TheMeInTeam Wrote:Video update with some micro planning!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFofxeBHt6Y
Thanks mate.
|
[SPOILERS] - Too Much Information Thread
|
novice Wrote:Did you test how toroidal wrap, emperor difficulty and a 30x30 map affect the maintenance costs of your second and third city? No, but IIRC the game doesn't change maintenance based on total tiles, but rather on the map size shown in-game (IE standard). Is that wrong? Shouldn't extra tiles just mean the possibility for cities settled further away? TheMeInTeam Wrote:No, but IIRC the game doesn't change maintenance based on total tiles, but rather on the map size shown in-game (IE standard). Is that wrong? Shouldn't extra tiles just mean the possibility for cities settled further away?It's incomplete. Maintenance is calculated from few more things, read here http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.p...stcount=89  TheMeInTeam Wrote:No, but IIRC the game doesn't change maintenance based on total tiles, but rather on the map size shown in-game (IE standard). Is that wrong? That is wrong. Distance maintenance is charged based on the fraction of the maximum possible distance between a pair of cities on the map. That's why the wrapping axes matter. Mist's link describes the math, but here's an intuitive explanation. Code: +--------------------+Suppose your capital is at A and you build a city at X. On a flat map, A-B is the maximum possible distance between cities. City X will pay a distance cost with a modifier of 1/4 in there somewhere. What if it's toroidal with both axes wrapping? Now A-D is the maximum possible distance, so City X pays maintenance with a modifier of 1/2, twice its cost as on the flat map. What if it's cylindrical? A-C is the maximum possible distance on a cylindrical map, and A-X is some fraction of that between 1/2 and 1/4. The labeled map size ("small", "huge", "duel") does not matter for this (edit, it does, Seven below is correct.) (The labeled map size matters for number-of-cities maintenance, and more so than for distance.) The number of land tiles does not matter. What matters is the physical count of tiles along each axis. T-hawk Wrote:The labeled map size ("small", "huge", "duel") does not matter for this (it does for number-of-cities maintenance.) The number of land tiles does not matter. All that matters is the physical count of tiles along each axis. Actually the size matters too. While number-of-cities maintenance is scaled down on larger labeled map sizes, distance maintenance is scaled up a bit. But the actual dimensions and wrap are a more important factor.
Pro-tip: you should delete everyone else's capitals in your worldbuilder sim (except maybe one, leave them on a 1-tile island) so you don't get interrupted by those jerks "greeting" you.
Nicolae Carpathia Wrote:Pro-tip: you should delete everyone else's capitals in your worldbuilder sim (except maybe one, leave them on a 1-tile island) so you don't get interrupted by those jerks "greeting" you. That would cause some interesting things though; in the real game I'm likely to get research discounts on at least mining and probably bronze working too, and leaving AIs in simulates that well right now. I read up on the distance maintenance calcs there and turns out I am indeed wrong. How much of a difference will it make though? I'm doubting enough to make it worth my effort to painstakingly create yet ANOTHER world builder map, especially because as the game goes on I'm also going to struggle to plan ahead much as new situations arise etc. For example for the first 3 or 4 cities I doubt the variance between current test save and the 30x30 toroidal wrap would be enough to even play a larger role than simply getting technology discounts. Which are already in play too, because I've met WK. For his part, WK hasn't said anything to me since the last message, but he's kept his warrior away from my borders when he could have used it in a meaner posturing. A minor but pleasant early sign. |
