1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Escalating Costs of Settlers

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by CaiusDrewart, Aug 4, 2016.

  1. Thormodr

    Thormodr Servant of Civ Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    4,886
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    As a generally peaceful builder, I am not thrilled about it.

    We'll see how it works out in practice.
     
  2. Amrunril

    Amrunril Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2015
    Messages:
    1,187
    I don't think this is the case at all. It will make your district, worker and settler costs higher, as a wide player, if and only if you already have more districts, improvements or cities than a tall player. It increases the trade offs of expansion, but it never puts you in a position where you're better off having fewer cities than more cities.
     
  3. Magil

    Magil Monarch

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,618
    Yeah, from the screenshot thread:

    Spoiler :
     
  4. KrikkitTwo

    KrikkitTwo Immortal

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    12,316
    That depends on if city centers count as districts that increase the cost of other districts.
     
  5. Knut_Are_M

    Knut_Are_M Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    323
    increaseing costs can make China starting near a single dessert tile really dangerous.
    5 charges compared to 3 charges will make China pop Heavy strategies really strong.

    It will also mean that you will ususually not settle bad spots, and only build Districts that you need.

    Also war will most likely be the way to win. and those city states will die faster then ever before.
    also i predict that the perma war With Aztec eagle Warriors and ranged units killing city state units will be a normal strategy.
     
  6. Mudrac

    Mudrac Orc Warchief

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2013
    Messages:
    322
    Location:
    Orgrimmar, Durotar, Kalimdor
    Well I generally tend to see Tall vs Wide from a simple perspective. When you build tall you will get much better cities. Building Wide, you will have a lot of poorly developed cities, and only 1-2 cities that are sort of your centres of power. Historically that is the case, big empires had this problem, a large chunk of their territory was poorly developed, with only a few well-developed regions. It only comes to question how are they going to limit aggressive expansion this time around, since global happiness has been removed?
     
  7. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,511
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    Based on the videos, I found early aggressive expansion to be quite limited by barbarians and huge output you could gain from precisely placed districts. It doesn't look like a solid mechanics but it may just work in reality.

    Speaking about restricting snowballing - I don't now. Increased cost of districts will probably make conquered cities incapable of producing anything useful, but they'll still have their basic output and luxuries are likely compensate whose you'll lose from trade due to warmonger penalties. It's totally possible there's no solid mechanics to limit snowballing too, but small things make it in reality not so valuable as it was in early civ games.
     
  8. spfun

    spfun King

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2010
    Messages:
    655
    There doesn't appear to be any advantage to building 3-4 tall cities like Civ5. Seems like its always beneficial to have more cities especially if you can get them via conquest.

    I'm pretty sure I'm not going to like that as much as after 6 or so cities I start to get bored. 1-4 was good for me in Civ5, still easy to win and puppets made it easier to control large empires which are gone in Civ6. Having 20+ cities in 6 will be a chore.
     
  9. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,511
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    Balancing Tall vs. Wide was quite bad design decision in Civ5. You were able to completely ignore expansion and conquest without any consequences. Of course it ended up with imbalance of Tall being just better than Wide.

    In Civ6 I expect cities to require less management, mostly due to Builders and their limited charges. This was the biggest part of the empire management.
     
  10. spfun

    spfun King

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2010
    Messages:
    655
    They've just swapped it around, still imbalanced but now tall players like myself have the pulled the short straw. Not exactly progress in my mind.
     
  11. Mudrac

    Mudrac Orc Warchief

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2013
    Messages:
    322
    Location:
    Orgrimmar, Durotar, Kalimdor
    Well limiting Aggressive Expansion was always a headache for most games, especially Civ ones. The problem is the military AI which cannot compete with the player who can have a much smaller army and still beat it, a thus get some valuable cities easily. Maybe it would be a good idea to introduce some sort of civil disobedience or something that means that conquered cities will only give you half of their resources (both yields as well strategic and luxuries).
     
  12. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,511
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    Tall shouldn't be as effective as wide as expansion and, especially, conquest requires a lot of efforts, which needs to be compensated. So, it's totally ok for tall to be more difficult.

    As a player who likes both peaceful and war civ games, I cheer this change
     
  13. stiiknafuulia

    stiiknafuulia King

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2016
    Messages:
    603
    I forgot that districts also have increasing costs... Another strike against wide empires (which should really be the only empires; how many 'empires' the size of Belgium do you know from real life?).

    Thing is, it's fun to snowball and (eventually) build/conquer dozens of cities. The job of the game developers should be to ensure that it's a bumpy enough ride to get to that point, and that an AI or two will replicate your efforts, thus still offering some good resistance in the end game. It should not be to artificially strangle wide empires with arbitrary penalties (the increasing Settler cost is ok-ish, as it can be circumvented by wars of expansion, but there's nothing you can do against the increasing cost of Builders and Districts (afaik)).
     
  14. Denkt

    Denkt Left permamently

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2012
    Messages:
    3,654
    You can still build districts but the penalty will slow your growth down and it probably make sense as well as pretty much every empire in history have had a small core which controlled a large area.

    Trade empires who became powerful mainly by controlling access to trade did not necessarily need to be that large. Venice, Dutch Republic and even UK could be said to have gained their power throught trade.

    Non of the empires have stood the test of time anyway so civilization favor large empires more then history does;)
     
  15. historix69

    historix69 Emperor

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,242
    is a BoardGame Mechanic ... it does not try to simulate real historic reasons for migration at all (like lack of food, work, goods or limited space to grow food, ...)

    Escalating costs (for everything) were used intensively in "Rise of Nations", a RTS Civilization Game by Brian Reynolds (Civ2, Col). RoN limited the number of cities to be self-founded which could be increased by technology to a certain limit. When number of cities exceeded the limit, new cities could no longer be founded but only gained by conquest. Territory alternatively could be gained by building fortresses at increasing costs. Since RoN also limited the overall yield per time for each resources, after the initial 3-5 cities more cities did not mean more yield, it only meant more territory and boni from special resources ...

    RoN is a very interesting, mathematically probably perfectly balanced RTS game (Board Game Style), but it is not a simulation of history. In the RoN-campaign the maps were small, duel size, and were designed for a short play of 15-60 min. The normal game against more opponents also was designed to be over in a few hours. You cannot compare RoN and Civ since Civ Games can be played on larger maps of almost arbitrary size and can take a much longer time to play (days or weeks).

    The difficulty with escalating costs in Civ Games is that the escalating must scale reasonable for the different map sizes to avoid games where large parts of the map cannot be settled due to unreasonable costs. This is probably no problem for duel to standard size maps, but if the scaling fails, escalating costs may become a massive penalty for players who like to play wide on huge/giant maps. So I think it would be best to vary the costs for settlers only in a certain range and limit the maximum costs.
    Code:
    Example :
    Settler #1 : 100 production
    Settler #2 : 200 production
    ...
    Settler #10 and following : 1.000 production
    
    Note : 
    This is an example, not a recommondation for the numbers used in the example.
    Civ6 probably aims for 6-10 cities per player (instead of 3-4 in Civ5), so freezing the costs for settlers with settler #10 would be a reasonable GamePlay mechanic.
     
  16. stiiknafuulia

    stiiknafuulia King

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2016
    Messages:
    603
    The British controlled vast territories, and the Dutch had Indonesia. I'll give you Venice, but even they had some overseas territories. For the record, I'm not against Tall nations being viable, but it should be harder to win with one than with a large empire. Trade and its control could be one tool to that end, along with shrewd diplomacy. With a bigger empire, otoh, you'd necessarily make a lot of enemies and thus the game would lean more to the military / production dominance side of things.

    It may make historical sense and be effective in curbing snowballing to increase the cost of Builders and Districts, but it feels unfun, and that is a tremendously more important consideration. At a minimum, they should give some way of mitigating these effects (like with warfare and the Settler cost increase), in order not to make the player feel powerless. So far we've seen nothing of the kind, but ofc this is an early(ish) build and we haven't seen everything.
     
  17. Denkt

    Denkt Left permamently

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2012
    Messages:
    3,654
    It is not unfun and there are ways to combat the increasing cost. The serfdom card will increase how many charges your builders have and there are cards that help you build settlers and districts.

    In civilization V they limited economy growth by making population growth a global resource as well as giving science and culture penalties per city.

    In civilization VI they limit economy growth by making it more and more expensive to expand your economy.
     
  18. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,511
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    Oh, another side of the opinions :lol:

    As long as adding more cities don't degrade your existing cities (which was the case in Civ5), punishing expansion is ok, as snowballing is pretty imbalanced thing.

    P.S. We saw complains from fans of both Tall and Wide empires, so it looks like the balance is close to be right :lol:
     
  19. Denkt

    Denkt Left permamently

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2012
    Messages:
    3,654
    Fouding a city in Civilization VI will always help your current economy but it will slow down your ability to expand your economy futher. But so will building districts and creating builders.

    In civilization V founding a city could actually hurt your economy.
     
  20. stiiknafuulia

    stiiknafuulia King

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2016
    Messages:
    603
    I suppose I'll have to actually play the game to see how this mechanic turns out. But on a scale of 1-10, my apprehension level about it is 9.5 atm.

    As for the increased Builder charges, faster Settler building policy, etc: fair enough. While those things don't directly deal with the increasing costs (i.e. there is no policy which says 'halves the escalation of Settler costs'), they amount to the same thing. Whether they'll be enough remains to be seen. And if they'll become no-brainer choices in every wide game, that's not ideal either.
     

Share This Page