There will be little icons over the resource display in the bottom left of the city view.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Ah, thanks! It would be useful to have those next to the city names on the mainmap as well.
I took a look at starvation and ultimately it would take more data collection than I want to do (hate data collection). But I did determine some things about starvation. There are two components: local starvation and empire starvation. Undead do impact the empire starvation penalty but differently than humans and beasts At that point my eyes glazed over momentarily then I deleted my undead cities so I could ignore them. So keep that in mind; this look at starvation is very incomplete.
The moment the empire enters starvation every city running a local deficit gets a penalty of 20 growth * local deficit. There is no empire penalty until the empire deficit reaches some point. This point was 17 for me both with 10 cities and 7 cities but a more thorough look would be in order since 17 seems like a strange threshold.
Once the empire penalty kicks in every city receives this second penalty regardless of whether it is suffering from the local penalty or not. The empire penalty seems to be something like (empire deficit - threshold value) * 20 / number of cities. But that formula wasn't supported by the entire data set (maybe more variables involved). At this point I had enough information that I feel comfortable with understanding how starvation will impact me when it occurs. Perhaps someone will decide to do a complete analysis at some point.
Basically, cities running a local deficit are affected the moment the empire has a food deficit. Cities that aren't running a local deficit aren't affected until the empire deficit grows relatively large.
The moment the empire enters starvation every city running a local deficit gets a penalty of 20 growth * local deficit. There is no empire penalty until the empire deficit reaches some point. This point was 17 for me both with 10 cities and 7 cities but a more thorough look would be in order since 17 seems like a strange threshold.
Once the empire penalty kicks in every city receives this second penalty regardless of whether it is suffering from the local penalty or not. The empire penalty seems to be something like (empire deficit - threshold value) * 20 / number of cities. But that formula wasn't supported by the entire data set (maybe more variables involved). At this point I had enough information that I feel comfortable with understanding how starvation will impact me when it occurs. Perhaps someone will decide to do a complete analysis at some point.
Basically, cities running a local deficit are affected the moment the empire has a food deficit. Cities that aren't running a local deficit aren't affected until the empire deficit grows relatively large.
Was not aware that it was a bug. Make smore sense now though since a buff is overwritten when a new one is cast.
I don't know yet if Prosperity and Blessing of Life stack but my interest in growth rate was to see what size cities in the various growth states (own race, other, with or without buffs) reach in a practical time frame. I wanted to decide how to efficiently make unit production cities. Stacking every production and perk structure in each production city isn't practical because of how large the city would have to be.
The chart considers turn 1 to be the turn the city was founded and that the buff state stays the same throughout the city's life. It's just to get a feel for what size a city will be over time. I don't know if anyone else was curious about this exactly, but I figured I may as well post it.
The chart considers turn 1 to be the turn the city was founded and that the buff state stays the same throughout the city's life. It's just to get a feel for what size a city will be over time. I don't know if anyone else was curious about this exactly, but I figured I may as well post it.
Code:
Own Race Other Race
No buff Prosperity Blessing Both No buff Prosperity Blessing Both
Size Turn Turn Turn Turn Turn Turn Turn Turn
2 7 6 5 5 8 7 6 6
3 12 10 9 8 16 13 11 10
4 18 15 14 12 25 19 17 14
5 25 21 18 16 35 27 23 19
6 33 26 24 20 47 35 30 25
7 41 33 29 25 62 44 37 30
8 51 40 35 29 81 55 46 37
9 62 47 41 35 108 68 56 44
10 76 56 49 40 154 84 67 51
11 93 66 57 46 n/a 105 81 60
12 117 78 66 53 n/a 136 98 70
13 154 93 77 61 n/a 196 122 82
14 246 112 90 69 n/a n/a 159 97
15 n/a 139 106 79 n/a n/a 250 116
16 n/a 185 127 90 n/a n/a n/a 143
17 n/a n/a 158 104 n/a n/a n/a 189
18 n/a n/a 218 121 n/a n/a n/a n/a
19 n/a n/a n/a 145 n/a n/a n/a n/a
20 n/a n/a n/a 182 n/a n/a n/a n/a
21 n/a n/a n/a 274 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Wow, great work! That must have taken a long time to check on the level 21 city alone.
I've tested Prosperity and it doesn't stack with itself.
I've tested Prosperity and it doesn't stack with itself.
Hopefully since Prosperity and Blessing of Life are different spells they will stack. I started a new game with Favor of Agrela so hopefully I'll know soon. If by check you mean get a city to level 21, I haven't. Excel took care of generating the table. I just wrote the cell formulas (mostly just one formula) for one row then copied the row to a range large enough for every combination to stagnate.
I just ran into a food deficit and the mechanic became much more obvious. The empire penalty is from military deficit. Surplus food from cities with extra go first to the military. If there is enough surplus to cover all deficits, military and individual cities, there is no starvation. If no cities are running a deficit but there isn't enough surplus to cover the military then all cities pay the empire penalty but none of them pay for a local deficit.
In either case the deficit is 20 growth per food. The growth penalty for the military deficit is spread evenly among all cities. Though from my earlier game undead are handled differently, still haven't looked at that.
In what I think must be a bug, if the surplus can cover the military but is at all short, even by just one, of covering the remaining city deficits then there is no empire penalty from the military but each deficit city pays the full local starvation penalty even though some of it could have been covered by other cities.
I just ran into a food deficit and the mechanic became much more obvious. The empire penalty is from military deficit. Surplus food from cities with extra go first to the military. If there is enough surplus to cover all deficits, military and individual cities, there is no starvation. If no cities are running a deficit but there isn't enough surplus to cover the military then all cities pay the empire penalty but none of them pay for a local deficit.
In either case the deficit is 20 growth per food. The growth penalty for the military deficit is spread evenly among all cities. Though from my earlier game undead are handled differently, still haven't looked at that.
In what I think must be a bug, if the surplus can cover the military but is at all short, even by just one, of covering the remaining city deficits then there is no empire penalty from the military but each deficit city pays the full local starvation penalty even though some of it could have been covered by other cities.
Oh, I see! Yes, Prosperity and Blessing of Life stack with each other. But go ahead and try it out for yourself as well. ^_^
All I know for sure about Undead cities and starvation is that they'll continue to rise in population even with massive negative food. They can still contribute to starving other cities since they have buildings which require a food upkeep, but a pure Undead empire can ignore food entirely. (I think they might experience starvation with negative mana, but I haven't tested it yet and mana can be stockpiled, which makes it much easier to keep positive.)
All I know for sure about Undead cities and starvation is that they'll continue to rise in population even with massive negative food. They can still contribute to starving other cities since they have buildings which require a food upkeep, but a pure Undead empire can ignore food entirely. (I think they might experience starvation with negative mana, but I haven't tested it yet and mana can be stockpiled, which makes it much easier to keep positive.)
So, if cities naturally cap out at size 14, different race cities cap out at 10, then the impact on strategy must be:
1. To cram cities as close as you can get them (since each can only work 14 tiles anyway, why take more?)
2. To raze other-race cities unless you have a specific purpose in mind for them (EG: Building a unit you desperately want from their roster)
3. To plan for each city to have enough food production to cover at least 14 population. (Is that 14 food? Probably, I don't know for sure though)
Anything else I've missed? I suppose if you're happy enough casting prosperity spells all over the place then this strategy would change, but I prefer to be less tied up with my magic, and less vulnerable to dispels also.
1. To cram cities as close as you can get them (since each can only work 14 tiles anyway, why take more?)
2. To raze other-race cities unless you have a specific purpose in mind for them (EG: Building a unit you desperately want from their roster)
3. To plan for each city to have enough food production to cover at least 14 population. (Is that 14 food? Probably, I don't know for sure though)
Anything else I've missed? I suppose if you're happy enough casting prosperity spells all over the place then this strategy would change, but I prefer to be less tied up with my magic, and less vulnerable to dispels also.
I've never seen the AI dispel a city buff. Or a unit buff, for that matter. They cast banes and couter-spell against me all the time.
@Gort: It depends on how long/large the map is and your playing preferences. Myself, if a different race city has hit 5 population already (and thus expanded its radius), I generally keep the city. This is because replacing that city (and getting the population up to replace it) will take around 33 turns without buffing. That is 33 turns of lost gold/mana/research- whatever that city had. Assuming you get a settler there right away with a teleport or planning.
Re Food, Humans and undead require 1 food per pop. Undead require 1 mana per pop.
About spacing: some cities I want as large as possible because the bonus production isn't linear. Say a Human city has gems in its production menu, I'll make it into a gold farm. Since you can build an unlimited number of craft districts once your multiplier buildings are done, each extra craft district you can place is worth about 12 gold.
If I cram them as close as possible, I'll lose out on that option- cities don't share tiles within their production zone. Whichever expands first claims it forever, even if it lies unused for 60 turns.
@Gort: It depends on how long/large the map is and your playing preferences. Myself, if a different race city has hit 5 population already (and thus expanded its radius), I generally keep the city. This is because replacing that city (and getting the population up to replace it) will take around 33 turns without buffing. That is 33 turns of lost gold/mana/research- whatever that city had. Assuming you get a settler there right away with a teleport or planning.
Re Food, Humans and undead require 1 food per pop. Undead require 1 mana per pop.
About spacing: some cities I want as large as possible because the bonus production isn't linear. Say a Human city has gems in its production menu, I'll make it into a gold farm. Since you can build an unlimited number of craft districts once your multiplier buildings are done, each extra craft district you can place is worth about 12 gold.
If I cram them as close as possible, I'll lose out on that option- cities don't share tiles within their production zone. Whichever expands first claims it forever, even if it lies unused for 60 turns.
1. since there is no disincentive to spam cities (apart from the production time and cost of a settler), this is an optimal strategy anyway.
2. Depends how big the city is. If you have a level 5 city you will need 25 turns before it is as productive as the one razed (assuming the AI built exactly what you wanted and only changing due to race) and 51 turns before it is actually better off than continuing with the original city (reach level 8 before the non-race one). If you are planning on winning the game before those 51 turns are up, then keeping the original inhabitants will be more efficient.
3. With all the multiplicative effects available, it is much more efficient to have specialised cities. Typically I'd only need 1 or 2 cities that are food focused to power a 20+ city game. If the food drops into negative, the starvation is much more costly though. That said I believe the starvation should be much more severe. At the moment running a slight deficit in early game to maintain more troops can be far more cost effective than losing only a percentage of growth rate (especially if those troops are settlers, which will effectively double your growth rate anyway).
This seems to be ignoring the 20% productivity penalty for non-race cities. A level 7 city of your own race will quite likely outproduce a level 8 city of another race.
Yep, thanks.
As an interesting aside, any negative numbers are REDUCED by 20%, so having non-faction cities that have a large cash deficit (typical unit production cities), you actually save money in comparative terms.
Positive food is converted into gold, if you mouse over your total food production icon it will tell exactly how much of the overstock is being converted per turn.
Heh. That's funny. Stuff like this makes the game feel like it's not really finished yet. The pathfinding thing they fixed for cylindrical worlds is another one, or the blacked out minimap. Overall the game feels like a late-stage beta, where the fundamentals are in place and the game is a lot of fun, but there's a lot of random kinks that still need to be worked out. If they can fix most of the remaining weirdness and a good modding team can figure out how to get at unit stats so we can mess with them, I could see myself playing this game for a very long time.
Another thing for the hopper is that a spell or two can erase the productivity penalty for mana/food/pop growth- in a single turn or two. While in the long run a native race city will probably be better (except undead mana/monster food/human gold), the number of turns to get there is pretty high.
Assume a hypothetical size 5 city. Your native race takes 25 turns to hit pop 5 according to the chart above. And since the other city would have been growing during those turns (by a pop point or two), it actually takes 51 turns without a pop booster spell to hit the same population level. During that build up, all the productivity from the city you raised is lost. If you are willing to use a Prosperity Spell, the catch up time drops to around 47 turns.
Well, that makes the case for keeping specialized cities even stronger. Anyway, I found the length of time it takes to catch up surprising. If my math is right, I don't think it makes sense to raze size 5 cities and higher in most cases.
Assume a hypothetical size 5 city. Your native race takes 25 turns to hit pop 5 according to the chart above. And since the other city would have been growing during those turns (by a pop point or two), it actually takes 51 turns without a pop booster spell to hit the same population level. During that build up, all the productivity from the city you raised is lost. If you are willing to use a Prosperity Spell, the catch up time drops to around 47 turns.
Well, that makes the case for keeping specialized cities even stronger. Anyway, I found the length of time it takes to catch up surprising. If my math is right, I don't think it makes sense to raze size 5 cities and higher in most cases.
I think the production unique production buildings of the other races outweigh this. I tend to specialize conquered cities towards the resource the race produces best, food for monsters, gold for humans and mana for the undead.
Are you sure about this? I believe any percentage only ever affects the production of the resource and never the upkeep. Otherwise you would also need to avoid constructing resource draining buildings in a city specialized in that particular resource, which is not the case.
And I'm pretty sure I've been noticing the opposite, all negative values remaining the same while positive get 20% decrease, just look at money breakdown in some city and compare negative value to the sum of negative values from buildings.