C2C - Civics Discussion Thread

[Snofru1]

OK after going through a fair amount of starts, i believe the city limits need to be raised in each civic that has them by 1. What do you'll think??

I always play with city limits on but in my current game they are nearly non-functional. The reason: You get into financial trouble so quickly if you found new cities so that the happiness malus doesn´t really come into play. You are broke before you can become unhappy.

BTW: I am just before reaching Despotism, maybe things change after this.

 

[strategyonly]

I always play with city limits on but in my current game they are nearly non-functional. The reason: You get into financial trouble so quickly if you found new cities so that the happiness malus doesn´t really come into play. You are broke before you can become unhappy.

BTW: I am just before reaching Despotism, maybe things change after this.

Same here, i have NO money and i am in the Yellow nearly 3/4 of the time, , then you add in subdue animals you want to keep and POOF you are in the RED, this just does not SEEM right IMO. Thats why i though maybe 1 more city might work, but then it only adds to the problem of But at lest if we increase it by only 1 city it might help out if you dont keep any animals at all??

EDIT: Actually i just also noticed, if you want to be a Warmonger, there is NO WAY you can, you'd have to RAZE each and every city and be left with hardly nothing also??

(Attached) there is so many resources avail, i need that city, but CANT because it would put me in the RED for financial difficulty, now i dont know if it is strictly civics, i kind of doubt it, i am sure its a combination of LH Traits and Civics, but its just not very good gameplay when its like this Besides being bad for other gamers also

(sidenote) i do have alot of animals in a city, but it didnt matter in the PreH Era, i butchered all of them and was still in the Yellow.(pic 2)

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

I note that the pedia has a list of civics that have fixed borders. If we are not using that list then the pedia needs to be changed.

 

[philipschall]

I guess I'm one of the few who likes the maintenance costs high. It makes over-expansion a financial problem (as it should be) as opposed to a civil problem. In my current game, I can barely keep a large empire and large army in ancient without going into the red. Rapid overexpansion becomes a serious issue for both the player and the AI, the tech leaders become the small or medium sized civs as opposed to the giant empires. Rapid expansion is no longer the clear path to victory, but instead the clear path to stagnation and paralysis.

I really feel this is the right direction.

 

[strategyonly]

I guess I'm one of the few who likes the maintenance costs high. It makes over-expansion a financial problem (as it should be) as opposed to a civil problem. In my current game, I can barely keep a large empire and large army in ancient without going into the red. Rapid overexpansion becomes a serious issue for both the player and the AI, the tech leaders become the small or medium sized civs as opposed to the giant empires. Rapid expansion is no longer the clear path to victory, but instead the clear path to stagnation and paralysis.

I really feel this is the right direction.

You know what, that actually does sound right, maybe i need to take a different approach??

 

[Faustmouse]

I guess I'm one of the few who likes the maintenance costs high. It makes over-expansion a financial problem (as it should be) as opposed to a civil problem. In my current game, I can barely keep a large empire and large army in ancient without going into the red. Rapid overexpansion becomes a serious issue for both the player and the AI, the tech leaders become the small or medium sized civs as opposed to the giant empires. Rapid expansion is no longer the clear path to victory, but instead the clear path to stagnation and paralysis.

I really feel this is the right direction.

I am fully on your side! While I loved overexpanding, I love the high costs even more. Now you really have to plan ahead what city you need next and that's good for a more strategic game.

However, I think it should be balanced in a way, that you CAN have a world-wide empire in the later game with lots of cities with all +gold buildings. Even if you are just at +/- 0 Gold with 100% research (or even better) can only afford ~80% research.

 

[JosEPh_II]

I guess I'm one of the few who likes the maintenance costs high. It makes over-expansion a financial problem (as it should be) as opposed to a civil problem. In my current game, I can barely keep a large empire and large army in ancient without going into the red. Rapid overexpansion becomes a serious issue for both the player and the AI, the tech leaders become the small or medium sized civs as opposed to the giant empires. Rapid expansion is no longer the clear path to victory, but instead the clear path to stagnation and paralysis.

I really feel this is the right direction.

Are you killtech reincarnated, my arch nemesis? The same killtech that talked Afforess into doing just what you are? The same killtech that took the Fun out of AND and started it's near death spiral?

Just askin', cause your proposals and postings sound just like him.

Oh well, maybe if you get this to stick then "maybe" the coding for "City Limits by Civics" Can be stripped out of the code. It's really useless overkill with your set up. Then you can remove the Trait Expansionist from the Leader Traits will you're at it. Won't need that either. But One City Challenges Option will become usefull again.

And will the derogatory term "city spamming" be brought back too for ppl that play the expansionist way? Since we're back to killing it off again.

Oh H*** just do it anyway! We'll adjust!...... or just stop playing. There are always choices, or are there?

JosEPh

 

[Faustmouse]

The maintenance is no way "killing" the game. I haven't even researched Sed. Lifestyle and I have no trouble running 7 cities on deity. Science is at 50% but I have plenty of +gold buildings to build in my cities.

How difficult would it be to change city limits option from a the unhappy-system to a modifier for maintenance?

So you can have:

-city limits off: low maintenance (or none... ) so you can expand as much as you want.

-city limits on: high maintenance that limits cities by maintenance and not happyness.
You could add a new maintenance factor if this is possible:
Number of cities, distance to palace and ... uhm... curruption or something, that is only there if you checkt city limits.

 

[BlueGenie]

Currently Joseph is correct. The early high maintenance costs make it impossible to expand much. I'm also on Deity, Eternity game though, and with 8 Cities and 2 techs from Trade I have 167 in City Maintenance. A part of that are from buildings, granted, but it is still way too high.
Your game has not matured enough for the costs to start showing yet, once your cities start growing your maintenance costs will increase too. Had I only had pop 1-4 cities I would have had plenty of /turn to play around with.
The next highest expence is units with 42. I like to keep animals around, and I do have some still but am unable to keep as many as I would like. After that it drops to 10 for Civic Upkeep. Just to give some comparisons.
Also forget about warring, the unit cost for doing that would kill my economy completely, even if only defending.
65% science might not be too bad to be able to maintain, with a +1 per turn, but it is when I know that a few more cities growing in pop will reduce that further. I'll survive economically, as long as I don't get involved in a war or do not expand any more.

Oh, and 8 cities isn't much considering I'm playing on a Gigantic map. Later on I might be able to expand more, with the better Civics and better buildings, but the maintenance costs are stopping any kind of expansionist strategy currently. Have not tried with the Expansionist Trait though I doubt it makes all that difference.

Cheers

 

[rightfuture]

Are you killtech reincarnated, my arch nemesis? The same killtech that talked Afforess into doing just what you are? The same killtech that took the Fun out of AND and started it's near death spiral?

Just askin', cause your proposals and postings sound just like him.

Oh well, maybe if you get this to stick then "maybe" the coding for "City Limits by Civics" Can be stripped out of the code. It's really useless overkill with your set up. Then you can remove the Trait Expansionist from the Leader Traits will you're at it. Won't need that either. But One City Challenges Option will become usefull again.

And will the derogatory term "city spamming" be brought back too for ppl that play the expansionist way? Since we're back to killing it off again.

Oh H*** just do it anyway! We'll adjust!...... or just stop playing. There are always choices, or are there?

JosEPh

Another vote for expanding the expansionist mindset a little (after the start and through the classical era). If we do this just a bit we can keep it balanced and people happy.

I would also argue that expansion balance should be made an adjustable option, in game as well as at the beginning, so that people have more control over this and the issue settled. This might solve some disagreements.

We probably should identify all the major disagreements and arguements so that we can 'solve' them with the optional or adjustable option approach. Could settle these type conversations to a degree.

 

[Il Principe]

I also noticed the new gold problems in my latest game, Prince, eternity.
It makes capturing cities REAL hard, because the military needed to dosonearlybankrupts you and the nyou get it.. and having more taxpayers actually ruins you faster

Quite challenging To support my current war I am down to 35% research, and have no less then 4 of my 13 cities on building wealth,resulting in +6 gold per turn.

Should it be changed? Maybe a little, but not too much.

 

[ls612]

I also noticed the new gold problems in my latest game, Prince, eternity.
It makes capturing cities REAL hard, because the military needed to dosonearlybankrupts you and the nyou get it.. and having more taxpayers actually ruins you faster

Quite challenging To support my current war I am down to 35% research, and have no less then 4 of my 13 cities on building wealth,resulting in +6 gold per turn.

Should it be changed? Maybe a little, but not too much.

Which era are you in, and what is your start position and civics like? I've had no gold problems whatsoever in the Medieval Era, after having many of them in the Classical Era. I'm thinking of implementing the Tech Commerce Modifiers that I designed last cycle for the Medieval era.

 

[Nimek]

Monarchy should have city limit. Now is so so so simple to build and maintain huge empire under monarhy. I have 85 cities in 2000bc I conquer 1city every few turn and no revolutions problems because monarchy don't have any unhappy from overekspansion. In reality it should because despotism and republic has.

 

[Il Principe]

Which era are you in, and what is your start position and civics like? I've had no gold problems whatsoever in the Medieval Era, after having many of them in the Classical Era. I'm thinking of implementing the Tech Commerce Modifiers that I designed last cycle for the Medieval era.

Star was at a nice coast, with a desert in the back, I am in ancient, currently resarching glass blowing. Not sure about all my civics. I definetly run coinage, interpreters, open borders, strongarm( could run junta.. but i got enough instability as it is)

 

[Flinx]

I hate to quote myself but since i got no answer or an solution via SVn i just ask again:

What is the base for city limit scaling?

Reason for my question is the fact that i'm currently playing a giant map and checking the Civic info against the city limit numbers ingame always gives me the smaller number.

Anarchy in CivicInfo - 3 cities - ingame 2 cities
Chiefdom in CivicInfo - 7 cities - ingame 5 cities
Despotism in CivicInfo - 25 cities - ingame 21 cities
Republic in CivicInfo - 20 cities - ingame 17 cities

I have nothing against city limits and scaling them, but i think the base numbers in the civicInfo should be tied to normal map size. Playing bigger maps should give greater values, not a decrease.

Again i'd like to know: what world size is used as base for the city scaling?

I still play on a giant map and i cannot imagine that gigantic or any bigger world size should be the base for scaling.

I'd like to see the numbers of the city limit attached to world size normal and calculated by the ratio between the world sizes.

 

[ls612]

I hate to quote myself but since i got no answer or an solution via SVn i just ask again:


Again i'd like to know: what world size is used as base for the city scaling?

I still play on a giant map and i cannot imagine that gigantic or any bigger world size should be the base for scaling.

I'd like to see the numbers of the city limit attached to world size normal and calculated by the ratio between the world sizes.

I halved the numbers back in V28 development, so they should be now 1/2 of what the quoted numbers are.

 

[Flinx]

I know the numbers since i already had a look in the Civic file.

Your quick answer is appreciated but does not refer to my question: which is the base world size and how are the calculations done.

Perhaps you can point me where i can found the underlying math and change it to my liking and understanding, given it is not SDK work.

Thanks in advance.

 

[strategyonly]

@ CIVPlayer8

You still around??

 

[Hydromancerx]

@ CIVPlayer8

If you are around there are 2 hings that need to be looked at.

1. Adding the Meritocracy Civic.

2. Making Subsistence [Economy] more appealing. I am not sure why anyone would take it when they could take Barter or Slavery instead. They are just so much better than Subsistence.

 

[Il Principe]

About the gold thing: Resarching and then switching to Monarchy realy makes a big difference for the better.
After doing so I could reduce the nuber of Wealth producing cities to 2 out of 14, and get up to 60 % resarch