just a couple of unclarities...

[guermantes]

Hi,

I have still not gotten over the threshold enough to be able to know what is going on all the time during a game at Noble so I took a few screenshots and hope that at least some of the things that are unclear to me could be answered in these forum.

1a) I thought I needed a road to connect to resources but here I get them without road. Is that because it is within my fat cross?



1b) If a resource tile within the fat cross is not worked by a citizen, do I still get it's bonus?

1c) Do I need to work tiles with citizens in the cityscreen in order for e.g. a cottage to be a useful improvement?

2a) In one of my first attempts to build a production powerhouse city I wanted to place a city on the 3-hammer tile to the southwest of the settler but the computer recommended the tile to the east. I guess the computer did not know I wanted a production powerhouse, but was I wrong to put it on the 3-hammer tile?




2b) Why would the computer favour the tile to the east?

3a) Why are there 9 unhappy workers when Thebes is only size eight?



3b) When I get an unhappy worker who think it is "too crowded," can I do anything other than i-poprush, ii-starve them, or iii-build happy face buildings or trade for a happy face?

4) Why does it say that I trade 1 corn of 0? Is this a bug, remember from above, I have corn in the fat cross of Thebes so I definitely have corn to trade?




I would be very glad if someone could clarify these things for me. Thanks a lot!

/p

[Jaybe]

1a: Rivers also connect resources and trade routes.

1b: A resource does not need to be worked to get the strategic, health or happiness benefit. It needs to be worked to get any food, hammer or commerce however.

1c: A cottage does not progress towards hamlet/village/town during the turns it is not worked.

2a: If you settle on the stone (3 hammer) tile the tile yield would not be 3 hammers, though you would get the stone resource without needing a quarry. For more hammers, don't settle on the stone.

2b: The blue circle also gets you the 3f, 1c food plain. Once you gain experience, you will be paying less attention to the recommendation.

3a: Hover the mouse over the happy/unhappiness numbers to find the breakdown of whys. Same with health, science, gold, maintenance stats, and many others.

3b: I think you have it covered.

4: I don't know.

[Tattila the Hun]

Eh, you're crosstrading corn? Strange.

[MightyTiny]

1 a) - you don't need a road to gain access to the resource if it is on the bank of a river that connects it to your city.

1 b) - if you mean do you still get the resource, then yes.

1 c) - Yes.

2 a) and b) - The spot suggested by the computer is MUCH better than settling on the stone resource - the hammer bonus you get by settling on the stone is really, really minor compared by what you loose in the bargain, compared to if you settled where the AI suggested. Just look at the fat crosses around the two spots:

By settling on the stone, you'd be including two tundra squares, and a mountain within the fat cross. You'd gain crabs within the fat cross, which seems to be the only redeeming feature of that spot - on the other hand, you'd be tantalizingly close to the pig resource, but it'd lie outside your fat cross.

By settling on the spot the computer suggested, you'd have no tundra, no unworkable squares, AND you'd have access to two silk resources, stone, AND the flood plains two squares north of the spot. You'ld still have four hills, one with stone, whithin your fat cross, which, when mined/quarried would provide ample production. In a production city I'd like to have a bit more food though - you can't benefit from mines if you don't have people to work the squares. But the circled square is a nice spot.

By the way, I see that there is another civ to the north, and don't see your borders within the picture - I hope that the distance to your capital isn't too great, because that increases your maintanance costs - a very good spot may be worth it though.

3 a) Someone else has to help you with that one... either that's unusual, or my brain just isn't working at full capacity right now.

3 b) The "it's too crowded" happiness penalty will always match the population - there's nothing to be done about that. There are several ways in the game to counter that with extra happy faces:

Certain buildings add happiness, certain civics help (Hereditary rule adds 1 happiness per military unit stationed in the city, representation adds a happiness bonus to the largest cities), the Charismatic leader trait adds happiness, and access to many resources (whether traided for or hooked up on your territory) add happiness (gold, silver, silk, dye, etc.), and many buildings add extra happiness WHEN you have access to certain resources.

4) No, that's not a bug - it means that you are giving away the corn for nothing in return. Victoria probably demanded the corn as a tribute earlier, and you agreed - either that, or you gave it to her as a present.

I see that in your city you've got only one defender (though you are building a war charriot) - a beginners mistake is to neglect military. Keep an eye on the power graph, and make sure you don't fall much behind the strongest military powers in the game, at least not for long. If you are perceived as weak, the other leaders will demand tributes, and may just decide to attack you.

[DaveV]

2) Part of the requirement for a production powerhouse is having enough food to work all of the high-production squares (and to grow big in a short time). Consider the plains hill square west-northwest of your stone square (just east of the pigs). A city in that square will have lots of food and be able to work all of the hill squares (and also can work lots of irrigated plains, which are pretty good for production).

3a) Probably whip anger ("we cannot forget your cruel oppression").

[Quillan]

With regards to 3a, you don't have 9 unhappy people in the city; you have 1. What you have is 9 points of unhappiness and 8 points of happiness. Without the mouseover, we can't tell why they are unhappy. 8 points of the unhappiness will come from the population of 8, while the remaining point might be a pop rush aftereffect or war weariness.

[guermantes]

Thanks for all your replies, cleared up many things!

Originally posted by Jaybe
1a: Rivers also connect resources and trade routes.

So that absolutely miniscule touch (see top screenshot) that the river has in the corner of the corn tile is enough to connect it to the capital? I really thought the river flowed in the neighbouring tile.

Regarding the mysterious corn trading in question 4, I certainly did not give it away for free as a gift or tribute. I did trade it for clams. At one point I had more corn though. My borders expanded and took over one of Victoria's cornfields. However, at the time of taking the screenshot I had indeed lost it back to her. But it is still unclear to me why it says '1 of 0'.

(And the unhappy face point must be a whip-anger penalty still in effect.)

[Blake]

Expanding on what DaveV said

The 2a site is terrible, for a production powerhouse you want two things:
1) A lot of hills.
2) A lot of food.

The proper place for a production powerhouse:


A) site is most immediately productive since it gets the pigs immediately, +1h from the plains hill, fresh water and also has corn and most the radius is good quality. It'll be mega productive.
B) site has more grassland and an additional hill and might make sense if you want to use the corn for another city, it also lets you hook up the stone quicker (however that matters little for a creative leader)
C) site has more hills than A and brings in the corn, but has a lot of marginal tiles.

A is definitely the best in general.

[trev]

The best square for building also depends on the stage of the game, for my first city, so i can get those first units, workers settlers out a bit quicker I would settle on the stone, the extra hammer is a real bonus then, maybe for 2nd if you have masonry, and want the stone bonus in a hurry for a wonder, but after that spot 'A' as detailed in the previous post would be best.

[couerdelion]

Just to clarify some of the responses here

2a) Settling on a 3h tile DOES give you 3 hammers in the city tile.

4) There are many roads to happiness and you’ve got some of them. A few others are
v) Research Monarchy, Adopt Hereditary Rule and use garrisons to entertain the population
vi) Other civics provide some happiness bonuses
vii) Get a state religion and convert a city to that religion
viii) Build a temple (any religion)
ix) Get buildings that give happiness bonuses (esp Forge and Market)
x) Use the culture slider
xi) Build jails to reduce war weariness
xii) Pick a charismatic leader

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by couerdelion
Just to clarify some of the responses here

2a) Settling on a 3h tile DOES give you 3 hammers in the city tile.

Sort of. The tile you settle on, will give you the base resource value for the tile you settle on, with all modifiers removed (modifiers include: Farm, Mine, and other improvements; Forest, Flood Plains, Rivers, and other overlays), with a minimum (for each resource independently) of: 2F,1H,1T.

Traditionally the tile that is most relevant to this discussion, is the Plains Hill (base value: 0F 2H 0T). That gives you a 2F,2H,1T city.

Settling on resources (like on the stone) do give you the 3H or whatever from that resource, but that's usually a bad trade-off because you can improve those squares by much more than most squares by building the quarry or other specific improvement, but if you build on that square it prevents that from being built. Usually the only reason to settle ON a resource is copper/iron/horse (military resources) that you're worried about being denied you by an aggressive opponent; even then I don't really recommend it.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Quillan
With regards to 3a, you don't have 9 unhappy people in the city; you have 1. What you have is 9 points of unhappiness and 8 points of happiness. Without the mouseover, we can't tell why they are unhappy. 8 points of the unhappiness will come from the population of 8, while the remaining point might be a pop rush aftereffect or war weariness.

My guess is war weariness, since he's at war with someone.

Angriness comes from:

1. Population. Every population point gives you an angriness point; the game level gives you in return a certain number of happiness points. Noble I think gives you 5.
2. Lack of 'protection'. If you leave no military units in a city, they get a couple of angry points (3?).
3. War Weariness. The longer you are at war with a civ without declaring peace, the more irritated your citizens are. You get more "WW" if you lose battles, if you declared the war rather than your opponent, and for a few other reasons that don't come to my mind at the moment.
4. Whipping. If you're in slavery, you can 'whip' or 'poprush' buildings/units/etc. with population; the button you click on to do this tells you how many people will be lost, and how long the unhappiness point will last (10 turns if you don't have any Whip Angriness, otherwise it's 10+the current duration of whip angriness, so if you have 5 turns left on your last whip angriness, it would be 15). As an aside, Whipping is one of the key elements of 'advanced' strategy, and often learning to use this takes a 'noob' player to much higher levels
5. Drafting - similarly to whipping, but you get free military units under Nationalism from this.

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Settling on resources (like on the stone) do give you the 3H or whatever from that resource, but that's usually a bad trade-off because you can improve those squares by much more than most squares by building the quarry or other specific improvement, but if you build on that square it prevents that from being built. Usually the only reason to settle ON a resource is copper/iron/horse (military resources) that you're worried about being denied you by an aggressive opponent; even then I don't really recommend it.

I think the arguments for settling on a resource rather than next to it are strongest in the case of Stone/Marble on a plains hill and also stronger in the early stages of the game. The reason for this is that the city tile will give +2hammers per turn every turn that you own that city.

By comparison, placing a cities population will give you -2 food and +5 hammers only if a) you have enough food to support it b) you have researched masonry c) you have spent at least seven turns moving a worker onto the hill and building the quarry there. Generally, I find that either stone or marble are resources that I tend not to work and only get them for the resource bonus. So building a city on the resource can be a sensible option.

I would say less so with Iron/Copper/Horses because these a usually very strong tiles to work.

p.s. In this case, the tile is not so great. Coastal is OK and seafood resource alright but pigs rule in this game

[Kosh401]

Thought I might as well post this question here:

What should I be doing with tiles that are NOT within the City FAT area but ARE within the city limits?? Or is building on them just waist of worker turns (aside from resource nodes)?

[Quillan]

There are only two practical uses for building improvements (other than roads/railroads) on squares that are outside of a city radius but inside cultural borders: preparation for a city to be founded later or pillage zones. You can build some things like farms and mills in areas where you're trying to squeeze a sub-optimal city into your existing borders before you plant the city, then it will be there when needed. On hostile borders, an invader will stop to pillage improvements you've put down, even improvements that you can't ever work because of distance. It can spread out an army and stall an invasion for the critical 1-2 turns you need to muster a response.