Lizzy's rise to greatness

[Hercules]

Aurora is founded. There is problem though, in the actual map the city 'distant from palace' cost is much higher than those in our test maps. 1,72 vs 1,13. this means that we pay one gold more for maintenance which is at this stage about 10% of our entire income. This will affect our science rate and might affect our plan for further development. Would be nice if someone could create a test map which has the same maintenance costs. (obviously the map we are playing on is quite biger than the huge settings)

I looked back at the test maps (t43 and t50) and in particular our second city. In one the distance from palace cost was 1.41 and in another the distance from palace cost was 1.69. I didn't find a 1.13 and in both cases the maps were Huge and Emperor.

Yes there is a difference but maybe not as large as we thought.


Edit: I did find 1.13 in the test game t36 at post 57. Interesting this variation.

[Hercules]

Okay I got interested and did a rudimentary source dive. Here's what I got, which is probably way wrong but I'll let DanF or someone else (or myself, later) correct me, as I probably farked up somewhere The setting-dependant constants are given as examples.

These are calculated independently for each city.

Distance to capital maintenance:

either:
MAX_DISTANCE_CITY_MAINTENANCE * DISTANCE_TO_NEAREST_CAPITAL * ((CITY_POPULATION + 7) / 10) * WORLD_MODIFIER * DIFFICULTY_MODIFIER * CIVIC_MODIFIER / MAX_DISTANCE
or:
MAX_DISTANCE_CITY_MAINTENANCE * DISTANCE_TO_FARTHEST_CITY * ((CITY_POPULATION + 7) / 10) * WORLD_MODIFIER * DIFFICULTY_MODIFIER * CIVIC_MODIFIER / MAX_DISTANCE

Whichever is smaller. No idea about the lower one - maybe for Civs with no capital, like the barbarians?

MAX_DISTANCE_CITY_MAINTENANCE: 25
DISTANCE somewhere: I think just 1.5 per diagonal plot and 1 per cardinal plot
WORLD_MODIFIER: Standard=0.80, Huge=1.00
DIFFICULTY_MODIFIER: Noble=0.75, Immortal=1.00
CIVIC_MODIFIER: 0 for State Property, 1 for rest
MAX_DISTANCE: I guess the longest possible distance on a given map

Number of cities maintenance:

(NUMBER_OF_CITIES + (NUMBER_OF_VASSAL_CITIES / NUMBER_OF_TEAM_MEMBERS)) * ((CITY_POPULATION + 17) / 18) * WORLD_MODIFIER * DIFFICULTY_MODIFIER * CIVIC_MODIFIER

WORLD_MODIFIER: Standard=0.30, Huge=0.20
DIFFICULTY_MODIFIER: Noble=0.70, Immortal=0.95
CIVIC_MODIFIER: 1
Maximum value for this type of maintenance: Noble=5, Immortal=7

Colony maintenance:

((NUMBER_OF_CITIES_ON_LANDMASS - 1) * ((CITY_POPULATION + 17) / 18) * WORLD_MODIFIER * DIFFICULTY_MODIFIER)^2
0 if capital on landmass
0 if No Vassals enabled

WORLD_MODIFIER: Standard=0.45, Huge=0.30
DIFFICULTY_MODIFIER: Noble=1.00, Immortal=1.50

This is capped as well at:
Noble=2*DISTANCE_MAINTENANCE
Immortal=2*DISTANCE_MAINTENANCE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Silu; Sep 29, 2009 at 03:47 AM. Reason: Added colony maintenance

Got this from a Silu post at CFC.

I guess max distance ie longest possible distance has kicked in.

[mzprox]

The decision on where and when to plant cities is not simply commerce vs production, but if we choose production we must be sure that we can use it for useful stuff.
Right now it seems that if we go fo the horse city then we could build chariots sooner, then more settlers and then we need more workers and more units to defend ourselves and we must build these because there are hardly anything else to build. and all these just increase the maintenance cost slowing our science even more. And I think we should not allow that. There are too many usefull technology which would allow us to use our production better.. we need them all and as soon as possible. bronzeworking for chopping, mathematics for better chopping/hammam, code of lawas (courthouses), currency (more tade, turning production into wealth), a religion/org religion civic, monarchy(wine and civic), calendar(for the spice), etc.
Thats why we should not let our science rate drop and should choose the cottages over production.

[Dinner]

Even anyone comes at us early (like with a chariot rush) then we're ****ed because we have no bronze, no iron, and no horses.

[Calanthian]

As long as we have not met anyone that risk is very, very small.

Who sends a force of a couple units in a random direction in the hope to destroy somebody he has not even met?
Besides: before turn 60 we have Bronze Working and horses..

Thats why we should not let our science rate drop and should choose the cottages over production.

Agree, but the horse city should be closely after that.

[mzprox]

Something is wrong with the map. Instead of trying to understand how the formulas work i made several test games (emperor, torodial) and checked how different map size affect maintenance. The result is that smaller maps have bigger maintenance (which is kinda logical) BUT: as it turned out our map settings in regard of city maintenance is between tiny and duel size.. (in tiny the cost would be 1,67, duel 1,82).
We have "only" one gold difference right now, but basically this means that maintenance costs will be higher in the game about +30%. Those civs which have the means to reduce it gain big advantage.

[mzprox]

t33

just some shots:


Seems Belrophon has reached a sea east. Capital started to work on 3rd worker while the second is on her way to aurora. I played many different games, but there were no alternative plan for this.
After the worker we should build a settlers and buld city3. I agree with Cal that it should be a cottage city while city 4 would grab the horses. Now seeing the high maintenance cost I think we shoul delay the 4th city by 6 more turns, this would allow us to strengthen our economy.
In my last test game which i liked the capital grew to pop6 after the second settler, every new pop could immediately start working on a +3 comerce tile, so basically for 6 tuns we would increase our income considerably ( the settlers for the horse city was produced in Aurora at pop4 so the capital could finish a library asap)
we have some turns to decide on this as in the next 10 or so turns the development is the same in the different paths.

[mzprox]

I looked back at the test maps (t43 and t50) and in particular our second city. In one the distance from palace cost was 1.41 and in another the distance from palace cost was 1.69. I didn't find a 1.13 and in both cases the maps were Huge and Emperor.

Yes there is a difference but maybe not as large as we thought.


Edit: I did find 1.13 in the test game t36 at post 57. Interesting this variation.

the bigger the city the bigger the maintenance, my numbers come from pop1 cities.

[Calanthian]

Apollo should go NW, and then he can either fortify or turn back.







and Bellerophon SE

[Hercules]

I agree with warrior moves.

[Dinner]

They look good.

[mzprox]

I moved the warriors as you suggested. Found fur and wine, neaither is within our reach unfortunately for some time. Also a wolf and a lion.

[OzzyKP]

Something is wrong with the map. Instead of trying to understand how the formulas work i made several test games (emperor, torodial) and checked how different map size affect maintenance. The result is that smaller maps have bigger maintenance (which is kinda logical) BUT: as it turned out our map settings in regard of city maintenance is between tiny and duel size.. (in tiny the cost would be 1,67, duel 1,82).
We have "only" one gold difference right now, but basically this means that maintenance costs will be higher in the game about +30%. Those civs which have the means to reduce it gain big advantage.

Have you tried making the map torroidial? I believe that increases the maintenance as well.

[Hercules]

Maybe Belle E or S. I would be keen to go to that hill E/SE..

We should be able to withstand a lion attack on a hill. If the lion moves towards Belle we should still be able to find a hill defence.

Apollo I am not sure. Either N or SW. We should be able to withstand a wolf attack.

[Dinner]

Wild animals around both so stick to the defensive terrain. Maybe the hill south for one and the forest north for the other?