Research + Economy suck! What am I doing wrong!?

[OTAKUjbski]

Once you learn how to run city governors, you can usually get any result you want, and much faster than micromanaging your tiles.

The only thing that the city governors won't do is starve your city, so if you want to run a food deficit, then you have to turn your governor off.

This is true. But managing your governors can give you the same results.

I don't think I've gotten the hang of city governors, because the way you describe it makes it sound super effective.

About the only city governors I ever have are in my hybrid or non-specialized cities. I've never done the math, but it just feels like I do a better job. Who knows, eh?

I wasn't aware that Golden Ages produced bonus food at all.

They don't. I guess my example was kinda vague. I keep my late Golden Age(s) in mind when dropping initial tile improvements.

Since a Golden Age only affects tiles with 1 and/or 1, I try to maximize the number of post-Liberalism tiles eligible for the Golden Age increase.

In this hypothetical situation, I have a non-Irrigated Plains and a non-irrigated Grassland, and I must put a Town on one and a Farm on the other.

A Plains tile always produces at least 1, so from turn 1, Plains are eligible for the +1 boost from a Golden Age.

Grasslands must be improved to offer any . A Town under Universal Suffrage will increase the Grassland's yield to 1

If I farm the Grassland and cottage the Plains, my late-game Golden Age will only affect the Plains tile, increasing the combined production yield by 1.

If I cottage the Grassland and farm the Plains, my late-game Golden Age will affect both tiles, increasing the combined production yield by 2.

In my previous example, I assumed a super-late game situation in which both tiles had their maximum bonuses from Fresh Water, Biology, Printing Press, Universal Suffrage & Free Speech.

I was also wrong in my numbers ... a Farmed Plains under those conditions yields 3, though I had previously stated only 2.

So, looking over everything, it comes down to this: If I put the cottage on the Plains, I can get a "free" hammer in the early game while I work my cottage. But, if I put my cottage on the Grassland, then my late-game Golden Age is going to be twice as effective for production inside the microcosm of these 2 tiles.


I'm terribly bad at explaining things, so I hope this makes sense.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

I always fiddle with the city governors instead of apply pop one by one, you can usually find a combination to get you what you want and locking specialists just adds to the combinations you can come up with. It cuts down on time with city micromanagement since you want to go to full manual override (traditional micromanagement) only a small percentage of the time.

 

[bardolph]

I don't think I've gotten the hang of city governors, because the way you describe it makes it sound super effective.

About the only city governors I ever have are in my hybrid or non-specialized cities. I've never done the math, but it just feels like I do a better job. Who knows, eh?

Here's one way you can test the governors:

Try turning on "Emphasize Commerce," "Emphasize Science," and "Avoid Growth." Count the total beaker output for the city. Then turn the governor off and try to beat it.

If you also want moderate growth for that city, turn off "Avoid Growth."

If you want fast growth for that city, turn off "Avoid Growth" and turn on "Emphasize Food".

If you want GPPs, turn on "Emphasize Great People."

If you want to avoid GPPs, turn off "Emphasize Great People," and turn on "Emphasize Food/Production/Hammers" as appropriate for that city.

And so on. If the governor is on, and you add a specialist, the specialist will be highlighted in yellow. These specialists are "locked in," meaning the governor can't turn them off. Very useful if you want to micro your specialists.

If you turn off all of the emphasis buttons, but leave the Governor on, the Governor will try to find the optimal balance between food, production, commerce, and specialists based on the tiles available to that city.

One problem with Governors is that they don't manage your health/happiness limits very well. Cities can easily go over their limits if you don't watch out. Sometimes this is okay, but other times you will want to "Avoid Growth" before you end up with unhappy citizens.

They don't. I guess my example was kinda vague. I keep my late Golden Age(s) in mind when dropping initial tile improvements.

Since a Golden Age only affects tiles with 1 and/or 1, I try to maximize the number of post-Liberalism tiles eligible for the Golden Age increase.

I generally don't plan my grand strategy around a Golden Age, simply because I rarely get more than one GA per game. It's enough for me to know that I'm getting "a lot" of production/commerce. But you have a good point that you want as many tiles as possible producing at least one hammer and one coin. Towns + US are a great way to guarantee this, as are watermills and windmills. Interesting point that plains tend to magnify the effects of a GA, because of the base hammer.

 

[Arvedui]

Unhappy citizens don't only eat 2 food and do nothing useful they also increase the maintenance costs in the city and the cost of your civics.

I suppose I understand how unhappy citizens increase the cost of civics (i.e. civic upkeep), since the higher your empire's population is, the higher the civic upkeep gets; but are you sure about it increasing maintenance costs in the city? I thought these were determined by number of cities and distance from seat of government (and things like whether you have courthouses, state property, etc., of course), not by population points, even if they are unhappy!

Or did you mean something else by 'maintenance'?

 

[OTAKUjbski]

I generally don't plan my grand strategy around a Golden Age, simply because I rarely get more than one GA per game. It's enough for me to know that I'm getting "a lot" of production/commerce. But you have a good point that you want as many tiles as possible producing at least one hammer and one coin. Towns + US are a great way to guarantee this, as are watermills and windmills. Interesting point that plains tend to magnify the effects of a GA, because of the base hammer.

I wouldn't say I plan my grand strategy around a Golden Age, but since I almost always trigger one shortly after Liberalism to maximize on my way to Democracy, I try to keep it in mind. If I do see a second one, it's because I screwed up my GP birthing somewhere along the way and have 'leftovers'.

 

[UncleJJ]

I suppose I understand how unhappy citizens increase the cost of civics (i.e. civic upkeep), since the higher your empire's population is, the higher the civic upkeep gets; but are you sure about it increasing maintenance costs in the city? I thought these were determined by number of cities and distance from seat of government (and things like whether you have courthouses, state property, etc., of course), not by population points, even if they are unhappy!

Or did you mean something else by 'maintenance'?

I did mean the city maintenance cost determined by the number of cities and distance from seat of government. That cost also depends in some way (I'm not sure of the formula) on the size of the city as well as the number of cities and distance factors you mention. That is easy to see by the fall the cost when you whip pop away to build something or when the city increases in size by normal growth. The other factors haven't changed but the size has and so does the maintenance cost.

 

[Arvedui]

I did mean the city maintenance cost determined by the number of cities and distance from seat of government. That cost also depends in some way (I'm not sure of the formula) on the size of the city as well as the number of cities and distance factors you mention. That is easy to see by the fall the cost when you whip pop away to build something or when the city increases in size by normal growth. The other factors haven't changed but the size has and so does the maintenance cost.

Very interesting! Good to know, thanks!