Came back after a few months, district cost formula still kills the game

[nzcamel]

And that's where it gets even more obscure to me. Beat ? at what ? In real life they are no simple metrics, care to explain how you evaluate 'to beat ' ?

If they go head to head, in any form of domination. Like the win conditions in Civ
Sure - bigger countries don't always beat smaller ones...but when that happens you find out that everything else wasn't equal.

 

[Victoria]

I certainly believe huger empires with more cities have more "corruption and waste" in real life.

I feel there is a requirement for something to stop just steamrollering city after city and playing a more astute domination game or it will just be a game for brutes.

 

[nzcamel]

I certainly believe huger empires with more cities have more "corruption and waste" in real life.

I feel there is a requirement for something to stop just steamrollering city after city and playing a more astute domination game or it will just be a game for brutes.

To a degree...but it depends on how the country is structured. Federations likely fare better than genuine empires, as giving more power to local bodies tends to achieve better buy in; at a cost of less direct control.

Regardless, it is a game. So I don't mind some tinkering at the edges. I just prefer that it is grounded in plausibility rather than nonsense like global happiness. Corruption could return, as long as it isn't as hard out as it was in Civ III. That was no fun at all. So far I think that Beach & co are wise to the need to make mechanics immersive; like in the difference between amenities and global happiness - they achieve similar ends; but one is way more intuitive than the other (along with being not as strong) and doesn't make progress feel so self defeating.

 

[Leyrann]

And that's where it gets even more obscure to me. Beat ? at what ? In real life they are no simple metrics, care to explain how you evaluate 'to beat ' ?

Beat at building spaceships, raising great writers, artists and musicians, raising influential religious speakers, building armies, developing their land. All the five victory conditions in the game, all things that a wide+tall empire would be better at than a tall empire in real life.

Is increasing district cost that different than good old corruption and waste? Early in the game this isn't much of an issue and making it a matter of progress actually helps spreading around. Later expansions need either to be close enough to the center to benefit from AOE or get support in the form of trade-routes (both are better than having to buy a courthouse to make it possible to produce anything in your new oversees colony). I also think it can be justified in that building a modern district requires more work than a primitive one.
Also, it sometimes helps. Perhaps I just planted a city to get access to a resource. I don't care about managing it's production so I just let it build an harbor or a builder or something.

If you are talking about current cities and the AoE not covering distant cities, it's not that much work to get a new Industrial Zone plus buildings up and running if you send a few traders that way, so it's actually not all that harmful if you want to expand later in the game.

I certainly believe huger empires with more cities have more "corruption and waste" in real life.

I feel there is a requirement for something to stop just steamrollering city after city and playing a more astute domination game or it will just be a game for brutes.

I agree with you that the larger an empire grows, and then mainly in area, the more corruption and waste it will have. I'm very cautious in mentioning that, however, as the stories about Civ III (which I never played myself) imply that it wasn't fun to play with. I did play II, and I can't really remember anything but it just "being there" and costing me trade and shields. Back then I don't think I had an idea of how it really harmed my empire though, I think. I do remember that my brother told me to always go for democracy (one of the perks: no corruption LOL) because it was so good. Most of what I did back then was because my brother told me that was the right way to play.

 

[Victoria]

I loved civ III and the corruption, it was just another mechanic, just like V's happiness was never a real concern

District formulas are the same and they do work as long as you do not want to own everyone in 2 hours

 

[Felis Renidens]

If you are talking about current cities and the AoE not covering distant cities, it's not that much work to get a new Industrial Zone plus buildings up and running if you send a few traders that way, so it's actually not all that harmful if you want to expand later in the game.

Yeah, if you want to develop the city you can. Easier if within AOE, doable without. So it's better than corruption\waste in this regard. Sometimes, though, you just plant a city to get access to a resource and don't mind it spending 100 turns building an harbor. Anyway my point was comparing the rising cost to the old system of corruption and waste, and say that it's better IMO (ignoring the Civ4 system which was different). I didn't say so but it's also better than new cities slowing down research.

I agree with you that the larger an empire grows, and then mainly in area, the more corruption and waste it will have. I'm very cautious in mentioning that, however, as the stories about Civ III (which I never played myself) imply that it wasn't fun to play with. I did play II, and I can't really remember anything but it just "being there" and costing me trade and shields. Back then I don't think I had an idea of how it really harmed my empire though, I think. I do remember that my brother told me to always go for democracy (one of the perks: no corruption LOL) because it was so good. Most of what I did back then was because my brother told me that was the right way to play.

I played all civs (though not most expansions - except the civ5 ones), in 1 and 2 democracy would have no corruption and communism had "communal" corruption (meaning it spread evenly through all cities). In 3 even that would not help. Being far from the palace (or forbidden palace) would reduce production to 1 shield and trade to very low. With a courthouse and harbor you might get some production but it was harsh. I still could at least fill my continent with palace and forbidden palace. As I said I think increasing district cost over time gets the same effect in a better way. A distant late-game colony is not very productive unless you invest in making it productive. Early expansions and new cities that are close to center require you to invest less to make them production.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

That you can still get districts up is irrelevant. Nobody should be reasonably disputing that you can just bang out some late game lumber mills + trade routes + industrial zone bonuses and output production in short order from a new city, aided by 5 or more builder charges.

The inane thing is that it's scaling off tech and not something sensible that you have to plan against. It's not like you're going to avoid teching for long periods just to get districts down. The present scaling mechanic doesn't require much thought as it should, is not scaled on something intuitive, and creates odd incentives. It's a reach to say it's killing the game, there are probably a dozen+ bigger issues with the game, but it's still a bizarre design choice.

 

[Felis Renidens]

I don't see why the scaling mechanic should require any thought. The more advanced you are the more production you need to build districts. Fairly simple. The compensation for it is that the more advanced you are the more production you can get in your cites. It's comparable to corruption and waste which also did not need too much planning (perhaps where to plant your palace and forbidden palace and what government to choose). This is a mechanic to flow with, not plan against. It's there to make new settlements less productive the more you advance, when advancement is measured by progress through the tech and civic trees, which is really logical. At some point you either stop expending, only plant small mining colonies or invest in expansions either by placing them in the radius of a factory or by buying builders and trade routes - or just conquer stuff if that's your style.

 

[MyOtherName]

I don't see why the scaling mechanic should require any thought.

Because that's how strategy games work: you learn the mechanics, and plan how to use them to get the best results.

Practically the very first thing any strategy gamer should be thinking about as soon as they learn about a penalty is how to minimize, mitigate, work around, or even take advantage of the penalty.

 

[Felis Renidens]

Because that's how strategy games work: you learn the mechanics, and plan how to use them to get the best results.

Practically the very first thing any strategy gamer should be thinking about as soon as they learn about a penalty is how to minimize, mitigate, work around, or even take advantage of the penalty.

In this case it's something to work around (which you can easily do) and not something to minimize. And just how in the case of corruption you bought a courthouse here you buy a trader (or send one as soon as you can) and buy a worker.

Also I find the game to be more fun when I'm just flowing with it and not thinking too much, but that's probably just me.

 

[MyOtherName]

In this case it's something to work around (which you can easily do) and not something to minimize.

Minimization can be done: for example

• Beelines deep into the tech tree give less penalty than breadth of research
• Developing whichever of science and culture is lagging behind doesn't cause any penalty at all
• A development plan that places districts first then segues into rapid research causes less penalty than a balanced approach

 

[Tomice]

Sure, the way you are writing implies you play civ V, have a frame of reference is good.

Thank you. I'm an immortal-level civ4 and civ5 player, though I played Civ5 with total conversions like Vox Populi half of the time.

Because that's how strategy games work: you learn the mechanics, and plan how to use them to get the best results.
Practically the very first thing any strategy gamer should be thinking about as soon as they learn about a penalty is how to minimize, mitigate, work around, or even take advantage of the penalty.

Right. It's not so much the balance, it's the psychological aspect that makes the mechanic bad IMHO.
Once I know how district costs are calculated, I can't help but realize that half the techs/civics I research just hurt me at the moment I unlock them (because they don't offer anything I need right then).
I can force my subconsciousness to ignore obvious and only occasionally appearing exploits. But this issue pops up every few turns and interferes too much with intended gameplay to be easily ignored (I consider delaying techs to wait for their Eureka to hit an intended feature).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Strategy games should require thinking. That's what the genre outright implies.

Mechanics devoid of thought that don't serve much overarching purpose otherwise are junk mechanics. If you're just "going with the flow" (IE playing sub-optimally and not caring about it) then a sensible scaling mechanic should not be off-putting, since at that point the player can go right on not-thinking about a mechanic in a strategy game just as before.

For those of us who like to actually use strategy in strategy titles having some strategy there would be nice.

 

[Felis Renidens]

Still I don't see why scaling according to tech is not sensible and what would you consider a sensible scaling. It can be worked around and if you want to put some planning you can minimize it. I don't care how it's called as long as I enjoy playing it on a weekend. But anyway until I understand what is considered "sensible" and what is "insensible" about scaling by techs those words have no meaning.

 

[rschissler]

Remove all scaling and we're back to ICS.

I don't think removing all scaling is the answer, just maybe reducing it by 30%-50%.

The way to prevent ICS would be for the AI to have some formula that says if they don't have enough amenities to support a new city, they don't build more settlers. That shouldn't be that hard to program. And if AI cities have negative amenities, they build Entertainment districts. And since the scaling would be reduced, the AI should build more districts, since that is what we are after anyway.

In many mid to late-cycle games, I see vast expanses that have never been developed. I'm not going to bother, since the settler and district costs are too much, and obviously, the AI feels the same way.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Still I don't see why scaling according to tech is not sensible and what would you consider a sensible scaling. It can be worked around and if you want to put some planning you can minimize it. I don't care how it's called as long as I enjoy playing it on a weekend. But anyway until I understand what is considered "sensible" and what is "insensible" about scaling by techs those words have no meaning.

What is "sensible" is a matter of opinion...usually anyway.

That said, scaling on tech creates strange incentives, including non-intuitive stuff like switching off techs before completing them even after Eureka bonus or intentionally delaying Eureka bonus. It also over-penalizes later era starts and serves a double-counting push for rapid expansion on conquest strategies. Just as importantly, if someone falls behind on districts due to hammer weak start (already a disadvantage) or offensive pressure they're scaled into getting an even larger hole needlessly. As such, the present scaling is something of an unstable equilibrium mechanic.

A better model has already been suggested in this thread; scaling build cost based on what you have already in terms of districts. I would take it one step further and make district costs scale up on how many you have outright (rather than forcing everyone to build different districts because more of any 1 costs more), which would also serve to temper the advantage of runaway civs in this game and keep the outcome in doubt a little longer.

 

[pietro1990]

my experience is that its prety useless to settle a city in the renaissance era..It cost you lots hammers to get it up and running wich is more spend on units or buildings on other cities .

 

[UWHabs]

From what i experiences is that its prety useless to settle a city in the renaissance era..It cost you lots hammers to get it up and running wich is more spend on units or buildings on other cities .

Wasn't it in civ 2 or 3 where the mid-game settler built a city that started at size 2? Or in 5 I think there was the civic that I never used that had new cities start at size 3? It would be really nice if they could find a way to do that reliably late game. Even if it was something as simple as fixing the trade route mechanic, where instead of manually assigning routes, every city simply started with a default trade route that would always supply it. So early game, that just gives you 1 food and 1 cog, for example, but if you build a city late-game, you start with a much larger base of food and production to get the city up to speed. In my current game, just built some new cities in the late industrial, and even building my special district was supposed to be 50+ turns. Trade route cuts it down by half, but it shouldn't take that long to get a city up and running, even building it that late.

 

[pietro1990]

Yes

Wasn't it in civ 2 or 3 where the mid-game settler built a city that started at size 2? Or in 5 I think there was the civic that I never used that had new cities start at size 3? It would be really nice if they could find a way to do that reliably late game. Even if it was something as simple as fixing the trade route mechanic, where instead of manually assigning routes, every city simply started with a default trade route that would always supply it. So early game, that just gives you 1 food and 1 cog, for example, but if you build a city late-game, you start with a much larger base of food and production to get the city up to speed. In my current game, just built some new cities in the late industrial, and even building my special district was supposed to be 50+ turns. Trade route cuts it down by half, but it shouldn't take that long to get a city up and running, even building it that late.

Yes when you settle a city on the later era's you should automatically get certain buildings like grannary momuments for free but increase settler cost dramaticlly a little bit like Empires of the Smoky Skies in civ 5 you could built settlers but it was a big investments but cities started with lots of buildings and population

 

[MyOtherName]

Trade routes build a thing equally well no matter where it is, and you don't get increased yields by building in established cities.

Except for the possibility of bonuses for adjacent districts or losses to warfare, there isn't really any advantage to building new districts in established cities.

(unless, I suppose, you have some pressing need to concentrate your trade routes elsewhere and need to limp by on a cities natural output)