Border expansion should be manual

[Nebular]

I wouldn't mind the automatic expansion at all if it would stop doing stupid things like expanding into the featureless desert tile (0 production, gold, or food - it's just plain, uselss sand) that is outside of the 3-tile city radius instead of expanding to the any of workable, still-open tiles that are within the 3-tile city radius. Its priority should be tiles within the 3-tile radius and only start selecting things outside of that radius once those all under a city's influence.

 

[bcaiko]

Good news! You CAN manually control it! Just click that little "buy tile" button and you're good to go!

You, sir, deserve a cookie.

 

[dexters]

The 'natural' automatic border expansion is not meant to get the best tiles, instead it follows the path of least resistance and gets the tiles that are the easiest to claim. That is, it will claim flat tiles first and stop expansion at rivers. On top of this it has some bias to tiles with a higher yield.

(In other words, the border expansion is not controlled by the AI (in the sense the it would be based on a simulated rational decision). Instead it is a game mechanic that tries to simulate a natural process of cultural expansion.)

This.

Also, there's the buy tile option.

 

[Smokeybear]

This.

Also, there's the buy tile option.

All other opinions duly noted. I've got much better things to do with the always-limited supply of gold, than waste it on tiles that simply should have been logically getting picked more regularly by the acquisition mechanic. If there were a mod that enabled intelligent tile selection, I would certainly be all over it. Being forced to waste gold on tiles in this fashion smacks of nonsense gaminess to me. And that's my opinion, and I'm stickin' to it.

 

[ohioastronomy]

You get to control everything else about your civ; the idea that you have to fight the AI to get, say, hills, is a complete departure from the spirit of the game. You get to decide where the city is; what tiles get worked; and what the city builds. But you have to fight the AI to decide which tiles get unlocked for usage, regardless of whatever else is planned for the city?

Why is this a good idea? Leave the autopilot on if people want it and let them channel what the city does if they don't.

 

[Ellye]

There's exactly the reason why there's a Purchase a Tile feature...

 

[Peng Qi]

You get to control everything else about your civ; the idea that you have to fight the AI to get, say, hills, is a complete departure from the spirit of the game. You get to decide where the city is; what tiles get worked; and what the city builds. But you have to fight the AI to decide which tiles get unlocked for usage, regardless of whatever else is planned for the city?

Why is this a good idea? Leave the autopilot on if people want it and let them channel what the city does if they don't.

Yeah! And why can't I control what the AI players do? It's a complete departure from the spirit of the game, wherein I get to control everything ever!

 

[dexters]

All other opinions duly noted. I've got much better things to do with the always-limited supply of gold, than waste it on tiles that simply should have been logically getting picked more regularly by the acquisition mechanic. If there were a mod that enabled intelligent tile selection, I would certainly be all over it. Being forced to waste gold on tiles in this fashion smacks of nonsense gaminess to me. And that's my opinion, and I'm stickin' to it.

That's where the American UA comes in.

I don';t buy tiles either but I do on occasion to steal natural wonders and this can REALLY tick off the AI.

It's amazing, like in real life. Imagine if Canada annexed all of Niagara falls.

 

[Becomedeath]

All other opinions duly noted. I've got much better things to do with the always-limited supply of gold, than waste it on tiles that simply should have been logically getting picked more regularly by the acquisition mechanic. If there were a mod that enabled intelligent tile selection, I would certainly be all over it. Being forced to waste gold on tiles in this fashion smacks of nonsense gaminess to me. And that's my opinion, and I'm stickin' to it.

If you consider it a waste, then you clearly didn't want the tile enough in the first place. You don't waste money on investments, if you don't consider it an investment then don't spend the gold. Simple as.

 

[Trias]

I wouldn't mind the automatic expansion at all if it would stop doing stupid things like expanding into the featureless desert tile (0 production, gold, or food - it's just plain, uselss sand) that is outside of the 3-tile city radius instead of expanding to the any of workable, still-open tiles that are within the 3-tile city radius. Its priority should be tiles within the 3-tile radius and only start selecting things outside of that radius once those all under a city's influence.

Your basically arguing that it is stupid of water to run to the see, if it can be used to irrigate a desert. The water couldn't care less. Usefulness does not enter into the equation for cultural expansion (or only as a small bias), the culture simply goes where it is easiest to go, like water.

All other opinions duly noted. I've got much better things to do with the always-limited supply of gold, than waste it on tiles that simply should have been logically getting picked more regularly by the acquisition mechanic. If there were a mod that enabled intelligent tile selection, I would certainly be all over it. Being forced to waste gold on tiles in this fashion smacks of nonsense gaminess to me. And that's my opinion, and I'm stickin' to it.

Why should the the tile acquisition care at all what is logical from your gameplay perspective?

 

[ohioastronomy]

Yeah! And why can't I control what the AI players do? It's a complete departure from the spirit of the game, wherein I get to control everything ever!

Good Lord. These are incredibly weak intellectual arguments.

Controlling *your own cities* is the center of the game. Making an analogy to controlling what the AI does is...

I won't use the words it deserves.

And the "buy" option is not a replacement, at all, and the easiest reason is to look at everything else you do in a city.

The game could automate workers and force you to pay cash to change what they do. Good idea?

The game could automate production and force you to pay cash to change what they do. Good idea?

The concept that you need to pay to overcome poor AI decisions is simply bizarre.

You've never had a mechanic like the border expansion in prior Civ games, and there is a good reason for that: it takes away player choice.

The people who like the "natural" border expansion can just keep it - the people who don't can have the option to manually expand. Providing others this option doesn't hurt people who like the status quo at all.

 

[CoolLizy]

The concept that you need to pay to overcome poor AI decisions is simply bizarre.

Except that it's not an AI issue. There is no AI involved in picking tiles. When you get enough culture, you get the cheapest tile in your city radius. If there's more than one tile for the same price, the next one you get is random. The computer is not making decisions for you, it's rolling a die.

This is akin to complaining that your archer didn't do enough damage to that enemy spearman just now and the player should have more control over how much damage a unit does.

The game could automate production and force you to pay cash to change what they do. Good idea?

Well, this is basically the idea behind puppet state cities, is it not? D:

The people who like the "natural" border expansion can just keep it - the people who don't can have the option to manually expand. Providing others this option doesn't hurt people who like the status quo at all.

You do have the option to manually expand. You can spend a little gold to buy the tiles you want, or you can mod the game.

 

[learner gamer]

If you consider it a waste, then you clearly didn't want the tile enough in the first place. You don't waste money on investments, if you don't consider it an investment then don't spend the gold. Simple as.

Wrong. How did you say, “simple as.”

That @Smokeybear didn’t want the tile enough (in absolute terms) isn’t the issue. The issue is that @Smokeybear wanted something else (relatively) more. And therein is the point that you and others who persist in this futile defence of Civ 5’s borked border pop logic completely miss – perhaps deliberately so to preserve the status quo: the key issue with having to use gold to buy tiles which aren’t popped by the existing border pop logic (and I use that word very loosely) is “opportunity cost.” For all you know, @Smokeybear may be playing on levels when gold is needed for other things far more than it is needed for a border pop – such as units to ward off incoming barbs.

If anyone wants to see how contemptable the current border pop logic is BTW, feel free to take a look at a thread in which I participated here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422776

which sheds some light on the issue.


As for why this matters @Trias, border pop logic matters IMHO because it has far reaching implications for gameplay. For one thing, the current logic punishes players for settling cities with resources in the third ring – and instead incentivises gamers to settle cities with resources in the first two rings, so that they’ll be accessed by the border pop logic ASAP. In other words, it’s another way in which Civ 5 so obviously favours going wide over tall, which has huge gameplay implications. Now, this may not matter at all to you and those who defend the current border pop logic – but it matters to me, the OP, @Smokeybear and others who want Civ to be a balanced game. And given your point here:

Why should the the tile acquisition care at all what is logical from your gameplay perspective?

you would do well to bear in mind that (i) our views are just as important to us as yours are to you and (ii) this question could just as easily be asked of you. After all, why should border pop logic, or any aspect of game design for that matter, give a damn about your perspective? Who crowned you the logical authority on matters related to Civ 5?


To the OP: I agree that the current border pop logic is fundamentally flawed and that giving the gamer the choice of tile accessed presents a workaround. Another option may be to tweak the existing code, so that it accesses resources within a city’s BFH more readily. Of course, there are also other options too. It’ll be interesting to see what the modding community comes up with once they get access to the relevant code, assuming Firaxis preserves the current logic. Like you @Smokeybear, I’ll be all over that mod when it comes!

 

[eris]

You've never had a mechanic like the border expansion in prior Civ games, and there is a good reason for that: it takes away player choice.

Just so I understand your reference to previous games, in what version of Civ did I previously have player choice on my expanding boundaries? That choice level seems to have been taken away so thoroughly that I don't remember its loss. Silly me, I thought I was given more choice and control with the buy tile option than I had before.

 

[CoolLizy]

For one thing, the current logic punishes players for settling cities with resources in the third ring – and instead incentivises gamers to settle cities with resources in the first two rings, so that they’ll be accessed by the border pop logic ASAP.

It forces the player to make a judgment call. "Should I settle here with a better spread of resources, or here where I'll get this one resource I want sooner?" The player has to decide whether the short term benefits outweighs the long term ones. If the long term benefits always outweigh the short term ones because you can just expand your borders for free all willy-nilly to wherever your heart desires, it's not much of a decision, now is it?

Now, this may not matter at all to you and those who defend the current border pop logic – but it matters to me, the OP, @Smokeybear and others who want Civ to be a balanced game.

It does matter to us; we just think you're wrong and that the system in place is more balanced than the suggested alternative.

 

[Ellye]

You've never had a mechanic like the border expansion in prior Civ games, and there is a good reason for that: it takes away player choice.

Uh, what?
Isn't it exactly the opposite?
The current system gives you a choice.
If it always picked the best tile (or if it expanded in a ring), than there would be no choice.
If you could pick the tile manually, you would always pick the best tile and that would be it. This isn't really a choice as far as game design goes.

But how it works currently, you have an actual choice, a decision to make: Let it expand normally and just that, or use a bit of gold to both expand it quickly and select where to.

It's good game design for strategy games to let the player makes decisions, and this is what the current system is all about. Expand slowly and suboptimal, but for free, or use gold to expand quickly and optimally.

 

[learner gamer]

It forces the player to make a judgment call. "Should I settle here with a better spread of resources, or here where I'll get this one resource I want sooner?" The player has to decide whether the short term benefits outweighs the long term ones. If the long term benefits always outweigh the short term ones because you can just expand your borders for free all willy-nilly to wherever your heart desires, it's not much of a decision, now is it?

Yes, it’s a judgement call, but we come back to the same point: where’s the balance in the choice? As it stands, the real issue (as I mentioned in my earlier post) is that the current border pop logic means that the decision to go wide instead of tall is the one that’s "not much of a decision".

It does matter to us; we just think you're wrong and that the system in place is more balanced than the suggested alternative.

I’m sure it matters to you and have no problem with your view. We’ll just have to agree to disagree...and hopefully a mod or patch that keeps everyone happy will be released before too long.

 

[danieldaniel]

I don't like the way border expansion works. It's way too slow and too random for my taste. Even in the modern era there's usually to much no one's land in my games. Like those isolated forest hill tiles in the middle of my empire that I never get. Also too many unclaimed tiles between players. It makes the map look ugly.

 

[Trias]

you would do well to bear in mind that (i) our views are just as important to us as yours are to you and (ii) this question could just as easily be asked of you. After all, why should border pop logic, or any aspect of game design for that matter, give a damn about your perspective? Who crowned you the logical authority on matters related to Civ 5?

Way to go reading comprehension fail.

My point was the mechanics of border expansion don't give a damn what you (the player) find useful. They simply follow the path of least resistance.

 

[learner gamer]

Way to go reading comprehension fail.

My point was the mechanics of border expansion don't give a damn what you (the player) find useful. They simply follow the path of least resistance.

Ahh....I see your point. I genuinely thought you were implying something about your views. Please accept my sincere apologies @Trias . In future, I’ll stick to my first language – maths, which continues to tell me that Civ 5’s border pop logic is fundamentally flawed.