Hm. Is that all there is to this formula? Because the yield progression then seems a) not working as intended (factor 2, and wording) and b) really questionable design wise. I'll break it down:
a) The progression formula would be for increasing number of following cities (up to 20):
Code:
1 30
2 30,3
3 31,2
4 32,7
5 34,8
6 37,5
7 40,8
8 44,7
9 49,2
10 54,3
11 60
12 66,3
13 73,2
14 80,7
15 88,8
16 97,5
17 106,8
18 116,7
19 127,2
20 138,3
But it's not. As said before it starts at 60. Can you clarify?
In addition the wording says "30 yields for every city following", that would imply 30, 60, 90, 120...
So if you really wan to keep it the way it is, please rephrase this to depict how it really works. Otherwise this will get reported as a bug forever.
b)
The other founder beliefs have a linear scaler afaik, why does this have to be different? If the progression is non linear, the only times this founder belief is good, is when you can convert many cities, otherwise leave it. It makes this (even if the numbers were perfectly balanced) a no-brainer on larger landmass maps and larger maps in general, where you can guarantee high number of conversions, with no competition, no decision making. It takes itself the niche of beeing the production oriented alternative to Holy Law and Hero Worship. It makes the sole decision making process "is this map big enough". If you want to scale it somehow non-linearly, make it scale linearly but with era aswell.
An example would be: "basevalue(10)+numscitiesfollowing*(2)*erascaler
(this tries to maintain the total yield amount received on the same scale as your formula)
TLDR: A squared approach cannot be balanced on big and small maps at the same time, while other founders are linear.
