Easy Way to Encourage "Tall"

[Kaan Boztepe]

In Civ 6 , a city will not grow quicker if you have fewer other cities, nor will it grow slower if you have more other cities. That is to say, "tall" and "wide" are not contradict to each other.

thank you for ending this discussion.

 

[Ezerin]

I shall point out sth.

In Civ 6 , a city will not grow quicker if you have fewer other cities, nor will it grow slower if you have more other cities. That is to say, "tall" and "wide" are not contradict to each other.

thank you for ending this discussion.

It is very simplified look at subject. If you take a deeper look, you'll see that if you have more cities you slow down grow in some of other cities in various ways. Yes you can play wide, have many cities and grow each of them to a big (at least relatively) city, but there is still difference between tall and wide playstyles, it's just not so obvious like it was in previous iterations of civ series. Tall vs wide is no longer about small empires with big cities vs big empires with small cities.

 

[Scaramanga]

I shall point out sth.

In Civ 6 , a city will not grow quicker if you have fewer other cities, nor will it grow slower if you have more other cities. That is to say, "tall" and "wide" are not contradict to each other.

I could be guessing but there may be amenity constraints with more cities that could impact happiness and growth.

 

[UWHabs]

Adjacency is the only part of district system that, in my opinion, works correctly.
Adjacency incentivizes players to build districts in good locations. This is exactly what you are supposed to do!
The issue, of course, is that adjacency is a minor facet of the “problem” districts- campus, theater, arguably CH- where it’s almost irrelevant compared to the overwhelming power of the buildings. (IZ & Harbor are much more tied to adj in their overall output.)
The universal flat yield of buildings means that a scheme like the one OP lays out is irrelevant. No one builds a tundra outpost for the campus itself, they build it for the library+uni+lab.

If you do not shift the raw output of these buildings away from flat values towards something else (many have suggested the civ5 model of increasing science/culture per pop instead of flat numbers) the incentive to ICS will never go away.

Also, the fact that cards like Rationalism exist is an affront to balance because it directly exacerbates the issue. If it were up to me, those +% building yield cards would become +yield from specialists of that type. Probably +2 or +100% or something like that.

I think the changes to rationalism to encourage size 10 or +3 is the start of a good change, but it doesn't go far enough. As you say, it's still way too beneficial to throw a little tundra campus city, so something to better balance that out would help.

 

[steveg700]

Yeah, as I said, I suspect it is not a popular idea. I don't agree it is any more artificial than other concepts in the game, though, such as for example tile yields, amenity counts, research costs...these are all numbers intended to represent some concept from reality in a game with clearly defined rules. The administrative cap would represent the challenge of holding a widespread empire together dependent on a number of factors, such as how advanced your means of communication and government is, and the strength of your cultural identity. Boiling it down to numbers is artificial, but it's how things are modeled in the game.

I also don't think that this has to dictate any given playstyle, or that it is inflexible. There would be ways to focus more on expansion, or to focus more on internal development. Going over the cap in the games I mentioned is very much a possibility, so if your priority is to secure good nearby lands, there would be no reason you couldn't do that. In Fallen Enchantress, for example, I almost never say no to a good city spot, but overextending will sometimes present me with some challenges in the short term.

Well, calling it a cap evokes unwarranted resistance. This implies a hard limit that cannot be passed until the cap is raised. That's the part that people feel is too artificial. You suggested you should be able to exceed it at cost, making it less of a cap and more of a threshold that can be exceeded. The player just has to accept diminishing returns for overclocking. That's much more thematic of imperial expansion than just hitting a ceiling and not being able to found a colony until the ceiling rises.

I proposed such a system back on the first page. One key element is that players not just be punished for exceeding the threshold. They should actually receive some incentives for staying under it. That provides a compelling balancing act for players.

 

[steveg700]

I think the changes to rationalism to encourage size 10 or +3 is the start of a good change, but it doesn't go far enough. As you say, it's still way too beneficial to throw a little tundra campus city, so something to better balance that out would help.

The net effect of rationalism is that players just became concerned about getting their cities to 10 pop, It's not as if a settler-spamming wide player can't hit that benchmark in his older cities. The current design encourages this, with things like Magnus sparing a city from giving up pop for a settler, and ancestral hall making settlers cheap to product and providing that free builder. FXS is clearly not concerned with encouraging quality cities. Meanwhile, the audience chamber, intended to encourage quality-over-quantity, actually imposes a penalty in exchange for a bit of housing and amenities.

Now, I think the whole discussion becomes a bit of a canard when "tall" just means having cities with high populations. What it should mean is that players should have the option to expend resources to improve the cities they have rather than look to found another city. Population should be a regulating factor, not the end goal. Civ VI doesn't encourage developing quality cities, because growing a city only allows for more districts to be dropped, and in a game of "Multiple Paths to Victory" I don't really need to drop many districts to win my science victory so much as I need to keep dropping campuses. Set up a city or two to provide industrial base for spaceports, make sure there's some wealth generation, maybe some theater squares to get civics faster, but I can get enough of those going while spamming settlers.

Cities need more things they can build, and those things should be dependent on quality elements, pop being one but also the presence of resources and other map elements. Remember in Civ V we had buildings like forges, monasteries, and mints that could only be built if your city had the requisite resource? The water mill is the only remaining trace of that in VI. This is another clue that FXS is disregarding quality. This thread is about fighting against the current.

LIke I said back on the first page, let cities build things that turn them into capitals for finance and manufacturing, meccas for religion and tourism. Then you have your true megacities.

Or, instead of all that, players need to be provided with a victory condition that actually rewards excelling in diverse areas, not hyperspecialization. If I had to choose between the two approaches, that would in fact be my preference.

 

[KayAU]

Well, calling it a cap evokes unwarranted resistance. This implies a hard limit that cannot be passed until the cap is raised. That's the part that people feel is too artificial. You suggested you should be able to exceed it at cost, making it less of a cap and more of a threshold that can be exceeded. The player just has to accept diminishing returns for overclocking. That's much more thematic of imperial expansion than just hitting a ceiling and not being able to found a colony until the ceiling.

I proposed such a system back on the first page. One key element is that players not just be punished for exceeding the threshold. They should actually receive some incentives for staying under it. That provides a compelling balancing act for players.

You are right, I should have choosen a different term. In Stellaris it is called "Administrative Capacity", and it is very much a soft limit. You can easily go to several times the limit, and still do well. I wouldn't want a hard limit, and agree it would be artificial and nonsensical. But I would absolutely love to have some form of the concept of administrative capacity ("authority" is also a good name) in the game, as I believe it is worthy of being modeled, and can provide great benefits to gameplay, as well as a good mechanism for pacing and balance.

 

[steveg700]

You are right, I should have choosen a different term. In Stellaris it is called "Administrative Capacity", and it is very much a soft limit. You can easily go to several times the limit, and still do well. I wouldn't want a hard limit, and agree it would be artificial and nonsensical. But I would absolutely love to have some form of the concept of administrative capacity ("authority" is also a good name) in the game, as I believe it is worthy of being modeled, and can provide great benefits to gameplay, as well as a good mechanism for pacing and balance.

Indeed. It is a bit disappointing such a method isn't more widely used to throttle game elements.

For instance, in games where stacks-of-doom are still a thing, some designs try to impose hard caps, like GalCiv's "logistics" that stops fleets from having more than X ships. A much cooler approach would go something like:

For each +/-50%, stack's visibility to other civ's sensory range increases/decreases by 1 tile
For each +/-100%, stack's speed decreases/increases
For each +/-200% -- Fleet starts to get some combat penalties, generally resulting in more/less damage taken in a round of combat, or potential for losing/gaining actions.

Something like that, where you not only are turning giant stacks into plodding behemoths, but small, efficient stacks can comprise stealthy and nimble raids or sorties. Do similarly for cities. letting a smaller empire generate robust metropolises than sprawling, decadent empires.

 

[hr_oskar]

What's realistic and historical is both "tall" and "wide" together: a tall core (think imperial capitals like Rome, London, Vienna, etc) supported by a "wide" periphery of less developed territories.

Real historical (and current) empires have worked by concentrating wealth from the periphery to the capital and heartland. Think of it as a pyramid shaped empire, as opposed to the flat-topped trapezoid of most Civ games (Civ 6 included) where nearly every city is on equal terms and able to become almost as highly developed as the capital. Or the silly "tower" shape of the Civ5 four city tradition game. The capital is the tall top of the pyramid, while the wide base represents colonies bringing in luxuries, breadbasket regions bringing in food, military outposts, etc etc. Smaller, more specialized cities and regions.

Realism aside, does it matter for gameplay? It's subjective, but to me it does. I find the empire of almost identical and equal cities (late game) to be quite boring. The players asking for more tall play are yearning for some system that awards them for building a super capital.

For this kind of "pyramid" gameplay to work, the game needs the following features that Civ 6 currently doesn't really have:

1. A major reward for building up a core of one or more big cities (better science, culture, production, whatever).
2. The way to build up a core requires resources (food, luxuries, etc) to be transferred from other cities, limiting their development.
3. The main benefit of territorial expansion would be in securing resources to grow the core.
4. Note that the pyramid can still have a middle, meaning that large empires might have still some regional power centers separate from the imperial core (e.g. conquered capitals).

We can still enjoy Civ just fine as it is (and always has been) but I'd love for the game to move more in the direction of this more realistic "tall and wide" model in the future.

 

[Patine]

Indeed. It is a bit disappointing such a method isn't more widely used to throttle game elements.

For instance, in games where stacks-of-doom are still a thing, some designs try to impose hard caps, like GalCiv's "logistics" that stops fleets from having more than X ships. A much cooler approach would go something like:

For each +/-50%, stack's visibility to other civ's sensory range increases/decreases by 1 tile
For each +/-100%, stack's speed decreases/increases
For each +/-200% -- Fleet starts to get some combat penalties, generally resulting in more/less damage taken in a round of combat, or potential for losing/gaining actions.

Something like that, where you not only are turning giant stacks into plodding behemoths, but small, efficient stacks can comprise stealthy and nimble raids or sorties. Do similarly for cities. letting a smaller empire generate robust metropolises than sprawling, decadent empires.

So, basically saying World Wars military build-ups are not feasible, and saying that that particular element of history is effectively off the board?

 

[steveg700]

So, basically saying World Wars military build-ups are not feasible, and saying that that particular element of history is effectively off the board?

Sorry, no comprende.

Nothing suggested that military build-ups would be prohibited. You just either have to scale to your current capacity, or seek to boost your capacity.

 

[acluewithout]

You are right, I should have choosen a different term. In Stellaris it is called "Administrative Capacity", and it is very much a soft limit. You can easily go to several times the limit, and still do well. I wouldn't want a hard limit, and agree it would be artificial and nonsensical. But I would absolutely love to have some form of the concept of administrative capacity ("authority" is also a good name) in the game, as I believe it is worthy of being modeled, and can provide great benefits to gameplay, as well as a good mechanism for pacing and balance.

Civ already provides a soft unit cap along these lines via resources - eg, lack Coal or Oil and unit can’t heal and have a negative combat bonus, and lack of iron or horses means units can’t heal, although it also provides a hard cap in some situations in that you can’t build units beyond your resources.

I quite like the resource system and would really really like a force Limit type mechanic, but having a combat penalty to exceeding these caps is wrong headed.

Part of the logic for having a soft cap is not just to limit units, but also so players can sometimes push the envelope and exceed the cap, with certain risks and rewards for doing that. If you make the penalty for exceeding you combat unit cap reduced combat unit effectiveness then there’s really no point exceeding the cap anyway.

The better approach is for exceeding your Force Limit etc. to negatively impact your economy, so now you have a real trade-off. Yes, you can have endless waves of tanks and guns, but now your gold maintenance costs are tripled or cities grow at -50% etc etc etc.[0]

Something that impacts your economy might also need to be tied to a mechanic that lets you go into negative gold (ie basically lets you borrow money), although I could see that getting tricky to design.

[0] To be clear, the resource system does have an element of a wider impact on your economy, by requiring you to buy resources from other players and or impacting power generation.

Indeed. It is a bit disappointing such a method isn't more widely used to throttle game elements.

For instance, in games where stacks-of-doom are still a thing, some designs try to impose hard caps, like GalCiv's "logistics" that stops fleets from having more than X ships. A much cooler approach would go something like:

For each +/-50%, stack's visibility to other civ's sensory range increases/decreases by 1 tile
For each +/-100%, stack's speed decreases/increases
For each +/-200% -- Fleet starts to get some combat penalties, generally resulting in more/less damage taken in a round of combat, or potential for losing/gaining actions.

Something like that, where you not only are turning giant stacks into plodding behemoths, but small, efficient stacks can comprise stealthy and nimble raids or sorties. Do similarly for cities. letting a smaller empire generate robust metropolises than sprawling, decadent empires.

What's realistic and historical is both "tall" and "wide" together: a tall core (think imperial capitals like Rome, London, Vienna, etc) supported by a "wide" periphery of less developed territories.

Real historical (and current) empires have worked by concentrating wealth from the periphery to the capital and heartland. Think of it as a pyramid shaped empire, as opposed to the flat-topped trapezoid of most Civ games (Civ 6 included) where nearly every city is on equal terms and able to become almost as highly developed as the capital. Or the silly "tower" shape of the Civ5 four city tradition game. The capital is the tall top of the pyramid, while the wide base represents colonies bringing in luxuries, breadbasket regions bringing in food, military outposts, etc etc. Smaller, more specialized cities and regions.

Realism aside, does it matter for gameplay? It's subjective, but to me it does. I find the empire of almost identical and equal cities (late game) to be quite boring. The players asking for more tall play are yearning for some system that awards them for building a super capital.

For this kind of "pyramid" gameplay to work, the game needs the following features that Civ 6 currently doesn't really have:

1. A major reward for building up a core of one or more big cities (better science, culture, production, whatever).
2. The way to build up a core requires resources (food, luxuries, etc) to be transferred from other cities, limiting their development.
3. The main benefit of territorial expansion would be in securing resources to grow the core.
4. Note that the pyramid can still have a middle, meaning that large empires might have still some regional power centers separate from the imperial core (e.g. conquered capitals).

We can still enjoy Civ just fine as it is (and always has been) but I'd love for the game to move more in the direction of this more realistic "tall and wide" model in the future.

I mean, I basically agree with this. The game should be designed to encourage you to have a mixture of Cities, some high pop, some Low pop, some focused on hammers, some focused on faith etc.

One of my big gripes with the current game is that Rationalism and various other things just push you to have multiple 10 Pop Cities each with a Campus and Holy Site (or whatever). It’s Super boring.

 

[cvb]

The better approach is for exceeding your Force Limit etc. to negatively impact your economy, so now you have a real trade-off. Yes, you can have endless waves of tanks and guns, but now your gold maintenance costs are tripled or cities grow at -50% etc [...] Something that impacts your economy might also need to be tied to a mechanic that lets you go into negative gold (ie basically lets you borrow money), although I could see that getting tricky to design.

I'd implement the complete extra human player bookkeeping accounting in Lua (ie. without SQL modifiers) and simply adjust the gold amount every turn - Players:GetTreasury:ChangeGoldBalance(iAmount).

Also you can have (invisible to the game) large credits from Mr. Fugger, but you surely agree that it is only fair to pay appropriate interest rates due to increasing risk in rising credits & compound interest.
Of course a victory condition can only be met with this special credits paid back.



EDIT: Günter Ogger: Kauf dir einen Kaiser - Die Geschichte der Fugger, Verlag: Knaur TB --- (Buy yourself an emperor)

EDIT2:
The outsider candidate in the Imperial election of 1519, which was meant to choose a Holy Roman Emperor, was Henry VIII of England. He had no particular dynastic claim to the title, and, though he had one of his representatives spread the word that he had some command of the “German tongue,” he did not have much of a connection to the people he would rule. He mostly got in the race because, then as now, both of the main candidates, despite their inherited positions and elaborate claims, seemed vulnerable, if not implausible. And people, including the Pope—this was when Henry was young, before the divorces and beheadings—kept telling him that what the field needed was an energetic, competent monarch like him. Who could resist?

This was, needless to say, not a particularly democratic election. The Emperor would be chosen by seven electors—various lesser rulers of Mitteleuropa, men like King Louis of Bohemia, Joachim of Brandenburg, and Saxony’s Frederick the Wise, who, two years later, would be hiding Martin Luther in a castle, under the pseudonym Junker Jörg. The two candidates were Charles, who was the Habsburg grandson of the recently deceased Emperor Maximilian but was an inexperienced teenager, and, awkwardly for the Germans, the King of Spain and the Netherlands; and Francis I of France, who had a strong interest in building an empire—and also another advantage. As Greg Steinmetz writes in his new book, “The Richest Man Who Ever Lived: The Life and Times of Jacob Fugger,” “the race would be an auction.” The electors were not all that interested in delving into the characters of the candidates. They were there to collect bribes in return for their votes. Have two wealthy contenders increased the pool of money on the table. With Henry factored in, 1519 became one of the few Imperial elections that was contested—it was not, as the saying goes, simply a coronation, though it ended in one. It also was a stark and depressing example of the importance of the campaign-finance process—not just the raw amount of money but the mechanism.

By the time Henry appeared, a problem had emerged for Charles and Francis. The amount they were willing to commit in bribes went far beyond the hard cash that they had in hand. The Empire would be worth it, but the problem for the bribees was that it can be very hard to get an emperor to give you the money he owes; they wanted to be paid in advance. So whoever wanted to win would have to arrange the financing. This is where Jacob Fugger, Steinmetz’s subject, comes in. He was Europe’s leading moneyman—an innovator in double-entry accounting and rapid multi-city money transfers—and had funded many of Maximilian’s campaigns, in return for the output of the Habsburgs’ Tyrolean silver mines. He could front the money ...

How to Finance an Emperor’s Election

.