Expansion Anger? Really?

[JosEPh_II]

What gamespeed? All this varies by gamespeed. You can not easily build 10 cities in the Ancient Era on Normal. It takes real concentrated effort. But if I play Snail or slower then it's not a problem.

I'm confused over this post as I thought you like the ability of eXpansion vs City Limits by Civics.

All this is to be a Modmod?

JosEPh

 

[primem0ver]

What gamespeed? All this varies by gamespeed. You can not easily build 10 cities in the Ancient Era on Normal. It takes real concentrated effort. But if I play Snail or slower then it's not a problem.

Game speed is normal. I was able to expand to 10 cities fairly quickly. As soon as I got two or three civics that reduced the cost of city upkeep I was able to expand very easily by concentrating on buildings that provided money. After a while though, I noticed that my cities started getting REALLY angry so I checked out the city screen to discover why... that is when I learned about the subject of this post.

I'm confused over this post as I thought you like the ability of eXpansion vs City Limits by Civics.

All this is to be a Modmod?

JosEPh

No to both issues. That is not what I am saying and I am not suggesting a Modmod.

What I am saying is that civics should not impose artificial or contrived limits on expansion, particularly when those limits make no sense. The "penalty" for expanding too quickly in C2C needs to be completely overhauled. "Expansion anger" as I refer to it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There is no such thing as expansion anger. People do not get upset when their country expands into unclaimed territory. There is no reason to; on the contrary their is every reason to be happy (as long as you like your culture). In ancient times people who took pride in their country and cultures celebrated expansion rather than get angry with it.

Except in extremely tyrannical situations, conquering other countries and expanding their own way of life and belief was an accepted and often a desired practice. Most people considered it their duty! (Since most countries marched and conquered in the name of their God to go reclaim the heathen). If they didn't like their country they simply moved out of it into unclaimed territory if it was within their capacity to do so. If they couldn't afford the resources they accepted the expansion of their government as something that governments (or more accurately: governors) do; The only exceptions were when leaders were extremely tyrannical. But even in those cases it wasn't the expansion that angered them.

The three basic limits to expansion historically speaking were 1) finances, 2) neighbors of another culture (and competition with them), and 3) lack of cultural influence over far flung locations, especially those overseas. The easiest and most logical of these to use as a barrier in a game is finances. This was the barrier used by the vanilla version. It is also used to some extent in C2C because civics have a HUGE impact on whether or not you have the finances to expand. (It was by changing 2 or 3 civics that I was able to go from 2 cities to 10 cities VERY early in the game). All I am saying is that the financial "upkeep" of an empire to be more pronounced at the beginning so that countries naturally can't expand to a size greater than their type of government is able to support.

If you want to impose a "distance to capital" anger as well then fine. That makes sense in light of limit #3 above and would work well with the civic system. But that distance to capital anger should disappear as "culture" in a distant city increases (assuming of course that it is the same "national culture"). As implied above, certain civics could also alleviate the "distance to capital" anger if it exists.

 

[JosEPh_II]

What I am saying is that civics should not impose artificial or contrived limits on expansion, particularly when those limits make no sense. The "penalty" for expanding in too quickly in C2C needs to be completely overhauled. "Expansion anger" as I refer to it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There is no such thing as expansion anger. People do not get upset when their country expands into unclaimed territory. There is no reason too; and on the contrary their is every reason to be happy (as long as you like your culture). Rather, people took pride in it if they liked their country/culture. In ancient times people who took pride in their country and cultures celebrated expansion rather than get angry with it.

This is something I've been fighting over since v17 and I am in complete agreement with your sentiment and argument. I barely kept City Limits as an Option back then as most of the Team want it to be the default method of play. If it had not been for Strategyonly's mantra of "Choices" I would've been over ruled. I'm very glad someone else that is articulate has posted similar sentiments. Thank you.

JosEPh

 

[Koshling]

This is something I've been fighting over since v17 and I am in complete agreement with your sentiment and argument. I barely kept City Limits as an Option back then as most of the Team want it to be the default method of play. If it had not been for Strategyonly's mantra of "Choices" I would've been over ruled. I'm very glad someone else that is articulate has posted similar sentiments. Thank you.

JosEPh

I would be prepared to agree IF the financial scaling worked right at all game speeds. As it is, without this option, expansion is essentially unconstrained at slow game speeds due to far too much money being available, which makes maintenance a joke. I certainly agree that making maintenance (and other costs) scale nicely with game speed so that other (admittedly more artificial) restrictions were not needed would be ideal. However, we don't have the time to spend to make it so, unless we were to greatly reduce the number of options and so tuning target (less map sizes, less game speeds, maybe less difficulties).

As it is (unless we just spent 2 or 3 release cycles doing nothing but tuning) these artificial restrictions are necessary at slower gam speeds. If you don't like them they are options.

 

[ls612]

I would be prepared to agree IF the financial scaling worked right at all game speeds. As it is, without this option, expansion is essentially unconstrained at slow game speeds due to far too much money being available, which makes maintenance a joke. I certainly agree that making maintenance (and other costs) scale nicely with game speed so that other (admittedly more artificial) restrictions were not needed would be ideal. However, we don't have the time to spend to make it so, unless we were to greatly reduce the number of options and so tuning target (less map sizes, less game speeds, maybe less difficulties).

As it is (unless we just spent 2 or 3 release cycles doing nothing but tuning) these artificial restrictions are necessary at slower gam speeds. If you don't like them they are options.

If you have hard numbers on how bad the scaling is for each gamespeed please tell me, I added a new tag in November to allow all gold costs to be modified by what gamespeed one is using. This is the issue that tag was intended to address, and if I haven't done enough compensation please tell me so that I can change the numbers.

 

[Koshling]

If you have hard numbers on how bad the scaling is for each gamespeed please tell me, I added a new tag in November to allow all gold costs to be modified by what gamespeed one is using. This is the issue that tag was intended to address, and if I haven't done enough compensation please tell me so that I can change the numbers.

I dont. I also don't think it's consistent in different eras, but I'm unsure.

 

[ls612]

I dont. I also don't think it's consistent in different eras, but I'm unsure.

That is one of the reasons I added the tech commerce tags, to deal with inconsistencies in Gold balance based on era (as well as to allow us to do the Language civics as techs).

 

[Hydromancerx]

(as well as to allow us to do the Language civics as techs).

Don't make Language civic into techs! You will loose the diplomacy vs other nations. If it was as simple as just more +% and +% I would have already made it into "auto buildings" that are automatically triggered by a tech.

Right now its ...

|No Language|Native Language|Trade Language|Interpreters|Language Education|Universal Translator
No Language|-3|-2|-1|0|1|2
Native Language|-3|-2|-1|0|1|2
Trade Language|-3|-2|-1|0|1|2
Interpreters|-3|-2|-1|0|1|2
Language Education|-3|-2|-1|0|1|2
Universal Translator|-3|-2|-1|0|1|2

At least I think that's how you would do it as a chart. I could be wrong.

 

[ls612]

Don't make Language civic into techs! You will loose the diplomacy vs other nations. If it was as simple as just more +% and +% I would have already made it into "auto buildings" that are automatically triggered by a tech.

Right now its ...

|No Language|Native Language|Trade Language|Interpreters|Language Education|Universal Translator
No Language|-3|-2|-1|0|1|2
Native Language|-3|-2|-1|0|1|2
Trade Language|-3|-2|-1|0|1|2
Interpreters|-3|-2|-1|0|1|2
Language Education|-3|-2|-1|0|1|2
Universal Translator|-3|-2|-1|0|1|2

At least I think that's how you would do it as a chart. I could be wrong.

I think that that is changable too. However relations are a real pain to work with, so that could be a stumbling block.

 

[Thunderbrd]

What it sounds like we need to do with the scaling issue is really evaluate the impacts from # of cities and Distance to Capital upkeep costs. It seems, in the games I've played, that Vanilla had a far more severe penalty to overgrowth - you could truly choke yourself to death from overexpansion - while C2C really just gives a light slap across the wrist that's easily ignored and rapidly compensated for.

 

[JosEPh_II]

What it sounds like we need to do with the scaling issue is really evaluate the impacts from # of cities and Distance to Capital upkeep costs. It seems, in the games I've played, that Vanilla had a far more severe penalty to overgrowth - you could truly choke yourself to death from overexpansion - while C2C really just gives a light slap across the wrist that's easily ignored and rapidly compensated for.

NO and No again. If C2C went back to pre City Limits with C2C's now current food, health, happiness, and gold/maintenance/ and more gold maintenance/tech costs and restrictions you would soon discover you have achieved what you wanted When City Limits were 1st introduced and City Limits are redundant as much now as back then.

Why Do you think I keep saying it's wasted coding space if were not so?! I play w/o City Limits, you all do not.

I would Love to go back to vanilla eXpansion. Cause look out brother I'm gonna overrun you with my cities in vanilla BtS and I would have it done by the end of the Ancient era too. I can't do that with C2C even without City Limits On and my eXpansionistic way of play.

And I havn't even mentioned the Costlyness of sending settler swarms.

JosEPh

 

[Koshling]

NO and No again. If C2C went back to pre City Limits with C2C's now current food, health, happiness, and gold/maintenance/ and more gold maintenance/tech costs and restrictions you would soon discover you have achieved what you wanted When City Limits were 1st introduced and City Limits are redundant as much now as back then.

Why Do you think I keep saying it's wasted coding space if were not so?! I play w/o City Limits, you all do not.

I would Love to go back to vanilla eXpansion. Cause look out brother I'm gonna overrun you with my cities in vanilla BtS and I would have it done by the end of the Ancient era too. I can't do that with C2C even without City Limits On and my eXpansionistic way of play.

And I havn't even mentioned the Costlyness of sending settler swarms.

JosEPh

You can on eternity. Have you tried that?

IMO this is a can of worms best left unopened since the current workaround of optional city limits allows people playing at faster game speeds to have playable games without the option, and those playing slower ones a reasonable balancing point via the city limits.

 

[TheUndeadFish]

I personally find expansion anger, and tech diffusion required to be enabled to even attempt to make the game fair for the NPCs. My first game I played passed chiefdom I had -21 happiness in my cities before I got bronzeworking, and I constantly had 7-12 cities over my "limit" before I got to each next tier.

I ended up with 2.5m score 728 bc and navigation being my highest tech, and the closest AI is 14 tiers back. I'm not sure what can be done to change this other then not giving so much free food and hammers through trade to new cities. It makes it way way to easy to snowball out of control.

If I didn't have the negative unhappiness I could have expanded without a single care and won even quicker.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

...

Curtailing expansion should not be about imposing artificial limits. It should be about curtailing the financial advantage. I have noticed that the civics are a HUGE part of your financial ability to expand in C2C. This is as it should be. It is all about the balance between the financial relief on city maintenance found in civics versus how many financial buildings you can build.
...

• Prehistoric era: 2-3 city cap.
• Ancient: 4-5 city cap.
• Classical: 6-9 city cap. (Rome was probably the equivalent to 8-9 cities on a large/huge map).
• Medieval: 7-12 city cap. Very Civic dependent.
• Renaissance: Civic dependent (9-16)
• Industrial: Completely civic dependent with no real limit with three or so civics. See below.

If we are going to even think of aiming for these limits then we need something to do during those eras other than "pressing enter"; and yes I have "auto end turn" on and love it - thanks Koshling.

One possibility we discussed earlier is limiting how far you can go from your cultural borders. Settlers and Workers not far, warriors a bit further and scouts and hunters even further. This limit was intended as a supply limit and the simple prototype looked quite good. To work with C2C it would need to take into consideration "Fixed Borders" if on, supply units and promotions. I expect a lot of AI work would be needed especially since the AI builds for war against nations they would not be able to reach nor can reach them.

 

[strategyonly]

If we are going to even think of aiming for these limits then we need something to do during those eras other than "pressing enter"; and yes I have "auto end turn" on and love it - thanks Koshling.

1. One possibility we discussed earlier is limiting how far you can go from your cultural borders. Settlers and Workers not far, warriors a bit further and scouts and hunters even further. This limit was intended as a supply limit and the simple prototype looked quite good. To work with C2C it would need to take into consideration "Fixed Borders" if on, supply units and promotions. 2. I expect a lot of AI work would be needed especially since the AI builds for war against nations they would not be able to reach nor can reach them.

1. I am REALLY liking this idea, because its the most true of all, they hardly ever expanded, until much later in BC, i'd say almost Ancient Era. Plus the only reason they really expanded was LACK of a food source. Then and only then would Neath. meet other Neant's.

2. This is possibly the setback then. Because right now they build and build to hearts content. (Which can be both ways, good and bad) depending on YOUR playing style.

 

[MaXimillionZero]

Don't make Language civic into techs! You will loose the diplomacy vs other nations. If it was as simple as just more +% and +% I would have already made it into "auto buildings" that are automatically triggered by a tech.

Is this really a meaningful mechanic? With most people (I assume) playing with start as minors on, diplomacy penalties before writing are meaningless, and if you really feel the late game bonuses are worthwhile, they could be handled with a Universal Translators national project for example. Having to go through revolutions every time you unlock a new language civic is a really poor way of simulating the evolution of language.

 

[JosEPh_II]

You can on eternity. Have you tried that?

IMO this is a can of worms best left unopened since the current workaround of optional city limits allows people playing at faster game speeds to have playable games without the option, and those playing slower ones a reasonable balancing point via the city limits.

No I don't play eternity. It is waaay too easy to amass a Mountain of gold on eternity and most of the time the Game is over by late Ancient or early Classical. (Well it was several versions back the last time I tried Eternity.)

I kinda agree about the can o worms for the current build. I just think a lot of the hassle and disagreement with balance could've been avoided long ago if they (CL and FB in particular and some others) would've never been implemented in the 1st place. But because Afforess made them they therefore Must be good for C2C too. Along with the obvious statement, well C2C Is the Child of AND. Now they (CL, etc.) are so entwined into the fabric of game play that ripping it/them out would cause a major and undesirable (from the modder's stance because of the massive work involved) overhaul of the whole mod.

I've posted before that C2C is 3 mods in one, Prehistoric Mod, ANDenhancedMod, and Future Mod. But it's now split into 2 mods in a new direction by game speeds. As Koshling pointed out faster speeds do not need city limits and various other Options while Snail and slower Must have them to function properly. Which in the area of Choice is not a bad thing. But what becomes a "bad" thing is when the "perceived" mainstream way of playing (slower game speeds) tries to enforce it's play methods on the "other" way to play, thereby trying to stifle and reducing the choices. It also causes presumption to be the norm.

For ex. as MaXimillionZero, a relatively new player just posted before me, that he assumes everyone plays with Start as Minors. (and he stated it was an assumption). But this invariably leads into discussions, debates, and disagreements over "how to play" the Mod.

***Exaggerated point: New player speaking, "Well Modder so and so says you Must play with X option On or your not playing the mod the way it's meant to be played!" When in fact Modder s&s is saying that's the way I'd like to see the mod played but there are options. When the Team plays a set way for too long and does not try the different ways available the strong impression on new players is the Modders way of play is The Only Right Way to play. And that's what I try to combat.

JosEPh

 

[ls612]

@JosEPh:

How is on Normal now with the gamespeed modifiers?

 

[JosEPh_II]

Reasonable so far. I'm @ 410BC running a 70% Sci slider with ~ +50 gold/turn. Still expanding so every time I send a couple of settlers and escorts out, once they settle, I dip down to 55-60% Sci slider. Made contact with 4 AI so far and will soon add 5% to Esp slider.

JosEPh

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

@JosEPh:

How is on Normal now with the gamespeed modifiers?

In my latest snail game I am running science at 40% and tax at 60% in the mid-late Classical era which is a problem with revolutions on - anything above 40% tax increases revolutionary sentiment. In late Ancient to early Classical I was making money and had sliders at 10% tax (80% science and 10% espionage). Switching between +30 gold and -65 gold each turn which is weird - checking to see if it still does after a reload/re-calc.