Limits to expansion?

[KrikkitTwo]

One thing though that does worry me is having all that extra gold sitting around since there is a lack of road/ building maintenance. Unless something other than military and trade deals will eat your gold....

Who said there was no building maintenance? or city maintenance ala civ 4 or even population maintenance... perhaps amenities is paying your population gold to stay happy?

Or civic maintenance? (ala civ4 as well)

 

[Ryika]

It requires more military in absolute numbers, but less military per city. That's the key problem.

Only if expansions are effective at producing them.

Ok, let's say we made AI crazy aggressive and add furious barbs on top.

No, let's stop right there - because that's not what I said.The AI should not be crazily aggressive, it should be responsive. If it sees you expanding a lot very early on, then its "conclusion" must be that you both, currently weak and a danger in the long run. It should start producing tons of units and, if stuff is balanced properly, roll over you.

If however it sees you expanding at "reasonable speed" it should not get an "aggression boost".

 

[historix69]

"reasonable speed" is relative and should be evaluated with some tolerance.

Civ5 AI tends to forward settle other players. So depending on geography it might be useful to quickly place a couple of cities to claim your part of the world and then develop them while in another situation you can grow slowely placing one city after the other since rivals are no problem.

 

[Seek]

@Seek: Wow, now I feel stupid. To be fair though, you didn't link to the article, and your op seems to have been forgotten towards the end of this thread, as I didn't see anyone speaking about the science penalty. As I reason it, I must've skimmed the op and forgot about it by the time I reopened this thread later on.

Hey, no worries! Thanks for bringing it back up, I was surprised it wasn't discussed more tbh. It does seem odd that there would be a science penalty with more cities and not a culture one, since it's stability (in some ways translated to culture in Civ5/6) that provide real limits on expansion IRL.

It might be that when Ed mentioned the wide-cultural strat, he may have been referring to cultural influence, not necessarily culture-as-yield/civics. So it would not be too far off from Civ5 in that a wide empire with Sacred Sites could get an early leg up on a culture victory. So there might still be a civic cost increase from more cities.

This system was by far the best limit to expansion that we've had so far. It meant that it took time and effort to make a large empire, but it was possible if you planned it out well in advance. I suppose it's beneath Firaxis' pride to simply copy Civ IV in this respect, but it'd be a way better choice than a lame science penalty, imo.

I have to disagree in that Civ4's corruption was opaquely complex and unintuitive. I've seen it cited as distinctly un-fun many times over the years and one of the better changes in the civ series from civ4.

Let's not forget that in Civ5 there was a fairly large (in the early game, anyway) financial cost for going wide via building/road maintenance: the issue, again, was imbalance (gold not important enough of a resource in mid/late game) and AI incompetence (too easy to get massive amounts of gold from resource trades).

 

[kaspergm]

Yes, in Civ5 it was unnatural and tall empires are way too viable, but there are no natural ways to limit expansion. More cities = more everything, including military, builders and further settler production.

There are 2 different problems often mixed:

1. Spam of small cities too close to each other. That's quite easy to fix and I don't think with districts it will be viable strategy.

2. Early focus on expansion (with normal spacing) being the only viable strategy. This problem needs some gameplay mechanic to limit.

Yes, I fully agree with this, and ironically, I think the Civ5 global happiness worked extremely well to control #2 - that is, if you tweaked the numbers. Civ5 simply gave way too much bonus to tall empires - mostly through overpowered tradition policy tree + overpowered national wonders.

If you toned these aspects down in Civ5 - by nerfing Tradition, and by nerfing most notably the absurdly overpowered National College, as well as toning down the per-city science penalty - you get a game that works pretty much exactly like you say: Early extremely rapid expansion is very difficult to pull off because you'll lack the happiness to support new cities (and if you do it, you'll stall growth in all your cities), but in the long run, the larger empire gets the general advantage against the tall one if it manages to find the happiness sources to get the cities to grow to good size (most of them will not be as big as 4-city tradition, but still it's not ICS).

For those reasons, I'm not particularly happy with the global happiness going away, but worst I hate that the science-per-city penalty stays, because that's both extremely illogical and has an unhealthy effect on the game as I see it.

 

[criZp]

Yes, in Civ5 it was unnatural and tall empires are way too viable, but there are no natural ways to limit expansion. More cities = more everything, including military, builders and further settler production.

No, more people = more everything. A city with 10 pop does better than three cities with 2 pop. As I said, the game has been made so that small cities add people faster, therefore many small > few large, in terms of potensial. This growth mechanic can be changed so that many cities won't "always" be better (I think it would be natural if, in fact, larger cities grew faster, but that would perhaps make for a more boring game considering how slowly a city would develop in the beginning, or alternatively how quickly it would reach max population capacity)

 

[stealth_nsk]

Only if expansions are effective at producing them.

If there are no other limitations, cities which are 20-30 turns younger than capitol don't differ from it noticeably. Middle-game expansion is completely different beast and require significant investments to catch on.

No, let's stop right there - because that's not what I said.The AI should not be crazily aggressive, it should be responsive. If it sees you expanding a lot very early on, then its "conclusion" must be that you both, currently weak and a danger in the long run. It should start producing tons of units and, if stuff is balanced properly, roll over you.

If however it sees you expanding at "reasonable speed" it should not get an "aggression boost".

Ok, this will probably work, except for player being the only civ on a continent or together with a single relatively peaceful civ. However, I don't see how it's more natural than other early game expansion restrictions. You still need to introduce a new thing into game - early expansion modifier.

Yes, I fully agree with this, and ironically, I think the Civ5 global happiness worked extremely well to control #2 - that is, if you tweaked the numbers. Civ5 simply gave way too much bonus to tall empires - mostly through overpowered tradition policy tree + overpowered national wonders.

The disadvantage of Civ5 global happiness was - it was part of "tall is as viable as wide" concept, allowing small civs to grow cities more. That was incorrect concept right from the start and it was the reason why BNW ended up with tall empires being better wide.

No, more people = more everything. A city with 10 pop does better than three cities with 2 pop.

Without additional restrictions we're not talking about 1 10-pop city vs. 3 2-pop cities. We're talking about 1 10-pop city against 3 10-pop cities. Or, at least 3 9-pop cities if settlers are very expensive.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

The disadvantage of Civ5 global happiness was - it was part of "tall is as viable as wide" concept, allowing small civs to grow cities more. That was incorrect concept right from the start and it was the reason why BNW ended up with tall empires being better wide.

It was the correct concept, they just overadjusted.

 

[criZp]

Without additional restrictions we're not talking about 1 10-pop city vs. 3 2-pop cities. We're talking about 1 10-pop city against 3 10-pop cities.

I literally just said that this is due to how the growth mechanic in ciV works, which can easily be altered so that more cities won't automatically ahve more people in the long run.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I literally just said that this is due to how the growth mechanic in ciV works, which can easily be altered so that more cities won't automatically ahve more people in the long run.

Civ5 has crazy set of expansion limits, we're not talking about 5 here, we're talking about 6 with it's lack of global happiness and no info about other limits.

 

[Ryika]

If there are no other limitations, cities which are 20-30 turns younger than capitol don't differ from it noticeably. Middle-game expansion is completely different beast and require significant investments to catch on.

I agree that that's how it works in Civ 5, but you're phrasing that as something that is universally true - it doesn't have to be. I mean, to make an example: Let's reduce free basic yields in Expansions and give the Palace +6 Production.

What you end up with is a scenario where every new city will develop a lot slower than the capital. Now you add small, flat yield bonuses vs big growth bonuses into Policies, make Internal Trade Routes produce Food and some Production at the same time, limit them in numbers so that a wide empire cannot come close to supplying all cities and there you go, you have a tall vs. wide system that does not rely on penalties per city and therefor doesn't discourage from funding smaller Cities in suboptimal spaces later on.

After the early part you'd be able to use Gold to get a new Expansion running relatively quickly, and in the midgame scaling wide empires vs. tall empires is really just a matter of creating bonuses that are too specialized to be useful for the other type of empire and scaling them manually so that both can somewhat compete with each other.

Ok, this will probably work, except for player being the only civ on a continent or together with a single relatively peaceful civ. However, I don't see how it's more natural than other early game expansion restrictions. You still need to introduce a new thing into game - early expansion modifier.

Well, a similar system already exists in Civ 5, the "XY thinks we're building cities too quickly"-modifier.

 

[criZp]

If we consider the world today, there are "tall" nations like Italy, with monuments and tourism for Cultural victory but poor of resources, countries like Saudi Arabia which has a low population concentrated in 2-3 cities, but with quite huge land rich of resources and there are Russia and USA which have areas with tall cities and other areas where cities are small but rich of resources. I think it should be possible to win in every situation: having a tall or wide empire; the choice being dictated by the starting location and by traits of civilization.

Preferably there would be no tall vs wide. Players should constantly consider if adding another city in some or other location would have a gain that outweights the cost, or not. If you go into a game like "I'm gonna build exactly 4 cities" then there's less adaptive decisionmaking and therefore less strategy involved. Al least when going wide you have to decide where to put the next city, but I think even if you're generally expansionist there should be times when expansion if unfavorable.

 

[criZp]

Civ5 has crazy set of expansion limits, we're not talking about 5 here, we're talking about 6 with it's lack of global happiness and no info about other limits.

Exactly, we don't know the growth mechanics in civ 6 so more cities won't automatically mean more people.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I agree that that's how it works in Civ 5, but you're phrasing that as something that is universally true - it doesn't have to be. I mean, to make an example: Let's reduce free basic yields in Expansions and give the Palace +6 Production.

What you end up with is a scenario where every new city will develop a lot slower than the capital. Now you add small, flat yield bonuses vs big growth bonuses into Policies, make Internal Trade Routes produce Food and some Production at the same time, limit them in numbers so that a wide empire cannot come close to supplying all cities and there you go, you have a tall vs. wide system that does not rely on penalties per city and therefor doesn't discourage from funding smaller Cities in suboptimal spaces later on.

I don't see where we're disputing here. My point was - the early expansion needs to be limited and what without limits the early expansion will be the only viable strategy. You seem to be arguing with my position, but at the same time you propose 3 mechanics to limit the expansion (palace production bonuses, policies and limited number of trade routes). I'd say this fits my point of view completely.

Well, a similar system already exists in Civ 5, the "XY thinks we're building cities too quickly"-modifier.

Yes, one of many Civ5 modifiers against expansion.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I agree that that's how it works in Civ 5, but you're phrasing that as something that is universally true - it doesn't have to be. I mean, to make an example: Let's reduce free basic yields in Expansions and give the Palace +6 Production.

What you end up with is a scenario where every new city will develop a lot slower than the capital. Now you add small, flat yield bonuses vs big growth bonuses into Policies, make Internal Trade Routes produce Food and some Production at the same time, limit them in numbers so that a wide empire cannot come close to supplying all cities and there you go, you have a tall vs. wide system that does not rely on penalties per city and therefor doesn't discourage from funding smaller Cities in suboptimal spaces later on.

After the early part you'd be able to use Gold to get a new Expansion running relatively quickly, and in the midgame scaling wide empires vs. tall empires is really just a matter of creating bonuses that are too specialized to be useful for the other type of empire and scaling them manually so that both can somewhat compete with each other.


Well, a similar system already exists in Civ 5, the "XY thinks we're building cities too quickly"-modifier.

You always have a per city penalty unless settlers are free (although that is a temporary per city penalty as opposed to a constant one)

And there should be nothing wrong with avoiding putting cities into suboptimal places later on. (depending on how suboptimal)

I'm not sure that the X turns younger factor (or the time until investment is paid back in a newly founded city) should change over time because
1. The only reason to found cities mid game is if there is empty area you can access... this isn't likely because of the fact that cities do pay back, and the small size of the map (3-4 cities per empire fills most of it up)* Terra maps are an exception

2. The only other midgame acquired cities are conquered, and because of the snowball effect, those should take some significant investment to pay back (although it would be nice if that investment was more one sided...right now that is just the courthouse/puppet penalties for conqueror v. liberator)

 

[Ryika]

I don't see where we're disputing here. My point was - the early expansion needs to be limited and what without limits the early expansion will be the only viable strategy. You seem to be arguing with my position, but at the same time you propose 3 mechanics to limit the expansion (palace production bonuses, policies and limited number of trade routes). I'd say this fits my point of view completely.

The difference between our viewpoints is that I want to avoid %-penalties. At least I think it is?

You always have a per city penalty unless settlers are free (although that is a temporary per city penalty as opposed to a constant one)

Yeah, but that penalty is local to one city. Not a global hit on a yield. It's an investment. "Do I want to spend the production and potential conflict from that city? Is what I get worth it?"

That should be a real question. Currently it's not, because settling a city bombs your science and Culture even if we keep Happiness off the grid.

I'm not sure that the X turns younger factor (or the time until investment is paid back in a newly founded city) should change over time because
1. The only reason to found cities mid game is if there is empty area you can access... this isn't likely because of the fact that cities do pay back, and the small size of the map (3-4 cities per empire fills most of it up)* Terra maps are an exception

1.) Cities always pay for themselves quicker as the game goes on, that's true for Civ 5 as well. You get global bonus yields from a few sources, some free buildings, etc. Not quite sure what the point is here... if there WAS free space left after the initial expansion phase new cities would usually still not be founded after that, because of how the %-penalties screw effectiveness.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Yeah, but that penalty is local to one city. Not a global hit on a yield. It's an investment. "Do I want to spend the production and potential conflict from that city? Is what I get worth it?"

That should be a real question. Currently it's not, because settling a city bombs your science and Culture even if we keep Happiness off the grid.
.

Global v. local isn't the worry.
The happiness, Science, culture (and gold for civ 4) costs are all ongoing, so it is possible for a city to be costing you just to be there.

So its not just "how soon will this pay off", but "will this Ever pay off?"

If it "ever pays off"... if I can develop that city to the point where it is better than Not having that city, it is still an investment.. just an investment I made over multiple turns from my whole empire, like researching a tech.

and since the cost of a city goes up (given that it is effectively a % of your output) its possible for it not to pay off, and the investment cost gets more the more cities you have.

 

[Ryika]

Global v. local isn't the worry.
The happiness, Science, culture (and gold for civ 4) costs are all ongoing, so it is possible for a city to be costing you just to be there.

So its not just "how soon will this pay off", but "will this Ever pay off?"

If it "ever pays off"... if I can develop that city to the point where it is better than Not having that city, it is still an investment.. just an investment I made over multiple turns from my whole empire, like researching a tech.

and since the cost of a city goes up (given that it is effectively a % of your output) its possible for it not to pay off, and the investment cost gets more the more cities you have.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant. It's a local, temporary penalty that pays back, not a global modifier that can never pay back after a certain point rather early in the game.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant. It's a local, temporary penalty that pays back, not a global modifier that can never pay back after a certain point rather early in the game.

Well the difference isn't local v. global, but temporary v. permanent.

and even a model of no costs for a city besides settler cost would have the problem of not paying back... there would be no benefit to building a 100 cost settler as opposed to converting that production to faith/culture/gold/science/units to win on the last 10 turns ( a new city is not going to get 10 production per turn).

Permanent local penalty isn't really possible (except in the new city itself), but there is a temporary global penalty when you buy a settler with gold... or for that matter conquer a city, your units could be doing something else...or you could disband them and not pay the maintenance)

 

[Louis XXIV]

Who said there was no building maintenance?

Quill18, iirc.