No, because it's based on population and capital population (which will definitely be higher in tall), but it's a much higher percentage of the overall income for tall empires because they have many fewer villages to work for supplemental income.
Yields
- Thread starter Thalassicus
- Start date
No, because it's based on population and capital population (which will definitely be higher in tall), but it's a much higher percentage of the overall income for tall empires because they have many fewer villages to work for supplemental income.
EmperorFool
Deity
How much is this offset by the fact that wide empires have more trade routes. Each is worth less, but there are many more.
My gut tells me that the total trade route income will be about the same for the same amount of population whether it's spread tall or wide, but this is totally not based on the most recent formula which I can't put my hands on.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2010
- Messages
- 3,410
I agree. IIRC, in VEM it's weighted higher towards Capital population than vanilla fwiw.
EmperorFool
Deity
I can say that even when playing wide I still maximize my capital's population as much as possible. If VEM weights capital population more than total population, wide vs. tall won't make a population difference--only in the number of trade routes (cities).
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
If tall empire gold drops substantially with the change to trade routes, we can add more available slots for tall empires to use Merchants. The idea here is to shift gold generation from trade (passive, background, favors undeveloped cities) to merchants and villages (active decisions, foreground, favors developed cities).
Txurce
Deity
I hope this philosophy is used to guide the balancing still to come. It makes the game more fun even when it also makes it harder. I probably won't get to the beta until Monday, but I can't wait to read the early reports.
Similar threads
