A way to end the snowball effect of huge empires

When a civ gets huge it has a snowball effect and it makes it so that it is almost impossible for anyone else to beat them. Corruption helps, kinda, but it is really not working the way that it realistically should. I think we can make it more realistic and reduce the snowball effect by making units and buildings cost more the larger you are. This will greatly help civs which have been reduced to 1 or 2 cities and gives them a better chance to rebound because things for them will be much cheaper. I think also tech research should be less expensive for small civs. Look at it this way: you not only have to discover a tech, you also have to integrate it into your empire and the larger your empire is the more expensive new technologies should be to implement.

What do you guys think? Shall we put an end to the snowball effect that huge empires have? Shall we make large empires crumble as they realistically should when they get too large? Or should we keep things as they are now...

naah... military upgrades are allready more expensive for larger civs, cause they have (and must have) more units... also, techs are cheaper both to buy and/or research, the more civs that has it.
And i can't see how temples and such get cheaper the poorer you are... doesn't really make sense to me.

majk-iii said:

naah... military upgrades are allready more expensive for larger civs, cause they have (and must have) more units... also, techs are cheaper both to buy and/or research, the more civs that has it.
And i can't see how temples and such get cheaper the poorer you are... doesn't really make sense to me.

Click to expand...

Because of corruption. I am proposing a different system to represent corruption than how it currently is. The current system of corruption is based on how far away from a capital a city is whereas mine is based on simply how many cities it has, with nothing to do with distance from capital. Plus my idea effects the cost of structures, techs, units, etc. If you have a huge empire corruption is high and things cost alot, but if you have only a few cities then corruption is low and things are very cheap.

I think this is very realistic, but equally important it will add more balance to the game and would get rid of the snowball effect...

I thought the current corruption model took into account the number of cities. Oh well. I do reckon they need to do something extra though, so that there is an optimum size so to speak.

Mongoloid Cow said:

I thought the current corruption model took into account the number of cities. Oh well. I do reckon they need to do something extra though, so that there is an optimum size so to speak.

Click to expand...

You may be right that it already does this to some degree, but it obviously needs to be improved upon because empires get big and they get out of control, especially if in the hands of a commercial human player.

The problem is that for big empires (in Human hands) once you have significantly exceeded the Optimal City Number, cities are entirely corrupt; there is nothing to do but bloat the population and create specialists, which translates into lots of tax revenue or beakers. The result is that a huge empire is not slowed down. That said, I strongly disagree with the idea of comabatting this by effectively increasing corruption.
For the AI huge empires are a result of the significant bonuses on higher levels; only a drastic overhaul of the AI can fix that.

Bartleby said:

The problem is that for big empires (in Human hands) once you have significantly exceeded the Optimal City Number, cities are entirely corrupt; there is nothing to do but bloat the population and create specialists, which translates into lots of tax revenue or beakers. The result is that a huge empire is not slowed down. That said, I strongly disagree with the idea of comabatting this by effectively increasing corruption.
For the AI huge empires are a result of the significant bonuses on higher levels; only a drastic overhaul of the AI can fix that.

Click to expand...

I also want to see some bonuses for civs in a very horrible situation, like reduced to 1 or 2 cities. If huge empires experience penalties then I think it's fair that tiny civs get some bonuses. Maybe it will hopefully help them bounce back.

But why should an ailing civ be helped to bounce back? Surely they have gotten into their terrible situation by mismanagement...

Bartleby said:

But why should an ailing civ be helped to bounce back? Surely they have gotten into their terrible situation by mismanagement...

Click to expand...

As I said, it is realistic. If large empires experience high corruption then small nations should experience low corruption. It's just simple logic. As for reasons why it would be good, well it would make the game more fun, more interesting, and more balanced. It would be nice to see a civ you thought you delivered a K.O. to make a comeback an era or two later.

Usually I'm not very fond of catch-up bonuses, but since you're supposed to recreate a somewhat plausible history in civ and civ is balanced towards both gameplay and realism, I see no wrong with it, it's all about balance in civ anyway.

Things to prevent snowballing:
1. Corruption.
2. An increased risk of civilwar the larger you get.
3. Increased military upkeap for all.
4. Different and similar religions should make expansion harder, by greater resistance or condemnation from others.
5. Hopefully Fireaxis put a greater focus on the gameplay in larger maps than huge, making the game more fun by other things than war. Larger maps give more lebensraum.
6. They could implement somesort of decadence, which would force you to plan your actions more. I don't think it would be a good idea though.

If a civ has only a couple of cities then corruption presents no problem. I don't think that such a civ should be given any kind of bonus...everyone has only a couple of cities at the start of the game.
As long as it costs an arm and a leg to trade for resources/luxuries and the trading model is vulnerable to backstabbing and unexpected reputation damage, the best way to get what you need is to secure the source by conquest, inevitably leading to large empires. If large empires become too difficult to maintain the game is less fun IMO.
Different people want different things from their games and have different ideas of fun so I s'pose you can't please all the people all the time.

One thing that Firaxis has said is that they want the players to be able to take over the world (and I agree), so whatever yoiu propose, it can't make this impossible.

I agree with Slax. The whole point is to build up a huge empire and a massive military, if you are going for conquest. Maybe what you are concerned with is how this makes the endgame so predictable, once you reach a certain point. This could be altered by giving the AI sustantial bonuses once the player reahces a certain point, i.e. automatic tech advances to catch up all other AI civs with the player, if necessary, unit bonuses (AI gets a bunch of free hi-tech units, does not pay support), heavy trade embargoes by the other civs against you, stuff like that. Don't penalize the player for success, though, if taking over the world is to be a valid victory condition.

I agree that you should be able to grow to a superpower that noone else can match, but as it is now it's more or less the only viable strategy to win the game. It's what you go for whether you wish to win by conquest, space victory, diplomatic victory etc.
Maybe they could lower the standard criterias for conquest or domination victory and make conquering/keeping other countries harder, maybe by raising military upkeep, which would force you to buffer up plenty of gold before you go for the final wars, and suffer if you fail.

Corruption isn't enough. Huge empires are still mega-profitable. They just have slow production.

Perhaps a comprimise could be reached when an empire can "split", i.e. us from british if it gets too large and does not have a fair ratio of military units or continental control or something

I hate when the AI cheat and I think that many of the suggestions in this thread are nothing but AI cheating, I can’t see why you should be punished if you managed to build a Great Power?

Loppan Torkel has a good suggestion when he says that: “Firaxis should put a greater focus on game play in larger maps." That would make it almost impossible to dominate the world but would still make it possible to build a Great Power.

I too hate when the AI gets to cheat. Bad idea. It is frustrating and unfair. I remember in other games the AI cheating so much, so bad that I just could bear to play the game anymore. Civ is bad enough here.

The best option would be to have a smarter AI, but failing that, they could introduce a system where unhappy people cannot be made into specialists (and unhappiness should spread like the plague in large empires) or that if they are made happy by entertainers, those made happy cannot themselves become specialists of any sort.

Civil War is the only way to stop huge empire from getting more powerful.
The chance of rebellion should increase as your size increase. It can also depend on how many ethnic minority in your nation, and how advanced their culture is, comparing to your culture. The longer they have been conquered, the less dangerous of course. Slave workers can also rebell. You troops might turn around and go against you if your people is very very unhappy. If there is a more advanced government form, and you haven't changed, there might be a revolution.
The chance for all rebellion types would spike if you already have one going on, and the chance will increase still each turn that you have a on-going rebellion. Because this encourage other people also unhappy about your regime to rise up and take arms. So it can be extremely dangerous if you keep failing to quell a rebellion.
Now if you are a war mongering nation, you can still conquer large area and more advanced civs, but it will be a time bomb, you dont' know when they are going to rebel against you. And if democracy has been discovered, and you are still in monarchy, even your own people might want to kill you. In this way, we can see a powerful emprie crumble in a few turns.

Dida said:

In this way, we can see a powerful emprie crumble in a few turns.

Click to expand...

Sorry but I don't see the fun in that.