How to nerf ICS and simultaneously buff big cities

[beekus]

Hey folks. I haven't been here in early civ4 days, but have been following the discussions related to civ5 and playing quite a bit.

After reading the excellent "ICS, Civ V style" thread, it's clear that the game is biased to high numbers of people with no penalty for number of cities (except social policies), for both the player and the AI.

There have been many different suggestions to benefit the small empire/large cities player such as these from Sullla: increase the bonuses on the higher level buildings, and reduce the difficulty in growing cities super big.

I'm not sure what the best idea is, but I believe that ICS is a dominate strategy due to the fact that it's easy to grow small cities and buildings' benefits increase solely due to population. So I'm just going to throw an idea out there.

What if we base the building bonuses on the average population per city.

For instance, say the market increased the gold output of a city by 5% times the average population per city.

Now for an example. I'm simplifying the math by not counting city squares (yes it's a big over site, but the numbers are already rough anyways) and let's assume that each population equals two gold.

Say we have civilization ICS with 20 size 6 cities for 120 pop. It produces 240 base gold. With a market in every city under current rules, the total output is 1.25*240=300 gold. Under adjusted rules that civ would produce 1.3*240=312 gold.

Now say we have civilization big cities with 6 cities of 15 pop for a total of 90 pop. It produces 180 base gold and with a market 1.25*180=225. Under adjusted rules, we have 1.75*180=315 gold!

That seems very reasonable and could make people go with a bigger cities strategy, as well as benefit some of the smaller builder AI civs. Obviously these changes would need a lot of thought. I don't know the amount of food required to get civs up to this status. But the fact that the outputs are comparable gives me hope that this idea might have legs.

Thoughts?

--beekus

 

[Frosty_AUT]

Well, in some way I'm happy that players are inventing new ways of playing the game. No doubt, this proves that there's a lot of depth in Civ 5, especially when so many players critized how boring and undynamic social policies and the general gameplay allegedly are. On the other hand, it's also kind of sad that so much effort was put into discouraging ICS, and that the effort ultimately failed. The whole concept of the one empire-wide happiness value was to punish excessive expansion, yet it works mainly against medium-sized empires.

Anyway, here are my suggestions:

• There should be no way to outright eliminate unhappiness from number of cities. Forbidden palace + Order should be multiplicative, not additive (which would mean -75% unhappiness instead of -100%).
  
• Order/Communism's +5 production per city should be changed to +0.5 production per citizen. Having the production bonus scale with population is the only way I can think of to make this a somewhat balanced SP that won't favor ISC too much.

Also a radical idea that won't ever be implemented in CiV 5:

• Drastically boost the effects of advanced buildings (universities, banks, etc.) an make them require a certain population. The idea is that lots of small towns, even when their total population is larger (due to faster growth) will be worse than large cities because they can't build an advanced commercial and scientific infrastructure. Not trying to make any real life comparisons, but does it make sense that any small town in CiV 5 can have a university, a hospital and a stock exchange? Or build any kind of advanced military unit without even requring barracks, armories or airfields for that matter?

 

[dguichar]

Maybe total empire population and number of first level buildings (temple, library, market, etc.) allows to build a limited number of second level buildings (cathedral, university, bank, etc.)

 

[tibbles]

A big fix would just be to make the later buildings be better and/or cost less per turn as opposed to at present where they cost more for the same effect. It should be a bonus to build the later versions, not a penalty.

 

[beekus]

Frosty, I agree totally. You can't hope the player will prefer fewer cities if there is no penalty for having more cities after appropriate SPs(especially since smaller is easier, food/border pop wise). It makes sense that a city would require 12 pop or so to build a university or a bank, assuming the bonuses you get from those buildings are close to what you could get with 2 cities of 6 with lower tier buildings for a similar food investment.

dguichar, I'm not sure this would work, as you could very easily increase total empire and number of base buildings by having tons of small cities.

Tibbles, I agree that later buildings should be a better return on investment...I'm just not sure a static number does the trick. Wouldn't there then be a point of diminishing returns and you just end up ICS anyway? That might result in more mathematical gamesmanship.

Anyhow, I still think a dynamic approach might be the ticket. Think about it this way...I have a set number of food. I can either invest them in many small cities or in a few large cities. Either option should result in a reasonable science/gold/production rate. As it stands, one option is clearly better than the other.

 

[Camikaze]

Welcome to the forums, beekus.

I definitely agree with the basis for the idea; that ICS should not be the dominant strategy, and that civilizations with bigger but fewer cities shouldn't be penalised simply for having fewer cities. And I think the idea itself is reasonably solid. Perhaps the 5% could be adjusted slightly; both your outcomes are higher than the present outcomes, but overall, it seems a good idea. I'm not entirely convinced that tying gold to population average is the best way to go, though. Wouldn't it be better, and make more sense, if you simply tied the output of a market to the population within the city the market is in? So, using 5% again for example's sake, a market in a city of size 5 would mean +25%, and a market in a city of size 10 would mean +50%. So if you had 10 cities of 5, giving you 100 base gold (assuming, for example's sake again, 2 base per), then you'd get 125 gold, but 5 cities of 10 would give you 150 gold.

@Frosty- I understand the reasons for your idea as to setting minimum population limits on what buildings can be built, but I think that any such cap would be rather arbitrary, and so would simply prefer it if small cities could build the same buildings as big cities, but for a lower return.

 

[Frosty_AUT]

@Frosty- I understand the reasons for your idea as to setting minimum population limits on what buildings can be built, but I think that any such cap would be rather arbitrary, and so would simply prefer it if small cities could build the same buildings as big cities, but for a lower return.

Not any more arbitrary than the amount of maintenance buildings cost or how much happiness a collosseum provides.

What's important is that everything is balanced, consistent and not counter-intuitive. And ICS is the exact opposite of that. That strategy revolves around NOT having an infrastructure, NOT specializing your cities and NOT letting your cities grow (because the game actually punishes you for that!). Okay, this is all possible due to a clever combination of social policies and the forbidden palace wonders ... But then again, a city without any infrastructure should be utterly worthless no matter what.

 

[Camikaze]

Being arbitrary in this case is not acceptable as opposed to being acceptable in the case of costs and such due to the fact that what you are proposing is a limit. Below the number, you are prevented from doing something. Above it you are not. Whereas the happiness given by a colosseum doesn't prevent you from doing anything, or doesn't in itself limit you from any possibility in the game, a minimum threshold as you are suggesting does. It's okay to a certain extent for there to be limits placed on possibilities in the game, but not so much when they are arbitrary.

 

[beekus]

Camikaze. Woah. That certainly makes way more sense and is certainly an easier concept for the player to understand. In fact, it completely fixes a major problem I have with this concept. I don't want the player to be afraid to make another city because it would ruin the bonuses he currently gets from his cities due to lower "population average." (or maybe I do? i'm not sure.)

Unfortunately, I still think the balance is broken. Mainly because all building bonuses are entirely based on number of pop, and pop increases in a city non-linearly. You're bonuses increase linearly, and you assume that 5 cities of 10 is equal to 10 cities of 5. That is not the case foodwise.

 

[Camikaze]

Well, the translation of population to building bonuses need not be linear, either.

 

[beekus]

Well yes, but how do you explain that to the player?

OK, the major problem I have with abitrary numbers in any way shape or form is that they will always result in one strategy being more effective than the other. It just takes some math. Remove static arbitrary numbers from the equation, make things dynamic, and gaming the numbers dies (hopefully). At this point either strategy is viable.

It really comes down to food. Say you have 2000 food and 2000 production to immediately invest in cities or pop. A massive number of small cities or a few large cities should be equally viable solutions.

 

[Camikaze]

Well yes, but how do you explain that to the player?

Surely the player would be able to understand a simple logarithmic function? Either that or they'd come to learn what each population level translates to in terms of building bonuses. It's possible that the simpler you make it the more exploitable it is, or the less it solves the problem, but I'm sure an equation could be figured out and applied to balance it out perfectly. Whether or not this is easy to explain to the player isn't the most pressing concern, so long as they know that some sort of equation exists, and that it has implications in terms of city sprawl.

 

[beekus]

Yep. I played countless games of CIV4 without having any idea exactly how bad a new city would be on the economy except that it would be "bad" until I built at least a courthouse and a bunch of cottages.

How do you alter the other first tier buildings? Happiness, culture, production, science, (food?)? These ideas are not based on real numbers (statistical analysis to come). Just different ideas on the way buildings could work from my experience playing the game.

Option A is based on the idea that an important number over all in the game is the average population in your cities. This number controls the bonuses your buildings get.

Option B is based on the idea that buildings bonuses are based on the number of people you have in the city (Camikaze).

Happiness.
A)Each Coliseum is equal to half Pop Average(Pa) happiness.
B)Each Coliseum is equal to 1/4 the cities population (Pc) happiness.

Culture.
I'm not sure this needs to be changed. The dynamic seems to work well.

Production.
A)5% * Pa for forges and workshops AND 1 eng per 3 Pa for forges or workshops.
B)5% * Pc for forges and workshops AND 1 eng per 3 Pc for forges or workshops.

Science (it needs to be slowed down in general (especially towards the end)...but that's another topic).
A) Library = +1 per 2 citizens * Pa AND 1 sci per 5 Pa.
B) Library = +1 per 2 citizens * Pc AND 1 sci per 5 Pc.

Does this introduce extreme unnecessarily complex math when the game is supposed to be much easier to understand mathematically?

In the demographics screen, more population in fewer cities means higher total population. Shouldn't that number mean something?

 

[Camikaze]

I don't think the game necessarily needs to be dead simple mathematically, and I don't think adding a few changes in like this is really going to be very complex anyway.

Perhaps the actual population number should mean something, but it doesn't really for all other intents and purposes within the game.

I'm beginning to think that some hybrid between Pa and Pc would be best. Pc could make large cities simply too powerful. With each extra population, you would get both an extra workable tile (that's still how in works in Civ 5, right?) and extra bonuses for all your buildings. If you made the bonuses simply dependent on the average of Pa and Pc, this effect would be diminished, whilst still encouraging larger cities, rather than ICS.

 

[Frosty_AUT]

Being arbitrary in this case is not acceptable as opposed to being acceptable in the case of costs and such due to the fact that what you are proposing is a limit. Below the number, you are prevented from doing something. Above it you are not. Whereas the happiness given by a colosseum doesn't prevent you from doing anything, or doesn't in itself limit you from any possibility in the game, a minimum threshold as you are suggesting does. It's okay to a certain extent for there to be limits placed on possibilities in the game, but not so much when they are arbitrary.

Well, what's arbitrary is probably subjective, just like everything else. And I can live with restrictions as long as they contribute to the game. Which is also subjective. Whether or not my idea would work isn't clear anyway. But I just love to imagine how it could play out. I'm not a friend of subtle mathematics though. To me, one of the basic tenets of game design is the classic "KISS - keep it simple, stupid".

Come to think of it, there's probably a much simpler solution than what I proposed and with no arbitrary limits:

Increase maintenance and effect of advanced buildings. Simple, really. Buildings cost the same maintenance regardless of the population of the city, so it's always more efficient to build them in cities with a large population. Now, imagine universities for example were much more powerful but also really really expensive to maintain. You wouldn't want to build too many of 'em spread out over lots of small cities. You'd want to construct them only in large cities that can actually sustain them economically. And since they are that powerful, not building any of them would lead to you falling behind in tech. The problem I see with this solution is that it wouldn't work for financial buildings, as they have no maintenance. On the other hand, financial buildings COULD have maintenance and this would actually have a drastic effect as they would become more efficient with larger population, too ...

 

[JAMiAM]

Surely the player would be able to understand a simple logarithmic function?

You're mighty idealistic...

Did you hear the one about the constipated mathematics professor who had trouble with his logs? Yeah...he was finally able to work them out with a pencil...

 

[Camikaze]

Well, what's arbitrary is probably subjective, just like everything else. And I can live with restrictions as long as they contribute to the game. Which is also subjective.

I can live with it, I just don't think it's the ideal way to solve a problem.

Whether or not my idea would work isn't clear anyway. But I just love to imagine how it could play out. I'm not a friend of subtle mathematics though. To me, one of the basic tenets of game design is the classic "KISS - keep it simple, stupid".

Even if it contributes to the game?

Come to think of it, there's probably a much simpler solution than what I proposed and with no arbitrary limits:

Increase maintenance and effect of advanced buildings. Simple, really. Buildings cost the same maintenance regardless of the population of the city, so it's always more efficient to build them in cities with a large population. Now, imagine universities for example were much more powerful but also really really expensive to maintain. You wouldn't want to build too many of 'em spread out over lots of small cities. You'd want to construct them only in large cities that can actually sustain them economically. And since they are that powerful, not building any of them would lead to you falling behind in tech. The problem I see with this solution is that it wouldn't work for financial buildings, as they have no maintenance. On the other hand, financial buildings COULD have maintenance and this would actually have a drastic effect as they would become more efficient with larger population, too ...

This is not a bad idea (although it's possible it could have the opposite effect to what is intended; lots of small cities with less advanced buildings would have less maintenance costs than a few big cities with lots of advanced buildings). With markets, I think adding maintenance to them for smaller cities would be effectively the same as the other ideas suggested.

 

[Frosty_AUT]

Even if it contributes to the game?

I can live with it, I just don't think it's the ideal way to solve a problem.

With your (or rather beekus') suggestion, I'd find it hard to keep track of how much a building actually does. The mechanics would lack transparancy so to speak. Both my suggestions are much more straightforward than this: Maintenance is always the same and if the effect was for example +100% science/gold/culture/whatever, you'd simply choose the city with the highest respective value because it's obvious the benefit will be the greatest.

This is not a bad idea (although it's possible it could have the opposite effect to what is intended; lots of small cities with less advanced buildings would have less maintenance costs than a few big cities with lots of advanced buildings).

True, but then again my idea was also that this kind of "low infrastructure" doesn't get you very far. The maintenance in total might be lower, but the amount of science/culture/wealth you generate per gold spent on maintenance will be significantly lower as well. And losing the tech race usually means losing the game, so ...

 

[Camikaze]

I can live with it, I just don't think it's the ideal way to solve a problem.

iswydt

With your (or rather beekus') suggestion, I'd find it hard to keep track of how much a building actually does. The mechanics would lack transparancy so to speak. Both my suggestions are much more straightforward than this: Maintenance is always the same and if the effect was for example +100% science/gold/culture/whatever, you'd simply choose the city with the highest respective value because it's obvious the benefit will be the greatest.

Your idea is simpler, yes, and easier to keep track of, yes, but I simply don't think it is the best way to solve the problem, and I don't think the player will be too heavily encumbered by not being as easily able to remember the exact percentage bonuses given by buildings. YMMV.