Supercity vs Specialized Cities

[Koshling]

I'm with Koshling on this one. The extra Trade (without the cap of 16 Trade Routes) is worth it throughout the entire game.

Cheers

Ah ha!! You just explained what is happening to me.

I can't load your save game that illustrates the slave market popping back after recalc (wanted to debug that fast before v22 release), but loading it crashes. It crashes due to number of trade routes (max) being different (the save format doesn't cope with that, though I will change it to do so in future). In order to load your save I need to know what your global define for max trade routes was set to please...

 

[BlueGenie]

25 *laugh* Ok, now you know. btw, any way the Team can agree to change that, say to 25 or more?

Cheers

 

[Koshling]

25 *laugh* Ok, now you know. btw, any way the Team can agree to change that, say to 25 or more?

Cheers

I have no strong opinion on the matter, but...

My concern is that we'd need to nerf trade in other ways. As you probably know, as another player who makes strong use of it, trade is fantastically powerful (though that is also true in the real world of course) once you can trrade across oceans. The key is good relationships with as many trading partners as possible - that is something the AI is not good at (it's too war-like).

So it we increased max trade routes we'd probably need to balance trade down in some other way, or else change the AI to play a more trade-oriented game.
I'm not keen to change the AI that way for two reasons:

1. It won't be easy
2. It will make for a less interesting game for players who have a more war-like style of play

Hence I'd say we'd have to trade off increasing the number of routes against general trade nerfs in some other way.

Independent of the above arguments I think we need to change the cliff-edge that is the ability to trade across oceans (on most maps anyway) to be more gradual. I would suggest that we do so in a manner such as this:

• Bonus value of trading with over-seas cities reduced to (initially) nothing (i.e. - same as same-landmass trading)
• Increase to overseas trading bonus from a variety of techs that follow the tech which gives the ability to do so at all (currently Navigation).

That would allow for a more gradual ramp up of trade. A similar approach could be taken to foreign trade generally (even on same landmass), so that it ramps up as you get more trade-relevant techs.

 

[BlueGenie]

I'm very much in favour of that Koshling. Have tried to advocate a slight reduction of Trade Route power as it is and your ideas seem very good. Maybe a compromise of the two, longer time to build up to powerhouse trade routes and part of the trade routes are hammers, food, culture, espionage, and gold (maybe 5% each so trade routes give 75% of their total to Commerce and the rest a mix of the others.)

Cheers

 

[Koshling]

I'm very much in favour of that Koshling. Have tried to advocate a slight reduction of Trade Route power as it is and your ideas seem very good. Maybe a compromise of the two, longer time to build up to powerhouse trade routes and part of the trade routes are hammers, food, culture, espionage, and gold (maybe 5% each so trade routes give 75% of their total to Commerce and the rest a mix of the others.)

Cheers

Civics already do that, so I'd rather not tread on their toes. I like the idea of a build up though. Perhaps trade routes with a particular other player should only ramp up to their full (aka nominal current) value over time, so that you have to have been continually trading with a particular partner for (say) 200 turns to acheive the full trade value (start at some threshold like half, and ramp linearly between as the trade relationship matures).

I don't have any immediate plans to try to do any of this (see v22 plans, where I have laid out my own priorities), but maybe we should start a new topic on trade generally and start brainstorming ideas and observations about the current state of the system, in preperation for perhaps making some changes down the line...

 

[JosEPh_II]

I don't want to be "forced" into playing specialized. If it happens during the flow of a game that's fine. But to make plans as a modding team to Make players Specialize is Wrong! <sigh> And actually goes against what SO keeps saying about the Mod. "So many ways to play, it's Great".

JosEPh

 

[Hydromancerx]

I for once agree with JosEPh_II. There is "power playing" then then there is "playing for fun". I should not have to "power play" to play the game. Sure there should be factors that if lined up provide you with a better "synergy" but you should allow for all types of play in the game.

 

[Koshling]

I know it's been on this thread, but it's actually a bit of a derail - in what way does a putative tweak to trade routes effect the specialized vs non specialized discussion?

 

[DRJ]

Civics already do that, so I'd rather not tread on their toes. I like the idea of a build up though. Perhaps trade routes with a particular other player should only ramp up to their full (aka nominal current) value over time, so that you have to have been continually trading with a particular partner for (say) 200 turns to acheive the full trade value (start at some threshold like half, and ramp linearly between as the trade relationship matures).

I must have missed this post. Great idea. It could even be bound on the ratio between green and red arguments, So if a civ is neutral with you medium trade happens, if its friendly very much so, mad nearly none maybe a limit of res/gold/tech that can be traded (for the time relations are mad) regarding to the status of relation would tie trade closer to diplomacy and minimize the ability to exploit it quite easily.

Would be nice to have a diplomatic wonder, lets say the "Amber Chamber"
to have a bonus like giving faster full traderoute value for a certain civ +relation bonus or something

 

[gcaliber]

Is it ever good to specialize cities for cottages? Cottages seem terrible for so long and then take so long to build up if you wait to build them later.

It seems that it is always better for commerce to just have a city with tons of food and run huge numbers of merchants when it becomes very large.

Either that or just focus hammers everywhere and building wealth/research.

I tend to focus every city on enough food to grow reasonably and all hammers after that.

 

[Koshling]

Is it ever good to specialize cities for cottages? Cottages seem terrible for so long and then take so long to build up if you wait to build them later.

It seems that it is always better for commerce to just have a city with tons of food and run huge numbers of merchants when it becomes very large.

Either that or just focus hammers everywhere and building wealth/research.

I tend to focus every city on enough food to grow reasonably and all hammers after that.

Cottages in C2C need a little gains-with-techs loving like farms get. Once they have that they will be worthwhile again.

 

[Epona222]

I actually agree with Joseph II on this one. I like to play both ways, sometimes having very specialized cities and other times having some mega-cities that do everything, and I want to have the choice to play it either way.

One of the issues that I have with the idea that you have to super-specialize in order to succeed is that there are so many mechanisms in place in C2C (good ones!) that make it really hard to do so, and make me not want to restrict certain buildings to certain cities too much.

This is in terms of 1) City size restrictions on buildings and 2) Wonders (both world and national) that either require multiple numbers of a certain building, or give free buildings in all your cities.

For example, I am playing a game whereby I am trying to specialise my cities a bit, at least in terms of where I build any wonders I get access to, and assigning specialists. I got the silk resource, so naturally I want to build the Silk Road wonder in my Mercantile city, which happens to be my capital. I need to build 7 bazaars, each of which requires a trading post - meaning that in each of those 7 cities, any research buildings will cost more, is that correct? So when I come to build the National Archive in my Scientific City (or indeed the Kemetism wonder that gives a free school of scribes in every city, my religion is Kemetism) the wonder itself will bring more of a defecit, because I'll be wanting to put it in one of my earlier larger cities with lots of hammers and more specialists to assign as scientists, and hence I had to build a trading post there in order to build Silk Road wonder in my Mercantile city, because at the time I was wanting to build Silk Road I didn't have that many cities to choose from - and I play with Civic City Limits turned off, so probably had a few more than someone who plays using that option, and the school of scribes that I get free from the temple of (??? can't recall which one it is) will cost more in each of the 7 cities that I build a trading post in, in order to build 7 bazaars, to get Silk Road. I wonder if it's worth building anything, if it's all going to cancel each other out!

Then it gets worse, with wonders dependent upon banks or universities (7 or 9 of each depending upon which wonder/s), both of which require cities of size 13 - I have little choice about where to build those buildings because of the city size dependency, and I probably have to end up building a bank AND a univerity in some of my bigger cities, in order to build the Central Bank in my Mercantile capital city, but I already built universities in them in order to build Oxford University in my Science city, leaving me with nowhere of a suitable size to put a bank where it's not going to make my university cost that much more. And I'm certainly not going to build any wonders that give me free libraries or markets, they can now play havoc with your economy if you're not careful!

I like the "requires x number of building y" wonders, and I like the "free building in every city" wonders, and it pains me that it now seems like a very bad idea to build them!

 

[BlueGenie]

Hmm.
I do have to point out that your increase in gold% in any city, be it from Trade Post, Bank, or any other source, doesn't cost you more due to any science buildings, at all, as long as you have a positive income in said city after all buildings you want are built.
It's simple math really.
Say you have a total of 40 gold base in from CityI. Counting with a really low number to show you.
On top of that you have some direct -gold buildings, 10 minus in gold total, mainly for defence purposes and -crime and +happy/health. That leaves you with 30 base gold (everything is always counted from base).
Say -15 from crime too for +15 base left.
Now you get some science buildings. Library and School of Scribes, for -8 gold, or +7 base gold.
With nothing increasing your gold% you are left with 7 gold per turn.
Build a bunch of +% buildings, there's loads of little additive ones as well as the big ones, for a total of +25%.
7*1.25 makes for 8.75 gold per turn. Your increase in % might have increased the "real" cost of the science buildings but you still get more gold because of those +% buildings.
Add a Bank on top of that and you have 7*1.55=10.85 gold income per turn. You never lose more money by building increased gold% buildings, regardless of their base costs, as long as your base gold remains in the positive.

I don't get why people keep stating this. It's just not true.
Also remember that I counted really low. Get your base up a bunch more; a couple Merchant Specialists, more pure +gold buildings, Civics that help out, and you'll simply gain more, never less, from +gold% buildings despite all those -gold buildings that "suddenly" cost slightly more.
Remember, always count from the Base.
Mouse-over your income in a city to easily see your total base from buildings (and specialists) before %'s are added. That base includes all + and - gold buildings that city has, counting crime as well as those are "buildings" too. A +30% from Bank is +30% on THAT base, ignoring all -gold buildings you might or might not have.

Cheers

 

[Koshling]

Hmm.
I do have to point out that your increase in gold% in any city, be it from Trade Post, Bank, or any other source, doesn't cost you more due to any science buildings, at all, as long as you have a positive income in said city after all buildings you want are built.
It's simple math really.
Say you have a total of 40 gold base in from CityI. Counting with a really low number to show you.
On top of that you have some direct -gold buildings, 10 minus in gold total, mainly for defence purposes and -crime and +happy/health. That leaves you with 30 base gold (everything is always counted from base).
Say -15 from crime too for +15 base left.
Now you get some science buildings. Library and School of Scribes, for -8 gold, or +7 base gold.
With nothing increasing your gold% you are left with 7 gold per turn.
Build a bunch of +% buildings, there's loads of little additive ones as well as the big ones, for a total of +25%.
7*1.25 makes for 8.75 gold per turn. Your increase in % might have increased the "real" cost of the science buildings but you still get more gold because of those +% buildings.
Add a Bank on top of that and you have 7*1.55=10.85 gold income per turn. You never lose more money by building increased gold% buildings, regardless of their base costs, as long as your base gold remains in the positive.

I don't get why people keep stating this. It's just not true.
Also remember that I counted really low. Get your base up a bunch more; a couple Merchant Specialists, more pure +gold buildings, Civics that help out, and you'll simply gain more, never less, from +gold% buildings despite all those -gold buildings that "suddenly" cost slightly more.
Remember, always count from the Base.
Mouse-over your income in a city to easily see your total base from buildings (and specialists) before %'s are added. That base includes all + and - gold buildings that city has, counting crime as well as those are "buildings" too. A +30% from Bank is +30% on THAT base, ignoring all -gold buildings you might or might not have.

Cheers

Correct and incorrect in different places!

Firstly it is indeed true to say that a gold building never cosst you more due to science buildings. It is also true that a gold multiplier never costs you anything regardless of what is present (havign banks is always better than not having banks for example).

However, the last part of your post about modifiers applying to the base is not quite right. Modifiers apply to the NET base, which includes the tiotal from buildings, positive AND negative. So if you have enough -gold buildings you can have a net negative base before modifiers. If this happens the modifier acts inversely (so 30% from the bank REDUCES the negative by 30%).

Its because modifiers act on the net that a base +5 research, -5 gold library can have an actual of (say) (+5, -7) in a city that has net positive gold. That's not because it is actively cosuming 7 gold, its becausde the 5 gold it is consuming is then not available in nthe net to be acted upon by gold modifiers. This effect is why research buildings can be bad in highly gold-specialized cities (that have wonders and other stuff to maximize their gold multiplier).

My rule of thumb is never to build a research building in a city where the actual gold loss exceeds the actual research gain (which is exactly what the hover text shows you)

 

[BlueGenie]

That's why I said that if you have a Positive base you always gain from +gold% buildings, never lose.

Your increase in % might have increased the "real" cost of the science buildings but you still get more gold because of those +% buildings.
...
You never lose more money by building increased gold% buildings, regardless of their base costs, as long as your base gold remains in the positive.

Besides I think you are missing one vital aspect of the + research - gold aspect; almost always the science building also allows you to have a scientist specialist. Using him nets you more science because of that building than it costs you gold in all but the most extreme cases. So a city with extra free specialists, or just possibility to use an extra scientist, can still gain more than it loses even if the net gold loss is higher than the net research gain for the building.
This is doubly true for those buildings that give free scientists too, wonders and so on.

Cheers

 

[Epona222]

Correct and incorrect in different places!

My rule of thumb is never to build a research building in a city where the actual gold loss exceeds the actual research gain (which is exactly what the hover text shows you)

Yes I get that, but my point is that it renders a number of wonders undesireable to build. A school of scribes in every city as given by one of the Kemetism world wonders is going to cost more than the benefit gained, because not every city can afford a school of scribes in terms of getting enough beakers back to make up for the outlay. A library in every city as per the national wonder that gives you that has the same problem, it is now counterproductive to build them. Requiring 9 universities in cities with pop 13 or over may render a wonder wholly unaffordable.

When I resist researching writing in favour of staying illiterate because it's going to obsolete a load of free research buildings and my economy isn't healthy enough to able to make up those lost beakers via civics or building school of scribes (or using a wonder to get them because it will cost me enough that I have to set my research slider to 0%), it just seems a bit odd.

 

[robomani]

Maybe the wonders that give free building in every cities could instead give a boost on the building ex: for the school of scribe one it could lower the cost in gold or give more science to each school of scribe build so the wonder could never be a lost and it could let some normal building be more useful.

 

[Hydromancerx]

When I resist researching writing in favour of staying illiterate because it's going to obsolete a load of free research buildings and my economy isn't healthy enough to able to make up those lost beakers via civics or building school of scribes (or using a wonder to get them because it will cost me enough that I have to set my research slider to 0%), it just seems a bit odd.

But what about the Written Tradition Civic enabled at Writing? Doesn't that make it more appealing than staying at say Oral Tradition Civic?

 

[BlueGenie]

It depends on how many cities you have. More cities mean higher bonus from Language Civics AND more gold income (all those small +1gold buildings add up). Playing on a larger map usually means it's worth it though you still take a hit in research before having built up those research generating buildings.
Playing on a smaller map might mean it's worth staying illiterate just that much longer though if you are able to get to Mathematics (Patrician Civic) and Currency (Currency Civic) you still get a higher output in research with a lesser amount of cities. With more cities or many neighbours with Foreign Trade enabled Civics (and past Writing too) Alphabet (Open Borders Civic) also gives a major research boost.

Cheers

 

[Koshling]

Yes I get that, but my point is that it renders a number of wonders undesireable to build. A school of scribes in every city as given by one of the Kemetism world wonders is going to cost more than the benefit gained, because not every city can afford a school of scribes in terms of getting enough beakers back to make up for the outlay. A library in every city as per the national wonder that gives you that has the same problem, it is now counterproductive to build them. Requiring 9 universities in cities with pop 13 or over may render a wonder wholly unaffordable.

When I resist researching writing in favour of staying illiterate because it's going to obsolete a load of free research buildings and my economy isn't healthy enough to able to make up those lost beakers via civics or building school of scribes (or using a wonder to get them because it will cost me enough that I have to set my research slider to 0%), it just seems a bit odd.

I agree with this specific point (think 'Department of Water' also). IMO the free buildings these give should NOT be the regular buildings, but rather a speciasl version, replacable by their regular counterpart, and only creatable in this way. That way the free buildings can be penalty-free versions with possibly slightly lower benefits (tuned independently though as we see fit), and you can explciitly still build the regular verion to replace the free version if you need for full benefits (and are prepared to accept the full penalties).

That way when you build the wonder you can demolish any of the regular version you had that you prefer the free version of, and leave the rest, as appropriate on a city by city basis.