Old World Quick Questions and answers (and FAQ)

[Leyrann]

The sheet is correct as far as I know. There's no setting where a rating of 4 would give 40 something directly. Maybe you're looking at the combined effects of being a leader, governor or something else? Otherwise, post a screenshot so we can deduce what's going on.

It looks to me like the sheet is off in some places, at the very least the foreign opinion, tribal opinion and religion opinion the ambassador provides based on charisma, courage and discipline. these numbers are equal to the civics, training and money that chancellors provide, when I'm pretty sure the numbers should be bigger. And speaking of, I'm pretty sure the number for the money a chancellor provides based on discipline is off too.

In fact before posting this I'll go in-game and check against my current ambassador and chancellor.

Okay, first one, my current chancellor has 5 charisma, which provides 45 foreign opinion, rather than the 3.2 the sheet states (which would be ridiculously weak tbh):

Spoiler :

Checking some other candidate ambassadors, it seems to be:
-3 = -20 opinion
-2 = unknown (no candidates available), but presumably -10 opinion
-1 = -5 opinion
0 = 0 (now that's a truism)
1 = 5 opinion
2 = 10 opinion
3 = 20 opinion
4 = 30 opinion
5 = 45 opinion
and some outliers:
8 = 110 opinion
9 = 135 opinion

I'm not sure what the values for 6 and 7 are as I have no one with those stats, but I'm guessing 60 and 85 or something. I'm not spotting any differences between tribal, foreign and religion opinion values btw, but I wouldn't expect there to be any.

Looking at chancellors, numbers simply don't align here either, in any category. -1 wisdom is giving me -0.2 growth and -2 wisdom is giving me -0.6 growth, rather than the -0.4 and -0.8 mentioned, and charisma and courage give 1/3/4.5 training or civics per level rather than the 0.4/0.8/1.2 in the sheet. For money I'm seeing 18 and 30 for 3 and 4 discipline respectively, and I'm afraid my sample size is rather limited so I can't check other values.

The graphs shown for the leader aren't correct either, by the way. They all display the same values (as does the column they're presumably based on), but in-game, science is smaller than civics, which might be smaller than or equal to training, not sure, but which is definitely smaller than money:

Spoiler :

 

[Solver]

Aha, I was looking at the leader numbers. The council ones indeed seem to be way off.

 

[bitula]

Hi, its now 6/84 (for Ashurbanipal), was 4/40. Btw the exact calculation is not important for me, I just did not know it is "exponential" therefore thought that there is something else involved. But your answer clarifies my issue, thx.
Ahhhh, ok, 4 -> 5 means 5 * 4 * 2 = 40, where *2 is I guess the Leader multiplier?

 

[Verrucosus]

I'm currently playing as Babylonia on the "Old World" map (main version, not the test version). Somewhat to my surprise, Persia started in Upi (just north of Babylon, south of Assur), putting three capitals right next to each other, setting up an unexpectedly relaxed game with lots of room towards what's usually Persia. In two other games where I only played the first few turns as a test, Persia started in Ecbatana and Parsa. Bablyonia and Assyria both began in Babylon/Assur in all three games. Is this working as intended?

 

[Dale]

I'm currently playing as Babylonia on the "Old World" map (main version, not the test version). Somewhat to my surprise, Persia started in Upi (just north of Babylon, south of Assur), putting three capitals right next to each other, setting up an unexpectedly relaxed game with lots of room towards what's usually Persia. In two other games where I only played the first few turns as a test, Persia started in Ecbatana and Parsa. Bablyonia and Assyria both began in Babylon/Assur in all three games. Is this working as intended?

For Persia, some dynasties start in different cities to reflect that dynasty's capital.

- Shapur in Upi
- Cyaxares in Ecbatana
- Others in default city.

 

[Verrucosus]

Ah, that's the reason! Now that I know that, I really like it, not just because it adds some variety to early expansion for Persia and its neighbours, but also as a reflection of history that adds to the "real-life" attraction of the world map.

 

[Dale]

Ah, that's the reason! Now that I know that, I really like it, not just because it adds some variety to early expansion for Persia and its neighbours, but also as a reflection of history that adds to the "real-life" attraction of the world map.

The most noticeable one is Ptolemy of Greece. He starts in Alexandria, Egypt. Get's really tight, specially if you also have Ramesses II.

 

[Verrucosus]

It's very convenient for these tight setups that, unlike their post-Civ2-colleagues, Old World settlers have some hit points!

 

[Leyrann]

It's very convenient for these tight setups that, unlike their post-Civ2-colleagues, Old World settlers have some hit points!

Civ 7 Settlers also have hit points!

Do note that damaged settlers settle damaged cities, which means you'll have to start with Repair Damage (or suffer much slower production).

 

[Verrucosus]

Civ 7 Settlers also have hit points!

Do note that damaged settlers settle damaged cities, which means you'll have to start with Repair Damage (or suffer much slower production).

Yes, I noticed that when rushing a settler to a barbarian site and using him to draw fire during the fighting. It's good there's a price for putting civilian in harm's way like that.

Civilization settlers recovering hitpoints after 23 years?In the early parts of Civilization II, when most military units had just ten hitpoints, scrappy settlers sitting on a hill or mountain saved me quite a few times from the barbarians. The general feedback for Civilization VII has been discouraging (in the context of what I had hoped for), but I didn't get into such details yet. Eventually, I'll have to play to find out for myself.

 

[Leyrann]

Civilization settlers recovering hitpoints after 23 years?In the early parts of Civilization II, when most military units had just ten hitpoints, scrappy settlers sitting on a hill or mountain saved me quite a few times from the barbarians. The general feedback for Civilization VII has been discouraging (in the context of what I had hoped for), but I didn't get into such details yet. Eventually, I'll have to play to find out for myself.

Civ VII has amazing fundamentals, however it's just unfinished, and the UI is terrible. I definitely enjoyed it when I played it (although I must admit that I am enjoying Old World even more), and with the attention they've paid to fixing what's currently out so far, I expect it to become the best instalment in the series.

 

[PiR]

Is there a point building a road on the river bank, or am I getting the same speed movement for all units thanks for Exploration?

 

[Verrucosus]

The road and riverbank movement bonus are the same. Roads can still pay off when the river takes turns, but the Rhone is conveniently straight for any elephant in a hurry.

 

[PiR]

oooh thanks, I didn't know about the river turns!
so you mean for example here, to make the red path as fast as possible, I should build roads on the tiles marked with a red x?

not that it makes sense here, just to get the concept





I've also noticed a new UI (new is relative as I don't play as much as I'd like) info: the "Net change" when you intend to build a specialist in a city.
I try to read the patch notes but I don't remember reading that specialist would now cost 0.1 order per turn. Has it always been there?

 

[Verrucosus]

I was thinking of a different situation where the river makes twists so that an "as the crow flies" connection created partially by roads has fewer tiles from A to B than the number of riverbank tiles in between. Your screenshot raises a distinct problem: Do the riverbank tiles require to be adjacent to the same river to give the movement bonus. I'm not really sure (and now curious) about that. [Edit: Some casual testing suggests that the riverbank bonus does not apply when moving from one river-adjacent tile to one adjacent to a different river, so a road should be necessary for a bonus between the two X tiles in your screenshot.]

The 0.1 order cost display is relatively new to me as well. I'm assuming that reflects that the 0.1 order generated per turn by the citizen (see manual v1.65 p. 80) is no longer generated once that citizen gets turned into a specialist. I'm not sure whether that used to be different (ie specialists previously generating 0.1 order per turn) or whether it's just a display change.

 

[Solver]

You lose a Citizen, which provides 0.1 orders. This has always been the case, though not quite as clear before the tooltip change.

 

[PiR]

I was thinking of a different situation where the river makes twists so that an "as the crow flies" connection created partially by roads has fewer tiles from A to B than the number of riverbank tiles in between.

If there's a way through fewer tiles then yes a road should obviously be built.

[Edit: Some casual testing suggests that the riverbank bonus does not apply when moving from one river-adjacent tile to one adjacent to a different river, so a road should be necessary for a bonus between the two X tiles in your screenshot.]

So it's not just a tile status like urban/road but rather a "directional" following the river. Awesome detail.

the 0.1 order generated per turn by the citizen

I didn't even know that. Thanks Solver for confirming it's always been there, just made clearer. That net change tooltip is really nice to see the impact of the choice.
So now my OCD will have to fight between:

• should I almost make specialists when I can, because if I can get more resources then I should - or - should I optimize the most precious resource, orders, and challenge my need to resources?

Obviously if I don't need resources that much then I'll build something else, BUT:

• shoud I stop bother planning/building barracks & ranges perfectly around garrisons/strongholds as it just provides 0.1 order which I could gain just by NOT doing something else (a specialist)?

That one's gonna make me loose sleep!

 

[Leyrann]

So it's not just a tile status like urban/road but rather a "directional" following the river. Awesome detail.

You see the same thing with the trade network. A Hamlet one tile away from a river doesn't connect to it, even though it's adjacent to the network on the trade overlay.

shoud I stop bother planning/building barracks & ranges perfectly around garrisons/strongholds as it just provides 0.1 order which I could gain just by NOT doing something else (a specialist)?

If you properly plan that out (a circular 7 hexes, with the Garrison, Stronghold and Citadel on the outside and not adjacent to each other), you actually get a total of 0.9 extra orders from adjacencies, spread across 4 Barracks and Ranges.

Also, the real cost of specialists, imo, is if you have several Poets or Philosophers or the like - with three Elder Poets, turning a citizen into a specialist will cost you 3 civics/turn.

 

[Dale]

You see the same thing with the trade network. A Hamlet one tile away from a river doesn't connect to it, even though it's adjacent to the network on the trade overlay.

Rivers travel along the edge of a tile, thus both tiles either side of the river are considered connected.
Roads travel through a tile, thus only the tile the road is in is considered connected.

Roads and rivers are only considered connected IF the tile has a road in it, AND a river along the edge.

 

[Leyrann]

Rivers travel along the edge of a tile, thus both tiles either side of the river are considered connected.
Roads travel through a tile, thus only the tile the road is in is considered connected.

Roads and rivers are only considered connected IF the tile has a road in it, AND a river along the edge.

I wasn't saying it was a bug, just illustrating how it worked.