Civ 7 reduces micromanagement, but stronger—and uncapped—penalties for exceeding the settlement limit are needed to keep it that way

[stealth_nsk]

More options in peace deals would feel good. There are as people have said a lot of situations where the optimal peace deal is not to take anything. Lump sums of Money or Influence? Getting a % of their gold or influence per turn could be an option maybe? Maybe even % of science or culture?

I'd kind of like the settlement limit to be lower TBH. By modern the micromanagement needed is higher than I'd ideally like...

I think gaining influence from a peace deal fits the current system very well. No need to overcomplicate trade, just add influence to the cities.

 

[Porry]

For me, however, the settlement limit should have a greater effect, but the underlying mechanics should be changed. I would give cities more weight. For example, I would make towns 1 and cities 2 count towards the settlement limit.

 

[UWHabs]

For me, however, the settlement limit should have a greater effect, but the underlying mechanics should be changed. I would give cities more weight. For example, I would make towns 1 and cities 2 count towards the settlement limit.

Yeah, IMO that would be a more fun balance. Raise the settlement limit by like 25% from where it is now, but have cities cost 2 and towns 1. At least them you get a little more of the "tall vs wide" debate that people love to have on here.

I think also the penalty for being over the settlement limit needs a piece that happens outside of the happiness penalties. Especially with some civs, or when you can chain happiness bonuses, if you can survive the -35 happiness penalty, it doesn't matter if you're 7 over the limit or 27 over the limit. One or both of the following:
-Settlements that are unhappy for a length of time should go into unrest. If a city is running -20 happiness, it should basically constantly be in unrest. In extreme cases they should flip independent or to another civ, but even just them being in constant unrest is enough.
-Cities should have a direct penalty to their yields for being over the settlement limit. It doesn't have to be huge, maybe -2% to all yields for each settlement over the limit. So if you're at 13/8, then your cities get a 10% penalty to their yields

The penalty to influence for each captured settlement is something - I definitely see my influence drop a lot as you get towards the end of an age that I'm on a conquering spree for. But it's at most a minor inconvenience, same with the happiness penalty, honestly at some level I just kind of ignore it.

 

[Djospe]

As an experiment, I played a game with Charlemagne and reckless disregard for the settlement limit. I ended up with 57 out of 20 settlements. The end result was fairly powerful (but not overly so), but it took quite some time to get there. The happiness issues in the cities can be solved (but it takes some time), but it is much more tricky in towns (in which you don't want to invest too much anyway). So you end up with quite a few unhappy towns, which don't contribute that much. Of course, you have many towns and then it evens out somewhat. It works as a playstyle, but I don't think it is optimal and does not need to be nerfed.

I feel like I could have optimized more: hug the settlement limit for longer until more of the empire has been developed and you can go over the settlement limit without impacting your growth curve that much, but then I would have had less time to conquer as many settlements.

I'm just finishing the Exploration age (Deity, default settings), and I got to the attached yield numbers after conquering 6 settlements. 10 turns earlier, when I was within the settlement limit, I had drastically lower science and culture. Thus, I still think the optimal way to play is to start going over the limit in late Exploration because the punishment for going over the limit is too low. Happy to be proven otherwise. : )