City vs Metropolis

[Imhotep]

I thought Metropolis might be an upgrade on City, but having got to it, it appears to be something that can be built straight away without a City being present. Can a City be upgraded to a Metropolis? If they are separate things, does that not mean that, say, if you wanted a Metropolis on your homeworld, you would hold off from building a City there and instead wait for the tech to build a Metropolis? Because that would be a bit odd.

[Frogboy]

The idea is that the Metropolis is a bit easier to build if you have lots of food but you can only have 1 of them.

[Imhotep]

Thanks. I'd been planning to build some Cities but then Metropolis came along and I'm not sure what to build. Part of the issue is that I'm not sure what I should be aiming for in terms of population levels. Also, for research or manufacturing planets - whether I should also be increasing population cap for them.

[Tiresias the Blind]

Metropolis seems to be a little better for hubbing purposes, so I think of it as being equivalent to say, a fusion power plant when I'm planning how to lay out my worlds. Granted I'm still getting a feel for the nuances of Crusade. It does seem to support a slightly higher population cap than a cuty, but it doesn't have the population multiplier, so it would work better as a stand-alone so far as I can tell. Either way, if you had enough food to support numerous cities you'd probably want to stick a metropolis in the midst of them to push the pop adjancecy higher.

[Imhotep]

So what sort of population cap should I be aiming for:

- Civilization Capital?
- A population/economic world?
- A research world?

[TheFunMachine.]

Well, as a fairly experienced player, I would say you want your pop cap as high as you can get it on your most powerful worlds. For me, it is around how high I can get morale.

[Imhotep]

Автор сообщения: Tiresias the Blind

Metropolis seems to be a little better for hubbing purposes, so I think of it as being equivalent to say, a fusion power plant when I'm planning how to lay out my worlds. Granted I'm still getting a feel for the nuances of Crusade. It does seem to support a slightly higher population cap than a cuty, but it doesn't have the population multiplier, so it would work better as a stand-alone so far as I can tell. Either way, if you had enough food to support numerous cities you'd probably want to stick a metropolis in the midst of them to push the pop adjancecy higher.

From what I can see, they have the same adjacency bonuses and neither have a population multiplier. Can Cities be upgraded to get these bonuses or something?

[Astasia]

Cities have a population multipler when leveled by adjacency, metros don't. So use metros in areas where they can't be leveled, and use cities everywhere else.

As for population numbers, it depends on the point of the game you are at and your morale potential. By around the end of mid-game most of my planets are at 20-40 pop, and I try to get my main planets up to around 80-100. Late game you can go much higher than that. For a while you want to maintain a balance between population and multiplier buildings, but due to the citizen mechanic and the way the game adds multipliers together, eventually planetary buildings aren't very useful and going all population is better, especially if you have a lot of space stations.

[abonamente]

Автор сообщения: Imhotep

So what sort of population cap should I be aiming for:

- Civilization Capital?
- A population/economic world?
- A research world?

Depends on your game settings, your foreign policy and strategy. As others said, in principle - more is better. But....

- What faction? I prefer amphibian. The research facilities get +1 raw research per level. That opens alternative ways to play, makes things more flexible. There are also special morale improvements. But perhaps you prefer synthetic. Then much of what I am going to say won’t make much sense to you.

- What galaxy size, what resources density, what expansion policy? First of all, for 10 colonies total, 4 cities/colony – that is 40 Promethion. That’s fine. But you need 400 Promethion for 100 colonies (and 400 for research facilities, and 1000 for starbases, and so on). The second thing – You can never have enough food for so many cities without farm upgrades and farmer citizens. Each upgrade for a hydroponic farm needs more and more Mosantium. Which is hard to find, even for a very wide empire.

- So, what foreign policy? Expansion creates enemies. Cannot buy Mosantium and Promethion from enemies. But you cannot not have enemies if you plan to expand. This should be considered carefully. Also – the wider the empire, the harder to send farmers to your food worlds.

- What level of difficulty? The higher that, the more difficult the game becomes, because of the AI’s resource bonus and aggressiveness. On the other hand, with that bonus, you can actually acquire all the resources you need through trade. Probably I could never produce 2,000 Promethion, normal play. But the AI has it in thousands, always (and the more of it, the cheaper). You wonder how much do you need? Depends. Mid-game, I can go through 1k Pr in 1 turn. How much Mosantium? The automated hydroponic farm requires 10 units. How much is there in the entire galaxy?

- The morale may be a strong deterrent, preventing you from building too many cities, even if you had all the resources and tiles you needed. Find the right balance for your own game. It is a dynamic balance, and given the virtual infinite ways the game can be played, that cannot be analyzed in a few phrases.

- What tech tree? Because this has a profound influence on your strategy, and the strategy you employ dictates (and it is influenced by) the population policy. Do you expand quickly and wide mid-game? Then you won’t worry much about population on each colony, because you can use it as a global resource. Depending on how you manage your resources, 10populationx50colonies turn 250 can be much better than 50popx10 col.

One example: could specialize your worlds in research and mostly ignore the military production. Why would that work for an aggressive and expansionist empire? Because if your science is sound, you won’t need many warships or legions. And 5shipyardsx5WEAKsponsors can build a fleet in the same interval 2shipyardsx5STRONGsponsors can do anyway (speaking of globalizing resources). 10 colonies dedicated to producing legions can do as well or better than 2 much more powerful colonies.

In the end, as everything else in Crusade, there is no single best way to do population things, in general. There is only the best way to do things in each playthrough, and it is up to you to find it each time. It is one of the reasons I maintain that this is the best 4xspace TBS at the moment, by far.

[Imhotep]

Автор сообщения: abonamente

Depends on your game settings, your foreign policy and strategy. As others said, in principle - more is better. But....

- What faction? I prefer amphibian. The research facilities get +1 raw research per level. That opens alternative ways to play, makes things more flexible. There are also special morale improvements. But perhaps you prefer synthetic. Then much of what I am going to say won’t make much sense to you.

- What galaxy size, what resources density, what expansion policy? First of all, for 10 colonies total, 4 cities/colony – that is 40 Promethion. That’s fine. But you need 400 Promethion for 100 colonies (and 400 for research facilities, and 1000 for starbases, and so on). The second thing – You can never have enough food for so many cities without farm upgrades and farmer citizens. Each upgrade for a hydroponic farm needs more and more Mosantium. Which is hard to find, even for a very wide empire.

- So, what foreign policy? Expansion creates enemies. Cannot buy Mosantium and Promethion from enemies. But you cannot not have enemies if you plan to expand. This should be considered carefully. Also – the wider the empire, the harder to send farmers to your food worlds.

- What level of difficulty? The higher that, the more difficult the game becomes, because of the AI’s resource bonus and aggressiveness. On the other hand, with that bonus, you can actually acquire all the resources you need through trade. Probably I could never produce 2,000 Promethion, normal play. But the AI has it in thousands, always (and the more of it, the cheaper). You wonder how much do you need? Depends. Mid-game, I can go through 1k Pr in 1 turn. How much Mosantium? The automated hydroponic farm requires 10 units. How much is there in the entire galaxy?

- The morale may be a strong deterrent, preventing you from building too many cities, even if you had all the resources and tiles you needed. Find the right balance for your own game. It is a dynamic balance, and given the virtual infinite ways the game can be played, that cannot be analyzed in a few phrases.

- What tech tree? Because this has a profound influence on your strategy, and the strategy you employ dictates (and it is influenced by) the population policy. Do you expand quickly and wide mid-game? Then you won’t worry much about population on each colony, because you can use it as a global resource. Depending on how you manage your resources, 10populationx50colonies turn 250 can be much better than 50popx10 col.

One example: could specialize your worlds in research and mostly ignore the military production. Why would that work for an aggressive and expansionist empire? Because if your science is sound, you won’t need many warships or legions. And 5shipyardsx5WEAKsponsors can build a fleet in the same interval 2shipyardsx5STRONGsponsors can do anyway (speaking of globalizing resources). 10 colonies dedicated to producing legions can do as well or better than 2 much more powerful colonies.

In the end, as everything else in Crusade, there is no single best way to do population things, in general. There is only the best way to do things in each playthrough, and it is up to you to find it each time. It is one of the reasons I maintain that this is the best 4xspace TBS at the moment, by far.

Thanks for the detailed reply. You included some stuff I didn't know.

[Andrew123]

There is a point where more population doesnt have more benefit above upgrade buildings,
with adjustment bonusses and the building itslef the bonus will be greater.
This point is somewhere about 30 to 40 population, due to the effort you have to do to hold them happy.
The reason for that point to be the turn around is easy to explain.
A City will expand our population by 3+% for adjustments so let's say at the moment we got 3 citys 2 adjusters and one metropolis to get to 30 population, we'll need about 3 happiness buildings to keep them up, so we used 9 planet squares for our population so far. For another increasement we would have to build another city and another happiness building and with this 2 squares we would get about 9 population (the base would be 22+30% is 6 for adjustment and 3 by itself) and here is the clue, the new city that will need 2 squares on the planet and one on another for the food requirement is upgrading the planet by <30% population if we have 30 population on the planet and <25% if we have 40 population on the planet. the first building on the planet is a direct multiplier, as the only one per colony buildings give +33% manufacturing for example, of course this bossts only one stat so we have to value it down compared to the population which would boost the raw production.
At the point i mentioned on 30 pop we would have to pay 2+1 square to get more population to increase the value of everything by almost 30%, if we invest 3 squares in manufacturies and one in financial buildings, we will end up on +100% manufacturing and 60% more wealth. Research buildings never pay themselfes unless it's a galaxy or player wonder, because you can produce scientists for 1000 social construcion + 1 precursor, the building cost for a research building is 1300 for max level and half a citizen in prometium (15).
The planet uses 14 squares right now and now we have to calculate every time what would give us the most benefit, at the current state that is the following calculation:
City is 15% on all ressources per square
manufacturing is +35% all constructive per square (factory + 6 adjustments)

As we can see manufacturing is still a way better option to place on the planet.

You could easily form a basic rule about building your planets:
Always place the colony bank next to 2 cities (50% +2 adjustment)
Build at least 2 citys and the megapolis
Build a fusion factory and now place factories as long as they gain at least + 6 adjustments (fusion next to it is +4, 1 for the fusion, 3 for the factory, and 1 factory next to it or 3 factories 're next to the square).
Research buildings have no value because the scientists're cheaper, doesnt cost a square and level themself up.
f they re spaces left go for more cities and morale now.

[Astasia]

Автор сообщения: Andrew246

There is a point where more population doesnt have more benefit above upgrade buildings...

-too long to quote-

Early game, sure, a balance helps on most of your planets. Mid and late game though, no, more population is always better. You aren't factoring in citizens, spacestations, and global and relic bonuses. When you can get a +1000% bonus on a planet without any buildings at all, then having another 300-500% added onto that doesn't come close to the benefits of just going all pop. A 200 pop planet with +1000% is a heck of a lot better than a 50 pop planet with 1500%.

[abonamente]

I play conquest only. My own colonies go beyond 25 population in rare occasions only (priorities, resources...). But even at low 25% morale, the 100+ population worlds I conquer (Yor), after destroying all factories to make way for my own improvements, still do better than my worlds with Space Elevator, Central Mine, Deep Core Mine and Fusion Power Plants on them, from a manufacturing point of view.

I didn't test that (the game is over way before reaching an average 25 population per colony), but I am fairly certain that there is no 'tipping point', where favoring other tile improvements, with % bonus, becomes better than increasing the population. In my experience, on the contrary, at some point (yes, about mid-game) factories become a waste of tiles, time and strategic resources. More raw production from population is better.

If you think of it, there are enough other sources of % bonus late game, but too few ways to increase the raw production. So many, in fact, I don't even use manufacturing leaders. I prefer to get +60% fleet HP bonus, or something else.

[Andrew123]

Автор сообщения: Astasia

Автор сообщения: Andrew246

There is a point where more population doesnt have more benefit above upgrade buildings...

-too long to quote-

Early game, sure, a balance helps on most of your planets. Mid and late game though, no, more population is always better. You aren't factoring in citizens, spacestations, and global and relic bonuses. When you can get a +1000% bonus on a planet without any buildings at all, then having another 300-500% added onto that doesn't come close to the benefits of just going all pop. A 200 pop planet with +1000% is a heck of a lot better than a 50 pop planet with 1500%.

The way the multiplication works still makes the smaller population better, never the less i wonder how you wanna get 200 pop on a planet, a coordination temple max upgraded gives +4 adjustments which means 6 citys with +40% population, in fact (18 + 5 basic + 5 megapolis)*3,4 are a max pop of 95,2, but ok lets say you place the other squares of an average 15 planet also with citys and 3 or 4 morale buildings to keep the happiness in average, to reach 200 pop we have to fill a class 22 planet with cities, a megapolis and a coordination temple.

As we 're using the coordination temple we should place of course cities around also in the small pop example so we'll reach 95,2 population too, we will take 2 morale buildings too, and now we got 12 free squares that the max pop player doesn't have.
So 200 pop with 1000% is still better then 95+1500%, well it isn't!
At first the values for production, research and wealth are calculated in multipliers by the following:
(leader and citizen bonus)*(sum of star base bonus)*(sum of relic bonus)*(sum of planetary bonus and galactical events)*galactical wonder bonus*planet upgrades
So the planet bonusses 're a seperated multiplier, if we reach 200% bonus which is pretty easy to do we have not 1000% against 1500%, we have 1000% vs. 3000%, and a planet with slightly less then half population that has the tripled income will be better then the high pop planet.

But let's face even more, 200 pop with raw % bonusses 're almost 400 raw production, that +1000% mean you have 4k social construction, the most expensive project you could do is to recruit a citizen, so you waste 1,5k construction every turn, construction that you earned by completly destroying another planet that has only farms to be able to build such a super population planet.

Let's face a normal building style with 2 planets on 50 population (equal to almost 100 raw production) +2k% construction mean 2k social construction, this planets maintain (so they produce the food they need) themself, 're easy to build up and produce 5 citizens in 6 turns.

Both planets have the same value as the big one who wasted a 2nd planet to become that big, but in social construction they 're ahead, in 6 turns the 2 planets recruit 10 new citizens, the big and the raided something about 7.

You invested far more ressources to get a planet to that population, in a multiplayer this planet cant be build and cant be defended, you have 17 citys and a capital on that planet, if i come with 15 legions and core destruction tactic you need more then 100 garnisons to hold the planet, as i take it once i select destroy planet and you investe an insane amount of ressources for a planet that doesnt exist anymore.

Lets sum it up:
You waste production on a 200 pop planet
The planet cant be defended, cause you have to keep the control on 10 cities to win an invasion.
The planet cant be evacuated if you regognize that you re not able to hold it
A human player that take this planet will take the pop that he can carry and destroy the planet, so u dont even have the oppurtunity to reclaim it.
If your relicts and ecoonomy starbases're destroyed your econmy is ruined.


Your strategy works against dumbass AI, but is completly impossible against other players, even if you guard this planet to death, the human is able to place 10 spys on the planet and you can kill a maximum of 7 in this 6 turns.

[Astasia]

Much of that isn't entirely accurate or relevent. Morale buildings aren't an issue, a single food planet can support multiple 200 pop planets, ground defense is honestly pointless in the game currently and you defend planets from space, and nobody cares about or plays multiplayer. The biggest flaw in your argument is that you are forgetting that population is raw production, which is everything. 400 raw production multiplied by all of your leader, relic, spacestation and global buffs, is a lot more of everything than a lower pop planet with specialized buildings. You talk about wasted social construction, the planet is producing too much to burn through, but it's producing just as much money, research, and ship construction, feeding a shipyard that's popping out huge ships every turn.

As a side note, I don't think population is too powerful or needs to be tuned down, I think citizens and leaders are too strong compared to buildings. It's too easy to get so many buffs from other sources that multiply the raw production of planets giving you a bunch of everything. Early game buildings have a point, but once you start maxing out leaders and start mass producing citizens, that's when the buildings go away and cities take their place.

[Andrew123]

ground defense is honestly pointless in the game currently and you defend planets from space, and nobody cares about or plays multiplayer .

That you never played multiplayers gets clear at this point. Ok if you build up your strategies, so they work against the AI, this is fine. I prefer to use strategies that work against intelligent life and not "ok it works cause the AI dont know how to counter it".

To your side arguments, i dont think that this citizens 're to powerful, the citizens can help smaller players to comeback, mabye relicts, leaders and galactical buildings should be nerfed by quite a bit.
For example, relic bonus 2+3+4+5+6 in percent for each module around and leaders from 6 to 5% have already a huge impact.