Suzerain bonus of Mahenjo-Daro too good
- Thread starter Happiness
- Start date
DJ_Tanner
Emperor
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2013
- Messages
- 1,098
My absolute favorite bonus, I love being able to settle anywhere. However if you find them late in the game its not so great, and once you start to rely on them you gotta pump them full of envoys because if you lose it, then yeah people are none too happy about it.
cazaderonus
Actual Dad.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2014
- Messages
- 640
Well it depends. When you lost the bonus, your cities will lost the bonus housing. But if they already grew to say 10 populations and their housing goes back down to 4, it wont "kill" any population nor give you any malus. I actually just used this CS in my last deity game with Egypt. Allowed me to settle 2 cities that i never would have otherwise.
I lost the suzerain bonus a couple times. Once i had to wait 5 turns to get it back, and nothing really happend as i was already past 10 pop in those cities and my coastal ones.
I lost the suzerain bonus a couple times. Once i had to wait 5 turns to get it back, and nothing really happend as i was already past 10 pop in those cities and my coastal ones.
It's definitely one of those city states that's great when you hold it, but you kind of have to keep pushing envoys to it to hold it otherwise it kind of screws you. A bit like Toronto (if you plan your factories around it), Jerusalem or Yerevan (if fighting the religious battle), or even something like Zanzibar (those extra 2 amenities in 6 cities each are huge).
nzcamel
Nahtanoj the Magnificent
When you lose it, your cities are screwed.
I'm with cazaderonus - were it amenities, you would be screwed i.e. if you are reliant on Zanzibar....losing it is awful! But it is housing; and so all it does is slow down your population growth. But that is on top of population you would have never had without having Mahenjo-Daro. So no, losing it doesn't screw you. If you're planning on any affected cities getting big pre-neighbourhoods, then you will want to prioritise M-D...but that's pretty situational too.
cazaderonus
Actual Dad.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2014
- Messages
- 640
That's really not true. if you settle a city with a total lack of water, and no way to get an aqueduct, well you're settling a horsehockey city that will take ages to bring any value to your empire. When with mohenjo, that city will start with 6 housing you'd get by settling on fresh water.
Imo, the interest of that CS depends on whether or not you can get its suzerain bonus very early as it will allow you to settle your cities using the bonus. In my Egypt game Mohenjo was isolated so i knew most AIs werent gonna find it until mid late game. So basically i built my empire based on its bonus. Even avoided to settle on rivers just to keep an extra river spot as Egypt gets a bonus for wonder\district built next to rivers.
About Zanzibar, i'm willing to use 50% of my envoys for those 2 extra luxes. They're just too good to pass and the +10/+15% to yields it can provide in your cities is insane.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,902
I really struggle with this view. If I settle with no water I just get a couple of 5 shot builders there building farms and the population is suddenly 7
nzcamel
Nahtanoj the Magnificent
Isn't it 5 housing on fresh water with +2 with the Aquaduct?
Agree re Zanzibar - awesome CS
So best done after Serfdom...smart though.
cazaderonus
Actual Dad.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2014
- Messages
- 640
It's still 6 farms plus granary to turn a no water access city to a 7 pop. Which means probably buying some tiles, priorizing farms over building districts in those spots etc.
Imo that's a lot to invest on a city unless you get something amazing in return. 2 builders to kick start housing in a city is still 10 improvements you dont build somewhere else where you could get more value from their charges.
I will settle a city with absolutely no water or aqueduct if i need to. But it would mostly be a city i create for a pure defensive purpose, like blocking a possible ackward Ai city.
That said, if you can settle a city and have room for an aqueduct, it s quickly done with a couple workers by chopping\mining
Anyway, mohenjo takes all this considerations away. And keeping its suzerain bonus is only really needed until you get 8/9 pop in your water deprived cities. After that you can just accept that they wont grow anymore, they'll have enough to contribute.
cazaderonus
Actual Dad.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2014
- Messages
- 640
Yup, probably mixed up with the capital on fresh water with the +1 from the palace (i guess)
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,902
No not really, 7 was just an example.
You choose where to settle so choose a place with some farm and some hills, Your Hills will be +4-5 prod. Use a builder to build 3 mines and 2 farms and you are on your way, it should not take too long.
played deity last night for about the 5th time with a no fresh water start. Its not a big deal IMO but yes mohen can be a little handy but not worth fighting over IMO
cazaderonus
Actual Dad.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2014
- Messages
- 640
What do you mean by a no fresh water start ? Like, no coast, no river for your capital ?
And i still disagree, the resources needed to compensate natural housing from fresh water is not to be dismissed. I pretty much never build farms besides the 6 needed for feodalism or if i settle in a spot with a lack of food. Sometimes my wheat even remains unfarmed until i have builder charges i dont really need for something critical like grassland mines,luxes or chop\mine combo to boost district or universities production. I know you like doing builder chains using chops, but i'd rather have the cogs go into something critical than just fuel another builder 90% of the time. Might also explain why we dont have the same approach regarding housing. For example in all my deity games i've rocked for a long while the +1 then +2 housing for cities with 2 then 3 districts. I try and get all cities above 10/12 pop asap and then i stop caring until i get a few suburb districts in food heavy cities. So in that time i just dont want to waste anything in building housing (avoiding farms, aqueducts as much as possible).
More housing and pop faster means more districts faster.
nzcamel
Nahtanoj the Magnificent
2 farms is only one more house...
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,902
Its a start, now you have mines and 3 pop you can bet near +10 prod and get a monument and a builder yourself in the city
If you leave a city to build itself it takes ages, even early game, give it a boost with a builder and it can build more farms as it wants to control its growth
I was really responding to someone complaining that using 2 builders would be too much to expend... sigh
Its like the golden rules of T100
1. Expand first, get cities before anything else, as many as you can
2. Build those cities up using feudalism builders
3. Win
I was just pointing out this quite clear point, if you want to build a city there mid-late game you can, you can even make it large fast, how quickly depends on you using the standard rules create city, use builders to better the city... Its the base of the game really
cazaderonus
Actual Dad.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2014
- Messages
- 640
still doesnt change the fact that those builders need to come from somewhere, either gold or another city's production. And i m not convinced that unless i absolutely have to, it is worth creating a city that will require builder charges to get to a respectable housing cap. Never said it can't be done, but i'm not sure it should be done.
Having seen Victoria's no water start, I'm a believer. Assuming early game you have farmable terrain and late game you have neighborhoods, sometimes we can pick a sub optimal spot to settle simply because it has fresh water.
Personally, I prefer settling on Truffles, dry or wet. Cause Truffles suck.
Personally, I prefer settling on Truffles, dry or wet. Cause Truffles suck.
Similar threads
