A core set of balance changes

[Celevin]

I've had a lot of experience with 1 city being controlled. You're right, it's also a puppet problem. But I've also had experience with 30 cities controlled in an empire, and cultural city states do almost nothing.

Consider this: Pretend you're running a 4 city empire. You're at x2 cost for all policies. Say in this scenario a cultural city state gives enough culture to get you a new policy in 20 turns by itself. Now pretend you're running a 22 city empire. You're at x8 cost for all policies. That same city state now only gives you enough culture to get a new policy every 80 turns! You would have to get 4 cultural city states on your side for the same level of benefit! In some of my games, I have almost no cultural city states even though I'm going for a cultural win, which just feels wrong.

We should scale city states so they give the same level of benefits no matter how many cities you have, given roughly equal total population.

 

[Ahriman]

But I've also had experience with 30 cities controlled in an empire, and cultural city states do almost nothing.

Agreed, but that makes them weak with large empires, not too strong with small empires.

Military city states don't scale with empire size either.

I think city states are designed to be something that work better with small empires. If you're a small empire, then the city state benefits are relatively large, if you're a large empire, you have to do it yourself.

This is why I lean towards fixed food for Maritime city states too, so that *none* of the city states scale with empire size.

Besides which, large empires have more gold, and so its easier to buy off more city states.

which just feels wrong

Why?
Who says that city states need to benefit a large empire?

same level of benefits no matter how many cities you have, given roughly equal total population

Your fix:

2) Each Cultural city state gives x culture to your capitol, and .3*x culture (for standard map size, alter depending on map size) to each other city.

doesn't do this. Your fix scales by city number, not popsize.

I'm flexible with the idea that city states can be indifferent between many cities vs few cities for a given pop size (though that will still tend to favor more cities). But I'm opposed to the idea that says city states should give the same benefit per city, no matter how many cities.

 

[Celevin]

Your fix:

doesn't do this. Your fix scales by city size, not popsize.

I'm flexible with the idea that city states can be indifferent between many cities vs few cities for a given pop size (though that will still tend to favor more cities). But I'm opposed to the idea that says city states should give the same benefit per city, no matter how many cities.

Yeah it does.

Think about it. If I have a small empire with 4 cities, my approach grants 2(x) culture, where x is some variable. If I have a big empire with 10 cities, my approach grants 4(x) culture. For my small empire, my policy cost is multipled by 2. For my big empire, my policy cost is multiplied by 4. Therefore the cultural city state grants the same amount of culture towards the next policy.

Smaller empires will still be better for culture victories due to Freedom, and opportunity costs of setting up new cities with cultural buildings. But my proposed change will make it so big empires don't feel like they're policy-less.

If you change Maritime city states, and leave the Cultural ones alone, you're going to notice small empires wanting all the city states and big empires just shrugging their shoulders at everything but Maritime ones still. It will feel like the bigger empires are still missing out on an aspect of the game by not having nearly as many policies.

 

[Roxlimn]

I also disagree with the concept that City States should benefit all empires equally. Currently, Cultural and Military States benefit small empires disproportionately. I think that Maritimes should be changed to have the same dynamic. Large empires already are stronger by dint of having more cities. Having less advanced policies barely makes a scratch on that advantage because of all the science and gold large empires provide.

This is partially why the latter eras flash by for larger empires. For 3-city empires, the science goes along at about an even pace. Indeed, by this measure, we should also be capping science output per civ on a per-era basis, just so large empires don't get a disproportionate advantage in that arena.

 

[Ahriman]

First, I should edit my post above to clarify what I meant to say:

doesn't do this. Your fix scales by city number, not popsize

Yeah it does.

?
Suppose X is 5.

Ignore the difference from the capital.

With 4 cities of size 6, you are contributing 1.5 culture per city, total of 6 culture per turn.
With 4 cities of size 12, you are contributing 1.5 culture per city, total of 6 culture per turn.
With 8 cities of size 6, you are contributing 1.5 culture per city, total of 12 culture per turn.

Your mechanism gives more culture with more cities, not with more population.

I don't see why you need to scale with the increase in social policy cost. Cultural city states should not make it easy to get social policies even with many cities.

If you change Maritime city states, and leave the Cultural ones alone, you're going to notice small empires wanting all the city states and big empires just shrugging their shoulders

Yes. Intended.

at everything but Maritime ones still

If you make Maritime give flat absolute number of food (like currently cultural give flat # of culture) then they will shrug their shoulders at Maritime states too.

It will feel like the bigger empires are still missing out on an aspect of the game by not having nearly as many policies.

This is the intended game design!
If you're a big empire, you'll have more tech on average (larger population) and more economy (more strategic/luxury resources to sell), but fewer social policies.

I also disagree with the concept that City States should benefit all empires equally. Currently, Cultural and Military States benefit small empires disproportionately. I think that Maritimes should be changed to have the same dynamic. Large empires already are stronger by dint of having more cities. Having less advanced policies barely makes a scratch on that advantage because of all the science and gold large empires provide.

Agreed.

City states are supposed to be a way to support small empires.

 

[Celevin]

I'm not talking about a huge advantage for larger empires, guys. I'm talking about making them actually consider cultural city states.

If we're balancing Maritimes to aid both large and small empires, we should also balance Culturals to aid both large and small empires. If you don't change around Cultural city states, we're still going to see 1-city culture wins regardless of puppets being fixed or not. This change will make it so players aren't so against putting up a new city in a good spot because of the culture hit.

Right now you can think of Cultural city states as giving +y culture to your capitol (minus border expansion). I'm saying that we spread the love so it's +x to your capitol, and +.3x to your other cities. It makes the game less capitol-centric.

Obviously, a smaller empire will still be a LOT better than a larger one for a culture win. But if you think of it, a 1-city empire receives TWICE the city state benefit as a 4-city empire (still a really small empire) from Cultural city states. That's really lop sided.


Ahriman: Don't we want city states to be beneficial towards both small and big empires? And what's wrong with big empires actually getting more than 8 policies in a game? You should still be rewarded for growing.

My suggestion makes it so, if you have equal population but different number of cities, both types of empires will want Cultural and Maritime city states and benefit from them equally. The Maritimes will supply the same amount of food. The culture gained from the Culturals scales exactly with increasing policy costs.

 

[Ahriman]

If we're balancing Maritimes to aid both large and small empires

Its not clear to me that this is what we should be doing.

If you don't change around Cultural city states, we're still going to see 1-city culture wins regardless of puppets being fixed or not.

The challenge of a 1-city empire should be getting enough gold, science, and military to avoid getting squashed. They should be cultural powerhouses.

 

[Roxlimn]

No, it isn't. Staying at one city once puppets are fixed will carry a disproportionate disadvantage because you just don't have the hammers, gold, and science to compete in any arena other than policy gain. That is only useful if you're going for a cultural victory, and even then, it's not the most advisable plan since it's so fragile.

You can win Cultural with 8-10 cities. I've done it on King and unless the economy is fundamentally different on the higher levels, the only difference is that your enemy had Blankets of Doom.

And more cash to milk.

 

[Celevin]

Then we just have different views on how this game should be designed.

I think, big or small, empires should want city states and receive around the same number of policies. The difference being that opportunity costs keep you from building a new city just about anywhere. Mechanics shouldn't be abandoned based on empire size.

To me, if an empire is 4 cities and sees an *amazing* city spot with lots of food and production, they shouldn't reconsider it because "my policy costs will go up, and my cultural city states will give less proportional benefit". It should be "that's a good spot, so I'm going to get it, and buy some new happiness/culture buildings to mitigate the culture cost damage".

Right now what we're seeing is some empires build new cities even if the city's in a horrible spot because big empires are awesome. Then we've got small empires that don't expand even if there's an awesome city spot because of policy costs. What this is causing is you have to choose if you want to go for a culture win early on in the game, rather than playing the map. Why can't it be like Science, Diplomacy or Domination, where you decide to do it or not based on how your empire's going?


Currently the way Cultural city states are set up, they do a lot of damage to policy costs. It's just the damage done is maybe half or a quarter of the damage done by puppets, so nobody's paying attention to them. Once puppets are fixed, just watch, the next problem will be Cultural city states.

 

[Ahriman]

unless the economy is fundamentally different on the higher levels

I do find the game fundamentally different on Immortal than on Emperor.

I think, big or small, empires should want city states and receive around the same number of policies.

Then why is bigger not always better? What are you giving up by going on conquest?

If you can achieve cultural victory (a purely passive victory which your opponent cannot prevent in any way except winning first) as easily with a large empire as you can with a small empire, it will either be too hard to achieve with a small empire (since staying small requires you to give up other benefits), or too easy to achieve with a large empire (which doesn't require you to give up anything).

To me, if an empire is 4 cities and sees an *amazing* city spot with lots of food and production, they shouldn't reconsider it because "my policy costs will go up, and my cultural city states will give less proportional benefit". It should be "that's a good spot, so I'm going to get it, and buy some new happiness/culture buildings to mitigate the culture cost damage".

Why? If settling more is always better, then expansion is the dominant strategy.

I prefer some strategic tension, where expanding is a tradeoff.
I think this is what the core design was trying to do.

What this is causing is you have to choose if you want to go for a culture win early on in the game

I have no problem with this. For a passive victory condition, you *should* have to decide early on to pursue it.

 

[Celevin]

Then why is bigger not always better? What are you giving up by going on conquest?

Opportunity costs. If you get a new city, without any of the culture buildings you have in your other ones, it will bring down the policies-per-turn of your empire.

Opportunity cost is the biggest thing that hurts big empires. Happiness-wise, it's the only reason we don't expand rapidly. Culture-wise, due to puppets and cultural city states, opportunity cost doesn't even get a chance to play a role. It's a no brainer not to expand to avoid increasing policy costs.


Bigger should always be better, if you have the infrastructure to support it. 10 cities making 10 culture should be the same as or close to 5 cities making 10 culture. But due to puppets and Cultural city states, this is not the case.

 

[Ahriman]

If you get a new city, without any of the culture buildings you have in your other ones, it will bring down the policies-per-turn of your empire.

Right. But why should this not effect the benefit of cultural city states too?

Bigger should always be better, if you have the infrastructure to support it.

In terms of total power, sure. In terms of every aspect (including culture), no, I disagree.

Bigger gives you so many advantages (economy, resources, science) I don't see why it needs to support social policy production too.

Opportunity cost is part of why I think city states should favor smaller empires. The opportunity cost of spending 500+ gold on a city state is generally higher for a small empire than a large one.

 

[Celevin]

Right. But why should this not effect the benefit of cultural city states too?


In terms of total power, sure. In terms of every aspect (including culture), no, I disagree.

Bigger gives you so many advantages (economy, resources, science) I don't see why it needs to support social policy production too.

Opportunity cost is part of why I think city states should favor smaller empires. The opportunity cost of spending 500+ gold on a city state is generally higher for a small empire than a large one.

We need to clarify something. For all future arguments, we need the difference between a "big empire" and a "small empire" to be just the number of cities. We need to hold the population as a constant, otherwise we'll get nowhere. And while there's a huge difference in population now, that will quickly close with the change to Maritimes and the addition of aqueducts.

If we don't hold population as constant, then of course a big empire should be better. It has more citizens to work with let alone everything else. More population has always meant a better empire in Civ.

My point is, holding population equal and having similar infrastructure, two civs should have roughly the same policy output. A small advantage will be given to a smaller civ due to the Freedom tree mid-to-late game.


Let's do a scenario. Play a game with no city states, and use no puppet states. Go for a culture win as fast as humanly possible without selling cities to reduce policy costs. How many cities will you have in the early, mid, and late game? With no "static bonuses" in the culture equation with the # of cities being the variable, it could be any number. The fastest win will depend entirely on map variables, with a new city being built if it's in a good spot.

Isn't that more exciting? If we add back in Cultural city states and you went for the fastest culture win without puppets and without selling cities, I can tell you how many cities you're going to have in the early, mid and end game. You're going to have 1-4. Even going from 1 to 4, you HALVE the effectiveness of Cultural city states.

 

[Roxlimn]

Empires with more cities have more sources of happiness. It doesn't make sense to say that their populations will be similar, even if the Maritimes were changed. It's the basic happiness functions that are advantageous for empires with more cities.

Assuming something that isn't true in-game only gets us bad mods and change suggestions.

 

[Celevin]

Because if you don't,

then of course a big empire should be better.

You can't argue ANYTHING for smaller empires if population isn't held constant. If you define big empires as having more population (which leads to EVERYTHING ELSE in Civ), then big empires are just better, period. More science, better golden ages, more production, more gold, everything. You are always plain old better with more population, this has always been the way that every Civ game has played out.

You absolutely need to hold population constant, or at least close. Smaller empires can achieve this through policies, through having static happiness playing a bigger part, and through a faster building of happiness buildings.

You also need to consider the whole picture. I'm advocating a positive rate of change for unhappiness per city. This will give big empires more unhappiness.


There is absolutely no argument if you don't hold population constant. It is completely fruitless to try and design an empire with less population to be just as good as one with more. We should be balancing around equal population empires, and be giving smaller empires a happiness boost if there is a power difference.



And for the record, Maritime city states never caused the population difference. HAPPINESS causes population difference. You need to understand this because it touches upon the exact reason that Maritime city states are overpowered. They are overpowered not because of higher population, but because a city can afford to work all production/gold tiles and specialists, and completely ignore all food tiles, giving you higher output, while still growing. I am looking at a size 13 city of mine right now with absolutely no food of its own being worked and it's growing rapidly.

 

[Roxlimn]

Celevin:

Right now, I'm playing a game close to turn 220 where I have 10 cities with size 10 each. (Actually, they're much larger than 10, but whatever) If you can show me 2 cities, each with population 50, then you will have an argument.

There aren't enough tiles in a game, nor Specialist Slots in buildings, to allow you to leverage 100 population cities, even if we modify the game to allow such a city to otherwise exist.

 

[Celevin]

So put an upper bound on size 36. Whatever. Ahriman has pointed out that a flaw in Civ5 is the food needed to grow. Fix this, through aqueducts and whatever else, and you'll notice small empires holding similar populations.

I'm stating this very plainly: A larger population empire will always be better no matter how Cultural city states work, no matter the policies, no matter anything else. If you don't hold it constant, you can't argue balance.

The entire Civ economy is based around working citizens.

 

[Roxlimn]

Celevin:

And now you see the problem.

Policies and other such game mechanics are in place to lessen the disparity between Civs that have 100 population and Civs that have 25. The large penalty on policy gain is precisely to make more cities less attractive than they otherwise universally are.

City States are yet more means to that end.

 

[Celevin]

You will never ever be able to balance small and large empires without population being relatively close no matter what knobs you turn, policies or otherwise. Don't act like I'm all of a sudden seeing the light. If that's the goal of the designers, we will always have an unbalanced game on our hands.

City States are yet more means to that end.

I have a lot of trouble arguing with you over city states because you showed that you don't even know what exactly is the problem with Maritimes. Read my edit a couple posts up: food has never been the reason for high population, it's always been the happiness cap. Maritimes let you work more productive tiles.

 

[Roxlimn]

Celevin:

You are mistaken again! Food is not the reason YOU see as being the factor for high population because you are a warmonger and expansionist by preference. If I only have 1 city, then clearly, the food curve of getting that city to 126 is going to be nearly impossible to surmount, if the game even codes that far.

Clearly, the one-city population comparison is an extreme, but it illustrates the point. If you have less cities, then food issues become a major limiting factor for growth. If you refrain from settling or conquering and keeping more than 5 cities, you should be seeing gratuitous amounts of excess happiness.

Changing Maritimes to allow an empire with less cities to experience the same population growth vertically as a empire with more cities does across many cities does something to equalize the situation.

I do not believe you are familiar with this situation because I have yet to see you in a game where you have less than 5 cities, and you don't show insight into the differences between the styles when you insist on population equality. Large empires will always have more populations.

I have played both ways. Now, I have not played both ways against AIs with more handicaps to them, but I don't believe the internal economy of the game changes. Maritimes don't get me more food on lower difficulty settings, no?