Patch Finally Out

[Zeroth Amendment]

I think extra citizens also cost more towards upkeep? 1 gold per turn extra can make a big difference in the early game.

Do they? I thought it was based on number of cities.

[cynyck]

Hence, given that being past the happiness limit is worse than sitting at the happiness limit, being past the happiness limit is strictly better than sitting at the happiness limit. This is a contradiction, ergo the assumption must be false, and being past the happiness limit must not be worse than sitting at it.

Wow, one of us needs to check our medication levels. I actually understand your logic, or contra-logic. But it is faulty. How do I know? Because your conclusion is wrong.

If I can know when a city producing 2 extra food reaches its happiness cap, I can then switch a citizen off of a tile which produces 2 food, such as unimproved grassland or a grassland forest, to a tile which produces no food, such as a mined plains hill. I will get more hammers, which is better than feeding a slacker. Of course, this also applies to switching off of a 3 food to a 1 food, etc., as long as I gain hammers or commerce or both. I can also take a citizen off of a 2 food tile, and assign that citizen as a specialist.

[Zeroth Amendment]

Wow, one of us needs to check our medication levels. I actually understand your logic, or contra-logic. But it is faulty. How do I know? Because your conclusion is wrong.

If I can know when a city producing 2 extra food reaches its happiness cap, I can then switch a citizen off of a tile which produces 2 food, such as unimproved grassland or a grassland forest, to a tile which produces no food, such as a mined plains hill. I will get more hammers, which is better than feeding a slacker. Of course, this also applies to switching off of a 3 food to a 1 food, etc., as long as I gain hammers or commerce or both. I can also take a citizen off of a 2 food tile, and assign that citizen as a specialist.

Well, sure. I'm just saying that growth in and of itself is not a bad thing. When you're at your happiness limit you should of course heavily de-prioritize food, but if your best production/commerce tile-workings also cause your city to grow, that's not a bad thing and you should not reduce your production/commerce in order to avoid growth.

[LKendter]

Well don't forget that another thing about unhappy citizens. What if your city grows a pop point unhappy, but a temple is two turns away. How about you expect a new luxury to connect in 10 turns. If that citizen will become happy shortly, then what is the value?

[Blake]

Undocumented things that I've observed:
1) Civic costs are lower for non-organized civs at emperor+, specifically they don't suffer the -2 from the start thing. Havn't tested Organized civs, I'll lazily wait for the thread at CFC to be updated by less lazy people than I.
2) Barbarians spawn slower on slower game speeds (it's more proportional now) * This is highly subjective so if someone else could confim that the barbies fertility has been greatly reduced on Marathon, that'd be good.
3) Anarchy scales better with game speed. On Marathon it used to be 1 turn to switch 1 civic, it's now 2 turns to switch 1 civic, 3 turns to switch 2 civics..
4) Unit costs increased on Epic to be proportional to game speed. Ie: Buildings cost 50% more so units cost 50% more too. Used to be units only cost 25% more. Marathon costs are unchanged. Well it's undocumented but Sirian talked about it enough :P.

[cynyck]

Well, I'm still not sure I can agree. I am trying to think of a hypothetical situation where I want to reduce growth and must also sacrifice production/commerce.

If I move a citizen off a food producing tile, I will look for either a lower food producing tile, a non-food producing tile, or an open specialist slot. I suppose if I had a grassland city with all tiles improved with towns, I would have to give up the commerce. But, I would gain a specialist.

I don't know. It is late for me here and it is getting too hard to think.

[Atlas]

I think that Zeroth Amendment is just saying that imagine-

a city with only unimproved grassland tile and no infrastructure. why not just let it grow into unhappiness? what difference does it make?

Once you start interjecting all sorts of tile improvements and specialists each situation becomes different/unique and has to be addressed as such. Generally, like LK said, I let it grow if a resource or building is coming online and like you argue I will otherwise put up a specialist (especially in the early game) or swith the tile being worked to stop/slow growth.

[Speaker]

Bravo to Sirian. I played a couple games with the "Fantasy Realm" map script last night and loved them. My favorite tile was folodplains on ice. Heh. Oh, Wheat on Tundra gave me 5 food. That was fun too. If you haven't yet played this, hurry up!

[Atlas]

Bravo to Sirian. I played a couple games with the "Fantasy Realm" map script last night and loved them. My favorite tile was folodplains on ice. Heh. Oh, Wheat on Tundra gave me 5 food. That was fun too. If you haven't yet played this, hurry up!

Yeah I have played this too, I liked the jungle-tundra tile . We (Gogf, Dantski, and Yuri (a CFCer) played MP on this earlier today with the crazy resource dist. I had four iron in my capitals fat cross. For that roll bananna, iron and gold were the resources that were just everywhere. The crazy tiles I like (tundra-bannana), but that top-bottom wrap around really takes some getting used to, especially on MP where you have to watch the vectors of attack.

[Speaker]

The top-bottom wrap made our games very interesting. Everybody is on the front. Makes your sentinel-net very important.