Tile yields and their implications

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

They could very well do farms that give +7 food because housing would still limit how much you can grow and you will due to unstacking cities have less tiles to work on but may have the need for the same amount of population as in civilization V. To get a +7 food farm you would need to encircle that farm completely with other farms which may not be an easy thing to do with unstacking of cities.

 

[ftl]

I'm not sure I'll like that to manage growth I'll have to micromanage both food and population, but I guess it's no more work than food and happiness.

I think managing growth will be more involved now. There's also a third factor, amenities, isn't there? And the three will change in importance as the ages change. We know that early on food is important and hard to get early but later it will be easy. The others also probably change in ease of access.

 

[King Jason]

I'm not sure I'll like that to manage growth I'll have to micromanage both food and population, but I guess it's no more work than food and happiness.

On the bright side, the way I've been observing it in the videos that have been released, I'm going to guess it'll be something along the lines of worker micro - something that'll benefit you if you do it, but something that is absolutely not necessary in order to succeed - even at higher difficulties.

In fact it'll probably be even less so than that. Some of the play throughs manage their housing just fine and I don't think they even realize that they're doing it. Other ones don't.

 

[Atlas627]

I would hope a coastal river city would get the housing bonus for both. Many great cities were founded on river mouths.

I also havent seen anything regarding trade route bonuses along rivers or coast.

Recon units should have a promotion for faster movement along rivers.

I am not a fan of the hills-and-forests-are-stricty-better system, but if it has tradeoffs we don't know of yet, then I won't mind it.

Do population points give yields on their own? That may be enough to make flatlands + farms worthwhile compared to natural hills/forests.

 

[Ulthwithian]

While we can discuss the relative merits of one improvement over another, let us not forget that the opportunity costs of improvement is measured in hammers not necessarily time. (Builder charges)

This seems to be the primary reason that the Serfdom policy is unlocked along with Farm capacity (IIRC).

It's something to keep in mind, though, and there's going to be a lot of tension with builder decisions. 'Do I really want to put an improvement down now if I plan to put a Farm down here later, if the cost of every improvement in my civ has a nondecreasing marginal cost?'

This also implies that civs with a Builder bonus (e.g., Aztecs and China) will not only have more developed territories on average, but also more tailored territories.

 

[Magil]

Never mind, I think I misunderstood what was going on in that video.

 

[Atlas627]

The jungle giving bonus food might seem weird, but I think it might be more balanced. Remember than in Civ6, building improvements and cutting trees burns up builders, so costs production. Also, every builder you build increase the cost of the next one. I suspect this means that cutting down vast swathes of jungles will become significantly harder. Also remember the yield bonus from feudalism, farms will boost food growth by a ton.

What does this mean for balance? If you build a city in jungle, it will have faster growth than a city on flatland at the start, but then very quickly require a substantial investment of resources to develop it beyond the size of a village. So it becomes a short term vs medium term trade off for the best place to build cities. I think I could like that.

Sure, but why cut them down? Why improve your tiles at all in the early game, if woods/rainforest are just better without even having to waste builder charges?

Perhaps improvements themselves need to be more impactful? Perhaps all yields need to be slightly inflated so that we can use the values between?

 

[Magil]

Sure, but why cut them down? Why improve your tiles at all in the early game, if woods/rainforest are just better without even having to waste builder charges?

Perhaps improvements themselves need to be more impactful? Perhaps all yields need to be slightly inflated so that we can use the values between?

Well, I certainly wouldn't mind returning to how IV handled tile yields in that regard. Doesn't seem bloody likely though.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Sure, but why cut them down? Why improve your tiles at all in the early game, if woods/rainforest are just better without even having to waste builder charges?

Perhaps improvements themselves need to be more impactful? Perhaps all yields need to be slightly inflated so that we can use the values between?

That's what he was saying... Woods/rainforest Won't be improved until Feudalism (when farm productivity increases.) and then they will be very difficult to improve. (2 charges instead of 1)

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

I think the point is to reduce the gain/importance of builder first or early builder in favor pf other early strategies.

 

[Seek]

Sure, but why cut them down? Why improve your tiles at all in the early game, if woods/rainforest are just better without even having to waste builder charges?

Perhaps improvements themselves need to be more impactful? Perhaps all yields need to be slightly inflated so that we can use the values between?

I think what he was getting at is that raw tiles do not provide housing and improvements and districts do, chopping will potentially be necessary to grow beyond a mid-sized city.

I'm pretty sure the builder only uses one charge to improve a tile with a jungle or forest though that is of course subject to change.