The Luxury Slider

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

I've seen a lot of talk of using the luxury slider heavily in the early game. I would never think of using this strategy. Can someone please explain to me why?

[vulture]

Sorry, I can't possibly explain why you would never think of using this strategy

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Well then explain the strategy punk!!!

[MrWhereItsAt]

Putting the lux slider on 10% seems to give you a happy citizen in every coty (that I've seen). Needless to say, if your city has grown to the point that an unhappy citizen appears, you can use this minimal loss of taxes to keep said city producing contently until you can reduce the population again or do something more permanently happy-inducing. like temple building.

[Arrian]

I use the slider throughout the game. In the early going, it's just to keep my cities from rioting. Later, it's to get my cities into "We Love the President Day."

The luxury slider allows you to grow your cities bigger, and even if you're just breaking even in commerce gain, you are definitely gaining shields.

Say your capitol is on a river. You're playing on Monarch, and the city hits size 3, with no units in it (EXPLORE, EXPLORE, EXPLORE!). It will riot next turn, unless you turn luxuries up to 10%. By doing that, you allow the city to continue growing at full speed, and probably bring in more shields/turn. Plus, the new tile you will work probably brings in 2 commerce/turn, meaning that even though you're spending 1 commerce/turn on luxuries, you still gain 1/turn over that.

So using the slider allows bigger cities sooner, and at least tends to break even on commerce, while increasing your growth and shield output - meaning better REXing in the early game and better improvement & wonder building after that.

And, if you care about score, happy citizens are worth more.

-Arrian

[vulture]

The main points, as I see it.

First point: Assume you can have a size 3 city without touching the luxury slider (due to military police and/or luxuries (and difficulty level)). Is it better to keep it stable at size 3 so there are no happiness problems, or let it grow to size 4, where there is an unhappy citizen that needs to be dealt with? Do you deal with him by making him a specialist, or by making him content (or happy)?

If you stay stable at size 3, you produce, say A gold per turn and B shields per turn in that city. If you grow to size 4, and make the extra citizen a specialist (you can make him/her a taxman or a scientist and still avoid unhappiness) you can get A+1 gpt and B spt. You could build a temple, costing 1 gpt, and have the citizen work an extra tile. If your tile is producing 1 gold and no shields (road on normal grassland, no mining) then you end up with A gpt, B spt (the 1 gain from working the tile is offset by the temple maintenance). If it produces 2 gold (road/river) you get A+1,B. If it produces 1 gold, 1 shield (road, bonus grassland or mined normal grassland) you get A, B+1, and the bext case of a mined, bonus grassland next to a river (2 gold, 2 shields) gives you A+1, B+2. So despite the extra cost of the temple, it is usually better to build it and have a larger city - as long as you are producing at least 1 gold from the extra tile. And the added bonus is that when you get a cathedral built, or trade for more luxuries, you are already a size 4 city, and don't have to wait for your size 3 city to grow, giving you a few turns advantage over the person who lets their city stay at size 3. The luxury slider works pretty much the same as a temple (but without the culture obviously). You pay 1 gpt, you get 1 happy person, offsetting 1 unhappy person. As long as you have roads on the extra tiles you will be using (and if you haven't, build more workers first) then the worst you can do is break even in money, with the bonus of having a larger city ready and waiting when you get more happiness improvements or luxury deals.

To illustrate the last point, consider the silly example chosing between a size 3 city, producing A,B (as before) or a badly developed size 6 city, producing A,B (the extra commerce from the 3 extra tiles being worked are being spent on keeping the workers happy, and there are no extra shields). then you build JS Bach's cathderal, and can be happy at size 6. The size 6 city instantly gets the advantage of the extra citizens, while the size 3 city probably has to wait 20-30 turns to reach the same size, and get the same production.

In real game, you will generally be getting at least 1 gold and 1 shield from each tile, so at the very least you end up with A gpt, but more than B spt, which is obviously an improvement over staying at size 3 with A, B

Second point: using the luxury slider often puts luxuries where they are needed. Real empires have more than one city, and in the ancient era, I tend to have a few large core cities and smaller cities around them pumping out settlers. Large cities produce lots of gold, but need luxuries to keep them out of disorder. Small ones dont. A luxury resource (bought or traded for) gives you happy people in every city the same (ignoring marketplaces), including in the small cities where you don't need them (nut they drive up the cost of the luxury if you trade for it). Broadly speaking, large cities have more unhappy people, but also produce more gold. Setting the luxury slider to 10% will often give no luxuries in small cities (which don't need them anyway) and 2 or 3 in large cities (which need 2 or 3 to keep them happy). Often you can juggle units for military police effects such that each city has exactly the luxury production it needs to keep it happy, so you are keeping your empire happy in the most efficient way (you are spending the minimum gpt possible to keep your empire happy). You can also use specialists where necessary to balance things up.

Basically, I can't see any down-side to letting cities grow free and using the luxury slider. The OCC games are a case in point. Plant the city on a river, let it grow to size 12, and you can beat the AI to the majority of wonders with no trouble because your production in that city is huge, even if you need 20% or 30% luxuries to keep you happy.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Interesting. So, basically, you are bypassing some revenue (gold) in the ancient era in order to have larger cities that are happy? Sounds like a good idea... I guess I just had no idea that 10% could make such a difference so early in the game (I always assumed you'd need 20% or more to make one citizen happy, but then again, I'm real hazy on the math and mechanics of Civ)

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

And hence, I assume libraries are more a priority than temples? (assuming you're playing either the Babs or a non-scientific and non-religious civ)

[vulture]

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
Interesting. So, basically, you are bypassing some revenue (gold) in the ancient era in order to have larger cities that are happy? Sounds like a good idea... I guess I just had no idea that 10% could make such a difference so early in the game (I always assumed you'd need 20% or more to make one citizen happy, but then again, I'm real hazy on the math and mechanics of Civ)

But you're not really bypassing any revenue at all, at least, not if you have been building enough roads. The extra 3 gpt you spend on luxuries are offset by the 3 gpt you get from your three extra citizens working tiles. And often you end up making more money with size 6 cities, luxury slider at 20% than with size 3 cities, luxury slider at 0% (as well as more shields). Which ever way you look at it, you win. If you have time, run two games from the same start for the duration of the ancient era, say. In one, play your normal style of not using the luxury slider. In the other one, make a deliberate effort to let your cities grow and use the luxury slider to keep them happy. See which does better.

[Arrian]

So, basically, you are bypassing some revenue (gold) in the ancient era in order to have larger cities that are happy?

No, it's better than that. You are not giving up gold for happiness. It only seems that way. See, without the use of the slider you would either have to keep your cities smaller, use entertainers and/or build happiness improvements (which you may or may not know how to do yet). Therefore, the gold you spend on the luxury slider either wouldn't be produced (entertainer) or spent in other ways (temple). So you're not losing a thing. 1 gold spent on luxury spending = 1 happy citizen (who was content).

I still build temples early. That, plus luxuries, plus luxury spending = large cities with high production, which means I can out-produce the AI.

-Arrian

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Well, trust me, next game I play I'm going to start tinkering with the luxury slider... I try to add a new trick to my bag of tricks each game (I also play as a different civ each time. When I've won as them all, I'm moving up to Monarch).

I've noticed, for example, that moving your science up to 80% or 90% as a commercial civ gives you a significant tech lead, quite valuable, especially if you're playing as a non-explorer, or a non-scientist.

[Kirby]

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
And hence, I assume libraries are more a priority than temples? (assuming you're playing either the Babs or a non-scientific and non-religious civ)

Why would you think that ...just wondering.

[Egbert]

I like the luxury slider very early. I turn it on just before my first city grows to size 4. All the reasoning is explained above by people who probably use the luxury slider more skillfully then I do.

The only other points I would make are to make sure that each time your population expands you have a road on the square that pop point will be working so you get the extra trade thus minimising the cost of using the luxury slider (or perhaps actually finish up financially better off). I therefore try to build roads just before I need them.

Also I only use the luxury slider for productive cities. I do not even try to to use the luxury slider to placate the population of highly corrupt cities. Such useless cities can have entertainers or just starve.

[Cruddy]

Hmm... it depends on available luxury resoueces. I think most players would rather have these than adjusting the slider. I've seen start positions with none though, which would make it mandatory. (I never play 'em.)

On the other hand, it really can make a big difference if you haven't quite got enough happy faces. It certainly makes a big difference to score, but no, I don't care about score at all - I spend most of the game in 5th or lower position anyway, but I just have to play the tough level.

Maybe I'm just a mean ruler?

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by Kirby
Why would you think that ...just wondering.

Because if happiness is attended to by the luxury slider, might as well work on science, right?