New Version - December 18th (12-18)

[Leondegrance]

I have a question about the below city screen. This is very early in game, turn 8 but if I understand this earlier the better.

So it explains that the capital has 1 from distress and 1 from poverty. Good, total 2 for the city and thus 5-2=3 for the empire.

But let's look at the city level further, particularly the poverty, where it says that the city produces 4 Gold while the need is 4.25. Then it says that the deficit is 0.5. This is strange. Isn't the deficit 0.25 rather ?

Also, we observe that this early in the game, there are no need reducing effects yet of course, but there are cumulative 29% need increasing effects. So, let's assume for simplicity that the poverty deficit is indeed 0.5 and let's apply 29% to the poverty need, thus 1.29*0.5=0.645. But this is not a whole number while the poverty unhappiness is 1.But we see it is not 1 yet, it is rather 0.645.

If the deficit is 0.25 rather, then we have 0.3225 unhappiness from poverty. Either way, that is not 1.

So how does this work ?

Also, the very top view states "local happiness is 0" but then it says "local unhappiness: 2". So how can we have dual states ? Is it happy city, or not happy ?

 

[chicorbeef]

The deficit is 0.25 per citizen. You have 2 citizens. Therefore the total deficit is 0.5. Same for Distress.

The +29% modifier increases the amount of yields you need per citizen by 29%, and the 1 unhappiness is simply because you are not meeting that yield, not a product of modifier x deficit.

 

[Leondegrance]

Aham.

So I have 2 citizens, 1 unhappy to distress and the other unhappy to poverty. In order to make the poor guy happy I have to increase the city gold output to 8x1.29 or to 10.32. Provided of course the global doesn't change, just a snapshot.

I see now why local hapiness is 0. Because both of the guys are unhappy. If one of them becomes happy, then local hapiness will be shown not as 0 but 1. The other can stay unhappy if he wish. So it is not literally different mutually exclusive states, it just shows how many citizens are happy and how many unhappy.

 

[azum4roll]

Strangely the global median seems to have dropped since you're going to lose 1 poverty when you grow. I guess someone settled a second city already...

And no you only need to produce 4.25x2=8.5 gold for that guy to be happy again.

 

[Gazebo]

Strangely the global median seems to have dropped since you're going to lose 1 poverty when you grow. I guess someone settled a second city already...

It happens. The global median can fluctuate up and down.

G

 

[Leondegrance]

Strangely the global median seems to have dropped since you're going to lose 1 poverty when you grow. I guess someone settled a second city already...

And no you only need to produce 4.25x2=8.5 gold for that guy to be happy again.

You also make sense. Indeed. But then how does the 29% modifier come into effect ?

Edit:

I think I have some clue how the modifier comes into effect. The clue is the changelog which say

• These values are 'staticized' for cities, so you'll know exactly what growth will do when it happens.

So I think that, in the simple turn 8 example of my game, this means that when guy 3 gets born, the city will need to produce 8.5x1.29 gold, ceteris paribus, in order to have 0 poverty unhappiness. Of course the world will not stay frozen and the 4.25 poverty need we see now will be other value, so no guarantee that 0 poverty will result, but at least it gives you a snapshot idea.

If you are an engineer you may like to think about it as the derivative of the 0-poverty population-yield curve at a fixed point; or if you are economist may like to think about it as marginal yield per population to be remain happy.

 

[Rekk]

The Netherlands, a civilization that I was at war with lost its last city. From what I understand, I am still at war with the now nonexistent Netherlands, so even if I go to war with one of William's other enemies and take some of William's former cities, I won't have the option to liberate it back to the Netherlands, correct?

As in, I'm searching for a reason as to why I can't liberate the city back to William (bringing him back from the dead), having already tried to do this.

 

[azum4roll]

I think the war is over because you get the victory tourism from eliminating a civ.

 

[Leondegrance]

On the 25% need increase of the capitol. Such a high fixed marginal yield increase be wary of overgrowing the capitol. Because there is no way a single citizen can produce that much in order to offset this huge increase. Worse, it is fixed 25%. No matter what cool wonder you will build with super yields, the next citizen shall be subject to the 25% yet again.

On the other hand non-capitol cities don't have such a steep increase and can grow. At least in the beginning is fine.

 

[chicorbeef]

You also make sense. Indeed. But then how does the 29% modifier come into effect ?

Edit:

I think I have some clue how the modifier comes into effect. The clue is the changelog which say

• These values are 'staticized' for cities, so you'll know exactly what growth will do when it happens.

So I think that, in the simple turn 8 example of my game, this means that when guy 3 gets born, the city will need to produce 8.5x1.29 gold, ceteris paribus, in order to have 0 poverty unhappiness. Of course the world will not stay frozen and the 4.25 poverty need we see now will be other value, so no guarantee that 0 poverty will result, but at least it gives you a snapshot idea.

If you are an engineer you may like to think about it as the derivative of the 0-poverty population-yield curve at a fixed point; or if you are economist may like to think about it as marginal yield per population to be remain happy.

Not 100% sure but I think that the 29% modifier is what was added on to calculate the needs for your city. Like the median could have been 3.3 gold per citizen to start with and then with the +29% modifier it becomes 4.25 gold per citizen (rounding down). So you need 0.5 more gold because you only generate 4 gold per citizen.

I think the median for gold production in the world dropped since your city grew to 2 pop, but the needs didn't change, that's what the staticization means. That's why it says that Poverty will go down.

 

[Gazebo]

Not 100% sure but I think that the 29% modifier is what was added on to calculate the needs for your city. Like the median could have been 3.3 gold per citizen to start with and then with the +29% modifier it becomes 4.25 gold per citizen (rounding down). So you need 0.5 more gold because you only generate 4 gold per citizen.

I think the median for gold production in the world dropped since your city grew to 2 pop, but the needs didn't change, that's what the staticization means. That's why it says that Poverty will go down.

Chicorbeef is correct. Two points to Gryffindor.

G

 

[Gazebo]

The Netherlands, a civilization that I was at war with lost its last city. From what I understand, I am still at war with the now nonexistent Netherlands, so even if I go to war with one of William's other enemies and take some of William's former cities, I won't have the option to liberate it back to the Netherlands, correct?

You were not the slayer of the Dutch, so you will still be able to liberate. War/peace is reset on death.


G

 

[Leondegrance]

Hmm good to know how it works now. It crossed my mind that the multipliers may be working on pre-need basis on the global level rather than ex-need basis. But I dismissed it earlier.

On the other hand, it does not make difference on which side it takes effect, global pre- or player ex- sides, the aggregates are the same. But for clarity purposes it means a lot knowing when the multiplier gets applied.

 

[Rekk]

You were not the slayer of the Dutch, so you will still be able to liberate. War/peace is reset on death.


G

And ... what if I was the slayer of the Dutch? There's a flag that stops me from liberating them?

On the 25% need increase of the capitol. Such a high fixed marginal yield increase be wary of overgrowing the capitol. Because there is no way a single citizen can produce that much in order to offset this huge increase. Worse, it is fixed 25%. No matter what cool wonder you will build with super yields, the next citizen shall be subject to the 25% yet again.

On the other hand non-capitol cities don't have such a steep increase and can grow. At least in the beginning is fine.

Capitals have had that 25% need increase for a very long time. You underestimate the sheer amount of yields a Capital of any policy path produces.

 

[Zanteogo]

Poor Denmark.

I’m sure if we put our collective heads together we can find a way to keep them a pillage based civ without making them get out of control once they have too much to pillage.. I haven’t tested the new patch but the pillage rune stone aspect of their civ certainly seems to be basically gone. It’s a discussion best left to the Denmark thread anyways.

 

[Kim Dong Un]

Don’t spread doom and gloom, theres nothing wrong with Mongolia.

G

 

[Leondegrance]

Actually it does matter on which side the multiplier works.

Being on the global pre-needs side, this is the right design choice. So that when you look at your needs now you can get an easy answer how much more you need.

Had it been on the player side to apply multipliers ex-need, would have been overkill for the player to constantly apply percentage increases mentally. Rather bad choice so happy to know it has been done the better more player friendly way.

 

[Gazebo]

And ... what if I was the slayer of the Dutch? There's a flag that stops me from liberating them?


Capitals have had that 25% need increase for a very long time. You underestimate the sheer amount of yields a Capital of any policy path produces.

Yes.

 

[ryanmusante]

I need clarification on embarkation. Are the Hunnic units allowed to stack on my Quinquereme because we're "friendly"? Would they not be able to stack if at war? The status of embarked units has not changed, correct?

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Is it a design decision the nobility policy gives now only 2 food (instead of 3 like its displayed) to castles and armories or is this a bug (wrong information on policy description)?
+2 food fits better, the buff increase the overal benefit by +1 food and +1 happiness per city, which would be fine, but is this intended?

Edit: Wombo Combo! Only one trade route..... XD