City Limitations via Civics

[ls612]

All this means is that there is another in the multiplicity of options for this. What is wrong with the way we have it currently? Making city limits hard will not fix any of the problems people are complaining about with a couple players taking control of the game. It only delays that outcome, as I explained earlier.

So I'd be against this at least until we've discussed the underlying problems more.

 

[Hydromancerx]

All this means is that there is another in the multiplicity of options for this. What is wrong with the way we have it currently? Making city limits hard will not fix any of the problems people are complaining about with a couple players taking control of the game. It only delays that outcome, as I explained earlier.

So I'd be against this at least until we've discussed the underlying problems more.

There are 2 things ...

1. There is not enough compared to how much you can get from the Soft Limit. So much so that its hard to ever reach the limit. Thus seeming like its not even there. However if this is a more relaxed setting then its just fine.

2. Regardless of what the default setting is, having a hard limit is what this setting is all about. No matter if its balanced or not. Its not made to replace the soft limit or no limit. Its made to be its own alternative to the others by having a strict rule of a fixed number of cities using civics.

I don't want to force players to play with the "hard limit", which is why I wanted it as an optional setting. Think of it more as a difficulty setting for those who want more of a challenge in their game.

 

[ls612]

There are 2 things ...

1. There is not enough compared to how much you can get from the Soft Limit. So much so that its hard to ever reach the limit. Thus seeming like its not even there. However if this is a more relaxed setting then its just fine.

2. Regardless of what the default setting is, having a hard limit is what this setting is all about. No matter if its balanced or not. Its not made to replace the soft limit or no limit. Its made to be its own alternative to the others by having a strict rule of a fixed number of cities using civics.

I don't want to force players to play with the "hard limit", which is why I wanted it as an optional setting. Think of it more as a difficulty setting for those who want more of a challenge in their game.

I'm not talking about it's current impact. The whole City Limits idea after the Prehistoric era is really just to slow the steamroll that comes later in the game. And it doesn't even really help that, it just delays the inevitable. So I'm just saying that instead of just going off and adding a new option we should first discuss and develop some concrete solutions for the underlying problem here and then see if this option is necessary.

 

[JosEPh_II]

ls612 just let it go. Let's let it play out.

JosEPh

 

[MaXimillionZero]

The unhappiness amounts were actually reasonable a couple of versions back (maybe 26 or 27), before they got nerfed to their current state.

Another possible early expansion limiter would be keeping tribe building disabled for X turns after a tribe has settled. Maybe apply it to settlers as well (and make them national units like tribes), but then you'd have to give them an upgrade before colonists.

 

[JosEPh_II]

The unhappiness amounts were actually reasonable a couple of versions back (maybe 26 or 27), before they got nerfed to their current state.

Another possible early expansion limiter would be keeping tribe building disabled for X turns after a tribe has settled. Maybe apply it to settlers as well (and make them national units like tribes), but then you'd have to give them an upgrade before colonists.

What Happiness nerfs? The only thing that changed since then is part of the Civics.

Disagree over the "early expansion limiter" unless you attach it/them to the "Hard" City Limits only.

JosEPh

 

[MaXimillionZero]

What Happiness nerfs? The only thing that changed since then is part of the Civics.

In v27, the penalties for the first three government civics were:
Anarchism - 4 for every city past first 2
Chiefdom - 3 for every city past first 3
Despotism - 2 for every city past first 10

Whereas now they are:
Anarchism - 2 for every city past first 3
Chiefdom - 1 for every city past first 7
Despotism - 1 for every city past first 25

Which means that where before you really couldn't go more than 1 or 2 cities past the limit on Anarchism and a few more on Chiefdom before running into severe problems, in the current system you can pretty much ignore the unhappiness penalties entirely.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Yes, if you are using City Limits Option On.

JosEPh

 

[Koshling]

Yes, if you are using City Limits Option On.

JosEPh

Right, that's exactly why it matters, since the constituency that wants city limits wants them as something that slows growth, so if it's been changed to have much less effect that's an issue, and probably why there is this renewed request for hard limits. Toning down the limits we had was probably not a good idea (not sure why it was done - perhaps an oversight in side-effects from general civic changes?)

 

[MagnusIlluminus]

Just to add to the confusion...

Well, why don't we just add a 4th option between Hard and Soft called Firm. This would be like Soft, but all of the penalties would be 4x to 5x larger.

On a more serious note: As to the multitude of options, would it be possible to have some of them in pull-down selection menus like the map options are? Especially for these ones that are mutually incompatible.

 

[Koshling]

Just to add to the confusion...

Well, why don't we just add a 4th option between Hard and Soft called Firm. This would be like Soft, but all of the penalties would be 4x to 5x larger.

On a more serious note: As to the multitude of options, would it be possible to have some of them in pull-down selection menus like the map options are? Especially for these ones that are mutually incompatible.

Personally, I'd just firm up the soft option again to be more as it was a version or two ago and call it done.

 

[CIVPlayer8]

Cities are a burden until they grow big enough, and until they are able to reliably train their own units, and construct their own buildings. Now I know many people think there is an excess amount of in this mod, and there might well be, and they like to use City Limits to counter that. That's fine. So if the only people who will select this option is those who want harder limits, I think we should give them what they want, and lower the civic limit. That way, they get more of what they want. ls612 said,

The whole City Limits idea after the Prehistoric era is really just to slow the steamroll that comes later in the game. And it doesn't even really help that, it just delays the inevitable.

And if this is the reason some people choose City Limits, that's fine also. But I think there might be another option they'd be a bigger fan of.
What if, in the Bug Menu, there was a slider which, when used, increased/decreased maintenance costs, and maybe even affect how much & you get from each population. This would make settling more cities feel more natural than the "Civic Limit" currently does. I wouldn't mind that option. I dunno, just brainstorming.

 

[Koshling]

Cities are a burden until they grow big enough, and until they are able to reliably train their own units, and construct their own buildings. Now I know many people think there is an excess amount of in this mod, and there might well be, and they like to use City Limits to counter that. That's fine. So if the only people who will select this option is those who want harder limits, I think we should give them what they want, and lower the civic limit. That way, they get more of what they want. ls612 said, And if this is the reason some people choose City Limits, that's fine also. But I think there might be another option they'd be a bigger fan of.
What if, in the Bug Menu, there was a slider which, when used, increased/decreased maintenance costs, and maybe even affect how much & you get from each population. This would make settling more cities feel more natural than the "Civic Limit" currently does. I wouldn't mind that option. I dunno, just brainstorming.

Harder for the AI, which assumes the static values from the XML. Of course, if the hypothetical slider fed into the system by modifying the values returned by the undos that would be fine, BUT the values cannot be changed once the game is started or else the AI will not cope. Values that cannot change once the game starts don't seem a natural fit for BUG settings to me however.

 

[Thunderbrd]

On a more serious note: As to the multitude of options, would it be possible to have some of them in pull-down selection menus like the map options are? Especially for these ones that are mutually incompatible.

It'd have to be an extraordinarily complex and imaginative solution to be able to do this. I've considered this would be optimal, yes, but the relation between option setting and core dll is pretty strong and it would have to be some kinda tricksy solution to get around the limitations that presents.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Right, that's exactly why it matters, since the constituency that wants city limits wants them as something that slows growth, so if it's been changed to have much less effect that's an issue, and probably why there is this renewed request for hard limits. Toning down the limits we had was probably not a good idea (not sure why it was done - perhaps an oversight in side-effects from general civic changes?)

And that was part of my point too. We had it so use it. Another level may not be required or optimal. Unless you really want a impose the soft limits on everyone (which is not what I would care for or want)

JosEPh

 

[MagnusIlluminus]

It'd have to be an extraordinarily complex and imaginative solution to be able to do this. I've considered this would be optimal, yes, but the relation between option setting and core dll is pretty strong and it would have to be some kinda tricksy solution to get around the limitations that presents.

So it's not feasible? That's a pity.

Hmm, so the city limits are used to slow growth. Well, to think 'outside the box' for a moment, here's a couple of thoughts.

Someone earlier mentioned that there could be an X turn wait after building a Tribe/Settler/Colonist/etc before it would be available to be built/added to the queue. This delay could perhaps also apply to the time immediately after that specific city is founded. This would prevent the "found city, immediately build Settler" problem some are seeing. The length of the delay could vary by what civic you have on in much the same way that the city limits do. Whether this supplements or replaces such limits should be discussed.

Another way to slow it down would be to increase the base cost of such units. If they take longer to produce, the AI might make them less often. Perhaps the amount of the increase could be tied to civics to again represent what many are using the city limits for.

If how quickly the actual cities grow affects the issue, then perhaps many of the food producing buildings could be nerfed so that they either produce OR eliminate waste(? not sure what it's really called: the symbol that looks like food but with a bite out of it). Yes, I know that some already do just one, but many of them do both.

Another way to (less directly) affect rate of spread would be to reduce the movement speed of Tribe/Settler/etc. Thousands of people hauling all of their stuff and all the stuff needed to build a settlement should move rather slowly after all.

 

[MaXimillionZero]

Someone earlier mentioned that there could be an X turn wait after building a Tribe/Settler/Colonist/etc before it would be available to be built/added to the queue. This delay could perhaps also apply to the time immediately after that specific city is founded. This would prevent the "found city, immediately build Settler" problem some are seeing. The length of the delay could vary by what civic you have on in much the same way that the city limits do. Whether this supplements or replaces such limits should be discussed.

Building settlers in new size 1 cities when you have older cities with more population and a bunch of +1/ buildings is so suboptimal that limiting it is hardly necessary. Although if the AI is doing it it should definitely be discouraged from doing so.

If how quickly the actual cities grow affects the issue, then perhaps many of the food producing buildings could be nerfed so that they either produce OR eliminate waste(? not sure what it's really called: the symbol that looks like food but with a bite out of it). Yes, I know that some already do just one, but many of them do both.

No building eliminates or in any way modifies wasted food AFAIK. The symbol you occasionally see listed in actual effects is the elimination of food loss due to unhealthiness, not due to waste.

Another way to (less directly) affect rate of spread would be to reduce the movement speed of Tribe/Settler/etc. Thousands of people hauling all of their stuff and all the stuff needed to build a settlement should move rather slowly after all.

Tribes already have a movement speed of 1, so this would hardly be effective.

 

[MagnusIlluminus]

I didn't say they were great ideas. Just that they were ideas.

I was going to post:
I'm fairly certain that I've seen buildings that reduce waste without affecting Healthiness in any way. I could be wrong, but I think that I have.
Then I decided to look into it (Sevopedia) instead of assuming. I was wrong. As you said, there are no buildings that directly affect waste. Well, scratch that idea then.

Then Tribes are fine, but Settler and Colonist each have Speed of 2. By the time a Player or AI gets either of those, their Road tech should be sufficient to get them around without them inherently being faster. Just a thought.

 

[ls612]

And that was part of my point too. We had it so use it. Another level may not be required or optimal. Unless you really want a impose the soft limits on everyone (which is not what I would care for or want)

JosEPh

I agree. More levels will only add to the City Limits confusion. I personally prefer soft limits to hard ones, but I do not see the need to have both.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

There is always the mod that limits how far you can move from your borders. It might reduce the number of times the AI seems to build its second city as far as possible from its first.