Avoiding the "you expand too quickly"

[Bibor]

I play on quick, so the number is probably modified for standard, but I noticed that if I take 20 turns between founding cities, I don't get the penalty. If settling is basically over around T120, that leaves you with a max of 7 cities you can found without the penalty.

Further testing needed

 

[Glassmage]

or go into the xml file and lower the negative hit associate with this. :3

 

[Raiki]

or go into the xml file and lower the negative hit associate with this. :3

Yes, but that would be cheating.

I play on standard almost all of the time, and it seems like I never seem to get the modifier unless I settle more than 3 cities (Including capital) before turn 50 or so. After turn 50, I tend to slow down my expansion anyway, so someone else will have to help there.

~R~

 

[Nosehair44]

Random:
Every time i conquest too fast it says i'm BUILDING too many cities and it makes me giggle.

 

[strijder20]

Random:
Every time i conquest too fast it says i'm BUILDING too many cities and it makes me giggle.

Every time I get a lot of cities from an AI in a peacedeal, it claims I'm expanding too fast in it's direction.

 

[Securion]

I dont know what they were thinking when they created the Civ 5 diplo system... But sometime during the QA phase of the development, someone must have said "Hey! Wth is this stupid crap?".

Noone seems to have listened though.

 

[joshua43214]

I dont know what they were thinking when they created the Civ 5 diplo system... But sometime during the QA phase of the development, someone must have said "Hey! Wth is this stupid crap?".

Noone seems to have listened though.

You preferred having your armies defect the turn before you attack? The Civ4 system sucked in a massively major way

Thanks but no...
The diplo system in civ5 is not the best, but its not broken either. I find it to have a good balance between random and predictable. You can count on the psychos to be psycho...

 

[binhthuy71]

None of the Civ games that I've played, and that would be all of them, had a rational diplo system. Civ5 comes the closest of the lot. I am far from nostalgic for Civ4's "I'm going to DoW on you no matter what in X number of turns." Civ3's Apostolic Palace was often simply enraging. Diplo in the series has made steady progress. If you want real-world diplomacy; ruthlessly self-interested, conniving, duplicitous, and deceptive, try multiplayer.

 

[strijder20]

You preferred having your armies defect the turn before you attack? The Civ4 system sucked in a massively major way

Thanks but no...
The diplo system in civ5 is not the best, but its not broken either. I find it to have a good balance between random and predictable. You can count on the psychos to be psycho...

Yes, I remember how my armies defected every time the turn before I attacked in Civ4, and how much that had to do with diplo.

Have you even played Civ4 or are you just using incorrect information you heard here and there? Unless you are talking about 'strike', which means you weren't playing the game good enough, which was a very effective way to stop players to go all-out unit building without bothering about tech or expenses at all and it still has nothing to do with diplo.

 

[joshua43214]

Yes, I remember how my armies defected every time the turn before I attacked in Civ4, and how much that had to do with diplo.

Have you even played Civ4 or are you just using incorrect information you heard here and there? Unless you are talking about 'strike' which means you weren't playing the game good enough, which was a very effective way to stop players to go all-out unit building without bothering about tech or expenses at all and it still has nothing to do with diplo.

EDIT:
@ strijder
Please accept my apologies.

Moderator Action: The entirety of your post up until here is unnecessarily antagonistic. Warned for trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
@mod
Sorry, it will not happen again

I played civ4 quite alot. It was a great game, and sucked in comparison to civ5. I had armies defect to a second civ while positioning them to invade a third on more times than I care to remember.

 

[Callonia]

I never had armies defect in civ 4, WTH are you talking about.

Anyways, yes, Conquering enemy nation can get you are expanding too quickly complaint from other civs. Happened because of one damned mountain range and somehow well placed cities from the AI with three entrances I was stuck hissing at the frenchies. Lobbing artillery shots and air strikes on both sides cuz we hate each other guts.

And my wartime ally who asked me to join in his war against the french.

And when he went and bust up and raze down one of the cities protecting the mountain pass FROM THE REAR OF FRENCH BEHIND, my panzers charge in as fast as possible and took about 80% of french cities.

And all of suddenly wartime ally the vikings now have a red modifier against me complaining that I'm settling too much cities xD They haven't walked up to me and personally complained yet, they're slightly sore about me moving fast to beat up the frenchies after the deadlock got broken courtesy of the vikings <.<

 

[Kingreaper]

Pretty realistic that the Vikings, who put a lot of effort into that war, would be pissed you're getting all the spoils.

 

[binhthuy71]

I'd like to be able to play well enough to be warned about expanding too quickly.

 

[Callonia]

Pretty realistic that the Vikings, who put a lot of effort into that war, would be pissed you're getting all the spoils.

Fair enough but he was razing every single french city he took instead of keeping them XD So basically it was open season!

 

[Ravellion]

I never had armies defect in civ 4, WTH are you talking about.

Take city from civ A. Then have the city cuturally flip to Civ B, which has been infuencing that tile with culture for 4000 years while you are just starting. Voila, your army has defected.

 

[joncnunn]

Take city from civ A. Then have the city cuturally flip to Civ B, which has been infuencing that tile with culture for 4000 years while you are just starting. Voila, your army has defected.

My dad reported some instances of that with Civ IV, but only on vanilla.

By the time of the BTS expansion, the effectiveness of military units suppressing revolts was greatly increased.

AND if you pull up the city screen, you can see the per turn chance of a riot so that if you have more than one unit there and see a percentage greater than zero you just need to keep adding more units.

Plus, I saw a clear pattern based of first riot, you keep the city it just went into anarchy for several more turns and only on the second riot would the city defect. (In my games only the AI had that happen to it; these were my culture much superior to the AIs)

Civ III was a bit worse about unexpected defections; but some late patch to it helped there.