- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 16,938
I don't think we know enough about Tourism yet to write an obituary.
Are tall empires dead?
- Thread starter anandus
- Start date
bcaiko
Emperor
And don't we have a limited number of trade routes? Additional cities cost money, and without additional trade routes a wide empire could be looking at a hefty bill without any way to cash its check. Meanwhile, a few small but rich cities could be any easy way to make an economic empire.
mitsho
Deity
I agree that we don't know enough on Tourism yet to write the obituary.
I however would also add that judging from the screenies, National Wonders could become more important again and provide the balance again or even tip it in favour of Tall anew.
I however would also add that judging from the screenies, National Wonders could become more important again and provide the balance again or even tip it in favour of Tall anew.
I thought additional cities added gold? As long as you aren't building a ton of infrastructure on gold-less land with zero gold buildings, you should be running a positive balance. I can't recall specific numbers but I think my last game the cities other than capital were at something like 20-25 gold per?
One thing I have seen that gives me hope for that is the new set up for cultural buildings, where the base culture yield is low until you put a Great Work in it. That makes it a lot harder for a wide empire to out culture a tall empire just by popping buildings in a number of small cities, and will hopefully see them get rid of the per city policy cost penalty, which quite often also penalized tall empires for expanding beyond the capital. And of course now that acquiring 30 policies as soon as possible is no longer a target in itself, you can better balance the cost of acquiring a policy against other opportunities.
What does real world empires have anything to do with an abstract, non-simulation strategy game? Are any real world empires trying to win a victory?
As far as buffing tall, we will simply find the fewest number of optimized cities. Now it's 3-5 (or occ), maybe it'll become 4-6 instead since they won't decrease the abundance of happiness that g&k brought.
As far as buffing tall, we will simply find the fewest number of optimized cities. Now it's 3-5 (or occ), maybe it'll become 4-6 instead since they won't decrease the abundance of happiness that g&k brought.
You will need to maintain basic diplomacy with other civs in order to secure an open borders treaty, allowing your archaeologists access to cultural artifacts.
In short, I feel it safe to assume that collecting cultural artifacts toward a cultural victory is viable for a tall empire.
In short, I feel it safe to assume that collecting cultural artifacts toward a cultural victory is viable for a tall empire.
Except there's supposed to be far less gold from terrain - the main source is trade routes.
It won't have that much of an impact. As been said before regular ocean tiles rarely get worked and luxury (fish, too, apparently) still have gold. Then there is the gold from regular city connections by road, along with gold buildings.
Still no word on whether trading posts have changed or not.
Still no word on whether trading posts have changed or not.
spyroware
Chieftain
At around the mid game all decent land in the map will be taken. If you find yourself with no room to expand while your wide archnemesis can also compete for a CV then what's left?
It's the river gold removal that will have the early game impact.
Guandao
Rajah of Minyue and Langkasuka
Does anybody know why they did that?
Best cultural games are 2-4 cities self built and puppeting the rest(can be as much as you can handle!). If you capture soon enough and make enough gold you can rush buy cultural buildings in them and overlap the culture lengh. This has been prooved already.
So commentaries about number of cities are irrelevant. What i really like is that you can actually be competitive with 1,2 or 3 cities against much bigger empires(at least for immortal or below most of the time) even in multiplayer games. I really hope that they will keep this particular thing to this game. Probably the only civ game that offer this opportunity, especially with some trees and buildings favourizing this approach. Very good for balance.
Not true, and i hope that it will stay untrue for the next expansion
So commentaries about number of cities are irrelevant. What i really like is that you can actually be competitive with 1,2 or 3 cities against much bigger empires(at least for immortal or below most of the time) even in multiplayer games. I really hope that they will keep this particular thing to this game. Probably the only civ game that offer this opportunity, especially with some trees and buildings favourizing this approach. Very good for balance.
Not true, and i hope that it will stay untrue for the next expansion
It's not intuitive to restrain growth, it's an awkward system. The choice of paths (culture, science, military, etc) should be related to your neighbours, diplomacy, available resources, the course of history, growing alliances, the general situation, etc. Not an artificial decision to limit your growth because you decided to go for culture.
Yes, but that will also hurt tall just as much as wide. The above comments stemmed from the idea that wider empires will end up being punished due to the combination of limited trade routes and removal of gold from river tiles.
While that may help tall stay competitive, I haven't seen anything yet that implies a wide empire's additional cities will run a deficit. Pulling in 600+ gold per turn towards end-game, only a small portion of that is actually coming from river/ocean tiles. The bulk of it is coming from luxuries, road connections, trading posts, and gold buildings--all of which are still in the game.
What is the alternative? The only cost of expansion is a settler and the game turns into ICS until the map is filled?
I don't mind there being additional obstacles to expansion. If this were vanilla I'd agree that those obstacles should be tweaked, but with religion and mercantile city-states in Gods and Kings, I like how the current system is set-up. There are still obstacles, but the game gives you tools to get around them if you so choose.
Two reasons I think. The first is to bring river and non-river starts a bit closer together. River starts already have advantages in the early to mid game with the Water mill, extra food with Civil Service and defensive bonuses.
Second is probably to cut down on excess AI gold early on and make other game plans viable on higher levels than "develop luxuries, sell them to the AI, buy stuff". Improving a luxury when the AI is loaded with cash basically gives you an additional +8 gold yield on that tile.
mitsho
Deity
The Global Happiness System actually means that in most situations, another population in an existing city is better than a population in a new city. In earlier versions of civ, this was combated by local happiness and food restrictions (with the latter being less important with maritime city states and now food trade routes). This coupled with the slow cultural expansion to certain tiles leads to the "empty map" syndrome which may be more realistic but still looks ugly imho. A better way would be to not have the Global Happiness System, but a "break even" point (# population + infrastructure and trade route connection present) on where new cities add again to the whole empire.
That's not going to happen of course with BNW. But you only asked what alternatives there are and I feel that any change would need a total overhaul of the civ gameplay system which I think it's time for. (f.e. the distinction between
, 
and 
seems arbitrary and not really helpful, it also leads to too many yields which is especially visible now in BNW).
