Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dariush]

Expand 133 (2 actions)
City 133
Question: if I conquer a tile and this brings me under my minimum population, does the difference get reimbursed before next season? Also, can we conquer neutral territories?

[cerapa]

City 133

It's spring. You can't build cities in spring.

[Dariush]

So... you can conquer people in winter, but cannot build new stuff in spring. LOGIC.

Expand 133 (2 actions)
Expand 148

[monk12]

So I literally wasted one action and lost two more by not gaining population in time on growing stuff instead of building cities. Splendid balance. :-/

Ayup. And I'm wasting actions by not building cities so I can farm.

You guys need to stop treating this like a simulation and start treating it like a game. I mean, you don't have to, but if you insist on playing how you think things ought to work instead of playing how they actually work, you'll have a tough time.

However, you can only get so much population from fields...equal to the number of tiles you have. And the tiles you farm? Also the tiles you build cities on.

Well, yeah, that's the thing. The number of tiles you have is pretty much always bigger than the number of tiles you can build cities on. Cities give you one pop to play with right now, plains reserved for farming are what vault you above minimum. Hence why I'm reserving some as we speak

Uh, nope. Let's say a spring rolls around and I am currently at my minimum population. I have two choices for increasing the population: either build a city or farm. If I pick the former, I am still at the minimum population (which is now one higher) and I start off summer with +1 guy. Next spring I'll still have a choice. If I farm, not only do I only get this guy at the end of AUTUMN, but also I'll stop being at minimum population and thus will be forced to also farm the next spring, unless I want to have an action having been wasted, which is exactly what happened.

A good point, though things might change once players begin to run out places to build their cities.

I'll revisit your proposals at the end of the game when we've a clearer idea what the long-term effects of the different strategies are. Are you sure you mean 'only increase minimum population'? Your max population would then just be the number of tiles you have and it's impossible to build more cities than you have tiles...

(Also, will roll us on to the next season in just a moment)

Again, yeah, that's how it works, but I don't see it as a necessarily bad thing. I feel like the mechanics are balanced, favoring one over the other just because you think one ought to precede the other doesn't make much sense. Starting with a capital city is definitely the way to go, after that you have the interesting choice of immediate growth or long term.

Question: if I conquer a tile and this brings me under my minimum population, does the difference get reimbursed before next season? Also, can we conquer neutral territories?

Related to Dariush's question, when exactly does the losing population from a conquer action occur? Immediately, or end of turn? For example, if I had 3 Population and bordered 3 neighboring contested deserts, would I be able to Conquer all of them or just two (since the first conquer would lower my pop to 2?)

Also, Dariush, why would you want to conquer neutral tiles? It costs the same as expanding but makes you lose a pop from fighting.

Looks like I'll be waiting for DarkPaladin, since his expansion choices most definitely impact my own.

[Dariush]

You guys need to stop treating this like a simulation and start treating it like a game. I mean, you don't have to, but if you insist on playing how you think things ought to work instead of playing how they actually work, you'll have a tough time.

I'm treating games as simulations in which certain parts have been abstracted. The remaining system must still hold up when you try to perceive it as what it is supposed to be representing and not what it is. If we had a game that isn't supposed to be reminiscent of the real world in any way, I wouldn't bat an eye. But we don't, and what we have is a possibility to make an object representing an empire of a dozen cities while not supplying this object with another object representing food, despite food being present in the game. Which I do not like.

Also, Dariush, why would you want to conquer neutral tiles? It costs the same as expanding but makes you lose a pop from fighting.

You can conquer in winter, but can't expand.

[GreatWyrmGold]

You guys need to stop treating this like a simulation and start treating it like a game. I mean, you don't have to, but if you insist on playing how you think things ought to work instead of playing how they actually work, you'll have a tough time.

Indeed. Curse my tendencies to do so.
_{(Insert rant on "fun" and "efficiency" and how they don't play well together here.)}

Well, yeah, that's the thing. The number of tiles you have is pretty much always bigger than the number of tiles you can build cities on. Cities give you one pop to play with right now, plains reserved for farming are what vault you above minimum. Hence why I'm reserving some as we speak

And that's well and good, once you have a lot of non-plains/favored terrain.

Also, Dariush, why would you want to conquer neutral tiles? It costs the same as expanding but makes you lose a pop from fighting.

You can conquer in winter, but can't expand.

Which totally makes sense guys.

[a1s]

Remember that cities increase your minimum and maximum population, but they only increase your actual pop if it's below the new minimum.

should have fecunded after all. Damn you, memory!

grow 30,
expand 17

[notquitethere]

Dariush

Question: if I conquer a tile and this brings me under my minimum population, does the difference get reimbursed before next season? Also, can we conquer neutral territories?

You can't conquer neutral territories— there's no infrastructure there to hijack. Population is reduced at the end of your turn, down to your minimum. Example:

Pop: 3/2-3 civ has three actions. They use them to conquer two tiles, reducing their own population down to its minimum, 2. They then start their next turn with 2 population, and thus, two actions.

Monk12

Again, yeah, that's how it works, but I don't see it as a necessarily bad thing. I feel like the mechanics are balanced, favoring one over the other just because you think one ought to precede the other doesn't make much sense. Starting with a capital city is definitely the way to go, after that you have the interesting choice of immediate growth or long term.

This is what I hope is the case. I decided to leave scope for farming rather than cram out all my land with cities, which I think is going to pay off.

Related to Dariush's question, when exactly does the losing population from a conquer action occur? Immediately, or end of turn? For example, if I had 3 Population and bordered 3 neighboring contested deserts, would I be able to Conquer all of them or just two (since the first conquer would lower my pop to 2?)

All of them: population changes happen at the end of your turn. Think of it this way: your population at the start of your turn gives you a number of actions to use. What you do with these actions can increase or decrease your population but those population changes don't effect your actions for that turn.

[notquitethere]

Also, Dariush, why would you want to conquer neutral tiles? It costs the same as expanding but makes you lose a pop from fighting.

You can conquer in winter, but can't expand.

Which totally makes sense guys.

Monk's right insofar as this isn't supposed to be a strict simulationist game. There are deliberate gamist elements. Half the year is for expanding, half for conquering, half for growing/harvesting and half for improving.

[Dariush]

NQT, how could Darkpaladin fortify two tiles last turn despite only having 1 pop?

[notquitethere]

He couldn't.  Good spot: I'll amend the map.

[darkpaladin109]

I only said to fortify once, actually. Anyway here's my action.
Grow on tile 78.
I need to start building up my population.

[notquitethere]

Looks like two tiles. Remember fortification isn't along a border (though I did consider that) but for the whole tile.

Fortify 64 and 78.

Which did you mean, 64 or 78?


Monk12, just you and me left!


I'm going to go: grow 141, expand 153 and 152
 

[Dariush]

Waitwaitwait. How can you expand both to 153 and 152 if they both take two actions (two due to 153 being forested and two due to 152 being across a river)?

[notquitethere]

I scrapped making expansion be limited by rivers a little while ago. As I told you here:

Dariush

Does (Brutal) Raiding across a river cost additional actions?

As raiding isn't hindered by rivers, apparently not. Rivers only defend against conquest, not raiding or expansion. (This might change in future versions so exploit it while you can!)