So? the game could be mathematicly perfect balanced with no resources at all, and that wouldn't be fun either. Resources beeing powerful make the map, the city placement, the improvements, and the city conquering itself much more interesting.
The yields are fine (screenshots)
- Thread starter Bibor
- Start date
So? the game could be mathematicly perfect balanced with no resources at all, and that wouldn't be fun either. Resources beeing powerful make the map, the city placement, the improvements, and the city conquering itself much more interesting.
I don't have to imagine what it would be like if I only nabbed 1-3 Maritime states. I've already played such a game as India. Growth is slower, but getting cities to size 20+ is still quite doable on the back of farms and food buildings + 3 City States.
Instead of imagining, why don't you try it?
The one way you know of winning the game at Deity isn't the only way to play the game. There are other ways.
I do not agree at all that Maritime City States are better than Military City States. Military City States give you units, and units kill other Civs. It doesn't take much gifting for you to be able to create an army that will conquer the world, and instead of spending production on units, you could instead spend it on Granaries and such.
I could spend that production on making Knights, or buying them outright, but 500g gets me multiple units over time, and the science output, and the strategic resources, and the luxury resources.
I have not found the hospital useless because I don't go out bashing heads and taking every city on the planet. There are only so many cities available to take when you're not on a Pangaea map, and if you're putting both farms and Maritime food to work, you could max your happiness on 8 cities or less.
However, once the gold builds and you can spam happiness buildings, further growth becomes a problem. You can go out and take cities, or you can build hospitals and grow your cities more. It's a choice. If you always choose one path, the other path doesn't feel useful.
For the life of me, I can't imagine how you can puppet every city on the planet and not go broke before you get to building the Space Ship. What size are these cities? 8?
I still find picking a place to settle interesting. Can you decide where to place the first few cities on this map?
Limiting yields and resources force more decision making and that's fun. If we were given a wealth of riches (and thus, not able to make a bad decision), why play? I propose that standard bias starts should not be the default - no bias should be the default. We do want to make this game more challenging and one of the better ways is to force critical decision making upon the player. In this case, we should have to scout around for a good first city - not automatically selecting a cheating headstart. The AI can and that will help in making the AI a little more challenging, don't you think?
In terms of the settings at the start of the game, I think start bias means something different to what you appear to think it does. Start bias does things like put Arabia in the desert, the Iroquois near forest, Aztec near jungle, England on the coast etc.
There is a relation between food, gold, and production, or rather a range. For example you can consider 1 food worth 1 production, or 1 food worth 2 production, or whatever. The reason I say this is you can choose not to work food tiles with bonus food. Total up how much food you get from Maritimes, then see how much that is in production or gold per turn. Now see how much gold or production it would cost you to make the unit that the Militaristic city state gave you.Roxlimn said:
I'm not going to bother doing the math because it has too many variables, but there's also no need to. I can tell you now a Maritime city state has at least 5 times the worth.
As for hospitals, it's simple. If you don't purposely slow your growth you will almost always be happiness capped at the Industrial era. What use is excess food when it gets sucked up so quickly? There's always a better building. Quite simply, cities grow really really fast in Civ5.
There's 1 key thing you can do in the game to save a lot of cash on city states, which I did to obtain a quick culture victory. I was making over 500 gold in the Renaissance. I'll describe it after I finish another even faster win, because if I say it now, people will call me a huge moron.
Arabia starting near desert isn't exactly helping it.
And have you considered that perhaps the start bias are intended in part to provide for some balance as well? I'm not sure whether that's true or not, but it would make sense. Iroqouis special ability would be pretty bad if they started in the middle of desert with not a tree in sight.
Anyway, I don't mind the start bias. From what I've seen it works quite well.
Celevin:
I've seen your game. You have very small cities. This probably ties in to how many players don't think cities have enough production.
Small cities with Maritime support grow very quickly in Civ V. Once you get past 20, that is no longer true, and I have multiple cities over size 20 in the Industrial Era. With only 8 cities to manage, you cannot cap your happiness with such pitiful growth.
I don't yet believe that Maritime states are inherently better than Military states, because I've been able to play a game where I used my own production boosted by Military donations to make so many units that I could afford to lose many and still put the world to the torch.
You seem to have favored playing with many, smaller cities, captured through war. If there is a way to save cash on City States that is not obvious, then that is probably what is the problem, not Maritime States in and of themselves.
I've seen your game. You have very small cities. This probably ties in to how many players don't think cities have enough production.
Small cities with Maritime support grow very quickly in Civ V. Once you get past 20, that is no longer true, and I have multiple cities over size 20 in the Industrial Era. With only 8 cities to manage, you cannot cap your happiness with such pitiful growth.
I don't yet believe that Maritime states are inherently better than Military states, because I've been able to play a game where I used my own production boosted by Military donations to make so many units that I could afford to lose many and still put the world to the torch.
You seem to have favored playing with many, smaller cities, captured through war. If there is a way to save cash on City States that is not obvious, then that is probably what is the problem, not Maritime States in and of themselves.
I have more total population than a small number of cities empire with bigger cities. This is also only at 1838, with about 5 cities lost from a war that I didn't care about because I was winning the game.
Let me get one huge point across that a lot of people seem to be missing:
Food does not cause high population. HAPPINESS causes high population. Food only insures that your cities are working production/gold tiles instead of farm tiles.
Maritime city states give an obscene total yield compared to militaristic city states. If I lost my Maritime city states, my production in my cities would all halve.
EDIT: Wait, I have tonnes of cities above 10 population, some near 20. It's a good number especially since I don't even have all the happiness buildings unlocked.
Celevin:
You have more population that a Civ you're thinking about where he has 8 cities with about pop 20. How about a Civ with about 8 cities with a capital in the 30's, and multiple size 20+ cities along with it?
I totally get that happiness is the main limiter for growth, but in your case, you can afford not to work farm tiles (and you prefer working farm tiles), because you have such small cities. With small cities, Maritime bonuses in the Industrial Era can totally pop them up very quickly, without the need for farms.
They also produce like crap.
That works, if you just concentrate on gold and buy everything else, but at that point, you've traded productivity for gold.
At that point in the game, Militaristic states are gifting you multiple Rocket Artilleries. Just those forces are enough to let you win Domination.
The Maritime States are much more powerful when you have smaller cities with smaller food boxes.
You have more population that a Civ you're thinking about where he has 8 cities with about pop 20. How about a Civ with about 8 cities with a capital in the 30's, and multiple size 20+ cities along with it?
I totally get that happiness is the main limiter for growth, but in your case, you can afford not to work farm tiles (and you prefer working farm tiles), because you have such small cities. With small cities, Maritime bonuses in the Industrial Era can totally pop them up very quickly, without the need for farms.
They also produce like crap.
That works, if you just concentrate on gold and buy everything else, but at that point, you've traded productivity for gold.
At that point in the game, Militaristic states are gifting you multiple Rocket Artilleries. Just those forces are enough to let you win Domination.
The Maritime States are much more powerful when you have smaller cities with smaller food boxes.
Maritime city state's benefits are related to your number of cities, not your city size.
This argument's completely worn out. The entire point of it is that Maritime city states are overpowered, and end up dominating the yields so much that it completely changes the game dynamics. That point's been made, and I've provided meaningful analysis that was ignored on how come they are leagues ahead of both Cultural and Militaristic city states. When I can buy a unit a turn, why the heck do I care about another *UNEXPERIENCED AND RANDOM* unit every 20 turns? If I lose it, I'm still alive, but if I lose some Maritimes, I might actually experience starvation.
You're also knocking a game where I won culturally at 1838. It's not nearly a complete end game empire. I only had 3 or 4 Industrial era techs. There's obviously a lot going on under the hood of that empire that you're missing.
This argument's completely worn out. The entire point of it is that Maritime city states are overpowered, and end up dominating the yields so much that it completely changes the game dynamics. That point's been made, and I've provided meaningful analysis that was ignored on how come they are leagues ahead of both Cultural and Militaristic city states. When I can buy a unit a turn, why the heck do I care about another *UNEXPERIENCED AND RANDOM* unit every 20 turns? If I lose it, I'm still alive, but if I lose some Maritimes, I might actually experience starvation.
You're also knocking a game where I won culturally at 1838. It's not nearly a complete end game empire. I only had 3 or 4 Industrial era techs. There's obviously a lot going on under the hood of that empire that you're missing.
Celevin:
I'm not knocking the game at all!
I just observed that you have very small cities, and Maritime bonuses are very strong for empires founded on small cities. That is not a knock of any sort - just an observation.
Your analysis was meaningful - for you and your game. It is not meaningful for other game states.
You ask here, why farm when I can buy Maritime food?
I ask, why not do both?
You ask, why bother with Military units when I can buy my own?
I ask, why not do both?
I'm not knocking the game at all!
I just observed that you have very small cities, and Maritime bonuses are very strong for empires founded on small cities. That is not a knock of any sort - just an observation.
Your analysis was meaningful - for you and your game. It is not meaningful for other game states.
You ask here, why farm when I can buy Maritime food?
I ask, why not do both?
You ask, why bother with Military units when I can buy my own?
I ask, why not do both?
Bibor
Doomsday Machine
I still find picking a place to settle interesting. Can you decide where to place the first few cities on this map?
Yes, although I prefer having IW before planting the 3rd city.
I'd explore the silver/sheeps location (not the first one, the second one) due EAST a bit more and see if there' any more silver or other stuff. If there is, I'd run my settler there and grab that location for my second city.
The third city would go onto the floodplains due SOUTH, just north of the deer/silver hexes. This would be my main production city thanks to the lush forests, hills and riverside farms for food. Road connection would go both along the river to mecca and beyond, as well as to the northeast to get fast access to "second city".
The fourth would go just onto the grassland riverside forest just near the silk south east of mecca. This would grab all the good riverside tiles as well as a few forests and hills for production. This would be my main happy/culture city. (And it will eventually grab that silver as well, or you might even buy that tile).
The fifth would go to the desert hill just WEST of your capital for two gold mines, two super-wheat, cows and spices. This city will also grab the lush grassland area near the coast. This city I presume would be the largest one, exclusively focusing on growth and trade posts (farm the riverside floodplains, TP everything else, gold mines, mint, temple for faster borders growth.
The sixth, if theres at least one fish available, would go to the current barb camp spot east-southeast of Mecca. This would be my naval production/commerce city as well as for horses that are needed for camel archers. If there's no fish, this city will basically stagnate till fertilizer.
I'd also befriend Warsaw (they are friendly & easy to maintain) to get access to their horses and whatever luxury they have (probably whales).
Also, as "lucky" as you might get with iron, I presume some iron will pop out just northeast of Mecca, so you might plan your seventhcity there (near the lake) for the horses, iron, lakeside farms and tradingposts.
***
That's 4 unique happy resources (5 with Warsaw) and 10 surplus happy resources (counting in the Bazaar bonus of course) you can trade around for. Also you probably got at least half of the oil reserves on the map in that desert of yours.
You'll also be working 50+ riverside tiles with my dotmap which gives 50+ GPT (41 for mecca river, at least 10 more for the "second city" one).
I'm not saying "do both". Sometimes you have to make a choice because you have limited resources.
If I'm at my happiness cap, farms are worthless to build, because I won't work them.
If I only have so much gold, I need to choose between allying with a Maritime, Militaristic, and Cultural city state. My entire point about making a comparable comparison was by going Maritime, I actually produce more gold and production to build units faster than going Militaristic.
If I'm at my happiness cap, farms are worthless to build, because I won't work them.
If I only have so much gold, I need to choose between allying with a Maritime, Militaristic, and Cultural city state. My entire point about making a comparable comparison was by going Maritime, I actually produce more gold and production to build units faster than going Militaristic.
It seems that if you are teching superior units to inferior units before you can build or buy the inferior units, that's a unit cost issue, not necessarily an overall tile yield issue. From a design perspective though it is an issue.
It seems to me that they purposely did this so you don't get the "swarm of doom" where every single tile is covered by a unit.
It seems to me that they purposely did this so you don't get the "swarm of doom" where every single tile is covered by a unit.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
Well Maritime can be considered broken, as can the extensive rewards from large empires.
and that is also an issue
Large empire=more total pop=faster tech =/= faster unit production
For Faster units, one needs bigger cities, not a bigger empire.
Because Civ V rewards empires of many small cities rather than fewer bigger cities it tends to give fast tech, and slow production.
Solutions
1. make tech like social policies (although not as severe... increase cost per size)
2. Allow "imperial production" with railroads
3. Rush buy [strategy change]
and that is also an issue
Large empire=more total pop=faster tech =/= faster unit production
For Faster units, one needs bigger cities, not a bigger empire.
Because Civ V rewards empires of many small cities rather than fewer bigger cities it tends to give fast tech, and slow production.
Solutions
1. make tech like social policies (although not as severe... increase cost per size)
2. Allow "imperial production" with railroads
3. Rush buy [strategy change]
Celevin:
I have to question that conclusion, because it seems to me that you haven't really even tried.
For instance, you are at your happiness cap without making farms because you have too many cities. Each extra city costs 1 more happiness outside population, and therefore, it doesn't benefit you to work farms.
If you made fewer cities, you will have much greater happiness leeway, and in that situation, you can build farms and maintain Maritime bonuses and build up your cities to ridiculous sizes very early on. You chose one way, but did not try the other, and now you want to say that the way you chose is the only way to play.
That is not a logical conclusion.
It also seems to me that you prioritize Maritimes over Military States without having tried both ways. A Military State with a unique luxury will boost your happiness and Civ size more than a Maritime with a non-unique luxury, despite the food bonus. If you went Maritime, you would be limited by the happiness and you would not have the gold because you cities would be smaller.
Going Militaristic gets you a tech-appropriate military unit within what, ten turns? It's random-ish, but it's the fastest way I've been able to build up an Artillery block after a speedy tech-up. The gold costs from going Maritime would have been prohibitive, and I say that from having done it both ways.
I have to question that conclusion, because it seems to me that you haven't really even tried.
For instance, you are at your happiness cap without making farms because you have too many cities. Each extra city costs 1 more happiness outside population, and therefore, it doesn't benefit you to work farms.
If you made fewer cities, you will have much greater happiness leeway, and in that situation, you can build farms and maintain Maritime bonuses and build up your cities to ridiculous sizes very early on. You chose one way, but did not try the other, and now you want to say that the way you chose is the only way to play.
That is not a logical conclusion.
It also seems to me that you prioritize Maritimes over Military States without having tried both ways. A Military State with a unique luxury will boost your happiness and Civ size more than a Maritime with a non-unique luxury, despite the food bonus. If you went Maritime, you would be limited by the happiness and you would not have the gold because you cities would be smaller.
Going Militaristic gets you a tech-appropriate military unit within what, ten turns? It's random-ish, but it's the fastest way I've been able to build up an Artillery block after a speedy tech-up. The gold costs from going Maritime would have been prohibitive, and I say that from having done it both ways.
Bibor
Doomsday Machine
@PieceOfMind: I made a dotmap of that map:
The green represents realistic (2nd ring) borders containing useful tiles.
The green represents realistic (2nd ring) borders containing useful tiles.
Spoiler :
Similar threads
