula and thank goodness that my superelite troops had 3 range and could shoot through obstacles - brave Native Americans had 5 Frigates securing the perimeter, making short work from anyone foolish enough to come close and end turn in their range :suicide:


Augustus stayed Friendly with me right to the very end, perhaps because that I was "cooperating" with him against pitiful leftovers of Babylon empire. Diplomatic Victory in 1912


First time I had real fun from playing Civ5, took me like two days and nights straight (would be less but I had duties to do in the meantime), with like 4-6 hours of sleep. Great time, I'm finally going to bed (4am again...). Now it's time for another stuff that I'm fond of in Civ games - I'll be pondering what should be my pick for the Deity, and what it'll be like...

 

[Aaroc]

Bananas only spawn in jungles. Jungles only spawn on plains. Grassland bananas do not exist. Also, wheat does not spawn on grasslands; only flood plains or plains.

The only 3food unimproved tiles possible are grassland cows, flood plains wheat, and maybe grassland deer.

 

[Paeanblack]

Sorry but the extra 30% is always a killer. ... If you've got 9 cities already then settling the 10th will add at most 10% more culture

It doesn't add 30%, it adds 3/(4+3n). Your 10th city only adds 8.8% to your social policy cost.

 

[xcaine]

Wu Zetian is golden

She is mine! I love her! Yellow fever...

 

[DaveGold]

It doesn't add 30%, it adds 3/(4+3n). Your 10th city only adds 8.8% to your social policy cost.

Fair enough, but the maths still works strongly against gaining policies through expansion.

 

[Gaizokubanou]

The major problem with granaries/mills, as I understand, isn't so much the hammer or maintenance cost, it's that once you get to classical/medieval era and have 4+ (I think?) cities you'll be much better served by just allying with a Maritime city-state. You don't need to spend hammers on it (and of course you don't need to spend worker turns, which mitigates that bonus of food buildings), you pay around 8 gpt (less with Greece, patronage, or a friendly state), and you get an ally and some resources out of the deal too. There's an up-front investment of gold of course to just get to allied, but after that you'll be paying the same or less in upkeep for the same or much greater advantage.

So the problem isn't really that the buildings are bad (although they could stand to be a little better IMO), but that one of the most broken mechanics in the game happens to do the exact same thing better. I suppose that lacking viable maritime states, though, you'd have good reason to build them.

But another aspect is that when you unlock granery (super early), you really don't have much else to build.

And remember, it's not granery OR maritime citystates, since you can have both and thus increase the growth even further. 2 food for 1 gold is a good deal.

 

[Paeanblack]

Fair enough, but the maths still works strongly against gaining policies through expansion.

That depends on playstyle. If you turtle with your capital and build wonders, sure, expansion slows down your policies. If your capital is pumping out settlers early, and those settlements all get to work on a monument, then expansion will greatly speed up your policies.

Since most of the policies are much stronger with a bigger empire, turtling for more policies is false economy.

Obviously, puppeting everything is currently the fastest way to getting more policies, but I wouldn't bother relying on a something that will be patched away pretty soon.

 

[Paeanblack]

You don't need to spend hammers on it (and of course you don't need to spend worker turns, which mitigates that bonus of food buildings), you pay around 8 gpt (less with Greece, patronage, or a friendly state), and you get an ally and some resources out of the deal too. There's an up-front investment of gold of course to just get to allied, but after that you'll be paying the same or less in upkeep for the same or much greater advantage.

Unlike the buildings, City-State alliances don't have a fixed cost...they are up for auction to the highest bidder. If the AI actually competed with you in a bidding war for the alliances, then imbalance would be neatly solved.

 

[spoooq]

If the AI actually competed with you in a bidding war for the alliances, then imbalance would be neatly solved.

Real competition from wealthy AIs would change the CS dynamic completely.

 

[Guardian_PL]

Real competition from wealthy AIs would change the CS dynamic completely.

That is sadly true - a turn before the UN vote none of the AI even bothered to bribe CS's into not voting for me. The AI is playing to win? Yeah right