The yields are fine (screenshots)

[Bibor]

I usually shoot for cities of about ~10 population. After that the growth slows way down, so I feel like it's more efficient to just start a new city. Plus, the returns are better for the basic buildings than for the more advanced ones, so I'd rather have a lot of basic buildings than a few advanced ones.

Not entirely true. A size 15-pop city will almost always be better than two 10-size cities.

It is completely relevant. You mentioned how many turns it takes you to build buildings/units.
And the difficulty you played in Civ4 is completely irrelevant. It's about how good your argument is. How would you like it if I said I played on Immortal/Deity, so you should listen to me when I say that tile yields are low?

No, I wouldn't listen. Your armies are stronger by 33% by default (I have yet to see a great general fielded by the AI), and yet another 50% due to the simple fact that the AI can't handle any unit but the basic infantry. Even if the AI gets a 40% production bonus, they loose 20 artillery to your 1 or 10 archers to your 2.
And as for CIV4 deity, from what I read it was never about production or commerce but about bulbing/techtrading abuse and the whip. At least as far as USUN's, TMIT's and DMOC's games are concerned.

 

[Bibor]

Your Capital has four gems and a silver with a huge river. That's an outlier. I agree that the other two are fairly typical, but that capital is one of the luckiest starts I've seen so far. Even having to move to get it, you don't typically have that much awesome in sight of your starting position. Don't act like you get that every game.

I'm not pretending it's a typical starting position. Paris was more a description of production (obviously GPT is not a typical situation). These cities are here merely because it's my current game.

 

[Castar]

Also, it seems to be rather common that if you have one silver/gold/gems near you at the start, there will be many more in the vicinity. I rather dislike this, I'd much rather have more varied luxuries near me, but whatever.

So 4 silver and one gems, while impressive, is not completely out there. In my current game, I could have easily gotten 4 gold in the 3 tile radius of my capital had I moved the settler around a bit. I didn't, but I still had 5 gold among my first 3 cities.

Gold/Silver/Gems just seem to "cluster" like that.

I also think the yields are fine, by the way, although somewhat "weird". I am not good enough to theorise why, but in my last game, my three "core" cities - which weren't consciously optimized at all - could build Factory's/Stock Exchanges in around 10-15 turns. On Epic. However, my border/newer cities, which were obviously less developed and were in somewhat less ideal places, needed somewhere between 30 and 50 turns for those "endgame" buildings. There just seems to be a huge, huge gap to bridge when you settle/acquire new cities lategame. Which means you first have to build all the "lesser" buildings - workshop, windmill etc... - to get "up to speed". These buildings indeed take a more reasonable amount of time to build, but you still need to build them, which means you spend 100's of turns (again, on epic) just "catching up". Which can be somewhat irritating. Again, this is speculation, I'm not a brilliant player

 

[grandad1982]

Some tile yields are poorly thought out. Or rather improvement bonuses. "Bonus" resourse should get +1 food on what they already get.

It more the cost of buildings that I object to, esspecially in the early game. Also some of the outputs and benifits of building are to weak to justify building them that often (inc wonders) compared to units. It really feels like the builders game has been taken from us.

Please don't get me wrong, I quite like civ 5 and I enjoy playing it so far, but to say people are moaning to much about balance is stupid. You and I both know that Firaxis will tweak and change these things to make this a better game. Its happend before and will happen again.

 

[Celevin]

No, I wouldn't listen. Your armies are stronger by 33% by default (I have yet to see a great general fielded by the AI), and yet another 50% due to the simple fact that the AI can't handle any unit but the basic infantry. Even if the AI gets a 40% production bonus, they loose 20 artillery to your 1 or 10 archers to your 2.
And as for CIV4 deity, from what I read it was never about production or commerce but about bulbing/techtrading abuse and the whip. At least as far as USUN's, TMIT's and DMOC's games are concerned.

We aren't discussing AI tactics, we're discussing tile yields, which I interpret to mean production and gold yields. I don't care how poor the AI is, that's a completely other discussion.

You can't say "you guys are whiners, listen to me, I played on Civ4 Monarch". You can't link amazing cities that are production focused and use them to hold up your argument. You can't mention build times without a game speed. The tile yield argument is also NOT about resource yields, but a general low level of units and buildings being built over a period.

The entire "tile yields are low" argument is hinged around how long it takes to produce a unit or building, including both production and gold purchases. The argument is that the game simply proceeds too fast compared to how much is produced in a given city. Game speeds are absolutely crucial for this, and it's impossible to discuss it without. Yes, I can interpret what game speed you're on using your number of turns played compared to year, but the fact that you aren't getting that that's an absolutely necessary bit of information to go along with your weak examples means you aren't understanding the argument.

I have had cities with MUCH more production than yours, and I still think tile yields are low. I have also had cities with near zero production, but you don't see me linking those random examples to try and create an argument.

I research techs faster than I build buildings on average, across many games, with many strategies. That's a problem. If a person gets a couple good kills on you in multiplayer, you can't hope to rebuild an army in time and you're going to lose. That's a problem.

 

[Bibor]

I have had cities with MUCH more production than yours, and I still think tile yields are low. I have also had cities with near zero production, but you don't see me linking those random examples to try and create an argument.

Okay, I understand: yields are low. Compared to what? CIV4? Compared to your tech pace? Compared to normal game speed? Compared to the AI production? You build slower than you research? You build slower than global research pace? The only difference between CIV4 and CIV5 in yields is resource yields. And just to be precise, resources are much more common (both luxury and strategic) than they were in CIV4.

 

[Syiss_]

Okay, I understand: yields are low. Compared to what? CIV4? Compared to your tech pace? Compared to normal game speed? Compared to the AI production? You build slower than you research? You build slower than global research pace?

I think the general argument is that building/unit production is slow compared to tech pace.

The only difference between CIV4 and CIV5 in yields is resource yields. And just to be precise, resources are much more common (both luxury and strategic) than they were in CIV4.

We also don't have cottages in Civ 5 which were huge in Civ 4, and workshops aren't available (or at least I haven't seen them?). We also dont have things like civics that increase raw tile yields - +1 hammer from towns, +2 gold from towns, +1 hammer from workshops, +1 food from workshops/mills.

 

[Conspirator]

Yeah I really miss Civ 4 cottages and Floodplains/Rice/Wheat tile yields. I just don't understand why they changed this, they were fun and enjoyable and made you feel good - now food production is pretty much consistent and I can't make mega-cities like in Civ 4. Another thing I just hate is the fact that Health is gone. Food resources are useless, they might as well not even be there! Why did they take health out? I just don't understand, it was such a simple concept and worked really well.

 

[the343danny]

Game speed is irrelevant (this is on normal). Don't underestimate me, I played CIV4 on monarch for quite some time, so I know what the problem is: resource bonus yields are lower, so you can't feed a 4-pop city with a single riverside corn for 15 per turn.



Why would anyone not put his second city into a 7 "bonus" resources area? I moved my settler quite a lot to get there in the first place. I placed it basically on top of Thebes, ignoring the sugar on the way and claiming yet-another gem instead. The natural wonder I purchased for 230 gold (1/3rd of my budget at turn 40) otherwise it would've gone to the city state. Yes, that's also new in CIV5: sometimes you have to invest more into a city then to build a settler and plant it. I think it's very representative.



These cities are in fact very representative. Yes, I got rivers that I can plant 3 cities on. What about the rest of the land? Within my mountain range I have theoretical room for 5 cities, of which 1 would've been a complete waste (so I never built it) one that needs lots of tile buying (the coastal pearls with two fish in third ring) and two that need 500 gold tile buying to grab a natural wonder and a second happy resource. The rest of the continent is blocked by Rammeses and Nabucco and I had NO iron and ONE horses resource within my territory (oh and no oil, later turns out).

My point being, in CIV5, your capital may not be in a perfect spot. But your second and third city should be carefully hand-picked, with lots of resources, even if you have to go quite some distance. Which is exactly what I did. And what the AI does as well, by the way.

Stop thinking you are a pro just because you beat monarch. You dont even understand the problem. The problem that the "whiners" are complaining about is that everything takes too long. Tile yields are a part of that. They want to up tile yields (which are smaller than in civ 4) to make up for the increased costs of things. They are complaining because of that, and its a perfectly valid reason, and this thread does absolutely nothing about it.

 

[Celevin]

Okay, I understand: yields are low. Compared to what? CIV4? Compared to your tech pace? Compared to normal game speed? Compared to the AI production? You build slower than you research? You build slower than global research pace? The only difference between CIV4 and CIV5 in yields is resource yields. And just to be precise, resources are much more common (both luxury and strategic) than they were in CIV4.

Syiss_ said it, it has always been about compared to the tech pace. On Standard speed, it's at about 1 tech per building/unit. On Epic speed, it's fairly ridiculous, and Marathon speed is almost unplayable. On Marathon in particular, if you lose a crucial fight or two, you are absolutely done as they can steamroll through half your empire due to the 20+ turns for a single unit.

Civ5's also a completely different game than Civ4. As far as I'm concerned, there's very little relation in building, as there's different yields, different necessities, and also the use of gold is absolutely needed. Even a slight change can affect things dramatically. For example, Golden Ages are obscene in Civ5 compared to Civ4 because of just a simple switch from 4-5 hammer tiles to 2-3 hammer spots becoming the norm. Rivers are also obscenely good for the same reason.

 

[rune42]

We also don't have cottages in Civ 5 which were huge in Civ 4, and workshops aren't available (or at least I haven't seen them?). We also dont have things like civics that increase raw tile yields - +1 hammer from towns, +2 gold from towns, +1 hammer from workshops, +1 food from workshops/mills.

Cottages were only huge in Civ4 because cottages gave commerce, not gold. Commerce = gold, research, culture. In Civ5, gold is gold.

Could Civ5 use a bump in production in the early game? I think so, but increasing tile yields is the wrong way to go about it.

How about fixing multiple problems via the following:

-Change Stables to use up a horse resource, remove the local horse resource requirement, lower its build cost to 60(same as a monument), and change its bonus to +3 raw hammers. Once steam power is researched, the hammers change into +3 gold. So the effect before steam is -1 gold, -1 horse, +3 hammers. The effect after steam is +2 gold, -1 horse.
-Change the Forge to to use an iron resource, remove the local iron resource requirement, lower its build cost to 60, and change its bonus to +3 raw hammers. -1 gold, -1 iron, +3 hammers.
-Make it so all resource nodes only give 2 resources instead of 2/4/6. Strategic resources will now actually matter.(strategic resources need to feel strategic)

The above changes would indirectly have an affect on rushing to mounted units. If you want faster production, you can't field as many units.(yay for strategic choice)
Stables/Forges would have a use, and production in general won't feel slow to those who opt for high production over quality military units.

I don't believe gold yields should be increased. Finding ways to have enough income to support everything is a part of empire management. What I do believe, is balancing it so trade income makes up a larger piece of your economic pie so that Taj Mahal + Chichen Itza wont be such a game changer(fixing the TaJ Mahal bug would also be nice).

 

[Biz_]

examples from turn 240 do not explain why yields are fine

 

[PieceOfMind]

Bibor,

I would just like to know, first what maptype and mapsize that is, and also what difficulty it's on.

Thanks

 

[Slowpoke]

Yeah, gotta disagree bibor. The problem is Ancient era yields are literally like half that of civ 4. I mean seriously, you can build like one build tops if that. It can even be best to build no buildings at all except perhaps libraries, since you get culture and food from CSs.

 

[Andoo]

I found that in civ 5 you must sacrifice growth in order to get good production while in civ 4 you could easily have both at the same time with godly resources. That is to say with careful planning and micro management you can have decent amount of hammers even in early stages. I think people's civ 4 habit of always priotizing growth makes civ 5 production look bad because you just can have both early game in civ 5.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I found that in civ 5 you must sacrifice growth in order to get good production while in civ 4 you could easily have both at the same time with godly resources. That is to say with careful planning and micro management you can have decent amount of hammers even in early stages. I think people's civ 4 habit of always priotizing growth makes civ 5 production look bad because you just can have both early game in civ 5.

I think this is a good point. Now when you're building something like a wonder early on, you actually have to make tough decisions about whether to keep growth rate up or save a few more turns off the wonder. In civ4, it was pretty much always the case that 1 was better than 1 and similarly 1 was better than 1. In civ5 I'm finding the balance between hammers and food a bit closer, though food still is winning out in the early game. Both are still a fair way more valuable than gold, but that too can depend on the empire situation, and certainly if one has a poor gold income or going negative, that might shift again.

The balance between food and hammers also depends a lot more now on the golden age strategy you take (i.e. how many golden ages you're going to use). Tiles with at least one gold and one hammer are awesome under golden ages, and for that reason I think I'm starting to like river areas with plains more than river areas with grass.

I think I actually like the tile yields the way they are, and I'm not completely convinced that build times are problematic yet. At this point in time, I'm thinking the biggest change I'd be prepared to make would be something like increasing tech costs by 10 to 20%.

 

[Biz_]

the problem with the yields/production that 1 upt introduces is that it is heavily dependent on the map

if you have a wide open map and war with multiple civs you'll be begging for more production all day, but if you're at peace on something like inland sea or continents you'll be fine with only a handful of units

 

[Callonia]

I could get size 13 cities in ancient era-classical era in civ 4, and it was one of my favorite things to do xD

 

[Roxlimn]

It's possible to get to very large cities in Civ V, but as far as I can tell, it's only really possible to do that under specific conditions.

Tile yields are lower than what we got in Civ IV, especially in the early game. That said, we also build less units and less buildings. I have had no trouble building the era-specific buildings I needed on King at Normal speed.

The Forests and Jungle tiles are the most interesting change. They used to be something you wanted to chop for the resources, but in Civ V, that could change a Forest into a Grassland, which you absolutely do not want to do everywhere, particularly in production-poor cities. Much better to Trade Post or Lumbermill them for production.

I think part of the reason for this balance is because much of the food has been shifted from tiles to Maritime City States. People keep saying that you shouldn't farm tiles and rely on City States instead. That could work really well for a Production City, but in general, it leads to slow growth. It's better to Farm as well as take City State food bonuses at the same time, which allows cities to grow quite quickly under WLTKD. 11 pop at 1655 seems to me to be a little on the low-average.

With more people, you get more gold, more production - more everything, just about.

 

[dannythefool]

I think that tile yields work to some extent, but it's still really hard to get a city larger than 10-15 pop before close to the end of the game, and we're used to huge cities from Civ IV. So I understand where those complaints are coming from.

Another legitimate gripe with yields is that "bonus" resources like cattle or sheep are really hindrances because you can only build the specific improvement (camp or pasture) on them. So at most you get +1 food compared to a normal tile but you can build none of the other improvements. (Except great person ones.) IMO this is really broken, the game should not make you want to avoid supposedly bonused tiles.