Balance - The "Wide vs Tall" Problem

[Wodhann]

Let's address what I think are the problems with the game design when it comes to deciding whether to have an empire with many cities or one with a few highly populated cities. Here is my opinion:

• Going wide is an absolute necessity to win the game competitively. The whole game is so mechanically centered around the fact that a wider empire equals a strong empire, that even the game score reflects it, as having more cities means higher score. If you haven't built a wide empire, or conquered it through war, you are likely not going to win the game, and will get steamrolled by larger empires.
• More is more, less is less: A larger empire you give you more of everything and a small empire will deprive you of everything. The happiness factor is but a bump in the road, a passable landmark (not only that, but you get more luxury resources as you expand, which contradicts this penalty concept); and the technological and cultural penalties are disregardable. It's a no-brainer strategy.
• There are two choices in this game: Going tall, or going wide AND tall. Because of internal trade routes and just the general way the game works, you don't have to choose to "focus" on small cities, because going wide will also give you a ton of population, and happiness will likely not be an issue because of the variety of luxury resources you will obtain and happiness buildings you will construct in the process.
• High level Civ5 right now is a game with little turn-abouts. Often the game is decided by the point a couple players have stablished themselves into a secure position of power and that positions sits, invariably, in the "wide" side; and the rest of the players have no chance of winning.
• Because of the internal trade route system, going wide means more growth and even more production, since you have more trade route options.

The way the game should work, in my view, is you should have a choice. Got a great spot but with not much stuff around? Then just go tall and not bother with many cities. Did you start on an ample, ripe environment or are a belligerent, conquering civ? Then go wide and become a threatening force, but face the hardships of ruling a big empire. I would much rather preffer choice than the linearity of just getting more cities, existing "speedbumps" notwithstanding.

So how to fix this? This is a hard question. I have some ideas, but I will probably post a more elaborate course of action later after we gathered more opinions.


For now, here are some loose ideas:

• Change the way happiness is given (even if we do this though, we shouldn't tackle the problem through this alone);
• Do this through social policies - in other words, make it so that the tradition x liberty dillema actually allow some choice. We will change the social policies anyway, but this is one way we could do it (again, we shouldn't tackle this problem through policies alone);
• Create a system where the farthest a city is from your capital, the lower it produces and grows, and the higher the penalties are. Other civs had a "corruption" system - this would be sort of a nod to that system.
• Change how internal trade routes work - perhaps add the possibility of creating food and production trade routes with other empires (they would work similar to gold trade routes, and would give food/prod to the originating city; for balance sake though, the amount of trade routes of this type from a single city would be limited). Either that or just limit the total amount of internal trade routes.
• Create an unique game-changing penalty for going wide (like corruption or health). This is probably the most "custom" of them all, and as you see I graded these three suggestions from simplest to more game changing. This will probably be looked down upon, and rightly so, since this is not supposed to be that kind of mod - but... if all else fails, it's an option.

So, what are your opinions on this matter?

 

[White Out]

Is it generally accepted wide is better? My tall empires of 3to 4 cities havw been dominant to my recollection

 

[Wodhann]

Is it generally accepted wide is better? My tall empires of 3to 4 cities havw been dominant to my recollection

Against AI or human?

 

[White Out]

AI... i don't play online or vs humans cuz I like all my mods and its a hassle otherwise

 

[ExpiredReign]

Although I like the idea of this question, I think it is flawed in it's assumptions.
I can say this because I have in the past made the same mistake in my assumptions.

Firstly, and this was raised in the last few postings, ANY discussion about balance should be based upon how the AI fairs, not how we as humans use these mechanics. Humans will always find ways around these systems and a seemingly balanced setup will eventually be exploited and appear unbalanced.

Secondly, and most importantly, just what constitutes a wide game or a tall game? Four cities? Six, twelve, thirty?
Likewise what is the determining factor for distance from the capital? Four tiles? Eight, etc.?
What happens if my capital is on an island and my only other city is on another landmass that is past this defined "too far" distance? Will I suffer a greater penalty than a player with a cluster of closeby cities? A situation that in any other game would be considered 'wide' and have the vanilla penalties applied?

What I'm trying to get across here is the difference between 'wide' & 'tall' is too fluid to be used as a determining factor. What I consider wide might be borderline tall for someone else.

The premise of the question should, IMO, be based on a scale of how penalties apply to city settlement, regardless of the number. In fact the penalties need to looked at, as you correctly showed most of us view them as speedbumps, not roadblocks.

So why is there a happiness penalty to the number of cities AND population.
One city with a population of 20 vs four cities of 5 each, which is better and why?

Until it is clearly defined why the number of cities, and/or the number of population is a factor in penalties, the question of what to do with it is going to a long unanswered one.
By 'Why', I don't mean the code used in the function, I mean the rationale imposed on the player by the function. Please don't post the function and say "here you go, that's why?"

Sent from my GT-I9305T using Tapatalk

 

[mystikx21]

Personal opinion: anything beyond 4-5 cities on a standard map I would consider Wide. Distance is not a factor to me in considering "wideness", it's the ICS aspect that matters here, not how far away you move. Civ4's structure of paying gold per city/population was more at odds with slowing expansion and more sensible than the happiness speed bump or the previous corruption structure.

Penalties of an arbitrary nature are not ideal. I don't want a nod to the corruption system. It was not a sensible or fun obstruction because the only way to overcome it was to change policies to a particular policy (meaning there was only one way to play) or to "unexpand".

Gold or happiness at least recognize the challenges of running a larger empire in a way that can be managed. Happiness was a little bit bigger of a speed bump in CEP (more per city), but this is only a slightly taller speed bump.

I would also add to this above list of possible changes: national wonders. If they are improved, reduced, or work in a unique way, they can change tall-wide balance as well.

 

[mystikx21]

One other thing to consider is that opinions differ on whether wide or tall is "stronger", many already play a 3-4 city setup, others are doing effectively ICS.

It may depend on the map and civ attributes already. It may not be necessary to do very much directly but to do things via policies, etc that even this out so the difference in opinion is not quite as stark.

 

[Wodhann]

Firstly, and this was raised in the last few postings, ANY discussion about balance should be based upon how the AI fairs, not how we as humans use these mechanics. Humans will always find ways around these systems and a seemingly balanced setup will eventually be exploited and appear unbalanced.

Couldn't disagree more. In fact to me this makes zero sense. Human play is the crux of playing any game. The AI is just what it is, a simulation, a way to play against someone when you have no one to play against. The AI must ideally strive to be like a human (even if it's impossible), not a different style of play. Which is why effort is being made to improve the AI. What's the point of balancing the game around AI? Every balance choice affects both types of players equally, and tweaks can be made in the AI to allow it to "understand" the changes better.

Secondly, and most importantly, just what constitutes a wide game or a tall game? Four cities? Six, twelve, thirty?

Depends on the map. Standard size, four or less constitutes tall. Five starts strolling into the "wide" side. Six or more is definately wide.

Likewise what is the determining factor for distance from the capital? Four tiles? Eight, etc.?

If we go with the "corruption" idea, then a number of tiles can be determined and playtested. Plus it can scale with the map. It's not like this is some huge nebulous area where we can't have definitive numbers - or percentages.

What happens if my capital is on an island and my only other city is on another landmass that is past this defined "too far" distance? Will I suffer a greater penalty than a player with a cluster of closeby cities? A situation that in any other game would be considered 'wide' and have the vanilla penalties applied?

I think you're focusing too much on that one idea I proposed. My thread wasn't based on the premise that that idea was to be the only solution, I proposed some loose ideas and put them out there in case anyone sees them worth of implementation, but it sounds like you're taking as if I based the whole premise around that.

What I'm trying to get across here is the difference between 'wide' & 'tall' is too fluid to be used as a determining factor. What I consider wide might be borderline tall for someone else.

Is it really that subjective? Will someone really consider seven cities to constitute a "small" empire? Again, you're creating this huge nebulous grey area where it doesn't exist.

The premise of the question should, IMO, be based on a scale of how penalties apply to city settlement, regardless of the number. In fact the penalties need to looked at, as you correctly showed most of us view them as speedbumps, not roadblocks.

Agree with scaling. Never said it should be a solid number, precisely because wide on a small map is small on a large map.

So why is there a happiness penalty to the number of cities AND population.
One city with a population of 20 vs four cities of 5 each, which is better and why?

About population, to me, it seems that sometimes civs with higher population but fewer cities are penalized more than wider empires, because of the whole luxury resource and happiness building system. As to which is better, you have to take into account a lot of factors, and that's what we need to do, start looking at the math and balance things out. None of them should be "better" by themselves; the particular choice based on the game you're playing should decide, not the inherent advantage of one or the other.

 

[ExpiredReign]

@mystikx21

Opening words "Personal opinion:"

As much as I like, and agree with most of, your ideas it still comes back to the fact that these are all subjective responses.

We need a sliding scale of some sort that applies to all map sizes and game levels.
That is, I fully understand, a very difficult thing to quantify.

The player should be able to see the consequences of his choice in play as he is playing.
One city/population gives me x benefits (yields etc.) and y problems (unhappiness or production penalties etc.).
Two cities/population gives me x +/- (e.g. more science and less food) and y +/- penalties (e.g. reduced production (why? I don't know, just by way of example) or greater unrest)

The +/- rate would be determined on whatever factors are considered of most importance to empire growth, city numbers, population, tiles worked, employed citizens or whatever. Actually using the unemployed citizens as a determining factor to empire happiness would be good, IMO as would using the tiles worked in each city as opposed to the population. That way the number of cities need not come into play just the actual population and how they are used.

Just a question about this setup as it stands in vanilla, does it really matter to a player if he has 1 or 41 happiness? I know the reverse is true, the more unhappy the empire is the greater the penalties but do we get bonuses if we are 'really happy'? I can't recall.

Anyway, back to the question, maybe we should find consensus on what are the determining factors to empire growth, regardless of size. Then we can see how to use those numbers to govern that mechanic.

Sent from my GT-I9305T using Tapatalk

 

[Wodhann]

One other thing to consider is that opinions differ on whether wide or tall is "stronger", many already play a 3-4 city setup

Four cities is what people normally strive for, regardless of how large they will be late game. My point is that at the point you stumble healthly into wide you've established securely into a position of power in the game whereas smaller empires will have less and less of a chance as the game goes onward.

 

[mystikx21]

Happiness significantly over 1 matters if golden ages are worthwhile. There are no bonuses beyond that for being "really happy", but if say the 20% to all yields effect comes into play, or you are playing as Persia, it can be quite useful to be "really happy" as you can keep popping golden ages from artists, wonders, policies, kills (brazil), on top of adding a few from happiness over the life of a game and those golden ages can give you quite a lot of value for being extra happy.

"Really happy" also is a buffer against cultural dominance from ideological differences. The penalties from that can be quite large for a wider empire and would be noticed playing taller as well.

 

[ExpiredReign]

@Wodhann

Looks like you 'ninja'd' a comment in while I was writing. Sneaky

No I wasn't using your proposals as the solution to debunk, just getting into the swing of the debate.

Just taking your comments you said it "depends on the map etc." and then later said I was making a "nebulous grey area". I would put it to you that those two things are the same. If you say it "depends" and I say it isn't "quantified" are we not saying the same thing?

Any changes to be made must be workable across all the options, whatever they may be.
Case in point, the Communitas Map is a really good script that helps the whole CEP package greatly, in fact it could be said too much. What about those players that like a different map script? They now don't get as much favour from CEP in some things. Why? because the map script is based on the assumption most players like a 'continents' style map, when that isn't an established fact.

So back to "tall vs wide". We can't make assumptions on what is or isn't tall or wide and make adjustments based on those assumptions, there needs to be a quantifiable definition that applies to all situations. Otherwise we are just 'shifting the chairs around to get the most sun', always moving, never established.

It looks like you and I are almost on the same page when you agree with the scale idea instead of the fixed value. This is, IMO, where the most good will be found. A scale that applies to any situation. I think the point mystikx21 made about wonders and their prereqs is along the same sort of discussion.

Sent from my GT-I9305T using Tapatalk

 

[ExpiredReign]

Ah yes, I forgot about the whole 'Golden Age' and secondary buffer aspect.
Good pick up.

Sent from my GT-I9305T using Tapatalk

 

[mystikx21]

Expired, at present, doesn't the happiness per city penalty scale for map size (I think the science penalty also does)? We can argue that it doesn't scale appropriately, but I believe it does change.

I think the corruption via distance/size option is undesirable for all kinds of reasons but one is that it introduces a new mechanic that must be scaled, and thereby balanced in that way (different kinds of maps, poor start locations for expansion, map size, etc).

 

[ExpiredReign]

Expired, at present, doesn't the happiness per city penalty scale for map size (I think the science penalty also does)? We can argue that it doesn't scale appropriately, but I believe it does change.

I think the corruption via distance/size option is undesirable for all kinds of reasons but one is that it introduces a new mechanic that must be scaled, and thereby balanced in that way (different kinds of maps, poor start locations for expansion, map size, etc).

I thought there were just a few values set up in the Defines table.

UNHAPPINESS_PER_CITY, UNHAPPINESS_PER_POPULATION, etc. or some such labels.

I'm not sure if they are multiplied by the other game options like speed, mapsize or level. I didn't think they were. I'm quite ready to be shown otherwise. They may make the balancing easier if there already are some variables to tweak.

Sent from my GT-I9305T using Tapatalk

 

[mystikx21]

Map scale, this is in the civworlds.xml file.

LARGE
Unhappiness city = 80%, Extra City Policy Penalty = 7.5% , Research costs go up 20%, but per city penalty reduced to 3.75%
HUGE
Unhappiness Per City = 60%, Extra City Policy Penalty = 5%, Research costs go up 30%, per city down to 2.5%

There's no scaling down for these on smaller map sizes. There could be, but there isn't.

There's also a variable of "target number of cities" which is set at 6 for huge maps, 5 for large and standard and 4 for anything below that.

 

[Gazebo]

I think Wide v. Tall does need to be addressed, and I see good points coming from all contributors.

I took the liberty of adding some variability to a version of the Community Patch I made last week. Essentially, I added the mechanic to make happiness (and unhappiness) affect a player's empire in more dynamic ways. In the base game, happiness is all about staying above 0; this is fine, but it does very little beyond granting golden age points. There's no innate, passive bonus for being happy, and the penalty for being 'unhappy' is very sudden and comes out of nowhere (and also makes zero sense).

So, my addition (an experiment, of course) was to make it so that amounts of happiness above or below certain thresholds grant % bonuses (or % penalties) to a civilization. So, for example, if a civ has more than 0 happiness, it receives +2% to all yields in all cities per point of happiness above 0. Inversely, it receives -2% to all yields for every point of happiness below 0. More stark penalties could emerge at -10 and -20, and perhaps additional perks at 10 and 20.

Secondly, I agree that happiness from luxuries should be changed – what if, instead of each owned luxury granting 4 happiness, you received 2 from resources imported, and 1 from resources already in your empire? This would encourage tighter empires, and would allow us to make policies and traits that raised these values (boosting, say the Commerce or Exploration branches). Furthermore, it would balance out the bonus of gaining the yields of owning a tile versus its raw happiness.

Thirdly, we could also increase the amount of unhappiness generated from cities at set intervals. Perhaps, taking a cue from Through the Ages, each era jump should make each city grant one additional unhappiness. We could also bring back war exhaustion (every x turns increases national unhappiness by 1), with policies or traits to extend the duration.

The advantage of working within the confines of the existing happiness system is that we are more familiar with it, and thus can more easily balance it. Furthermore, trying to create an additional system on top of that runs the risk of overcomplicating and or obsoleting the existing system.

G

 

[JFD]

Be careful with adding new concepts like War Weariness or Corruption. It would run the risk of greater incompatibility with larger mods, which I expect is undesirable.

If it's of any thought, in my Social Policy overhaul mod, unhappiness increases the cost of Social Policies instead of cities doing as much.

 

[Gazebo]

Be careful with adding new concepts like War Weariness or Corruption. It would run the risk of greater incompatibility with larger mods, which I expect is undesirable.

If it's of any thought, in my Social Policy overhaul mod, unhappiness increases the cost of Social Policies instead of cities doing as much.

Any such additions would be modular, and could be disabled for compatibility (that goes for all changes).
G

 

[JFD]

A philosophy that makes the pursuit of balance very tricky