Some more questions

[Beorn]

Piecing together things from Dev diaries and DasTactic's first three videos, I have some more things I am curious about:

1) DasTactic is repeatedly surprised by his lack of morale advantage over an opponent he has been tearing apart. But I'm pretty sure I read that morale also comes from the happiness of the city when the unit was built. Can you clarify this mechanic? That warrior unit off in the midst of battling the enemy -- to what extent is its morale separate from that of other units? To what extent is its morale tethered to the happiness of the city way back at the moment it was created? Or to the particular city's happiness now? Or to all cities' happiness now?

2) And city happiness... Is your most recent Dev Diary implying that cities are happier being left alone to their own priorities? I know that you previously wrote that cities lose happiness when units are overbuilt, leaving a disproportionate number of older, weaker citizens in the city. But does this extend to other things you order the city to do?

3) You previously told Searry that more cities are disadvantageous for the player because range of these cities overlap and decrease the effectiveness of those cities. So what is the default distance to build, all else equal? To my eye, DasTactic is squeezing them in rather tightly by his third video, but I don't have much to go on.

[pavelk]

DasTactic is repeatedly surprised by his lack of morale advantage over an opponent he has been tearing apart.

There are two concepts of morale. General morale and army morale. Army morale is what DasTactic refers to and what you can see in diplomacy window. It went from a bit below average to higher than average. It didnt go that much higher because number of his victories was not that high either. It is based on conquered tiles, battles, conquered cities, resources, buildings and in a large extent also on capturing capital.

But I'm pretty sure I read that morale also comes from the happiness of the city when the unit was built.

The concept of general morale applies to particular cities and units. It is basically how "happy" the city or unit is. This has an impact on numerous things starting from rebellion and willingness to join another state to the ability of fighting against anyone (not particular enemy). It also very much impacts the emigration and many other aspects of the game (like civil war).

To what extent is its morale tethered to the happiness of the city way back at the moment it was created?

Everytime you recruit new unit (or repair it or recover) it takes new men into the army and it also inherits its general morale and loyalty (that is another - very different concept) from that city. It slowly goes up but usually it takes many years. If you order unit recover, it decreases (or increases) the general morale of that unit per the morale of the particular city from which you added men in such extent of how many men were actually added to the unit.

And city happiness... Is your most recent Dev Diary implying that cities are happier being left alone to their own priorities?

It is not precise. I was talking about the production of wealth. They produce more if you leave them idle.

I know that you previously wrote that cities lose happiness when units are overbuilt, leaving a disproportionate number of older, weaker citizens in the city.

This is what DasTactic said:) It is not exactly true. The cities might rebel when you are trying to recruit new unit but the city (where you recruit it) and all the close cities around do not have enough men to create that army. In that case it forces city to go beyond its limits and basically leave just old ones in the city. That is why they rebel. In general case they dont.

You previously told Searry that more cities are disadvantageous for the player because range of these cities overlap and decrease the effectiveness of those cities. So what is the default distance to build, all else equal?

It is entirely up to your strategy what is the optimum distance. If you go for cultural or technological victory you definitely have to have huge cities (to produce a lot influence and knowledge). If you are ok with smaller economy and not much research, you can build them closer. If you have enough food and wood you dont really care if they are closer than they should. It really depends on each game and abundance of resources.
I would probably say that the optimum distance is three to four tiles between cities. Which means X---X. If it is closer, the ranges will soon or later overlap and the potential of city (in harvesting food and wood) will be limited (the overlapping has no impact on production of gold, influence or knowledge). Once again, it doesnt mean that it is wrong to have them closer, it depends on how much resources you have or you want to have.

[Beorn]

Thank you! Very, very interesting!

[Beorn]

I'm continuing to watch DasTactic's series of Lets Plays, and I notice that he sieges cities as a matter of course. You have written that "the use of ‘dirty tactics’ such as city sieges when you deliberately leave the people to starve until death or surrender, are considered dishonourable actions."

So what are the consequences of these sieges? Longer term resistance of the particular cities that were besieged? Longer term resistance of all cities of that nationality that were conquered? Trouble getting deals and trade with other nations? (He is not pursuing any peaceful strategies, so it is tough to see in the video to this point.)

Also, he is always glad to get a settler to defect. But I am wondering about the loyalties of a city acquired by a settler acquired in this way. Is the settled city always of that other group and more prone to resistance?

And finally, he is struggling to get a boat to heal. Am I correct that this is because the boat would heal a lot faster if it returned to the ship building facility?

[gwgardner]

The larger ship types require a shipyard to repair. The smallest boat can be repaired outside the shipyard, but only slowly.

[pavelk]

gwgardner is right, but let me elaborate it a bit.

So what are the consequences of these sieges?

Sieges have number of important consequences.

• Sieges considerably decrease the amount of population so you are basically losing your (potentially future) citizens.
• Longer the siege lasts the worse the future loyalty is. If you siege a city for a long time, the loyalty goes to the minimum value. To get it back to 100% lasts literally decades.
• Longer the siege lasts the worse the general morale is. General morale is the attitude of the citizens and has huge impact on potential revolts or even future civil wars raising in that city.
• All sieges are considered as "dishonorable military action" which all the players perceive negatively (except for those ones participating in that siege or your allies).
• Siege itself is extremely badly taken by the player who owns that sieged city. One sieged city can prolong war for many turns because the player simply refuses to sign peace with the "devil" who killed so many of his citizens.

But I am wondering about the loyalties of a city acquired by a settler acquired in this way.

Acquired settler is always less loyal than settler recruited in your own cities (till it fully "recovers", which again might take decades). If such a settler builds a city, this city has also that loyalty. The same applies for the general morale of that new city.
In summary, if you build a city with acquired settler (with bad general morale) you basically plant a seed of potential resistance center. If you are a good master, this "revolutionary moods" will slowly vanish, however if you build that city in bad times or close to borders, the city might start revolting very soon. In such case you need to have there garisson units to maintain an order.

And finally, he is struggling to get a boat to heal. Am I correct that this is because the boat would heal a lot faster if it returned to the ship building facility?

There are basically four different types of "healing":

• Autohealing - it is very slow and for map item (for example that boat) which is very damaged, it takes decades to get to its full strength again. This healing doesnt require you to do anything and also such healing doesnt have a defense penalty. You can imagine that in reality as giving basic medical treatment as you go along.
• Healing-self - it is an action (a.k.a. it is not automatic). It heals the unit faster (up to 10% per turn) but it also gives the unit a "defense penalty". Once such a self-healing unit is attacked (in that particular turn) it has 50% lower defense. This action is free of charge. You can imagine that in reality as setting a camp and focusing on giving a better medical treatment to that unit. Like I said, it heals the unit by percentage of a current strength. It means that for a very damaged unit it is a long lasting process. On the other hand, for unit with just flesh wounds it is a relatively good way to get the unit back to the shape.
• Recovering - it is also an action and heals the unit twice as fast as healing-self (up to 20% per turn). It also gives the unit a "defense penalty" but even more - 60%. This action not only costs resources (which in sum are higher than "healing" - described below) but it is also possible only when it is close to a city and that is not all. If the city has not 100% general morale or loyalty, the newly recruited "rookies" bring its loaylty and general morale to the unit (it basically decreases the loaylty and general morale of that unit). It also decreases the unit experience (because the rookies are recruited). You can imagine that in reality as setting up a camp and bringing new men out of close cities and training them. It depopulates the cities from which they have been withdrawn. It is also percentage increase so the same as for healing-self applies here, too.
• Healing - it is an action which can be performed only in such cities which are specialized for that particular unit type. It takes couple of turns but it gets the unit to its full strength during those two turns. It costs resources indeed. You can imagine that in reality as recruiting new men in the training center and train them to the level of the unit. It depopulates the city where the unit is based.

[Beorn]

Thank you again. Very clear, and makes very good sense.

[Flash Jack]

Hi,

I have a question on sieges as well.

In the DasTactic youtubes (5 & 6) he sieges the german cities to the south by gaining ownership of the surrounding hexes. There were three cities that were on the coast and one of them had a port / shipyard. He didn't have any ships covering those sea squares yet the cities still starved.

Are sieges based purely on control of land squares?

[edit] I reread one of the developement diaries and it indicated that a ship, of the beseiged cities side, is needed to be near the city in order prevent it starving which would explain the you tubes. Have I got that correct?

[gwgardner]

Yes, a besieged city on the coast requires an adjacent boat/ship to avoid starvation.

[Flash Jack]

Hi gwgardener,

O.K, thanks

[balto]

Good stuff. Is the information above in a manual or in the tooltips?


1 more week, then its XMAS.

[gwgardner]

Good stuff. Is the information above in a manual or in the tooltips?


1 more week, then its XMAS.

Yes, there's a very clear explanation of sieges and supply in the manual. Tooltips or popups will tell about starvation due to lack of supply.