Entertainment?

dojoboy · May 14, 2002, 09:41

I never allocate $ towards entertainment because using the governor (show disorder display) seems to work really well for me.

I remember in civ2 where commerce actually increased (sometimes) when 20% was allocated for luxuries. I've not yet felt like my GDP benefited from increasing entertainment.

Am I making a grave error in this approach? Is there a long-term benefit I'm missing?

Laertes · May 14, 2002, 09:55

I have noticed a significant decrease in corruption (up to 50% more shields) in remote towns that are celebrating We Love... days.

Obviously, bumping up the entertainment is one way of pushing some cities into the celebration, and hence increasing your commerce (in Republic and Demo mostly)

However, if you have lots of luxuries, and have built marketplaces and happiness improvements and wonders, you can get a lot of happiness. I have a large empire, with many size 12-14 cities, and some of them are celebrating with entertainment at 0%.

dawidge · May 14, 2002, 10:14

It depends on how well developed the countryside is and how much corruption you are suffering. WLT*D can decrease corruption in outlying cities, increasing commerce and production. Taking an entertainer and setting him on a high-trade square can produce more than it costs. I've found that spending money on luxuries can actually be profitable at the lower percentages and if you are suffering from war weariness, can be almost "break-even" in terms of the GP cost, but will improve the food and shield production in those cities that had to have a high number of entertainers.

YMMV, but it is definitely worth tinkering with once you see a large number of entertainers in use.

Willem · May 14, 2002, 14:39

Quote:

Originally posted by dojoboy
I never allocate $ towards entertainment because using the governor (show disorder display) seems to work really well for me.

I remember in civ2 where commerce actually increased (sometimes) when 20% was allocated for luxuries. I've not yet felt like my GDP benefited from increasing entertainment.

Am I making a grave error in this approach? Is there a long-term benefit I'm missing?

The thing is that you lose productivity by allowing your Governor to create Entertainers. If you have no luxury spending, he will have to take someone off a farm or a mine, which would be much more beneficial to your empire than keeping your people happy.

Plus there's always a lag before your Governor takes action. He won't create an Entertainer until the city is actually in revolt, so you lose all production in that city for one turn. Compound that with every city in your empire, and the total number of turns, and you're looking at a substantial loss of productivity throughout the course of a game. A loss that could have been prevented just by spending money on luxuries.

I typically go for a minimum of 20% spending on luxuries as a rule, more if I have to. So I generally don't even need to use the Governor to manage moods. The only time it's useful for me is when war-weariness starts kicking in, then I shut him off again when the war is over. Any revolts that do occur, I can easily manage myself through the domestic advisor, and adding improvements. Plus I have a better chance of getting a number cities celebrating WLKD, which can be a real benefit to my overall empire.

nato · May 14, 2002, 15:09

With luxury resources and especially marketplaces, I have never had any trouble making all my people happy. I have plenty of other troubles, but I have never had a problem with happiness in Civ3.

With several luxury resources, and especially a marketplace, it would be hard not to have everyone happy, and I never devote trade to luxuries.

Basically, I think luxury resources completely removed happiness as a consideration from Civ3. Now all I worry about is corruption, which for me doesn't seem very effected by WLTKD (or Courthouses).

In Civ2, I always had luxuries at 20 or 30%. I agree it is better than Entertainers due to lost shields and food. However, in Civ3, in high corruption cities pulling people off the land has zero effect, so there I would use entertainers. I have never set the luxury rate above 0% in Civ3. I just go hard after luxury resources.

Flanker · May 15, 2002, 06:05

Unhappiness was a larger problem in Civ II IMO, and I think it´s good that it´s easier to fix now. However, in a long war, a luxury rate of up to 40% might be necessary. I usually only have long wars in the end of the game, and by then I have plenty of money and science, so it´s usually not a big problem setting the luxury rate that high. But only for a few turns of course.

Jethro83 · May 15, 2002, 07:14

Since I'll be in Monarchy most of the game, my three unit military police is enough to keep my cities in relative order. I'll expand my territory to bring in luxuries, build markets and I won't even NEED to build cathedrals or colosseums until later on.

Even when I'm a democracy, I'll have every resource imaginable from all my prior conquests, cathedrals, colosseums and markets in my major cities and therefore won't need to adjust the Entertainment rate. If a citizen comes out unhappy, I'll just turn him/her into an entertainer, or build a worker/settler and transfer them to a less populated area in my empire. Then I'd stagnate population growth by reducing food output, converting the extra citizens into tax collectors.

I only ever had to crank up my entertainment rate when cities were growing too large (yes, there is such a thing!). But especially in Civ II, where I wouldn't have luxuries any lower than 20% under a republic/democracy.

UncleMunky · May 15, 2002, 13:18

Now you've lost me. I've only just begun playing, but in the early stages of play I have all of the available city improvements in every city and I still have problems with discontent citizens wanting entertainment. What do I do then?

nato · May 15, 2002, 13:33

Well, like I said, I really go hard after luxury resources. I get as many of my own as I can, and I trade vigorously for the rest. Combined with a marketplace, happiness takes care of itself. I only build temples and cathedrals for culture, really.

If it is a major problem, being religious will let you build those two things easier, and many people feel religious is the most powerful trait anyway, so its good to have.

If the game is still early, military units are ok for enforcing order. 10 shield warriors for 1 happy person are a cheap buy, though you might as well go 20 shields for a spearman, and get 1 happy person and some defense at the same time.

For Civ3, I can't reccomend using luxury rate. I still go only 0% on that.

My real advice would be to try hard to get luxury resources. I never have a game without all 8 (thought it takes a while to get the full set of 8, like 500 AD or so maybe). They are invaluable.

edit: Also, happiness wonders are extremely powerful ... but like the luxury rate, I feel they were more useful in Civ2 than Civ3. Further, in Civ3 it is very difficult to build early wonders ... the Sistine Chapel, however, is extremely popular. Combined with being religious, Sistine Chapel gives you double-strength, half-price cathedrals, which is sweet.

But once again, I feel it is unnecesary if you have several luxuries.

Arrian · May 15, 2002, 13:46

I will often run entertainment spending in order to keep cities in WLTKD. Normally 10-20% in the later stages of the game, when money usually isn't an issue.

Occasionally I will use entertainment spending early on to keep my core cities from revolting while getting the most shields out of them for wonder building and whatnot. It all depends on the luxury situation, really.

-Arrian