Why is the Hanging Gardens so weak?

[rschissler]

Looking at the recent World Wonder elimination thread, the Hanging Gardens seem poorly though of. Why is that? Is the 15% increased growth for the whole game, or am I missing something? Is it increased border tile expansion or increased food, or what?

 

[empresskiova]

It's 15% faster population growth, so if your cities have surplus food, there is an extra 15% food applied to that. Or something along those lines. It ranks lowly primarily because of housing constraints early game and because AI players tend to prioritize it. The effect does last the entire game, however. It allows your cities to go super tall, provided you have homes for everyone.

It does work nicely for Civs who get a bunch of Housing early, like Rome or Kongo with their Unique Districts. I suppose India's Stepwells could also make it "worth it".

 

[The Highwayman]

As the above poster stated, housing constraints diminish the value of the Hanging Gardens. Additional military units, settlers, and/or getting districts online at this stage of the game will likely have a higher payoff. I often acquire it via takeover, and that's never a bad thing.

 

[stinkubus]

The AI goes for it fast, too. In many of my games it even goes before Stonehenge.

 

[AJ22PIZZA]

Housing is more important for getting high population cities than growth.

 

[Photi]

food doesn't seem to be an issue, amenities and housing on the other hand. at release, i'd always try for hanging gardens, been ages since the last time i went for it. to make it more worthwhile it would need to provide one or two amenities to four cities, at least.

 

[Victoria]

I want to remove it when I capture cities. Why? It makes my happiness go down fast.
To be fair it is useful on hills and helps you to keep up with the insane higher growth of the AI on higher levels.

 

[Kyro]

Like the rest said, housing pretty much bottlenecks any benefits the Hanging Gardens provide.

It is intentionally weak to deter players from trying to grow tall early in a bid to force them to expand and come into conflict with other Civilizations.

It is also part of a bigger picture to downplay Wonders overall compared to Civ 5 so as to make expansion, districts and aggressive gameplay more advantageous and attractive than peaceful building.

 

[craney1987]

if the hanging gardens were in some way to provide housing instead of growth however.........

 

[kampori]

I love Hanging Gardens. Build it in every single game. I also build aqueducts early, and encampments, and entertainment districts. Never had happiness or growth bottlenecks, and my cities grow huge

 

[comatosedragon]

The AI goes for it fast, too. In many of my games it even goes before Stonehenge.

I have never seen this to be the case. HG is one of the wonders I can reliably get. (kind of like oracle in civ V)

[immortal]

 

[empresskiova]

Well, after suggesting trying out the India+Hanging Gardens combo, I thought I'd give it a chance.

So, I booted up a Shuffle Board as my boy Ghandi, and started a Marathon Run. After (sorta) beelining to Irrigation, I went ahead and started the Hanging Gardens in Delhi. I has another city out, though it was only on the ocean. Fast forward give or take 50 turns, and the Hanging Gardens are complete. Using a modded policy (+4 Production in Capital, -4 Gold) made a difference in getting it built. But once it was built, my cities did grow noticably faster. After I built HG, I got another settler out, and before I knew it, that city was also at 5 population.

So, Hanging Gardens needs a civ that synergizes well with it to be more worth it. And the slower the game, the more noticeable the growth. And Marathon is sloooooooow lol.

 

[MyOtherName]

It's 15% faster population growth, so if your cities have surplus food, there is an extra 15% food applied to that. Or something along those lines. It ranks lowly primarily because of housing constraints early game and because AI players tend to prioritize it. The effect does last the entire game, however. It allows your cities to go super tall, provided you have homes for everyone.

Not really. If you have 15% extra food from the very beginning, it means that cities that would grow to size 15 will reach size 16 on the same amount of food. Or a city that would grow to size 30 would reach size 32 on the same amount of food.

(note I'm talking just about the surplus food that goes into buying a new citizen, and am saying nothing about the food needed to sustain your existing citizens)

It does work nicely for Civs who get a bunch of Housing early, like Rome or Kongo with their Unique Districts. I suppose India's Stepwells could also make it "worth it".

Early on, the effect is even less. It takes 25% as much food to reach size 10 than it does size 9, so Hanging Gardens isn't even worth an extra population point here!


Maybe HG would be more valuable if you look at it not as "I can get my city bigger", but instead "I can still reach the size I was aiming for with a little less focus on food in favor of producing more of other yields."

 

[empresskiova]

Not really. If you have 15% extra food from the very beginning, it means that cities that would grow to size 15 will reach size 16 on the same amount of food. Or a city that would grow to size 30 would reach size 32 on the same amount of food.

(note I'm talking just about the surplus food that goes into buying a new citizen, and am saying nothing about the food needed to sustain your existing citizens)


Early on, the effect is even less. It takes 25% as much food to reach size 10 than it does size 9, so Hanging Gardens isn't even worth an extra population point here!


Maybe HG would be more valuable if you look at it not as "I can get my city bigger", but instead "I can still reach the size I was aiming for with a little less focus on food in favor of producing more of other yields."

I don't know the amount of surplus food you need to hit each new pop. But it guess it doesn't matter too much,

Also, the Unique Districts don't take up population slots, since the normal versions don't. Unless I was misunderstanding you there lol.

 

[Tacgnol]

Not really. If you have 15% extra food from the very beginning, it means that cities that would grow to size 15 will reach size 16 on the same amount of food. Or a city that would grow to size 30 would reach size 32 on the same amount of food.

(note I'm talking just about the surplus food that goes into buying a new citizen, and am saying nothing about the food needed to sustain your existing citizens)

What no

That's neither how the math works, nor how the mechanics work, you don't get 15% extra food just 15% extra of the surplus part of the food that goes to growth, and 15% would bring a city from 7 to 8 pop, or 14 to 16 pop, or 28 to 32 pop.

 

[MyOtherName]

What no

That's neither how the math works, nor how the mechanics work, you don't get 15% extra food just 15% extra of the surplus part of the food that goes to growth, and 15% would bring a city from 7 to 8 pop, or 14 to 16 pop, or 28 to 32 pop.

By the formula thread, a size (N-1) city requires 15 + 8N + N^(1.5) to grow to size N.

Growing a city from size 1 to size 7 costs 238 surplus food: that's 15 + 24 + 34 + 44 + 55 + 66. Growing a city from size 1 to size 8 costs 316 surplus food. That's a 33% difference.

Growing a city from size 1 to size 28 costs 4659 surplus food. Growing a city form size 1 to size 32 costs 6240 surplus food. That's a 34% difference.

 

[empresskiova]

So, by the numbers...

For Population 1 -> 7, Hanging Gardens generates a total of 35.7 "free food".
For Pop 1 -> 8, Hanging Gardens generates a total of 47.4 "free food".
And so on and so forth.

Useful, but still not strong. More helpful for tall cities it looks like (where growth is even slower). And getting a bunch of cities there lol.

Will be continuing my India + Hanging Gardens game soon enough. Marathon has it's advantages.

 

[shaglio]

So, by the numbers...

For Population 1 -> 7, Hanging Gardens generates a total of 35.7 "free food".
For Pop 1 -> 8, Hanging Gardens generates a total of 47.4 "free food".
And so on and so forth.

You really can't say this for certain since it works off of growth, not food itself. If your city is generating 20 food and consuming 14, your surplus is 6. 15% of 6 is 0.9 (I'm not sure if the game would round this up to 1, and make your surplus 7). Basically, for every 6.66 food you're generating beyond what is being consumed, you'll get an extra 1 food (depending on the game's rounding mechanic).

 

[steveg700]

So, by the numbers...

For Population 1 -> 7, Hanging Gardens generates a total of 35.7 "free food".
For Pop 1 -> 8, Hanging Gardens generates a total of 47.4 "free food".
And so on and so forth.

Will be continuing my India + Hanging Gardens game soon enough. Marathon has it's advantages.

Well, if the HG actually generated free food, then this thread might not exist. It generates growth. I can't feed my miners a growth percentile.

 

[Victoria]

You should use the same strategy with the hanging gardens that you use with the great library, let another civ waste their time building it.