Limits to expansion?

[ddd123]

ICS is just as bad as 4 city tradition in civ V.

neither should be the 'optimal' path.

its not about optimal, its about ICS shouldnt exist EVER, not in a single scenario, 4 city tradition has nothing wrong, both historical or gameplay wise.

Ofc if 4 city trad was the only good strategy we d have a problem, but ICS problem is intrinsec, its a crap gameplay and depiction of a civilization.

 

[Ryika]

4 city tradition has nothing wrong, both historical or gameplay wise.

I strongly disagree. It completely ignores the need to expand and therefor removes a lot of conflict from the game.

If ICS is on the "Should not be a top tier strategy."-list, then 3/4-city Tradition should also be.

 

[ddd123]

Yeah at the price of having the few resources you have around you, not being able to block others expansion etc etc, ofc trad was OP often in civ 5 but in general the tradeaway of limiting is always huge compared to doing what you want in ICS.

 

[Ryika]

Yeah at the price of having the few resources you have around you, not being able to block others expansion etc etc, ofc trad was OP often in civ 5 but in general the tradeaway of limiting is always huge compared to doing what you want in ICS.

Yeah, it's limiting, but it allows you to easily win the game, that's what counts.

 

[Birdjaguar]

ICS is just as bad as 4 city tradition in civ V.

neither should be the 'optimal' path.

If ICS is the best strategy, than all players (including AI) should use ICS. Once the whole map is divided, normal play with diplomacy, trade, research, war can continue. If AI on deity is unstoppable due to massive boni, it might be time to go back to prince level (no AI boni).

ICS is better than a set of game rules which leaves large parts of the map unclaimed and empty.

its not about optimal, its about ICS shouldnt exist EVER, not in a single scenario, 4 city tradition has nothing wrong, both historical or gameplay wise.

Ofc if 4 city trad was the only good strategy we d have a problem, but ICS problem is intrinsec, its a crap gameplay and depiction of a civilization.

I strongly disagree. It completely ignores the need to expand and therefor removes a lot of conflict from the game.

If ICS is on the "Should not be a top tier strategy."-list, then 3/4-city Tradition should also be.

I'd like to see large empires that grow, not because of settler spamming, but because the player has built the capacity for a large empire. Here is how I would do it:

To begin each government type should have some radius of control number and whether or not a city is inside or outside of that boundary changes is contribution to the empire. Inside that radius life is better and good things happen. Outside of it, things are less controlled and trouble is more apparent. As a player learns various civics and collects cards to slot, those dynamics would change. The radius would increase under some governments and maybe decrease under others. As time progresses the optimal empire size changes because new techs and civics are learned and the world changes.

In addition, I would limit the number of large cities by age (ancient, modern etc) and government type. In each age and under each government type, there would be a limited number of cities that could be designated major centers; players would choose which of their cities get that designation. Those cities would be able to grow large more easily. Some of the population of hinterland cities (non centers) would automatically migrate to the capital or other designated major city as a center of trade and power. As the political sophistication of the empire grows, more cities could be designated as major and their population cap lifted so they too would benefit from migration.

Third, I would have major cities decline. Once a game moves out of the ancient era, major city center improvements would begin to decay in their value unless they are replaced with modern versions. Newer cities that are designated as a major center might produce higher benefits quicker and eclipse the ancient centers of power and science. This would allow an empire to mature and change over time. Important inland cities would fall into decline to be replaced by new coastal cities that are tied to the world through ocean trade. Designating a city as a major center would be the tool to redefine one’s empire over time. This would allow for a variable “tallness” within an ever “widening” empire. It would also allow an empire to refocus its production/cities/core area as it grows and takes in new lands.

The number of cities would be limited by AI aggressiveness, district demands related to spacing, government type and civic progress to expand control radius, but those constraints would be real and meaningful. It would also allow for gleaming new tall cities in the mid to late game that benefit from fresh starts in new locations. In an empty continent pushing wide early might work well, but in other circumstances, it would be a poor choice.

 

[ddd123]

Yeah, it's limiting, but it allows you to easily win the game, that's what counts.

Yeah but only cause they made at the time super op politics in support of small empires and subpar on the other tree.

 

[Ryika]

Yeah but only cause they made at the time super op politics in support of small empires and subpar on the other tree.

Yes, I agree, but what exactly are you arguing for now? ^^

You said in an earlier post that 3/4 city tradition has "nothing wrong", that's what I disaree with. It ignores the need to expand and severely diminishes the amount of conflicts that happen during the game. Yes, you get less resources, but you don't need these anyway, because you get your supply of stuff that is essential from other sources. It really doesn't matter where the power comes from, all that matters to me is that a 3- or 4-city empire should never be (among) the fastest path(s) to victory.

It should be strong enough to win, but it should be a tier 2 (or 3) strategy, not a top-tier strategy.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

I'm a bit amazed that no one's posted this before:

http://www.gamecrate.com/hands-civi...osevelt-ditches-workers-and-feels-great/13642

“One thing we are doing is we’re not gimping the builder anymore. Builders typically went tall in Civ V. We’re now, with local happiness, you can actually have a wide empire and be a builder at the same time. You may not be super technically proficient, but you’re going to super cultural and deep into that civics tree at the same time.”

Global happiness is a thing of the past, replaced by local, city-based happiness levels. As Shirk described, global happiness often got in the way of expansive empires and those going for conquest or culture victories in past games. With local happiness, the only thing stopping you is finding the right spot to put the next city. You can put a city in a desert to grab iron, and know it won't grow much. The people there won’t be very happy about it, but it’s not going to cause your whole civilization to go into disarray. If a city is unhappy it won't grow as fast, and drastically low levels can lead to rebels "burning everything in sight," but it won't be a nation-wide issue.

So these quotes seem to indicate that there's a science penalty for large amounts of cities ('you may not be super technically proficient'), but otherwise little to no penalties. Imo, that kind of penalty is a very unimaginative one; I'd have hoped for something else, but as long as it's not too crippling, hey, I'll take it.

It also seems like city happiness is directly affected by the Appeal stat of the surrounding lands -- people will be unhappy to live in the desert, which will lead to reduced city growth. I'm not sure how I feel about this tbh... Hopefully the divine god-emperor will have the necessary tools to persuade the plebs, given the right civics.

 

[kaspergm]

I'm a bit amazed that no one's posted this before:

http://www.gamecrate.com/hands-civi...osevelt-ditches-workers-and-feels-great/13642

I had not heard that part, so thanx for posting. I hate it if they keep the science penalty for new cities, it just makes zero sense logically to me. The culture penalty at least I could somewhat get to make sense, but the science? Not at all.

 

[ddd123]

Yes, I agree, but what exactly are you arguing for now? ^^

You said in an earlier post that 3/4 city tradition has "nothing wrong", that's what I disaree with. It ignores the need to expand and severely diminishes the amount of conflicts that happen during the game. Yes, you get less resources, but you don't need these anyway, because you get your supply of stuff that is essential from other sources. It really doesn't matter where the power comes from, all that matters to me is that a 3- or 4-city empire should never be (among) the fastest path(s) to victory.

It should be strong enough to win, but it should be a tier 2 (or 3) strategy, not a top-tier strategy.

I argue your arbitrary and illogical view of what tier of strategy 4 city trad should be, since there is no valid reason to prefer such a tier or other strategies...

 

[Ryika]

I actually gave a very precise reasoning for why I think it should not be a top tear strategy, namely that it ignores the need for expansion and that it reduces the amount of conflict during the game to practically zero. If those arguments aren't good enough, then I don't see how your argument that...

[...]ICS shouldnt exist EVER, not in a single scenario, [...] but ICS problem is intrinsec, its a crap gameplay and depiction of a civilization.

...could be good enough to justify your opinion, because you're not giving any reasoning at all other than the fact that you don't like it, which is entirely subjective and that it doesn't depict how real Civilizations work; which may be true, but also not a good argument in a game that doesn't try to be historically accurate.

 

[Hail]

I'm a bit amazed that no one's posted this before:

http://www.gamecrate.com/hands-civi...osevelt-ditches-workers-and-feels-great/13642

So these quotes seem to indicate that there's a science penalty for large amounts of cities ('you may not be super technically proficient'), but otherwise little to no penalties. Imo, that kind of penalty is a very unimaginative one; I'd have hoped for something else, but as long as it's not too crippling, hey, I'll take it.

It also seems like city happiness is directly affected by the Appeal stat of the surrounding lands -- people will be unhappy to live in the desert, which will lead to reduced city growth.

these quotes do not seem to indicate there is any science penalty.
what Dennis Shirk says is that the civ6 dev team wants the player to found new cities in an empire-building game.

I actually gave a very precise reasoning for why I think it should not be a top tear strategy, namely that it ignores the need for expansion and that it reduces the amount of conflict during the game to practically zero. If those arguments aren't good enough, then I don't see how your argument that...

your very precise reasoning has zero value, because civ5 is awesome & critically acclaimed (and has multiplayer) and sets new standards for TBS genre. what and how civ5 implements mechanics is the only right way.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

these quotes do not seem to indicate there is any science penalty.
what Dennis Shirk says is that the civ6 dev team wants the player to found new cities in an empire-building game.

Then what do you take this quote to mean: "you may not be super technically proficient [if you found a lot of cities]"?

 

[Ryika]

your very precise reasoning has zero value, because civ5 is awesome & critically acclaimed (and has multiplayer) and sets new standards for TBS genre. what and how civ5 implements mechanics is the only right way.

You're right of course. We should build on Civ 5 and refine its concepts. Reducing the number of cities you need to 2 may be a good idea. Maybe we can get away with making OOC the standard strategy.

 

[CaptainUnknown]

Then what do you take this quote to mean: "you may not be super technically proficient [if you found a lot of cities]"?

I agree science penalty is likely being referred here, but being the devil's advocate he might have meant something else. Possibly he meant that you will be spending production on settlers, more builders, etc and that you are delaying your national college (if there is one) and things of that nature.

Overall, I think they have to at least make a slight science penalty, otherwise wide would beat tall more often than not. I do hope that there will be counter balance to this through the use of Civics/governments.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

I agree science penalty is likely being referred here, but being the devil's advocate he might have meant something else. Possibly he meant that you will be spending production on settlers, more builders, etc and that you are delaying your national college (if there is one) and things of that nature.

Overall, I think they have to at least make a slight science penalty, otherwise wide would beat tall more often than not. I do hope that there will be counter balance to this through the use of Civics/governments.

I certainly hope that you're right, but it doesn't seem like the most obvious explanation for those words. This (science penalty for more cities) and policy-switching costing simply some gold are the only two things that I dislike about the game so far. There's just so little imagination in those two solutions, compared to the rest of the stuff that we've seen so far. There's still time to change things, so, here's hoping that they will.

 

[Acken]

The real silly part has more to do with how easy it is to defend a small empire imo. Or not being attacked to begin with.

 

[CaptainUnknown]

I certainly hope that you're right, but it doesn't seem like the most obvious explanation for those words. This (science penalty for more cities) and policy-switching costing simply some gold are the only two things that I dislike about the game so far. There's just so little imagination in those two solutions, compared to the rest of the stuff that we've seen so far. There's still time to change things, so, here's hoping that they will.

Agreed, and logically you would think culture would suffer the further from the capital you go, not science. If you conquered 5 cities you would probably have a hard time culturally influencing those people at first, but your science rate would be static.

 

[Thormodr]

Agreed, and logically you would think culture would suffer the further from the capital you go, not science. If you conquered 5 cities you would probably have a hard time culturally influencing those people at first, but your science rate would be static.

That makes sense. Large empires that have conquered other cities should have to spend cards to help keep restive populations in line. Culture would suffer, as a result.
If anything, they should improve scientifically due to the infusion of new ideas.

 

[Acken]

If you guys try to look at it from a real world perspective I'm not even sure what the science rate is supposed to represent to begin with.