Remove ads

Paths of Civilization

Reader mode
BungieONI said:
This is because City2 really has a threshold of X-4+6 so it will always be higher if we are going by improvements. The X threshold is being determined by City1(Upper Valleyhome in this case).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
As I understand it, this is incorrect. According to AN:
I may have screwed up the math a bit, but the default threshold for Valleyhome is 20, then for Sacred forest is 4 lower, so 16. Valleyhome goes up to 25 with its specials, so Sacred Forest is 4 lower, 21, but then it goes up again for walls and aqueduct to 23.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This tells us that the base threshold of City3 is the threshold of City2 - 5 after factoring in all of City2's infrastructure. This should mean that, assuming they can both build all the same buildings, City2 cannot match the maximum threshold of City3.
 
Abby Normal said:
Hmm... i mean, that sounds unlikely to happen, so if it does i imagine AN would just handwave them to the same threshold. For that matter, with that many bonuses we wouldn't really have to worry about losing either anyway so it wouldn't matter :p

Aqueducts give +1 Threshold to the city they're in, plus every lower city. If my intuition is right, the base threshold for cities (that is, where Valleyhome's threshold starts) is (City Candidates - 1) * 4. Hence, 6 candidates, 20 base. Thus, by making a new aqueduct (and thus city candidate) we boost up Valleyhome's threshold by 4, which increases all cities by 4. Then the aqueduct itself boosts up only that new city's threshold. ...That said, in retrospect that doesn't make much sense, since it would make it almost impossible to have a city with just one candidate...then again, the base threshold clearly wasn't 20 when we had 1 or 2 cities... @Academia Nut can you confirm/deny if my logic is right, or what if anything changes the base threshold?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
As far as I can tell from what I remember the base way long ago when we first heard of True Cities was 10 EE. But this was in the Early Chalcolithic and advancing social concepts and technology have since pushed us way higher and modified the formula I think.

So you may be right, and the discrepancy is from us changing the equation as we advance.
 
BungieONI said:
It makes sense to me and doesn't seem screwy.

This is because City2 really has a threshold of X-4+6 so it will always be higher if we are going by improvements. The X threshold is being determined by City1(Upper Valleyhome in this case).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No, he's right. Base threshold is X. B1 isthe bonus for city1, B2 is the bonus for city2, etc.
City1 has X + B1 Threshold
City2 has (X + B1) - 4 + B2 Threshold
City3 has( (X + B1) - 4 + B2) - 5 + B3 Threshold
So if B1, B2 and B3 are all +6, then the values come out to:
City1: X + 6
City2: (X + 6) - 4 + 6 = X + 8
City3: ( (X + 6) - 4 + 6) - 5 + 6 = X + 9

That said, as i said above, thats unlikely to happen, and even if it did, then the stats would be high enough that it's very unlikely that we'd ever lose any of those 3 cities anyway, so the limits dont really matter (If we somehow immediately got all that infrastructure this turn, with X=20, we'd have thresholds of 26/28/29. Not likely to go below those)
 
Abby Normal said:
No, he's right. Base threshold is X. B1 isthe bonus for city1, B2 is the bonus for city2, etc.
City1 has X + B1 Threshold
City2 has (X + B1) - 4 + B2 Threshold
City3 has( (X + B1) - 4 + B2) - 5 + B3 Threshold
So if B1, B2 and B3 are all +6, then the values come out to:
City1: X + 6
City2: (X + 6) - 4 + 6 = X + 8
City3: ( (X + 6) - 4 + 6) - 5 + 6 = X + 9

That said, as i said above, thats unlikely to happen, and even if it did, then the stats would be high enough that it's very unlikely that we'd ever lose any of those 3 cities anyway, so the limits dont really matter (If we somehow immediately got all that infrastructure this turn, with X=20, we'd have thresholds of 26/28/29. Not likely to go below those)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hmm.

I'm not sure what to make of that. Oh well.
 
I wonder why some folks think it's a grand idea to switch off from forest policy. Practically everything uses woods.
 
veekie said:
This works for Ymaryn Core. We have nearly impassable terrain and a ridiculous population density. You'd find a Ymaryn forester behind every tree and they'd be gone by the time you're ten feet into the forest other than that arrow hitting you in the butt.

This doesn't work for the Steppes, for they simply can't support enough population per acre to mount a viable defense that way. The lowlands MIGHT make this viable, but looking at China's floodplains I suspect not.

Naw, the Ymaryn way is to make dozens of regional governors. Which means they are all busy with their own small regions and squabbling with each other over resources so they can't make trouble for the center.

A Governor's Palace in every city!
It worked for Imperial China at least. And it had some defensive advantages in that if you city is cut off by an army it's a completely self contained administration.

Fun part of Chinese cities was that the city walls were ridiculously colossal. Did you know they made city walls big enough to contain their own small forest and farms so that even in a siege they wouldn't run out of wood?
It's the very definition of "go home" when you see the fort and the two layers of outer gates closed.
Especially when the inner city has another two more layers, which are ALSO self contained with their own granaries and water supply.

I suppose it's cultural trauma from living next to the steppes...

As far as all our known mechanics go, Subordinates are their own state, so Greenshore would be counted as if it was their first city.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Why here's one now...
 
Abby Normal said:
That said, as i said above, thats unlikely to happen, and even if it did, then the stats would be high enough that it's very unlikely that we'd ever lose any of those 3 cities anyway, so the limits dont really matter (If we somehow immediately got all that infrastructure this turn, with X=20, we'd have thresholds of 26/28/29. Not likely to go below those)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, this is why I called it a quirk rather than a concern or anything like that.

On another note, going over the math has increased my faith in our ability to spam cities safely if we invest in them. We could have over ten cities and still not go below our current city popping threshold. Think of the passives. My God.
 
...Huh. AN wrote Thousand Shinji (and several other semi-prominent 40k crossovers)?
I did not know that
 
Last edited:
Kiba said:
I wonder why some folks think it's a grand idea to switch off from forest policy. Practically everything uses woods.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Personal Stewards of Nature, basically. Even though it doesn't trigger every turn, Forests are the most likely option for us to take, and it leads to hella forests that also give innovation rolls.
 
Hmmm...

And when you add in the capital thing.

So it would be:

U Valleyhome has X + B1 Threshold +1(Capital)
SF has (X + B1 + 1(Capital)) - 4 + B2 Threshold
Redshore has( (X + B1 + 1(Capital)) - 4 + B2 Threshold) - 5 + B3 Threshold
So if B1, B2 and B3 are all +6, then the values come out to:
UVal: X + 6 + 1(Capital) = X + 7
SF: (X + 6 + 1) - 4 + 6 = X + 9
Reds: ( (X + 6 + 1) - 4 + 6) - 5 + 6 = X + 10

Strange.
 
8bitBob said:
Yeah, this is why I called it a quirk rather than a concern or anything like that.

On another note, going over the math has increased my faith in our ability to spam cities safely if we invest in them. We could have over ten cities and still not go below our current city popping threshold. Think of the passives. My God.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We only have 2 more aqueduct locations listed on the last action sheet, you know :p
Though if we did magically gain 4 more candidates right now, and my math is right, and all of those new city candidates had walls, and Lower Valleyhome gained walls...
Base = (10-1)*4 = 36
VH: 41 (+5)
SF: 39 (-4+2)
RS: 36 (-5+2)
SP: 32 (-6+2)
RH: 27 (-7+2)
LVH: 21 (-8+2)
C7: 14 (-9+2)
C8: 6 (-10+2)
C9: -3 (-11+2)
C10: -13 (-12+2)

So with our current EE of 11, we'd create 2 more cities right away, and be one EE or one infrastructure away from a sixth.

Of course, the real problem with cities are the econ drain (fixable with city support passives, though that halves the total policy gain, or free cities, which are risky and take subordinate slots), and the centralization tolerance loss (fixable with free cities, though again that can be risky, and takes subordinate slots).

Also i think if we had that many true cities we'd end up with so much narrative problems we'd break or have to devolve into a city state confederation or something...
 
I really want to push the ecology enough towards forests so that they can maintain themselves during periods of instability. Sooner or later, our civilization will collapse and we will be able to rebuild eventually in the aftermath but i want our forests big enough so they can survive those times.
 
BungieONI said:
Strange.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, it's a bit odd, but it's only a factor for the first few cities. Eventually the increasing negative modifier outweighs the bonuses from buildings.
Abby Normal said:
We only have 2 more aqueduct locations listed on the last action sheet, you know :p
Though if we did magically gain 4 more candidates right now, and my math is right, and all of those new city candidates had walls, and Lower Valleyhome gained walls...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Haha yeah, I know we don't actually have that many candidates at the moment. Will likely change once we finish doing some integration though. Obviously with only Walls and Aqueduct, we can't have that many. I was talking about an extreme where we've built literally every structure in each city for the +6 per city, which is the only way to reach really silly city numbers.
 
minerva-n-memes said:
I really want to push the ecology enough towards forests so that they can maintain themselves during periods of instability. Sooner or later, our civilization will collapse and we will be able to rebuild eventually in the aftermath but i want our forests big enough so they can survive those times.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Not sure how you do it when our forests are literally human created eco-regions.
 
Abby Normal said:
Of course, the real problem with cities are the econ drain (fixable with city support passives, though that halves the total policy gain, or free cities, which are risky and take subordinate slots), and the centralization tolerance loss (fixable with free cities, though again that can be risky, and takes subordinate slots).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We really should just bite the bullet and make Redshore a Free City soon, honestly. It's close enough to the capital that we don't have to worry too much about them getting fancy ideas, and we've let our Admin hero take a crack at the corruption enough that I'm not too worried it will become a wretched hive. And if we get three, it will likely get us a legacy since I doubt there's anyone else with that many True Cities.
 
Last edited:
minerva-n-memes said:
I really want to push the ecology enough towards forests so that they can maintain themselves during periods of instability. Sooner or later, our civilization will collapse and we will be able to rebuild eventually in the aftermath but i want our forests big enough so they can survive those times.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You should push for more temples and libraries since our priests take care of our forests.
 
Glassware said:
We really should just bite the bullet and make Redshore a Free City soon, honestly. It's close enough to the capital that we don't have to worry too much about them getting fancy ideas, and we've let our Admin hero take a crack at the corruption enough that I'm not too worried it will become a wretched hive.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Let's wait for Lower Valleyhome. Everything you said works double for it.
 
Quest said:
Let's wait for Lower Valleyhome. Everything you said works double for it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Valleyhome is 6th on the priority list, though, and has a threshold of 4 right now. It'll take several more city candidates, or a lot of infrastructure in the higher cities, to get it actually a true city...and in the meantime we'll have -5 econ a turn and -4 centralization tolerance and so on, if we waited until Lower Valleyhome. Plus, we can and should do both :V For that matter... i think AN is busy with te update, but someone remember to ask more about redhills; thats in the capital province and landlocked, so it might be safe to do? It'll have the Ironworks in it, but if that makes it unsafe, then the Grand Docks in redshore make it unsafe, so...

But yeah, i'd be cool with our 3 free cities (for the legacy, probably dont want more, honestly) to be redshore, redhills, and lower valleyhome.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top