Is the culture and science increase per city and empire modifier making wide too hard?

[CrazyG]

The way I would justify it would be that, simply, there are more tiles per player on bigger maps, therefore, room for a couple more cities. Of course this is dependant on map generation, which is why I think it's important to know how many cities a player is expected to have. But a simple calculation of total tiles gives the following results.

Tiny - 504 tiles per player
Small - 462
Standard (8 players) - 520
Large (12 players) - 554
Huge (16 players) - 640

By this logic, should tiny have a smaller penalty than small? Huge and large have the biggest gap, so why are they both at 5%?

Even beyond that, why does having enough land for 1 more city mean that my other each produce dramatically less science? I don't see any connection.

Here is an example. Let's say the players get 6 cities on standard and 7 on large, which seems reasonable. On standard, policies have a cost of 135%. On large, they cost 130%. So for culture and science to be roughly the same speed, the large needs to produce less total science while having more cities. It doesn't make sense.

Extending to small, an empire with 5 cities would have a cost of 150%. So this player needs substantially more total yields from a smaller number of cities.

So even if the standard player's 6th city (and large players 6th and 7th cities) earn 0 science ever, they still discover techs faster than on small.

 

[Deljade]

The difference between large and huge is much bigger than standard and large, so based on your logic shouldn't large and huge have different values? Also the difference between standard and large listed is 34 tiles, less than a full city's 3 tile radius of 36 tiles. So maybe one extra city expected?

And most importantly none of that matters because your cities don't magically produce a ton more science or culture on small or a ton less on huge. They produce about the same amount. No reason that they should have different penalties.

Why yes, I do agree that Huge and Large are very different in that regard (Large favours more of a wide warmonger playstyle because there's less space but also less penalty for extra cities) and I would think that Large would have to be somewhere between Standard and Huge on the penalty. As for the Tiny map... well, it's a niche one... not many people play it, I listed it for completion's sake but the relevant pattern starts at Small
Also consider that the default number of players for Large and Huge were different in vanilla, where the penalties were designed for, it's just common for Large/Huge players to add 2/4 extra civs.

Another thing to consider is that a single city in Standard is more important than a single city in Huge. By founding a city in a standard map establishes control of a much larger percentage of the total map area.

A single city (assuming 37 tiles) will grant you control of
1,33% of the map in Small size
0,88% of the map in Standard size
0,54% of the map in Large
0,36% of the map in Huge

To me this means that a singular (non capital) city is more important in smaller maps, making the action of founding (or conquering for that matter) a new city more impactful.
Of course, controlling the map does not directly translate to culture and science progression so if we decide that this does not mean anything so be it, I won't tell you how you should feel in your Standard size games, but 16 player Huge is a system that works fine and I would be sad to see it's balance disrupted.

 

[Stalker0]

It seems the easiest start would be, for the Large map players out there, generally how many cities do you make when your Tall, and how many when your Wide? Time to find out if there really is a difference in the number of cities.

 

[psparky]

The way I would justify it would be that, simply, there are more tiles per player on bigger maps, therefore, room for a couple more cities. Of course this is dependant on map generation, which is why I think it's important to know how many cities a player is expected to have. But a simple calculation of total tiles gives the following results.

Duel - 480 (for all you 1v1 lovers)
Tiny - 504 tiles per player
Small - 462
Standard (8 players) - 520
Large (12 players) - 554
Huge (16 players) - 640

But those aren't the default number of civs for Large and Huge. Sure, if you add extra civs, the average number of cities per civ (or tiles per civ) won't increase as much.

 

[ElliotS]

It seems the easiest start would be, for the Large map players out there, generally how many cities do you make when your Tall, and how many when your Wide? Time to find out if there really is a difference in the number of cities.

Myself and CrazyG have been pointing out that it's entirely irrelevant how many cities you have, because they don't produce more or less science. Controlling the map with a empire behind on techs and culture isn't useful, especially because the only people who actually care about controlling the map are warmongers, who can partially ignore the problem with puppets.

 

[Deljade]

But those aren't the default number of civs for Large and Huge. Sure, if you add extra civs, the average number of cities per civ (or tiles per civ) won't increase as much.

I pointed that out in a followup post. Playing Huge with 12 people is a little boring, there would never be any wars, civs wouldn't even be able to fill all the land!

Myself and CrazyG have been pointing out that it's entirely irrelevant how many cities you have, because they don't produce more or less science. Controlling the map with a empire behind on techs and culture isn't useful, especially because the only people who actually care about controlling the map are warmongers, who can partially ignore the problem with puppets.

You did say that players are not expected to have more cities in larger maps, which is wrong, compared to Standard, in Large (with 2 added players) players have space for 1 extra city, and in Huge (with 4 added) for 4, and in Small for 1,5 less. I agree that if the penalties are scaling with map size, Large should not get the same leniency as Huge. Sooooo, this would be more about increasing the penalty on Large? Waiting for dedicated Large players to tell us what they think, I've not played Large in a while.
In the end, you could try having the same penalty in all sizes. But less than 5? That would imply that wide is not good enough in Huge... which it is. Maybe you should be looking at something other than this penalty to make wide play more viable in Standard? (assuming that it indeed is not viable)

 

[ElliotS]

You did say that players are not expected to have more cities in larger maps, which is wrong, compared to Standard, in Large (with 2 added players) players have space for 1 extra city, and in Huge (with 4 added) for 4, and in Small for 1,5 less. I agree that if the penalties are scaling with map size, Large should not get the same leniency as Huge. Sooooo, this would be more about increasing the penalty on Large? Waiting for dedicated Large players to tell us what they think, I've not played Large in a while.
In the end, you could try having the same penalty in all sizes. But less than 5? That would imply that wide is not good enough in Huge... which it is. Maybe you should be looking at something other than this penalty to make wide play more viable in Standard? (assuming that it indeed is not viable)

Okay I'll cede that looking at the numbers you're given room for more cities on large and huge. That said it still make no sense at all to have a different penalty, because they do not produce more culture/science than they would on standard.

If 5% works well, then we can try 5% on all difficulties, but there is literally no reason small should have double the penalty of large.

 

[DaniSciB]

Later I will Increase the Progress Culture Opener and Scaler to 15 as @Gazebo said it was intended for this patch. And also will play on a Large map to test the 5% increase... I doubt I will do a "Scientific Post" tho xD, so it will be a testing feeling.

 

[stii]

The numbers at minimum indicate that small maps are screwy. It's really hard to get a city that actually earns culture or science. I've tried them before when I had a weak computer (so I wanted faster AI turns) but it always felt off.

Your capital + puppets seems like the ideal strategy, with maybe a couple normal settlers to help with faith or military supply. Does anyone play small map sizes regularly at high difficulites? I'd be interested in hearing their experience. From earlier in other threads, the large size players appear very reluctant about people who don't even use their settings changing their settings, which is a completely genuine concern. I imagine small size players would feel the same.

On standard, I'd be happy to try out 5% for at least a patch.

I mostly play on small and didn't realise it made that much difference, I haven't noticed it changing things that much when I played standard in the various challenges.

When I'm doing war I'd try and take the smallest number of cities and make vassals rather than take lots of cities but I think that is generally right anyway, as it reduce the combat bonus people get vs you. I'd still annex for the first two conquered cities at least and then generally just capitals from then onwards.

I'd certainly not mind if changes made things a bit harder, as part of the reason I play small is I think it is slightly harder.

 

[CrazyG]

Sooooo, this would be more about increasing the penalty on Large

Apparently you can tell us standard players what value is right for us, but when your own logic suggests changing huge, it's the settings of other players that must bend? What a jerk of a response.

Your own logic suggests changing huge the most, but you choose to ignore that instead force a value upon large. So now you've told us what small, standard, and large all need to be. If you don't want people tweaking your settings without playing them, do the same for others. I don't think the argument of more cities justifies such large differences anyways, but applying it selectively is just hypocritical. If you enjoy playing with 5% why is in inappropriate for other map sizes?

I'm still waiting to see why cities on small produce double the science as cities on large. Perhaps there should be differences in settings to accomadate the difference in space, but why culture and science costs? If anything, wouldn't a change to happiness make more sense, so that on large or huge you can fill in the land without being unhappy?

I'd certainly not mind if changes made things a bit harder, as part of the reason I play small is I think it is slightly harder.

Thanks for offering feedback. What aspect do you find harder?

Small is certainly slower in culture and science. Do you find wide progress is able to compete with tall in tradition in science output?

 

[Deljade]

@CrazyG don't be like that I even said myself what you said there, I am just seeing talk about lowering the whole thing tho 4% which is definitely not right. The last word should be a lie with the dedicated playerbase of each map so you are absolutely free to change the values in your game and tell the rest if it's the most balanced thing.

 

[CrazyG]

@CrazyG don't be like that I even said myself what you said there, I am just seeing talk about lowering the whole thing tho 4% which is definitely not right. The last word should be a lie with the dedicated playerbase of each map so you are absolutely free to change the values in your game and tell the rest if it's the most balanced thing.

Sorry. But frankly I directly you a question twice, which Elliot also asked, and you just ignored, about why a city on small would produce so much more science. That's like the core question IMO. Debating the exact number of cities you get on a specific map size is a distraction.

I agree that 4% isn't a good starting point though, we have feedback from several players supporting 5%, there's no reason to move past it.

What would be really good is AI test games on the different sizes to see when major events happen (like reaching ideologies, reaching a certain era, wonders being built, when the game is won). I suspect that it happens a lot faster on larger maps because you pay less for techs and social policies.

 

[Deljade]

Sorry. But frankly I directly you a question twice, which Elliot also asked, and you just ignored, about why a city on small would produce so much more science. That's like the core question IMO. Debating the exact number of cities you get on a specific map size is a distraction.

Because a single city in a Small map is more important than a single city on a Large map... because you DO get less cities on smaller maps... especially with the default players, I thought it was obvious. If you don't accept it that's fine, I was just going trying to go through the vanilla devs thought process and make it clear that there's no reason to reduce the modifier further on Huge, but please refrain from getting so personal, I do respect your posting a lot.

 

[azum4roll]

Since the empire modifier for unhappiness is the same for all map sizes, there's no reason for the culture/science penalty to be different.

There being more space per player doesn't mean you have to settle all that space. And vice versa.

On the tourism penalty part, I support the change to make tourism output 1/(1+7n%) where n is the number of cities (not counting the capital). The 7% can be increased if needed. A cap isn't even necessary with this change (the current 75% cap would require 50+ cities).

 

[Stalker0]

What would be really good is AI test games on the different sizes to see when major events happen (like reaching ideologies, reaching a certain era, wonders being built, when the game is won). I suspect that it happens a lot faster on larger maps because you pay less for techs and social policies.

This seems like a good starting place, lets confirm if the number is actually balanced or if different sizes show noticeably different results.

 

[CrazyG]

Because a single city in a Small map is more important than a single city on a Large map... because you DO get less cities on smaller maps... especially with the default players, I thought it was obvious. If you don't accept it that's fine, I was just going trying to go through the vanilla devs thought process and make it clear that there's no reason to reduce the modifier further on Huge, but please refrain from getting so personal, I do respect your posting a lot.

I'm not debating the number of cities. There's no way that a city on small would have like double the raw science of a city on large (you can change the city number to whatever you want, this is still true).

I can put my question another way. Should the pace of tech and social policies be the same across map sizes? Not exactly the same (that's probably impossible), just roughly the same.

Here are real example numbers. Let's start by looking at 4 cities.
The 18th policy costs 16800 culture on small, 15460 on standard, and 14860 on large.
So large gets social policies (and techs) a lot faster with the same number of cities.

What about if you add cities?
Let's say you do 4 on small, 5 on standard and 6 on large.
Standard now costs 16,545. That means even if the 5th city produces 0 culture ever, you would still social policies faster than on small. If that city produces any culture, standard goes even faster.

Large now costs 16,155. Still less than small at 4 cities or standard at 5. Which means that even if those cities you plant each pull 0 culture ever, you still get policies faster. If those cities produce culture (which they of course would in a real game), the difference just gets bigger.

Small must produce more culture from fewer cities to match the pace (more in absolute terms, not just relative to the number of cities). The difference between 10%/7%/5% doesn't make the different sizes more similar to each other, it makes them less similar.

 

[a3kov]

There being more space per player doesn't mean you have to settle all that space. And vice versa.

I agree. There's also an argument that you can (and you probably should) adjust number of civs according to the map size. So having bigger map doesn't automatically mean more space.

I used to play Huge Pangaea maps with default number of civs, and there was way too much empty space. Like, for 20+ cities sometimes. And the main issue was that this space wasn't distributed evenly. So someone who lucked out on starting location could easily go crazy with settling and gain a huge advantage simply by luck.
But then I read somewhere on the forums that Huge Pangaea is better balanced with 16 civs - I tried it and indeed it is - most starting locations provide space for about 8+ cities and there are no huge empty spaces for anyone.

I agree that social policy and science scaling off city number should be same on all map sizes.

 

[Gidoza]

@ElliotS Was just wondering on your thoughts about my post on the first page, about making the multipliers for Tourism & Science and whatever multiplicative instead of additive?

 

[ElliotS]

@ElliotS Was just wondering on your thoughts about my post on the first page, about making the multipliers for Tourism & Science and whatever multiplicative instead of additive?

I think that it could be a good idea, although I still like 5% better than 7%.

The benefit of your idea is that the more cities you have, the less penalty a new one adds, which is probably good because they are never going to be as developed as your earlier cities. I'd 100% want a negative modifier on courthouses though, because the benefits you could get from warmongering and annexing 20+ cities with some existing infrastructure would be way too good. (Though the argument can be made that we should do that regardless.)

Playing a lot on standard with the current numbers I'm personally finding tall to be much easier and more powerful than wide or even warmongering. I feel like I can consistently run away with games as an Arabia or Korea just sitting on 4-5 cities and increasing my outputs. That's super anecdotal though.

 

[stii]

Thanks for offering feedback. What aspect do you find harder?

Small is certainly slower in culture and science. Do you find wide progress is able to compete with tall in tradition in science output?

More civs means more CS and trading partners, so you get better deals on selling things and more CS quests to do. There is also proportionally less space for cities meaning the AI is a lot more on top of you. Sometimes you have to fight to even get four cities. One game the AI forward settled me so much there was only space for three cities, and not even good ones. This happens a lot less on larger maps and only having four rather than five cities due to close AI placement is a lot less of an issue.

I guess it makes wonder and late game victory slightly easier with less player but I think that matters a lot less than early game stuff.

I don't think progress wide is possible on small as there just isn't space to do so. Although to be fair I think it is pretty bad on bigger maps too, settlers costing a pop is just such a huge cost. Wide authority is fine but that is mostly due to vassals rather than gaining more cities, puppets are awful but at least they don't make things worse.