1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Allow picking of tiles for culture expansion

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Slowpoke, Nov 2, 2010.

  1. Slowpoke

    Slowpoke The Mad Modder

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    1,321
    Or make the picking smarter :rolleyes:

    One of the main deterrents of building large cities, besides growth caps, is that several hills are a necessity. And the computer never chooses to expand to them. So I simply say to heck with it, and mass build cities in places that have 2 hills to START with. Sure, you could technically buy tiles, but then unless you're america and playing a mod where he's buffed to 50% less buying, it's never worth it just to buy a hill. And I don't always want to be america to play. And waiting for culture to expand to hills is crazy, since there's always about 10 grasslands to expand to.

    Easiest way to fix it is to simply expand to hills if production focus is selected. But picking culture expansions would be much better.
     
  2. killmeplease

    killmeplease Mk Z on Steam

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,794
    Location:
    Samara
    i agree
     
  3. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    27,234
    Location:
    Sydney
    I think that expanding towards a particular economic factor type is a good idea. If you have food emphasised, then expansion should be towards tiles that maximise that. If you have gold emphasised, then expansion should work towards that goal as well. Same with production.
     
  4. OTAKUjbski

    OTAKUjbski TK421

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Messages:
    1,511
    Location:
    not at my post
    I agree with picking the tile you want. Period.
     
  5. Atwork

    Atwork Immortal

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    616
    Location:
    Santa Cruz, CA.
    Yes! As the governor of a city, I'm pretty sure you'd have a say in which developers get the contracts to develop newly acquired areas of city land -- the idea that a city would develop some empty grassland area before it would develop the resource-filled hilly/forest area is stupid! And because the AI, as it is, makes stupid development choices, the power should be taken away from the stupid and placed in the office of the governor. In the best interest of the people, let the governor decide which areas of city are to be developed next!

    I understand that the design was intended to seem organic -- you know -- people will slowly occupy certain areas over time and the culture will sort of expand with the people -- and people might not expand into the forests or hills as readily because supposedly it's harder to tame forests or hill.....but that's stupid. People follow the food, or the minerals, or whatever.....

    Besides, the designs intent was undermined by allowing a player to simply purchase a tile in order to expand culture. If money buys culture to expand with, then maybe culture should be treated as a medium of exchange that a city can be expend for the purchase of tiles -- according to the desire of the player. For example, a city is founded, the player is immediately asked to choose a tile he/she intends to develop -- when sufficient culture has been accumulated, then the tile will be unlocked and the player will then be asked to choose the next tile to develop -- and so on and so on.

    If the player chooses not to micro-manage, then the Camikaze's idea would allow the player to simply instruct the AI governor to emphasize commerce (for example) in the city and thus tiles with commerce will be prioritized for development. If no emphasis is selected, then the expansion will take place mostly as before -- but with the most resourceful lands being prioritized above the 'empty' tiles, but in a way that balances need for food, production, and commerce.

    feedback?
     
  6. DaveGold

    DaveGold Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,058
    I'm not sure why so many players see this as a problem. You can buy the tiles you need. If you don't have the money then change your play style so that you do.
     
  7. Atwork

    Atwork Immortal

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    616
    Location:
    Santa Cruz, CA.
    DaveGold, you assume that the problem is lack of money due to bad strategy. It isn't. However, you do remind me of another problem I've noticed. The problem being that the AI does not purchase tiles, or is at least not nearly aggressive enough doing so. Thus, I've always managed to purchase tiles before the AI even though either of us could have made the purchase and even though the AI often has huge sums of wealth on hand. That's dumb. Where's the suspense in that? 'oh will i get the tile -- will i, will i? Of course I will because the AI is lame!


    Anyways, besides that, the problems we're discussing are that: (1) the design takes the control out of the players hands (2) the AI expands city culture stupidly (3) if money spending can accomplish the same thing as culture growth, viz. accessing new tiles, then why not simply allow the player to 'spend' his/her culture to access the tiles that he/she wants to develop.

    I think the issue simply boils down to the fact that the current design wrests control away from the player arbitrarily....the designers claimed that the design was intended to make culture growth seem somewhat organic and natural, but the designers simultaneously completely undermined that design by allowing a player to purchase culture expansion.

    The problem is lack of control and a design that doesn't make good sense.....it feels gamey....and it isn't believable that money can be spent to redirect and shortcut a process of cultural expansion that is supposed to happen organically.

    IMO, either let the process be organic and write the rules so that they make sense in terms of human settlement given mankind's determination to tame that which is most critical to his survival and the betterment of his condition (cultural expansion follows the occupation of the best/most valuable settlement areas first), OR simply let the player/governor decide.

    I'm of the opinion that the governor/player should control the cultural development of his/her city -- not the arbitrarily designed AI.
     
  8. Atwork

    Atwork Immortal

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    616
    Location:
    Santa Cruz, CA.
    Another problem, IMO, is that C5 makes culture borders fixed for all times. IMO, the old culture wars along national borders were a lot of fun and created an additional element of challenge now missing -- a game within the game sort of. Sometimes a nations culture was so invasive, it would seriously force a players hand. I miss some form of the little games within the game (culture, religion, espionage, corporations....etc.)

    Personally, I would love to see a border system that distinguished between national borders (fixed) and cultural borders/influence (organic and shifting).

    I envision it as somewhat of a hybrid system where cultural influence is grown by works and buildings whereas national borders are gained by purchase, trade, war, occupation, cultural expansion, and by usage.....

    I haven't worked out the details in my head, but I've been thinking about it.......
     
  9. DaveGold

    DaveGold Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,058
    The US government offered money for settlement and it worked pretty well for them. So did the purchase of Alaska. In the early game you might want to consider your land purchase as building hill forts and ditches that can protect your people in new areas. Later on this could be the building of castles that push back 'barbarian' influence.
     
  10. Atwork

    Atwork Immortal

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    616
    Location:
    Santa Cruz, CA.
    Yes, the government offered money to settlers to go settle in areas that the government wanted to claim/develop -- precisely how it should operate in C5. The government, in this case the player, directs the expansion of his/her culture.

    I'm not arguing that tiles shouldn't be available for purchase. Quite the contrary....I think that tiles should be available for trade and sale as well. My argument is that city expansion via good ol' cultural growth should also be player directed.
     
  11. Slowpoke

    Slowpoke The Mad Modder

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    1,321
    It's not about having enough money. Anyone has enough money to buy hills. There's just much better uses for gold, to the point where tile buying is completely ignored no matter what you do if you're playing right (very few exceptions include buying lux or strat. resources to steal them when you plop a city). So if you're playing well, you get stuck with massive grassland estates and stupidly small cities just to get hills. It just feels wrong.
     
  12. DaveGold

    DaveGold Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,058
    There is an argument that if it's not worth your money then it's not worth complaining about.

    There is also the more convincing argument that if players could always choose the tile then they would exploit it mercilessly at the AI's expense, always blocking and stealing with no regard to a realistic city spread.
     
  13. Slowpoke

    Slowpoke The Mad Modder

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    1,321
    Don't mean to be mean but balancing video games and witty sayings don't mix. If settlers costed 4000000000000000000000 hammers it's a problem and you fix it.
     
  14. DaveGold

    DaveGold Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,058
    I might actually try some wit next time if you like that sort of thing. By the way, what's imbalanced about cities expanding mostly in the way you want them with the feature to buy extra tiles if you need them? It seems to be equally fair for everyone without favouring any strategies.
     
  15. Bandobras Took

    Bandobras Took Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,922
    Location:
    Orem, UT
    I agree with Dave Gold. If you want to choose where the tiles go, put some money there. Remember, America has been deemed to have a crappy UA because they can more easily direct city tile expansion, and now we have people asking for the feature. :p There's also Tradition to help mitigate the costs -- if you're willing. If you spend gold on something else, that's your business, but you can't complain that the option doesn't exist.
     
  16. Slowpoke

    Slowpoke The Mad Modder

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    1,321
    Well this is my last post arguing this. I'll just say this. If a feature is too impractical to use the way it was intended, it should be changed. If a feature obviously isn't even working as intended, it should be changed.
     
  17. Atwork

    Atwork Immortal

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    616
    Location:
    Santa Cruz, CA.
    Why should I have to spend gold to direct the cultural growth of my cities? I have buildings that produce culture in order to expand culturally. In many instances, since I like buffing culturally, I buy those cultural buildings. I pay maintenance costs on those cultural buildings. All I want is to be able to control the cultural expansion I've already invested so much time and money into. I don't want to spend money on cultural buildings so that the AI can arbitrarily mess around picking up useless grassland tiles when I already have plenty. As it is, I usually do end up plopping down more money, and HUGE amounts of it, in order to get the tiles that I really want to develop.

    So, then what's the point of the cultural buildings in a particular city? Besides helping gain social polices (which is great because I can choose those!), I guess some of you are satisfied that the point of cultural buildings are merely to allow an arbitrarily written code to function, while I sit passively waiting for the AI to stupidly grab me another useless tile.... AI choosing another grassland because of an arbitrarily written code leading to stupid outcomes that I have to spend more money to correct -- LAME!

    Meanwhile, the AI controlled civs, who apparently never purchase tiles, end up with massive cities with no production -- rather, they spam TPs and sit on vast sums of money, which again, they never spend on land. It's a lame design! Sorry that offends those of you who prefer passive effects over player-controlled ones, but so be it.

    Moderator Action: please don't post profanity on the forums as it is against site policy
     
  18. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    27,234
    Location:
    Sydney
    I hate to nitpick, but you do have the choice of which parts of the city to develop, and of which improvements within the city's boundaries to build. What this thread is about is where the borders of the city expand to next, which isn't the same thing as where development goes next.
     
  19. DaveGold

    DaveGold Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,058
    They do buy tiles.
     
  20. Atwork

    Atwork Immortal

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    616
    Location:
    Santa Cruz, CA.
    If that's true, and it is very likely true, then the AI isn't nearly as aggressive in purchasing tiles as it should be. I have never missed out on a valuable tile because the AI purchased it first....granted I haven't played on a level higher than immortal yet.

    You are correct, the player does choose how to develop his/her land (although those choices are less than what they were in C4). I conflated development with culture expansion in that particular post.

    The better statement would be that cities purposely choose to annex particular land so that it can do various things -- sell the land to commercial/private developers, contract with a developer to have a park built, have the land sit as a refuge.....whatever. I think my point was simply, the acquisition of land by a municipality is not a passive process.
     

Share This Page