Escalating Costs of Settlers

[Brutus2]

I'm ok with the settler increase but I think the builder cost should only increase based on the number that have been built in that city. So a newly founded city can produce a builder for itself as if it's the first one even if my capital has already built several but the cost to produce one in the capital would be increased because it has already built some.

I think that would still be pretty balanced because even if the total cost is lower for the new city, their production would be low as well making the time to build roughly equal in any city while not making it difficult for a new city to get up and running on it's own.

 

[Ryika]

I highly doubt it would ever pay out to build a worker in a fresh city, even if it's cheaper.

And I think it would go against part of the goal as well, because it seems to be deliberately designed in a way to slow down the efficiency-creep of wide empires.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

Wait, so Builder cost is increased with each new Builder as well? Has this been confirmed? Imo, even if the increase is very modest, it could lead to some weird and awkward situations... Eventually, adding new cities would become pointless as the cost of improving them would become too prohibitive, especially given the fact that the value of each new city and improvement is already naturally decreased towards the game's end. I wonder what their rationale for such a mechanic is... I can understand the escalating Settler cost, as it makes you think of your expansions and makes warring a necessary part of growing a large empire. But with Builders I can't see any additional benefits to increasing their costs over time. ... Unless the idea is to make even warring 'obsolete' (other than scorched earth tactics) after a certain point in time / size. This to me sounds unfun and, frankly, terrible, so I really hope it isn't the case.

 

[m15a]

Can you explain why increased costs of builders would make warring obsolete? It seems like war would be even more beneficial since you could steal builders and get improved cities for "free", too.

As for the cost of builders making settling not worth it, I can see how that would happen eventually, but that theoretical eventual time might be irrelevant in actual gameplay. So that's why the rate of the cost escalation matters.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

Can you explain why increased costs of builders would make warring obsolete? It seems like war would be even more beneficial since you could steal builders and get improved cities for "free", too.

Wow. I guess I really am tired and distraught by rl issues atm... I actually managed to disregard the fact that enemy cities will be already improved when you conquer them! Still, though -- the AI is usually notoriously bad in building terrain improvements, so more often than not you will want to alter the cities that you conquer in this regard.

I agree that the rate matters, and it might be fine in the grand scheme of things. But different game speeds and map sizes, and their combinations have me worried. Even if the numbers are altered for each specific case, there's bound to be outliers where the cost increases either too fast or too slowly. I guess that's what patches and mods are for... I just don't see the need to apply this mechanic to Builders in the first place. Expansion can already be curbed by increasing the cost of Settlers alone, and then you'd only have one number to update, making it that much easier to maintain a balance in all circumstances. I can only see one reason to increase the cost of Builders: to deliberately punish players for building a large empire. Sound familiar?

 

[Sherlock]

I'm concerned this is a bit of a slap in the face to peaceful wide builder players (again)

Word.

 

[ProMeTheus112]

For the builder cost increase, I think I remember reading that the cost increase is much smaller, like 3P per builder or smtg (didn't check).

 

[Socrates99]

it also somewhat lends to anti-ICS"ish". If settlers slowly get more costly, then those new cities won't be able to hammer out new settlers after just being founded. Over the course of the game, you'd need ever increasing production to be able to keep the settler build times small.

Which means going taller in cities.

This is exactly what I like about the idea. It will throttle expansion but won't kill it completely.

 

[m15a]

I can only see one reason to increase the cost of Builders: to deliberately punish players for building a large empire. Sound familiar?

Oh yeah. It sounds like something they had in this strategy video game that came out ~25 years ago. But really it does seem much less severe and frustrating than corruption. I think builders having rising costs is just part of the overall system of having rising costs, which discourages build a bunch of cities that neglect production and gold, i.e., spamming science or culture districts or just ICSing cities for the monument culture and science from population.

 

[Haggbart]

Instead of this elaborate system with pricing settlers, builders, districts and whatnot higher, why not just bring back city maintenance? So much easier and more elegant system, also it makes more sense that you must develop your cities to support more cities.

 

[Magil]

Instead of this elaborate system with pricing settlers, builders, districts and whatnot higher, why not just bring back city maintenance? So much easier and more elegant system, also it makes more sense that you must develop your cities to support more cities.

It conflicts with building/district maintenance, which they seem married to the idea of. Don't really know why, I mostly agree.

Still, I'm willing to give this system a chance. I want to see it in play before deciding anything for certain one way or the other. I vastly prefer this to science/culture penalties for each new city.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

It conflicts with building/district maintenance, which they seem married to the idea of. Don't really know why, I mostly agree.

Still, I'm willing to give this system a chance. I want to see it in play before deciding anything for certain one way or the other. I vastly prefer this to science/culture penalties for each new city.

Has it been confirmed that there is no science (or culture) penalty for new cities? I can live with escalating Builder costs, but cutting into science for expanding is a deal-breaker for me (although in practice I'd just mod it out rather than refuse to buy the game).

 

[Magil]

Has it been confirmed that there is no science (or culture) penalty for new cities? I can live with escalating Builder costs, but cutting into science for expanding is a deal-breaker for me (although in practice I'd just mod it out rather than refuse to buy the game).

It hasn't been confirmed, but from watching the videos I have not noticed any penalties. I never saw either beaker output go down nor tech costs increase. Admittedly, with the way the videos are formatted, that is hard, but I whenever I saw a city get founded the tech progress didn't seem to go down (which implies the cost did not increase).

I could have missed it. But it doesn't seem to be present, based on my casual observation. I really wish one of the players had actually directly addressed the issue (if I had been playing, it would have been one of the very first things I checked--it's a very big deal for me too).

 

[uppi]

Eventually, adding new cities would become pointless as the cost of improving them would become too prohibitive, especially given the fact that the value of each new city and improvement is already naturally decreased towards the game's end.

That would be the point: You cannot spam the map with as many cities and improvements as you can fit, because the return of investment declines. That means that you have to make your builds count and put them in the very best spot where you maximize your returns. Sounds like an idea that could work.

I do fear, though, that this does not include anything to stop warmonger snowballing. If conquering cities comes with no real penalties, you will get stronger with every city you conquer, which in turn enables you to conquer even more cities, which increases your strength even more.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

That would be the point: You cannot spam the map with as many cities and improvements as you can fit, because the return of investment declines. That means that you have to make your builds count and put them in the very best spot where you maximize your returns. Sounds like an idea that could work.

I do fear, though, that this does not include anything to stop warmonger snowballing. If conquering cities comes with no real penalties, you will get stronger with every city you conquer, which in turn enables you to conquer even more cities, which increases your strength even more.

Well if district cost is based on number of districts you Have rather than number you have built....then warmongering is only advantaged in the end game (when you aren't building any districts but neighborhoods)...an early conquest will increase district cost as much as if you peacefully got those cities

 

[AdamF]

It hasn't been confirmed, but from watching the videos I have not noticed any penalties. I never saw either beaker output go down nor tech costs increase. Admittedly, with the way the videos are formatted, that is hard, but I whenever I saw a city get founded the tech progress didn't seem to go down (which implies the cost did not increase).

I could have missed it. But it doesn't seem to be present, based on my casual observation. I really wish one of the players had actually directly addressed the issue (if I had been playing, it would have been one of the very first things I checked--it's a very big deal for me too).

I can at least directly confirm that the tech cost did not increase after I founded more cities. I know for a fact Mass Production for example costed 390 science on turn 1 (I was checking out the tech tree when I started the game - it's not included in my first video, but I still have the footage for my own use), and then it still costed 390 science when I started researching it on turn 90, with 4 cities.

 

[Magil]

I can at least directly confirm that the tech cost did not increase after I founded more cities. I know for a fact Mass Production for example costed 390 science on turn 1 (I was checking out the tech tree when I started the game - it's not included in my first video, but I still have the footage for my own use), and then it still costed 390 science when I started researching it on turn 90, with 4 cities.

That's good to know. I had assumed the "increasing cost of districts/settlers/builders" was replacing the science/culture penalty, as those seemed too harsh to layer on top of one another. Thank you for the confirmation.

 

[Buccaneer]

I'm concerned this is a bit of a slap in the face to peaceful wide builder players (again)

Good, anything to discourage turning Civ into Sid Meier's SimCiv.

 

[Haggbart]

It conflicts with building/district maintenance, which they seem married to the idea of. Don't really know why, I mostly agree.

Still, I'm willing to give this system a chance. I want to see it in play before deciding anything for certain one way or the other. I vastly prefer this to science/culture penalties for each new city.

Hmm, was building/district maintenance in now? Can't remember to see it in any of the videos. But I remember people having a LOT of gold, so it might be back in before release anyway. I guess it's okay as long as it's not going to be vanilla CiV on release, where virtually NO buildings were worth building.

Yeah sure, I'll keep an open mind to any new system. However I can't help but thinking it's an overcomplicated system when there is a much simpler solution.

 

[Relinou]

im fine with it as long as it means that there will be more cities on average than civ 5. or at least, you're able to choose if you want to be tall, or wide, and have different advantages and disadvantages.