The happiness problems are basically solved when you get to the buildings that improve happiness. They come too late. There is a large part of the game where you're trying to curb growth. In Civ IV you could whip and improve the happiness of the city more easily. I think they need to add early happiness buildings to smoothen it out. The granary or the monument would be good choices I feel for extra happiness. Perhaps add one happiness for a garrisoned unit.
sheep - who cares?
- Thread starter Leto
- Start date
Warguy2007
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2010
- Messages
- 4
Food is pointless in Civ 5. Forget about Civ 4. I use world builder to create my own map with resources. I can tell you that the AI players all skip on Banana. They work with sheep for money.
Anyway, I can't tell you how disappointment I had with Civ 5. My unsatifation since Colonization, now I will not buy any game from 2K. Their credibility is finished.
Anyway, I can't tell you how disappointment I had with Civ 5. My unsatifation since Colonization, now I will not buy any game from 2K. Their credibility is finished.
OTAKUjbski
TK421
In addition to coming late, most have a crippling maintenance cost.
Military Caste. (Tier 3 Social Policy in the Honor branch.)
lonemessiah
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2010
- Messages
- 35
I wondered whether it could be a good idea to make food resources add to the hit points of a city, since it could be argued that these cities are better equipped to dealing with a siege.
Or maybe that could reduce the number of food needed for the city to grow, since they promote a varied diet.
In all honesty though i agree they can be worse, but the flip side is at the beginning of the game they can be useful since they give benefits to new cities before you have a chance to start improving tiles around them.
Or maybe that could reduce the number of food needed for the city to grow, since they promote a varied diet.
In all honesty though i agree they can be worse, but the flip side is at the beginning of the game they can be useful since they give benefits to new cities before you have a chance to start improving tiles around them.
Lutefisk Mafia
Inscrutable Enforcer
I agree that the food bonuses are weak. One way to make them more relevant would be to first reduce the unit cap (which is based on difficulty, number of cities, and population, IIRC). Then for each food resource that you control, your unit cap would increase by one. By making this into a mechanic that would allow a player to field a larger army, there would be some incentive to go after these resources.
It is sad how food resources have been kicked to the curb. They really are meaningless and ultimately dull. They look nice though so the designers probably just left them in for eye candy.
You know - that's actually not a bad idea...
I mean - everything else has been boiled up to the empire/global level, why not food? Why should individual cities grow up of their volition, but have absolutely no happy/unhappy city level effects?
Make food a global resource you "spend" on unit support and/or city growth (where city growth just means "work another tile").
I don't particularly care for the way CiV made cities into depots, more or less, but if you're going to go that route --- just go all the way.
Global empire food store, spend it on units or city growth. Works for me...
EDIT: Actually -- this would also allow you to make food a tradeable resource, giving it more value. It might actually make it worthwhile to build things like granaries and lighthouse, too.
The more I think about it, the more I like it...
Even with the perceived "lack" of food resources, you guys are not able to grow your cities? And you want to add more food resources?!?!?
I think most of you are missing the point in that there are now more diverse ways to grow. Why unbalance the game even further by adding more of what you really don't need?
I think most of you are missing the point in that there are now more diverse ways to grow. Why unbalance the game even further by adding more of what you really don't need?
MaximusDarcy
Chieftain
well, not entirely pointless, doesn't more food mean more pop, more science?
I don't think the complaint is "lack" -- at least -- it's certainly not for me... I avoid food resources like the plague because I'm suffering too much growth.
For me, anyway, that's why doing to food the same thing they did to happiness and culture would actually be better.... just make it into another "currency to be spent", on selected city growth or units. Go negative, either you have to kill off a unit of lower a city pop point.
Yes - but I find that the tradeoff isn't worth for the SP increased costs and happiness issues.
The science basics are 1 beaker per 2 pop -- with the building tree (uni --> PS --> RL) being a modifier atop that value.
Together with the outrageous building maintenance costs -- this means you rarely want to see more than your 3-4 core cities grow (and in some cases, maybe just your capital).
My empires skew pretty badlly.... 2-3-4 10+ pop cities and everything else I cap at 2. In fact, I've been trying to work out the most effective way to starve cities I capture down to size.
Zechnophobe
Strategy Lich
I just hate having a sheep on a hill, and not being able to irrigate it. I mean, 2 food 2 production is the same as an irrigated normal hill, come Civil Service. It just isn't exciting.
Also, I think the real killer about resources in general being low yield modifiers, is that there isn't the same excitement in city placement. You aren't conflicted by settling near THIS rather than THAT because there is fairly little difference.
Look at the threads for civ 4 where people agonize for a long time over where to put their first few cities. It just doesn't seem that important in civ 5.
I wouldn't even mind not being allowed to build non-special improvements on bonus resources, if those were always better than what I got otherwise.
Also, I think the real killer about resources in general being low yield modifiers, is that there isn't the same excitement in city placement. You aren't conflicted by settling near THIS rather than THAT because there is fairly little difference.
Look at the threads for civ 4 where people agonize for a long time over where to put their first few cities. It just doesn't seem that important in civ 5.
I wouldn't even mind not being allowed to build non-special improvements on bonus resources, if those were always better than what I got otherwise.
Lord Monkey
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2010
- Messages
- 75
Sheep should provide some kind of additional bonus for their wool. Sheep aren't just butchered for food. Same goes for just about every domesticated animal. It doesn't make sense for gameplay or realism to have only a paltry food bonus.
That's a strike against global warming as a game mechanic, not health.
Food tiles allow you to maximize production and increase city size at the same time.
You need less citizens to occupy tiles to feed your city and you can stack any extra citizens in production tiles, gold tiles or gear towards great people.
It's about min/maxing what you have.
Sure excessive food tiles are worthless. Put almost any resource is if you don't have a worker to occupy that tile.
You need less citizens to occupy tiles to feed your city and you can stack any extra citizens in production tiles, gold tiles or gear towards great people.
It's about min/maxing what you have.
Sure excessive food tiles are worthless. Put almost any resource is if you don't have a worker to occupy that tile.
Paltry? It gets a 33% (or 50%) bonus. Now you want to add another resource (wool) to an already over-abundant list??
