Am I the only one trying to understand the rationale behind this change in BNW? Why add the 5% penalty for expansion?
Global Happiness and Social Policies already work well to prohibit expansion. Regardless of science you really struggle to stay happy if you expand too much in the early game. The increased Social Policy cost is enough in and of itself to encourage tall players; by going wide you have to accept the sacrifice of sometimes massively reduced Social Policy acquisition. A tall player myself I don't feel the extra technology cost as much as others might but I nevertheless struggle to understand why it's included. For me, it pushes the balance too far in the direction of tall and punishes the wide game too much, from the pretty balanced state they were in in GnK. I see very few, if any reasons to go wide any more. Even when warring you're strongly encouraged to raze the majority of the cities you capture, which for me takes a lot of the fun out of the game.
What do you guys think about the +5% technology cost for extra cities?
Global Happiness and Social Policies already work well to prohibit expansion. Regardless of science you really struggle to stay happy if you expand too much in the early game. The increased Social Policy cost is enough in and of itself to encourage tall players; by going wide you have to accept the sacrifice of sometimes massively reduced Social Policy acquisition. A tall player myself I don't feel the extra technology cost as much as others might but I nevertheless struggle to understand why it's included. For me, it pushes the balance too far in the direction of tall and punishes the wide game too much, from the pretty balanced state they were in in GnK. I see very few, if any reasons to go wide any more. Even when warring you're strongly encouraged to raze the majority of the cities you capture, which for me takes a lot of the fun out of the game.
What do you guys think about the +5% technology cost for extra cities?