[Ahmed Castro]

My current set stats are displayed under the 'actual' bar in the picture below, and are marked by a red dot.

The stats for my first choice are marked by a green dot, and my second choice is marked by blue (yellow didn't show up well).

As you can see, there are obvious benefits from switching to one of the new set ups...however, my question is this;

Are the bonuses I will receive from switching worth the 14% loss of citizens that I will experience as a result? If so, is the first set (Green) a better option than the second (blue), as I suspect?

What I am also wondering is if the environment bonus I would get from my first choice would negate the loss of citizens (due to the very low environment of the current days)

[Ahmed Castro]

No one has any idea?

[ender land]

Your current set probably is best.

You can get the benefits of Steel/Rubber/Coal by temp trading when you buy infra.

[Mirreille]

alden peterson, on Sep 3 2008, 01:04 PM, said:

Your current set probably is best.

You can get the benefits of Steel/Rubber/Coal by temp trading when you buy infra.

You could also possibly change that trade with lead to one with coal if you wanted steel. Those other two sets you are thinking of are both worse in terms of environment. Honestly, what are you looking forin a set? Your set seems fine now. Other then switching the lead for something else, why bother?

[Ahmed Castro]

Mirreille, on Sep 3 2008, 01:19 PM, said:

You could also possibly change that trade with lead to one with coal if you wanted steel. Those other two sets you are thinking of are both worse in terms of environment. Honestly, what are you looking forin a set? Your set seems fine now. Other then switching the lead for something else, why bother?

Lead is one of my nations resources, along with Aluminum, so those are permanent.


My current set only gives me +1 environment, while my first choice gives me +2 and -50% environmental penalty.

Im wondering if that big bonus in environment would replace the citizens lost, if I did switch.

[schmutte693]

I believe that (DAC) Syzygy, who was the author of the current Environment set-up, has stated that each point of environment is -1% environment. So losing 14% citizens would definitely be worse than gaining the better environment. Even though the environment also takes -1% Happiness as well... I would still go with the population boost. More citizens, more improvements, more money

[Mirreille]

Ahmed Castro, on Sep 3 2008, 04:50 PM, said:

Lead is one of my nations resources, along with Aluminum, so those are permanent.


My current set only gives me +1 environment, while my first choice gives me +2 and -50% environmental penalty.

Im wondering if that big bonus in environment would replace the citizens lost, if I did switch.

I missed the fact that lead was one of your natives. In this case, +1 environment is BAD; your suggested set has no dirty resources, the other two possibles have 2 and 3, with water included so that makes you worse off, not better! Not only do they have less pop. from resources you will lose more on those sets from losing 1 or 2 environment points....definitely not worth it.

1 environment point is 1.78% population now, I believe, not 1%.

[Ahmed Castro]

Alright. Thank you, folks.