A core set of balance changes

[Roxlimn]

Idea: Make Maritimes produce a set food count, idealized at 7 cities. Base +X food for the capital, then +0 x 6 x era modifier. For instance, allied at Medieval, we could have 6 food for the capital, plus a finited +12 food which you can evenly distribute (quick-button option) or tweak and distribute as you like.

Smaller Civs with less cities can concentrate their food in their few cities, and Civs with more cities will naturally want more Allies so they can cover every city. This setup still actually favors bigger civs, but not as much as they do now.

 

[Ahriman]

Make Maritimes produce a set food count

This kind of thing has been proposed several times in this thread and elsewhere.

then +0 x 6 x era modifier

I have no idea what you're saying here.
Use * for multiplication.
But 0*anything is 0.

which you can evenly distribute (quick-button option) or tweak and distribute as you like.

I would oppose having a manual allocation mechanism. Too much micromanagement, and too much potential for human to outperform the AI.
I think it is simpler if it just allocates across cities automatically.

Another idea:
Friendly Maritime City states give +1 food to the capital, and +1 food to the largest X cities in your empire, where X varies by era (1 in ancient/classical, 2 in medieval, 3 in renaissance, 4 in industrial, 5 in modern, 6 in future). Allied Maritime city states give an additional +1 to the capital and the largest cities.

With multiple city states, the bonus keeps going through the list of cities, and then cycles back.
So for example, suppose I have cities of size 13 (capital), 11, 10, 9, 8, 6, 5.
Suppose I have 2 allied maritime city states.
If I am in medieval era, then the cities get: +6, +2, +2, +2, +0, +0, +0 food.
If I am in Renaissance era, they get +6, +2, +2, +2, +2, +2, +0 food.
If I am in Industrial era, they get +8, +2, +2, +2, +2, +2, +2 food.
If I am in modern era they get +8, +4, +2, +2, +2, +2, +2 food.

I like this because the total bonus doesn't depend on the number of cities you have (each city state gives +2 food +1 per era beyond classical at friendly, and the same again at allied), and the allocation rule is fairly simple, and era advances are still useful.
If this is too weak, you could start the ancient/classical era counter at 2 or 3 instead of 1.

It still may be too complex for the core game though. Thats the one thing about the existing mechanic (+X in every city); it is very simple.

 

[Roxlimn]

Ahriman:

Eh? Humans already outperform the AI in the game in a number of other ways. Arguably, most of the time, humans outperform the AI in every game function. Is there some reason why we can't introduce one more possible such arena?

I think the value for two Maritime States is too low. Having played without Maritime States, I get the impression that the tile yields for food are too low without the aid of Maritimes. If we just scaled it down for everything, we'd need to reintroduce more food elsewhere. Putting them in Granaries might be an option, but I don't want to go too far down that route because I don't want Granaries to be a no-brainer building you just build everywhere.

 

[Ahriman]

Is there some reason why we can't introduce one more possible such arena?

It is to be avoided whenever possible. The AI already provides no challenge except at Immortal and Deity. We should *strongly* avoid any mechanic that further advantages the player.
This is partly why, for example, you don't get to choose which tile gets claimed by culture. Because the human could do so massively better than the AI (eg beelining for resources).

I think the value for two Maritime States is too low.

In which system, my proposed one?
In my proposed one, the impact of the second Maritime state is identical to that of the first.
If this is too low, then increase the base era modifier.
In my system, friendship gives 2 food +1 per era beyond classical, and allied gives the same.
If this is too low (which it probably is), then increase it to 4 food +1 per era beyond classical, or 6 food +1 per era beyond classical, or whatever, by increasing the capital bonus or base number of cities affected.

Having played without Maritime States, I get the impression that the tile yields for food are too low without the aid of Maritimes. If we just scaled it down for everything, we'd need to reintroduce more good elsewhere.

[I assume that good is a typo for food.]

I'm not sure that this is true. In fact, I think exactly the opposite; I think a ton of the game's problems (ease of getting plentiful gold, techs too fast) are because of the large populations enabled by Maritime city states. Playing without the Maritimes makes it much harder to have everything, and slows the game down.

Grasslands, granary and waterwheel are weak, because of the large populations enabled by Maritime city states. The only way to make grasslands more valuable is to make food rarer.
I'd increase the waterwheel to +3 food though, and leave the granary as is.

 

[Roxlimn]

Ahriman:

Have to ask you about playing without using the Maritimes. I have played several such games and each time, my growth and tech was very, very slow even with Grasslands, CS, Granary, and Water Mill.

What are your experience about playing the game without using Maritimes?

 

[Ahriman]

Yes, playing without Maritimes reduces growth rate massively, both of tech and economy (from trade routes).

My point is; this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Part of the biggest problems are that the human player can out-tech the AI even on high difficulty settings by hoarding Maritime city states for large population, and that techs come too fast (particularly in the late game), and the player can buy lots of stuff with massive gold income (partly due to trade route income).

On Immortal difficulty, I am usually in the Industrial era by ~16th century.

But the only way to make food yields from farms/terrain/buildings more valuable is to radically reduce the food yield from Maritime CS.

It would be ok to accompany this with some reduction in food requirements for large population sizes.

 

[Roxlimn]

Ahriman:

You can out-tech the AI on equitable settings even without Maritimes. If you're talking about setting handicaps, then that's a purely artificial thing and signifies not a lot - we can always give the AI however many bonuses it needs to out-tech anyone. Hell, we can give it all the Modern techs up front.

Teching in the game without Maritimes is too slow. Your teching on Immortal is artificially high because you can leverage AI handicaps for your own benefit. Sell them luxuries at ridiculous rates, and then turn around and make multiple RA's to boost your science. If you aren't already doing this, then you aren't teching as hard as you can.

Being in Industrial in the 16th is actually not that bad. Teching on higher difficulties was faster in Civ IV.

But the only way to make food yields from farms/terrain/buildings more valuable is to radically reduce the food yield from Maritime CS.

It would be ok to accompany this with some reduction in food requirements for large population sizes.

Food from all sources is already valuable. Maritimes simply have priority. Removing food from the game without adding it back in through other sources sounds like asking for trouble. If we remove it from Maritimes, we should add it back in through premium tiles or Granaries.

Just so you know, I'm not exactly a fan of Civ IV's super-tile approach. It made games a little too swingy, if you got a good start or got access to megatiles.

 

[Ahriman]

You can out-tech the AI on equitable settings even without Maritimes

Who is talking about "equitable settings?" Its unrealistic to think that this game is ever going to be challenging on Prince. I'm talking about Immortal and Deity, where it is hard to out-tech the AI without Maritime city states. You don't have the population advantage, and you can't afford to throw gold around as freely on research agreements.

Teching in the game without Maritimes is too slow.

This is a judgement call based to some extent on personal preference. I disagree with your preference here. I think current Maritimes boost tech rates far too high.

Your teching on Immortal is artificially high

I do not agree that teching is faster on Immortal than on lower difficulty levels.

Teching on higher difficulties was faster in Civ IV.

So?
I think teching in vanilla Civ4 was also too fast.

Food from all sources is already valuable

No it isn't. Grasslands are weaker than plains, because food is easy to come by and hammers aren't. Granaries and watermills are weak, because food is easy to come by from Maritime CS, and you're better off building other buildings or military. Maritime CS mean that farms are insufficiently important; you hardly have to work any farms, you can have most of your guys working mines/TPs and still have a large food surplus. You can run a specialist economy without needing lots of farms.

Removing food from the game without adding it back in through other sources sounds like asking for trouble.

I disagree. The game is not balanced in its current form. There is no reason why we need to stick to current total food income. If you want more food, then go for grasslands and work farm tiles.

I'm not exactly a fan of Civ IV's super-tile approach. It made games a little too swingy, if you got a good start or got access to megatiles.

I think bonus resources are underpowered in Civ5, cows in particular, because they don't benefit from tech yield boosts.

Wheat + farm is 3f 1h, which goes to 4f 1h with fertizilier (or civil service if its riverside). Cows + pasture are 3f 1h, and stay there forever. Banana with plantation is 4f, and stays there forever.
Plantations and pastures need to get the benefit from fertizilier, so they stay superior.
Bonus resources should always have superior yields to regular tiles. They don't have to be massively superior, but they should stay at least slightly superior.

So, I would tweak cows and bananas (I think fish are ok) to increase food, but this won't come close to the cuts from Maritime CS.

Another thing to consider is this: all else equal, all players should have equal access to Maritime CS. There are twice as many CS as players by default, but only 1/3 of CS are Maritime, so on average, there are only 0.667 Maritime CS per player.

The game should not possibly be balanced around the human player having 2, 3, 4 Maritime CS alliances.

 

[Roxlimn]

Ahriman

Who is talking about "equitable settings?" Its unrealistic to think that this game is ever going to be challenging on Prince. I'm talking about Immortal and Deity, where it is hard to out-tech the AI without Maritime city states. You don't have the population advantage, and you can't afford to throw gold around as freely on research agreements.

Dude. Have you actually played on Prince? The problem with Prince isn't that you don't have gold to spend on Research Agreements. The problem is that the AIs frequently don't have the gold to spend on Research Agreements.

Generally speaking, you mostly self-tech on the lower settings.

I tech faster on King than on Prince, certainly.

No it isn't. Grasslands are weaker than plains, because food is easy to come by and hammers aren't. Granaries and watermills are weak, because food is easy to come by from Maritime CS, and you're better off building other buildings or military. Maritime CS mean that farms are insufficiently important; you hardly have to work any farms, you can have most of your guys working mines/TPs and still have a large food surplus. You can run a specialist economy without needing lots of farms.

Huh. We are experiencing a totally different game.

With two Maritime CS's in the Industrial Era, I have +4 food on the center tile, giving me 8 base. When most my guys in my small 7-size city are working mines and mills and TPs, I get +3 food excess. This is not a large food surplus. Even if I were allied with 4, the excess would only be +7, which is still not large.

This is the situation where I am working one Grasslands Farm to supplement the food in that city.

Cross to my other city - size 15. With two Maritimes, working all Farms, with Granary, and Water Mill, the excess is +19, which is not large for a city of this size. If I were not working Farms and did not have Granaries or Water Mills, I daresay the city would not be growing at all!

If you don't work farms and don't build Granaries, I estimate the practical cap of cities relying only o Maritime food to be about 10 or so. You would need to rely on ICS principles to be able to work anything like a reasonable amount of tiles, and even then Farms would allow you to grow even faster, and tech better as a result.

Food is power. Just because some options are cheaper than others doesn't mean you shouldn't just take them all.

Another thing to consider is this: all else equal, all players should have equal access to Maritime CS. There are twice as many CS as players by default, but only 1/3 of CS are Maritime, so on average, there are only 0.667 Maritime CS per player.

The game should not possibly be balanced around the human player having 2, 3, 4 Maritime CS alliances.

Yes and no. The tech rate should not be balanced on the assumption that the player have 4 Maritimes alliances. However, the possibility of having as many as 6 or more should be provided for. We can't have players befriending every maritime on the board and just winning outright.

Consider also:

Cities should have the capability to grow very, very quickly from size 1 in the Modern Eras, or be useful even at small sizes. Previous versions of Civ where small cities grew too slowly or were not usable meant that establishing cities past a certain point became completely useless. This must not happen.

This is why I was advocating manual control. This way, a player can shift food focus to allow a new city to grow to useful size quickly in the latter eras, but not be able to support an entire empire on cheap food.

 

[Ahriman]

Dude. Have you actually played on Prince?

Once. I stomped the AI into the ground, because I was able to get ~2 eras ahead of them or more.
The AI teched incredibly slowly.

With two Maritime CS's in the Industrial Era, I have +4 food on the center tile

I will have to check in-game, but IIRC a city state alliance in the industrial age gives more than +2 food.

the excess would only be +7, which is still not large

How is that not large? 1/3 of your food is excess. Compare that to Civ4.

the excess is +19, which is not large for a city of this size

19 excess food is massive. That means you are producing ~49 food in a city that needs 30 food; nearly 40% of your food is excess!
It doesn't end up feeling as massive as it should because the food requirements for growing to size 16 are so punitively high.

If I were not working Farms and did not have Granaries or Water Mills, I daresay the city would not be growing at all!

Sounds good to me. Why *should * a city be able to grow without working farms or having food production buildings?

Just because some options are cheaper than others doesn't mean you shouldn't just take them all.

Sure it does. Various sources of food are substitutes, not complements; the marginal value of extra food is declining because of happiness contraints and increasing costs of food at higher city sizes, while the opportunity cost of working food (getting hammers or gold instead) remains roughly constant.

Cities should have the capability to grow very, very quickly from size 1 in the Modern Eras

Why? And if you want them to grow fast, have them work farms.

establishing cities past a certain point became completely useless. This must not happen.

Why?

I have no problem with, in the late game, settling new cities not being something that happens anymore. Thats kinda how Earth worked. Pretty much everywhere in the world was populated by 1850.

 

[Roxlimn]

Once. I stomped the AI into the ground, because I was able to get ~2 eras ahead of them or more.
The AI teched incredibly slowly.

So did you! Reload the game and look at your tech benchmarks. Without the aid of AI gold and RA's, the game goes much slower. You can't buy things out the gate if the AI doesn't even have enough gold to buy your Open Borders for 50 gold.

I will have to check in-game, but IIRC a city state alliance in the industrial age gives more than +2 food.

I checked my game when I posted that. I have two Maritime Alliances and my non-capital center tiles show 8 food yield. If the yield is supposed to be larger, then my game is bugged.

How is that not large? 1/3 of your food is excess. Compare that to Civ4.

We had Granaries in Civ4. Cities size 7 would need half the requirements to grow, since they should at least have a Granary at that size.

The size of the food bonus relates not to how much the city actually requires to consume - it's purely related to how much is needed to grow to the next tier. City consumptions are merely a growing tax on food to prevent further growth - a secondary mechanism to make bigger cities harder to acquire.

+7 is not large because it is not nearly enough to grow to the next tier in 5 turns or less. Checking my game, my size 7 city requires 76 food to grow to size 8. For me to consider the food excess large, it would have to be +20 or thereabouts.

This is actually possible to achieve. With each pop point working a Grasslands River Farm, with Granary, with Water Mill, and 2 CSs, the theoretical max excess is +28.

19 excess food is massive. That means you are producing ~49 food in a city that needs 30 food; nearly 40% of your food is excess!
It doesn't end up feeling as massive as it should because the food requirements for growing to size 16 are so punitively high.

As I said before, food excess is only massive if it helps you to grow fast. How you achieve it and its actual number is irrelevant.

Sure it does. Various sources of food are substitutes, not complements; the marginal value of extra food is declining because of happiness contraints and increasing costs of food at higher city sizes, while the opportunity cost of working food (getting hammers or gold instead) remains roughly constant.

I don't believe you understand the basic point. You are assuming that various sources of extra food are substitutes. Therefore, you get the view that the value of the food decreases as you get more.

In fact, the value of food overkill cannot be overemphasized. A city is only useful if it has population which can work tiles and provide trade and science. It has trade and science properties regardless of what tiles are being worked, so the faster it gets to size, the better. Once it gets to size, then you rework the improvements to the ones you want (or simply reassign the tiles and let another city use the food tiles for growth).

If you do not do this, cities do not grow as quickly, and any value they might get from otherwise working tiles is moot because they do not have the population to do so.

Once you get to size 10+, you get to the question of what you're going to do with population and such, since the growth curve increases to the point where continued growth can be difficult.

To be quite blunt, I don't see how you can see the value in having hammers to build buildings in small cities, over growing the city faster and then working hammers to build buildings.

Why?

I have no problem with, in the late game, settling new cities not being something that happens anymore. Thats kinda how Earth worked. Pretty much everywhere in the world was populated by 1850.

I'm sure I share your bizarre sense of history.

 

[Ahriman]

So did you!

No I didn't. It was trivially easy to conquer the other civs, and thus generate a large population, large gold income, and large science income.

On Immortal or Deity, it takes longer to conquer because you have to chew through their large army first.

I have two Maritime Alliances and my non-capital center tiles show 8 food yield.

Base 2 food on city tile means a 6 food difference to get to 8 yield, 2 Maritime alliances = 3 food each. What am I missing here? I am definitely not certain you are wrong here - my memory could well be wrong, I will check when I have a chance.

For me to consider the food excess large, it would have to be +20 or thereabouts.

You think you have to be increasing city size every 4 turns for that to count as a "large" excess of food? In a game that lasts maybe 250 turns?

As I said before, food excess is only massive if it helps you to grow fast. How you achieve it and its actual number is irrelevant.

Its not irrelevant to how you should tweak game parameters.
Maritime CS food needs to be balanced relative to other food sources (farm, granary, etc.)

You are assuming that various sources of extra food are substitutes.

I'm not assuming that. I'm observing that from how the game works. I can get food from various mechanisms. If I get more Maritime CS, that allows me to work fewer farms. I can substitute MCS's for other food sources.
And the marginal value of food income declines at higher food levels, because of happiness constraints and the declining value of food surplus as population grows.
If I have two inputs that can substitute for each other but have declining marginal returns, thats like the definition of a substitute.

To be quite blunt, I don't see how you can see the value in having hammers to build buildings in small cities, over growing the city faster and then working hammers to build buildings.

Growth is not always everything. I might have happiness constraints. I might want golden ages. I might want gold. I might want military units. I might want culture.

I'm sure I share your bizarre sense of history.

Bizarre? Please point to large areas of Earth that are populated now that were not populated in 1850.
[Remember that population in a "city" in Civ is not just the urban population, its the regional population of the city and the hinterlands.]

I don't think that continuing to start new cities in the industrial and modern eras needs to be part of Civ. Usually the world gets settled before then, and then any new expansion comes from warfare.

 

[Roxlimn]

Ahriman

No I didn't. It was trivially easy to conquer the other civs, and thus generate a large population, large gold income, and large science income.

On Immortal or Deity, it takes longer to conquer because you have to chew through their large army first.

Ah. That would do it. I always have trouble accounting for rampaging conquest strats because I never do it myself. Hm. Shouldn't the solution be a science cap so large civs don't get a disproportionate advantage? Say, all techs require a minimum number of turns to research?

Base 2 food on city tile means a 6 food difference to get to 8 yield, 2 Maritime alliances = 3 food each. What am I missing here? I am definitely not certain you are wrong here - my memory could well be wrong, I will check when I have a chance.

Checked an earlier game for the base tile yield. You are correct here. Base food is 2, so 8 city yield would mean +3 per Maritime. This would be simpler if the UI just gave us this information when mousing over the Maritimes!

You think you have to be increasing city size every 4 turns for that to count as a "large" excess of food? In a game that lasts maybe 250 turns?

Yes. I did say "large." Even if you grew every 4 turns from the start of the game to size 31, it would take you 120 turns - over half the game - to do so.

Anything slower than this would not be a large excess.

Its not irrelevant to how you should tweak game parameters.
Maritime CS food needs to be balanced relative to other food sources (farm, granary, etc.)

I disagree. Maritime CS food needs to be changed based on how we want it to work. Balance relative to other sources is a minor concern at best. For instance, Colosseums are "unbalanced" compared to Theatres, but we get Theatres anyway.

Growth is not always everything. I might have happiness constraints. I might want golden ages. I might want gold. I might want military units. I might want culture.

The comment is not in line with the context I was drawing.

Growth to the target size is everything. It gets you gold to cover expenses. It gets you science. It allows you to work enough hammers to make anything. Building things at size 1 is something you do because your Civ is pathetic and has no good food tiles. Once your Civ is set up, there is no reason to keep working bad tiles or to work non-food tiles until the target size of the City is reached.

If you have happiness issues, then you should not have founded the city to begin with. Growing faster means more TR income, which means more gold - to buy more Colosseums!

Golden Ages based on happiness are, I've found, somewhat underwhelming. It is stronger to max out the happiness and get Golden Ages through other means.

Growing the city to size faster means you get more gold through TR income. Once it is at the target size, you work the TPs, which means that you work the max number of TPs faster, getting to max gold output faster.

Larger cities can work more hammer tiles. They can make military unit faster. It does not make sense to make Riflemen in size 1, 2, or even 3 size cities. It doesn't even make sense to make Swordsmen in such small cities if you can help it. Best to make them grow and source production from core cities which are mature.

Same goes for culture. Small cities don't make buildings quickly.

Bizarre? Please point to large areas of Earth that are populated now that were not populated in 1850.
[Remember that population in a "city" in Civ is not just the urban population, its the regional population of the city and the hinterlands.]

I don't think that continuing to start new cities in the industrial and modern eras needs to be part of Civ. Usually the world gets settled before then, and then any new expansion comes from warfare.

Define "large."

There are cities now which were founded only after the Three Gorges Dam was started. Those were literally nonexistent prior to the project starting. We're talking outright wilderness here.

There are still areas of the Amazon and other such jungles and mountains that are not substantially populated, or were only populated after the advent of railroads and motorized transports.

I mean, was Australia even properly populated in the 1850s? Even today their population is minuscule for the size of their continent.

 

[Ahriman]

I always have trouble accounting for rampaging conquest strats because I never do it myself

Then you weren't playing optimally on that low difficulty level - like you accused me of not doing.

Yes. I did say "large." Even if you grew every 4 turns from the start of the game to size 31, it would take you 120 turns - over half the game - to do so.

Anything slower than this would not be a large excess.

By this definition, with a large food excess you would be size 60 by the lategame, and yes you'd be hitting 30 pop only 120 turns in.
Its a ridiculous definition.

Balance relative to other sources is a minor concern at best.

Bwah??
No its not. Its the most important concern.
Strategy games are about making decisions and tradeoffs. Should I do X, or Y? If one strategy (get lots of Maritime CS!) is a no-brainer, then there is no interesting strategic decision. How we know its a no-brainer is how good it is relative to other things. How much power do I get from investing my gold in a maritime CS vs other sources? What resources do I have to give up to maintain a Maritime CS alliance relative to what I'd have to give up by working more farm tiles instead?
Meaningful strategic decisions are *all* about these kinds of comparisons.

For instance, Colosseums are "unbalanced" compared to Theatres, but we get Theatres anyway.

Foolish comparison. You can't get a theatre unless you already have a colosseum, and you generally don't build theaters unless you already have colosseums in most places.
You can't choose to meet your happiness needs by building either superior colosseums or inferior theaters. If you could build as many of each as you liked, you would only ever build the colosseum, and the theater would be useless.
Which is kinda the point; watermills are useless and farms and grassland are underpowered because its cheaper just to get the food you want from Maritime CS instead.

So maintain a Maritime CS alliance costs me ~8 gold per turn (roughly 250 gold / 30 turns).
For that 8 gold, I can be getting a bonus larger than a granary in every city I have.
Consider the cost of buying and maintaining a granary in every city, vs the cost of getting and maintaining a Maritime CS alliance - which will also give me a luxury and probably strategic resource too, and sometimes some minor military support.

It gets you gold to cover expenses

No it doesn't. To grow faster, you have to give up gold, from paying Maritime CS or working farms instead of TPs.

It allows you to work enough hammers to make anything.

No it doesn't. To grow faster, you have to give up hammers.

You're thinking in a static framework; grow to some hypothetical "target size" and then stop, and only worry about outcomes in this steady state.
That's not how the real game works. You have to think about production and gold and culture along the way, not just at the "target" state.

Building things at size 1 is something you do because your Civ is pathetic and has no good food tiles.

Again, straw man. The game is not splilt up into size 1, and then final "target" size. The whole game occurs along the way, and the yields you get along the way matter.

Define "large."

Of the size that would constitute a separate city in Civ; ie a large region, several tiles worth of terrain.

There are cities now which were founded only after the Three Gorges Dam was started. Those were literally nonexistent prior to the project starting. We're talking outright wilderness here.

Wilderness? Where? Hardly. There are new cities in China in areas that used to be farmland a few decades ago (Shenzen is the main example), but its not areas that had no human habitation before.

There are still areas of the Amazon and other such jungles and mountains that are not substantially populated

Yes, and they still aren't populated now, and chances are they never will be. Like, chances are most of Canada and most of Siberia and most of central Asia will never be substantially populated.

or were only populated after the advent of railroads and motorized transports.

Actually it turns out there were some pretty significant pre-Colombian parts of the Amazon.

was Australia even properly populated in the 1850s?

The cities that exist now existed then, yes. Sydney founded around 1820.

Significant New Zealand (European) settlement began in the 1840s, and this is the last major new settlement anywhere.

Even today their population is minuscule for the size of their continent

Thats because most of it is useless desert. The population isn't small relative to the actually habitable areas, the water supply, and so forth.

And you still haven't made a gameplay reason as to why cities founded in the lategame need to be significant (other than maybe in marginal areas for grabbing oil and uranium).

 

[Celevin]

Keeping everything else equal doesn't actually replicate real gameplay, because extra cities in practice won't have the same cultural output as the older ones.

I know, it's just a theoretical example. It helps in understanding exactly what happens when you create a new city.

How so? How does settling an extra city somewhere reduce the infrastructure in my core cities?

I should have clarified, I meant average infrastructure. Average culture per city would be a better way to put it.

If an empire has 10 cities and x average culture per city, it should have roughly the same or higher policy gain rate as an empire with 5 cities, and x average culture per city. Bigger should be better in this case.

The deal is that a large number of cities with the same average culture per city is much harder to obtain. The majority of it is opportunity cost, but there are other factors too, such as Freedom's +100% culture for wonders, with smaller empires also having an easier time building (world and national) wonders. It's much easier to get wonders in 80% of your cities with a small empire than a large.

This is what X + 0.15X does.

I agree, we just need to find out what the coefficient should be. Is 1/2 of the world size variable best? 1/2 is usually what people go to when they're unsure of the answer. Right now it's "0". I suggested "1", and you're saying "how about 1/2 instead? 1 is too much". I realize there's no formula we can solve to get an exact answer, but we should probably spend a lot of time on that number and what it means.

too much potential for human to outperform the AI.

This is separate and might be my own design philosophy, but here we go:
People like mechanisms that they can play around with and make a better empire. If you see anywhere where you can add one where the player has to think to use it, and they see a definite advantage to using it, it should be considered.

You pointed out the one glaring flaw though, and that's the AI will be easier because of it. The question is can we make the AI stronger without making it feel gamy? For example, 1upt was a great idea where the player gets to put in a LOT more thought, and see results, but the AI sucks at it. The bad thing about 1upt is we can't fix it without that gamy feeling, ie more AI units, or stronger units, etc. I think this is currently the #1 reason that people aren't liking Civ5.

I would argue that it's easy to make the AI use the "surplus food stores". Just make it give a proportional amount of the surplus to all its cities, and give it a bonus on top. The human player won't even notice that the AI sucks with it. But I would also completely agree with you that we just don't have the know-how to implement something complicated like that, so there's no need for us to consider it.

 

[Roxlimn]

Ahriman:

By this definition, with a large food excess you would be size 60 by the lategame, and yes you'd be hitting 30 pop only 120 turns in.
Its a ridiculous definition.

With a constant large food excess, you would be size 60 by the late game, yes. As your city size gets larger, the amount of food you need to get large food excesses become greater and greater, so you need to strategize to get more food.

Then, when you get it, you grow quickly again until you attain a large enough size that it is no longer large. What is ridiculous about this?

You must forgive me, but I find Maritimes to have their own drawbacks already. They can get killed, they can be somewhere you can't meet them, or you can alienate AIs to get to them. Granaries and Farms are constants. This means that they must be less powerful than situational benefits.

Foolish comparison. You can't get a theatre unless you already have a colosseum, and you generally don't build theaters unless you already have colosseums in most places.
You can't choose to meet your happiness needs by building either superior colosseums or inferior theaters. If you could build as many of each as you liked, you would only ever build the colosseum, and the theater would be useless.
Which is kinda the point; watermills are useless and farms and grassland are underpowered because its cheaper just to get the food you want from Maritime CS instead.

So maintain a Maritime CS alliance costs me ~8 gold per turn (roughly 250 gold / 30 turns).
For that 8 gold, I can be getting a bonus larger than a granary in every city I have.
Consider the cost of buying and maintaining a granary in every city, vs the cost of getting and maintaining a Maritime CS alliance - which will also give me a luxury and probably strategic resource too, and sometimes some minor military support.

To even have a Maritime ally, you have to be able to find one. That is not a sure thing on all map settings. Also, it must not die.

In order to have the bonus, you must invest 500 gold up front, and this will last you ten turns or so, if you do not invest in Social Policies that extend the advantage. If you invest in the right social policies (additional cost!), then I'd broadly agree that you can extend it longer. However, in general, 250/30 turns does not hold true. You will need to pay again soon after the initial investment.

This 8 gold will generally not be larger than a Granary in every city until Industrial Era (where it increases to 3/city). Also, having a Granary in each of 6 cities only costs 6 GPT.

Again, straw man. The game is not splilt up into size 1, and then final "target" size. The whole game occurs along the way, and the yields you get along the way matter.

It really depends on how fast the city is growing. If you're working grassland TPs, excess food from two CSs starts at +8, and this plateaus at around size 6-7, when growth will take 9-10 turns per pop.

A food focused city should grow twice as fast in the mid-sizes, meaning a food city hits size 10 when a TP city is only about size 6, 7? The TP city will provide TP returns along the way, but its TR income will lag, and it maxes out much later.

Wilderness? Where? Hardly. There are new cities in China in areas that used to be farmland a few decades ago (Shenzen is the main example), but its not areas that had no human habitation before.

Actually, there are cities in China where there was wilderness before. Those along the Three Gorges, as mentioned. Forgot the name. Before those cities were built, there were isolated farmsteads and such along the river, using the river to sustain themselves, but human presence was sparse.

Yes, and they still aren't populated now, and chances are they never will be. Like, chances are most of Canada and most of Siberia and most of central Asia will never be substantially populated.

There are, to my knowledge, several new towns near my vicinity where there used to be jungle. Not populated then, populated now.

The cities that exist now existed then, yes. Sydney founded around 1820.

Significant New Zealand (European) settlement began in the 1840s, and this is the last major new settlement anywhere.

I think this is primarily because there isn't any more land to settle, not because we can't populate new towns fast enough.

Of course, New Zealand is the last European new settlement of note. Is this true in general? How about Chinese, Russian, and African settlement?

Thats because most of it is useless desert. The population isn't small relative to the actually habitable areas, the water supply, and so forth.

And you still haven't made a gameplay reason as to why cities founded in the lategame need to be significant (other than maybe in marginal areas for grabbing oil and uranium).

Cities founded in the latter portions of the game need to get up to speed quickly or they simply become nonentities - used exclusively for territorial control of resources. Australia was founded in the 1800s. What is that? turn 260? And yet it's a strong nation now. It should be possible to start that late and yet be strong.

And yes, Australia's population is minuscule relative to the habitable area.

At the close of 2008, its estimated population was 21 million. The Philippines, consisting mostly of uninhabitable mountain and ocean, and a fraction of the size of one of Australia's colonies, has 90 million.

 

[Ahriman]

If an empire has 10 cities and x average culture per city, it should have roughly the same or higher policy gain rate as an empire with 5 cities, and x average culture per city.

Still not quite sure I agree on this, I think it makes culture too easy for large empires or too hard for small empires.

I agree, we just need to find out what the coefficient should be.

1/2 seems like a decent start point. [And yes, you're right, it should be the world size parameter, I'd forgotten that culture costs scaled, because I mostly play Standard.]

You pointed out the one glaring flaw though, and that's the AI will be easier because of it. The question is can we make the AI stronger without making it feel gamy?

There are tradeoffs. Yes, some AI improvements can be made, but I think we should be very VERY leery of adding any new mechanics which favor the human. There are enough already.
Civ5 is already ~2 difficulty levels easier than Civ4 was.
And mods of Civ5, like mods of Civ4, are inevitably going to make the game easier too, because the AI (such as it is) is tuned at least somewhat on based on the vanilla Civ5 game.

We came up against this kind of thing a lot in designing Dune Wars. For example the AI specialist allocation in Civ4 seemed to over-value hammers, and in Civ5 it seems to me to over-value culture.
Sometimes you can hack the AI, sometimes you have to drop the mechanic.
And sometimes you can create " mechanics" (was that your term or someone else's?) that tend to favor the AI. Bushido is one such thing in Civ5; it is somewhat more useful for the AI than it is for the human player, because the human player wants to preserve units and not fight with damaged units much. In general, mechanics that make conquest more difficult are somewhat like that.

 

[Ahriman]

What is ridiculous about this?

4 turns to grow a new population size is far too small to be regularly occurring for a significant period of time in normal play. [Or at least, it would be once Maritime city states are changed.]

This means that they must be less powerful than situational benefits.

Sure, but how much less powerful? Certainly not 50% less powerful. And remember the co-benefits of Maritime city states (luxuries, resources) as well, which I would argue outweigh the disadvantages you mention.

In order to have the bonus, you must invest 500 gold up front,

And you must build the granaries. And you can only have one granary per city, you can't keep getting more MCS alliances.

This 8 gold will generally not be larger than a Granary in every city until Industrial Era (where it increases to 3/city).

You're ignoring the capital bonuses.

Also, having a Granary in each of 6 cities only costs 6 GPT.

And having a granary in 10 cities costs 10 gpt. Or 12 gpt in 12 cities.

several new towns near my vicinity where there used to be jungle.

Where is that?
And towns are not major cities of the size that would be represented in Civ. We're talking the big metropolises.

I think this is primarily because there isn't any more land to settle

And normally most decent land is settled by the industrial era in Civ5. What's your point?

Of course, New Zealand is the last European new settlement of note. Is this true in general? How about Chinese, Russian, and African settlement?

There were certainly some Soviet movements in Stalinist era into Siberia, but not to totally unpopulated areas, and I wouldn't say that those cities are very significant today. I don't think there are large new areas of Africa that have people that didn't previously, and I think the settled areas of China were mostly under cultivation in the 19th century.

We just aren't making big cities in large areas of wilderness in the modern era.

And yet it's a strong nation now. It should be possible to start that late and yet be strong.

[/quote]And yes, Australia's population is minuscule relative to the habitable area.[/quote]
Please check for consistency.

consisting mostly of uninhabitable mountain and ocean

I don't think this is true. There are lots of areas with good rainfall and fertile land. This isn't the case in Australia. Most of its agricultural production is very extensive. There's just not enough water. They're already worried about approaching their carrying capacity in terms of water. Farms are being shut down because they don't have enough, and they're looking at curtailing further immigration due to water stresses.

Cities founded in the latter portions of the game need to get up to speed quickly or they simply become nonentities - used exclusively for territorial control of resources.

You still haven't made an argument. Why do we need to be able to found cities late in the game and have them be more than nonentities used for territory or resources?

 

[Roxlimn]

4 turns to grow a new population size is far too small to be regularly occurring for a significant period of time in normal play. [Or at least, it would be once Maritime city states are changed.]

I agree. That is why I refer to the value as "large." It is doable, but it isn't "normal."

Sure, but how much less powerful? Certainly not 50% less powerful. And remember the co-benefits of Maritime city states (luxuries, resources) as well, which I would argue outweigh the disadvantages you mention.

Those are situational as well. You could already have the luxury and the strategic resource.

And you must build the granaries. And you can only have one granary per city, you can't keep getting more MCS alliances.

Sure.

You're ignoring the capital bonuses.

It's a one-city deal. It's hardly where the problem or where most of the value lies.

And having a granary in 10 cities costs 10 gpt. Or 12 gpt in 12 cities.

Yes. Granaries in more cities is less efficient than Maritime States. FWIW, I view 12 city empires as already being on the "very-large" size.

Where is that?
And towns are not major cities of the size that would be represented in Civ. We're talking the big metropolises.

In that case, Australia doesn't have cities that would show up in Civ V.

There were certainly some Soviet movements in Stalinist era into Siberia, but not to totally unpopulated areas, and I wouldn't say that those cities are very significant today. I don't think there are large new areas of Africa that have people that didn't previously, and I think the settled areas of China were mostly under cultivation in the 19th century.

We just aren't making big cities in large areas of wilderness in the modern era.

Argh. I'll try to dig up the info.

The Three Gorges Dam project itself requires a large metropolis just to service and maintain the Dam. It was not built in an area under cultivation. They had to blast rocks to build that thing.

Moreover, many of the residents of the displaced towns and farmsteads were relocated into large metropolises that did not previously exist, in locations that were previously wilderness.

Please check for consistency.

Having a city get up a be useful quickly doesn't imply that it should get to up to size 35 in 10 turns.

I don't think this is true. There are lots of areas with good rainfall and fertile land. This isn't the case in Australia. Most of its agricultural production is very extensive. There's just not enough water. They're already worried about approaching their carrying capacity in terms of water. Farms are being shut down because they don't have enough, and they're looking at curtailing further immigration due to water stresses.

Substantiate. The majority of the archipelago is dominated by mountain wilderness, with most fertile areas being small strips of land near coast, and small plains areas in two major island locations. Most of the sovereign surface area of the country is composed of treacherous water.

Currently, the country needs food imports to sustain its population, and water is in constant shortfall even in many parts of the major metropolis, Manila.

You still haven't made an argument. Why do we need to be able to found cities late in the game and have them be more than nonentities used for territory or resources?

So we have the ability to do so? This opens up options for us to play? So that games don't devolve into who can raze his enemy's cities the fastest?

Have you played previous versions of Civ where latter game cities were useless? I have. I didn't like it.

 

[Arkangelus]

I don't mean to butt into the minutae of this argument, but something that's been referenced but not really expanded on has been the steamrolling conquest, despite that I've found that to be the number 1 issue in pretty much every game I've played. Once a nation loses their first wave... its over. AI Germany will COMPLETELY consume AI England if the first wave of Longbows falls, etc, and its compounded with how good puppet states are.

Clearly the puppet/annex unhappiness issue shows that the devs have thought about it, but it hasn't quite worked out balanced in practise. What I'd suggest is pretty simple -

Puppet states remain in anarchy unless they have a garrison.

That way, you have to leave behind one of your what should be small army, they cost more upkeep, they slow down your progress, etc, and the focus is on integrating them as quickly as possible. What's more, it *should* stop the current issues of 4 AI musketmet conquering an entire country, which at regular, non-fanatic difficulty levels, is the biggest non-fun game killer. There is a place for this detailed stuff clearly, and this forum is the best place for it! I just hope its realised that to most people who play the game, they're not quite so bothered about cultured/maritime bonus scaling as they are getting caravels and discovering the other continent has a German empire that controls the land 4 civs started with that you'll never catch.

(Or rather, that you will easily take with 3 Mech Infantry and a single Destroyer, but still).