Quick Answers / 'Newbie' Questions
- Thread starter Civrules
- Start date
Hi there, nice forum you got here. But first of all, I got a quick question regarding Civ IV (BTS): Do I need to work a tile with a resource in order to get the resource? Situation is that I got stone (with quarry) within the borders of one town, and I want stone in order to be able to build a wonder in another city - connected by road - faster. However, the city screen does not show stone as an available resource and it still takes the same time for the wonder requiring stone. I have not yet begun to work the tile with stone on it as this might cause starvation in the city...
Sisiutil
All Leader Challenger
No, you don't need to have a citizen assigned to the tile for the resource to be available. You do need (a) the required improvement (in this case, a quarry, which it sounds like you have); (b) a route to the resource tile (generally a road); and (c) a route from the city with the resource back to the city where you're doing the building (again, generally, via roads, and/or via rivers/coast if you've researched Sailing).
AJ11
Emperor
I think you need to connect both the resource and the building city to your capital as well. The game doesn't add the city to the trade network if it is not connected to the capital, and the same with the resource.
So, it is possible to have the improvement and have a road from the resource to the building city but still not having the resource showing up, if the route doesn't go through or is connected in any way to your capital.
Danelius90
Hunter (of vegetables)
Connection to the capital is only necessary when trading with other civs IIRC.
So for instance, 2 non-capital cities can be connected to each other and not the capital and share one copper or whatever resource between them but the capital won't have it and you can't trade it with other civs.
I didn't want to make a topic about this, so I'll ask here:
Does anyone of you guys (advanced players, it seems) ever use the Stop Growth button?
I use it a lot when hitting the happy cap, but it can get very tedious to check cities and activate and deactivate the button. So now I just ignore it, and I'm getting angry faces all over the place. A city with size 6 can work 6 tiles, while a city with size 10 and 4 angry faces work 6 tiles as well, so basically it's the same thing (except for extra maintenance costs)
So what should I do? Use the button or just let the cities grow until they stagnate automatically? I know that just letting the cities grow is sub-optimal, but I want an opinion for a high level player (for instance I've never seen TMIT use the button on his videos...). Maybe letting the cities grow past the cap it's not a big deal.
Does anyone of you guys (advanced players, it seems) ever use the Stop Growth button?
I use it a lot when hitting the happy cap, but it can get very tedious to check cities and activate and deactivate the button. So now I just ignore it, and I'm getting angry faces all over the place. A city with size 6 can work 6 tiles, while a city with size 10 and 4 angry faces work 6 tiles as well, so basically it's the same thing (except for extra maintenance costs)
So what should I do? Use the button or just let the cities grow until they stagnate automatically? I know that just letting the cities grow is sub-optimal, but I want an opinion for a high level player (for instance I've never seen TMIT use the button on his videos...). Maybe letting the cities grow past the cap it's not a big deal.
I not a very high level player, but I am OK. My understanding is that it is rarely a good idea to use the Stop Growth button, but not never. You can usually make use of the population somehow, with clever use of the whip or by building settlers or workers. Sometimes the rate for growth is too much, and a size 10 city with 4 angry faces will cost more maintenance than a size 6 city, so there is a down side of letting them grow.
Abegweit
Anarchist trader
Pretty big. For one thing, it removes the value of all the coast tiles.
Sisiutil
All Leader Challenger
In my opinion, it depends upon your appetite for micro-management. In general, turning on stagnation requires less MM. Both Samson's and Ansive's takes are more optimal, no question, but not every player has an appetite for pursuing optimal play through intense MM. (The BUG mod helps in this regard by making optimal whipping points more transparent, along with the ability to set reminders to whip, change tile/specialist assignements, etc.)
That being said, there is one MM task you must remember to perform, and that's turning stagnation off when the city can once again grow without adverse effects. I think this may be the biggest argument against using the feature; if you're turning it on to avoid having to check and adjust the status of every city on every turn, you'll most likely forget to turn it off and find your cities stagnating when they have room to grow.
Enough to turn it from one of the best to one of the worst? Or just mediocre?
Abegweit
Anarchist trader
It's already a pretty poor trait, IMO. I suppose it would still be better than PRO but it would be pretty bad.
It's interesting that the MP folks all love it. Undoubtedly this is because you can't trade your way up the tree like you can in single player. Logically then, it would be a much better trait with tech trading turned off.
Turquoiside
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2008
- Messages
- 1,552
As you hinted at, most of the community would disagree. With or without Tech Trading, the increased commerce is more useful than just about anything another trait gives.
Abegweit
Anarchist trader
Who is this "most of the community" you refer to? Noble players? With the exception of DaveMcW, I can't think of a single good player who is enthusiastic about the trait.
Very few of the good players, like TMIT, feel it's a fantastic trait - true. However, often that's in response to a new player who feels Financial is far and away the best trait. It's considered a good trait, comparable to Expansive, Spiritual, etc. but not a runaway best trait as some people think. A lot of very good players complained in the "best (x) leader" polls last year that it was always Financial with whatever other trait was being voted on. But I don't remember many of them saying it was a poor trait, just that a lot of people overrated it.
The weakest traits are generally thought to be Aggressive with Protective being the worst.
Psyringe
Scout
Aw c'mon, you can't tell me that you don't know that Financial is winning every "most favorite trait" poll in this forum, for years.
Examples are here, here and here, you can probably find lots more if you dig a bit deeper in the forum search. I think I even remember one poll where Financial was excluded because the poll author expected it to win anyway and therefore "pollute" the ranking of the other traits.The fact that some high-end players believe that it's overrated doesn't change the fact that it is (as Turquoiside states) the most popular trait on these forums, pretty much from day one. It's a also a very versatile trait that runs well with many strategies, and (imho) is indeed one of the best traits up to Emperor difficulty, for single player games. It loses its appeal at the highest difficulty levels, where the AI gets insane bonuses, and having a bit more trade doesn't provide much of a benefit to the player - but at these levels, Civ becomes a very different game altogether, and most forum members can't or won't enjoy to play those. In multiplayer, it's obviously less poweful as well because it doesn't provide any direct bonus to the military, which is the focus of multiplayer gaming. But for the games that most Civ players play - single player games up to Emperor level -, Financial is indeed one of the most powerful traits.
Similar threads
