Slitherine

Problem: Moving in for a siege next turn after pop growth can drastically disadvantage the besieged (see pics, the second one is when I moved in right after pop growth deliberately). This is unrealistic and creates unnecessary micro/cheesing.


Possible solution:

a) Increase pop growth requirements, keep half of food on pop growth (Looks like some food is already kept, but not nearly enough);

b) make stored food part of the fort building (scaling with city size), independent of growth food; disregard growth food for siege purposes.


Thanks all for your attention!

That's actually WAD. I think there's some design for effect going on here, i.e., timing the start of a siege until right after a pop increase could be considered waiting until political conditions are ripe to get a city to surrender earlier.

jimwinsor wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 4:36 pm That's actually WAD. I think there's some design for effect going on here, i.e., timing the start of a siege until right after a pop increase could be considered waiting until political conditions are ripe to get a city to surrender earlier.

I would rather bet that it is common 4x food-pop mechanic that does not square well with more siege focused gameplay.

Why would my glorious city-state go from 12 years of food to 3 years of food because I produced too much food? Or important border fortress?

Then tie reduced food capacity to corrupt governor or plague events.

I'm glad someone notice this.
In my opinion, we can change the healthy buildings.
Instead of reducing food needed for pop growth, healthy buildings should return some percentage of food after pop growth.

For example, clear water reduce 5% of food needed for pop growth. So if the city needs 100 food for pop growth, it will only be 95 food with clear water.
Instead, if clear water returns 5% of food after pop growth, it will still be 100 food needed for pop growth. However, after pop growth, there will still be 5 food.