How do you feel about being limited in number of cities and can we conquer the world?

[Big J Money]

From what I've seen and heard, I'm happy with this "cap". I think there should be something in 4x games that requires the player to choose, "do I want another city or not?". I use quotes for "cap" because I think cap is the wrong term, even though it's a familiar one. It's more of an "allowance". We get a certain number of cities for free before the new city cost kicks in.

My main issue with Civ V's city cost is that the math for the next technology and next social policy was too complicated. So I had less information as a player when making the decision to found a new city or not. From what I understand about Civ VII, the penalty will be a simple happiness penalty in all cities. This is how a few other 4x games already work, and I like it.

I also like that you can have any number of towns, so you can still settle wide, you simply won't be projecting power. So "wide" in that sense is not quite the same as what we're used to. You might say there is "weak wide" (many towns) and "strong wide" (many cities).

 

[Krikkit1]

I also like that you can have any number of towns, so you can still settle wide, you simply won't be projecting power. So "wide" in that sense is not quite the same as what we're used to. You might say there is "weak wide" (many towns) and "strong wide" (many cities).

Towns aren’t free (its a settlement cap)
and towns do project power.

 

[DeckerdJames]

I am not able to go into great detail about what I would prefer, but considering the end game, having a modern central government of some type, it would be interesting to have had a level of government management that pertains to the central government and how well it is doing, but each city has an economy that is separate from that. For the central government to work you need to tax and taxation causes unhappiness, but spending the taxes on the right things and the right policy implementations potentially increases happiness.

When your empire is very wide, suppose it becomes very diverse. Then the policies that seem right to some, seems unnatural to others. They might have balanced wide vs tall as a matter of how easy it is to govern populations with great diversity. Maybe you try to do it with communism and a very strong central government. If you conquered half the world, the population becomes more diverse and perhaps there are rebellions in some places.

There could be ways to make wide challenging in that way, while tall might be challenging in other ways, mainly by the size of the economy perhaps. Each type of government could be a different kind of game. A monarchy might be tall or wide with different challenges, but a democracy can be tall or wide and the challenges might be the same, but the solutions are different.

 

[Elhoim]

I, for one, love how they built Rome to be the "One City, lots of towns". In general, my main problem with cities in 4X is that they are always "just repeat the same action in every city over and over" as the game goes on. I'd rather manage an empire than a collection of cities. In general, the ways you can build cities are not distinct enough, and ends up always becoming busywork. Maybe it's because I've been playing Civ since the first one, so I'm a bit tired of the repetitive gameplay that cities end up having. Giving me one city I can detail, and a lot of towns on which I just give some general direction is the best for my preferences.

 

[Voidwalkin]

They're sorta taking a hit either way on this one.

Either A: the penalty is crippling, and empire building not feasible(which will upset players)

Or B: the penalty is nor crippling, in which case there is no real restoration of an even playing field on era change(which sorta... defeats the point of splitting into three eras)

 

[chaosprophet]

They're sorta taking a hit either way on this one.

Either A: the penalty is crippling, and empire building not feasible(which will upset players)

Or B: the penalty is nor crippling, in which case there is no real restoration of an even playing field on era change(which sorta... defeats the point of splitting into three eras)

Alternatively, the penalty may be not super crippling, but harder the more you go over the cap, and which can be countered by focusing on things that gives happiness, so you sacrifice resources for other things instead to have a larger empire if you want.

I'm hoping for something like I mentioned before on this thread, where towns are much easier to maintain happiness, so if you want to keep yourself on the settlement cap or only a bit over it, you can have more cities, but if you want to go a lot over the cap, then it is more feasible to have more towns compared to cities.

 

[greenOak]

Looks like the happiness penalty applies per settlement, and it is capped at -35 per settlement.

Not sure how I feel about the latter as it essentially means the penalty for being 7 over the cap is the same for being 8 over the cap, or 100 over the cap. It effectively punishes slightly overexpanding more than grossly overexpanding.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Looks like the happiness penalty applies per settlement, and it is capped at -35 per settlement.

Not sure how I feel about the latter as it essentially means the penalty for being 7 over the cap is the same for being 8 over the cap, or 100 over the cap.

This is one of several places where a system that seems geared towards a single map size and number of Civs and size of Civs needs to be modified (IF it isn't already and we just haven't seen it) to accommodate larger and smaller maps and Civs.

This and some other instances lead me to believe that parts of the new game are still being 'tweaked' before Launch OR that we are being shown bits of the game that do not reflect all the options to keep us guessing . . .

 

[Voidwalkin]

Depending on how easily it is to build happiness, may not be harsh really.

I'm still going to conquer. If the burden is unbearable, this virtual conquest will simply feature much more virtual genocide. Too miserable being in my empire? Well, OK then...

Better to suffer no competition than to be peaceful in this game. Always been that way.

 

[Krikkit1]

Looks like the happiness penalty applies per settlement, and it is capped at -35 per settlement.

Not sure how I feel about the latter as it essentially means the penalty for being 7 over the cap is the same for being 8 over the cap, or 100 over the cap. It effectively punishes slightly overexpanding more than grossly overexpanding.

There may be additional unhappiness penalties, say -1 for every tile away from the Capital, or -2 for every settlement closer to the Capital that also punish overexpanding.

 

[greenOak]

There may be additional unhappiness penalties, say -1 for every tile away from the Capital, or -2 for every settlement closer to the Capital that also punish overexpanding.

I mean there's no evidence for this, and considering they spent a fair bit of time discussing the settlement cap and how it relates to happiness, it seems likely they would've mentioned this if it actually existed.

 

[Krikkit1]

I mean there's no evidence for this, and it seems likely they would've mentioned this if it actually existed.

Actually just saw some additional
unhappiness for buildings

 

[chaosprophet]

Looks like the happiness penalty applies per settlement, and it is capped at -35 per settlement.

Not sure how I feel about the latter as it essentially means the penalty for being 7 over the cap is the same for being 8 over the cap, or 100 over the cap. It effectively punishes slightly overexpanding more than grossly overexpanding.

-35 per settlement seems pretty big as doesn't look so far there are very big happiness bonuses, and while it wouldn't increase over that, it still extras -35 for each new one built. So you have 8 over the cap. Built a 9th one, that new one is extra -35 happiness from the get go when it is built, before it can do barely anything to increase your overall happiness gain.

One other thing in the game that happiness is important for is building tall cities. As we saw in the video, specialists gives a small happiness and food decrease. So going to over wide means you can go less tall. Additionally, it means you will get commemorations (was that the term?) less often, which are pretty powerful because they not only give you a temporary bonus, but also unlocks an extra policy slot.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Looks like the happiness penalty applies per settlement, and it is capped at -35 per settlement.

Not sure how I feel about the latter as it essentially means the penalty for being 7 over the cap is the same for being 8 over the cap, or 100 over the cap. It effectively punishes slightly overexpanding more than grossly overexpanding.

Keep in mind that -35 happiness in each city could be absolutely crippling. You would likely have most of your settlements with negative happiness. So it probably won't matter if you go 8+ over the cap because your civ will split before you get to 7 over the cap.

 

[_hero_]

-35 per settlement seems pretty big as doesn't look so far there are very big happiness bonuses, and while it wouldn't increase over that, it still extras -35 for each new one built. So you have 8 over the cap. Built a 9th one, that new one is extra -35 happiness from the get go when it is built, before it can do barely anything to increase your overall happiness gain.

One other thing in the game that happiness is important for is building tall cities. As we saw in the video, specialists gives a small happiness and food decrease. So going to over wide means you can go less tall. Additionally, it means you will get commemorations (was that the term?) less often, which are pretty powerful because they not only give you a temporary bonus, but also unlocks an extra policy slot.

I don't think we can say yet how common global happiness increases will be, but they made it pretty clear that they want to support both tall and wide gameplay. I'm assuming the right combination of social policies cards, wonders, leader traits and rush-buying local happiness buildings in towns will let you maintain an empire with the -35 penalty in place, but you'll be sacrificing a great deal of other potential modifiers to access all that stuff.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

I thought it was -5 happiness in each city when your over the cap. So if the cap is 6 and you have 7 you get -5 in each city which means a total of -35 in your empire, not in each city.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I thought it was -5 happiness in each city when your over the cap. So if the cap is 6 and you have 7 you get -5 in each city which means a total of -35 in your empire, not in each city.

It is -5 in each settlement for each settlement over the cap. So if you go 1 over the cap it is -5 in each settlement, if you go 2 over the cap, it is -10 in each settlement, if you go 3 over the cap, it is -15 in each settlement etc. So 7 over the cap would be -35 (7*5) in each city. But the game maxes out at -35. So 8 over the cap is still -35 in each settlement.

 

[Krikkit1]

I thought it was -5 happiness in each city when your over the cap. So if the cap is 6 and you have 7 you get -5 in each city which means a total of -35 in your empire, not in each city.

I think it’s a max of -35 in each city so 8 over the limit won’t be more unhappy in each city than 7 over the limit.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

This is one of several places where a system that seems geared towards a single map size and number of Civs and size of Civs needs to be modified (IF it isn't already and we just haven't seen it) to accommodate larger and smaller maps and Civs.

This and some other instances lead me to believe that parts of the new game are still being 'tweaked' before Launch OR that we are being shown bits of the game that do not reflect all the options to keep us guessing . . .

So your view on max number of cities that to be founded? should it be any? or mechanisms to get arond this. and city administration model especially with 'Towns' (smaller settlement) also came to exists.

will this ultimately creates 'Province' system in game where a city can own multiple towns around. though some limitations are needed. and some constrains ... whether can a town have walls around it?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

So your view on max number of cities that to be founded? should it be any? or mechanisms to get arond this. and city administration model especially with 'Towns' (smaller settlement) also came to exists.

will this ultimately creates 'Province' system in game where a city can own multiple towns around. though some limitations are needed. and some constrains ... whether can a town have walls around it?

Any place where they have indicated a hard and fast number for a Civ or Civs: numbers of settlements per Civ, number of total Civs allowed, etc. is probably only for a Standard Size map (whatever that turns out to be), and will/should turn out to be different for other sizes of maps.

Assuming, of course, that we get a similar size range: Dual to Huge, that we've gotten in previous Civ games. The fact that they said a console version was limited to certain size maps implies that, but I haven't seen anything definite yet.