gcm4738
Senator from Abyssinia
This about sums it up in two simple back to back comments on IV and V... If VI can improve both of these 2 things (without adding some other dire weakness yet to be determined) I reckon it will be the best Civ yet!
Limits to expansion?
- Thread starter Seek
- Start date
This about sums it up in two simple back to back comments on IV and V... If VI can improve both of these 2 things (without adding some other dire weakness yet to be determined) I reckon it will be the best Civ yet!
stealth_nsk
Deity
Expansion for 4X game should be better than tall development, that's ok. The problem is ICS being just the best strategy for early Civ games. That's lack of choice and that's not great.
I don't see how districts limit the system. Building districts for 5 cities is as easy as building them in 1. The cost of settler could be a limit early game, but again - the more you expand, the easier it's to expand.
Where are a lot of areas where such balance could be implemented. I.e. cost increase for each consequent settler may be quite strong barrier for crazy early game expansion, etc.
I don't see how districts limit the system. Building districts for 5 cities is as easy as building them in 1. The cost of settler could be a limit early game, but again - the more you expand, the easier it's to expand.
Where are a lot of areas where such balance could be implemented. I.e. cost increase for each consequent settler may be quite strong barrier for crazy early game expansion, etc.
Hoping they've got it right this time. I hated the Civilization 5 system in regards to expansion.
If they finally slay the ICS dragon, this could be the best Civ yet.
If they finally slay the ICS dragon, this could be the best Civ yet.
stealth_nsk
Deity
No, we don't know this and I don't see how it relates to city spam. In Civ5 science from population was actually a part of system to fight ICS as tall cities produced much more science than many smaller ones.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
Not on high difficulties, no.
You could very easily drag your tech rate into the gutter before getting things you needed to handle the cities. Lots of river + FIN + gems start could hold many cites fast...more plains and limited
and you'd flounder before reaching 6-7 cities on higher difficulties and making them could cost you the game.
stealth_nsk
Deity
Not on high difficulties, no.
You could very easily drag your tech rate into the gutter before getting things you needed to handle the cities. Lots of river + FIN + gems start could hold many cites fast...more plains and limited
Still doesn't look like real barrier for expansion.
Ikael
King
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2005
- Messages
- 873
I would like some kind of expansion limiting mechanism that do not punish expansion per se, but rather stupid, mindless expansion, and one that, if possible, could deter snowballing. Out of the random ideas that comes in the top of my mind:
- Governance mechanism. Surpass your civilization's goverment governance capacity, get hitted by economic penalties. Kinda like Civ4's manteinance system, but clearer and readable on-screen
- Cultural identity radious. The further from your capital a city is, the less culture and science it generates (rather than having increased tech / policies costs). Production, gold and faith, however, are unaffected by this. Consequently, small civs would still have a chance of keeping up with its bigger neighbours arms race towards victory, even if expansion and big empires would still be rewarded with considerable advantages in other complimentary areas such as military or religion.
- Cultural assimilation. Perhaps cities with a strong foreign cultural presence ought to suffer happiness penalties. This way you can still benefit a lot due to conquest / expansion, but you will need to devoute significant resources in order to obtain returns for your "investment" and assimilate other parts of your empire
- Governance mechanism. Surpass your civilization's goverment governance capacity, get hitted by economic penalties. Kinda like Civ4's manteinance system, but clearer and readable on-screen
- Cultural identity radious. The further from your capital a city is, the less culture and science it generates (rather than having increased tech / policies costs). Production, gold and faith, however, are unaffected by this. Consequently, small civs would still have a chance of keeping up with its bigger neighbours arms race towards victory, even if expansion and big empires would still be rewarded with considerable advantages in other complimentary areas such as military or religion.
- Cultural assimilation. Perhaps cities with a strong foreign cultural presence ought to suffer happiness penalties. This way you can still benefit a lot due to conquest / expansion, but you will need to devoute significant resources in order to obtain returns for your "investment" and assimilate other parts of your empire
Acken
Deity
I also really hope lixs are important and not mere tile bonuses.
stealth_nsk
Deity
IMHO, the best mechanism is increasing settler cost with each settler production started
Simple and painful.
Bandobras Took
Emperor
IMHO, the best mechanism is increasing settler cost with each settler production started
That's an idea with definite potential.
bonafide11
Worker
IMHO, the best mechanism is increasing settler cost with each settler production started
That may reward early conquest TOO much though.
bonafide11
Worker
I'd rather have a useless city in my hands than in the hands of an opponent. I don't think the city being useless is in itself a deterrent. That's why there needs to be maintenance or something associated with it. Then we have to decide whether it's worth settling the city or not. If there isn't anything negative associated with settling it, why not settle it?
Hakan-i Cihan
Emperor
Not only should there be a restriction on settling, but razing cities should be penalized as well diplomatically and in other ways. So settling cities should be outweighed thoroughly at beforehand.
Kouvb593kdnuewnd
Left Forever
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 4,146
I think it is likely that they will do a tech and culture cost increase per city penalty like in V but we know the happines system have been changed and that do mean alot.
The importance is that the system is relevant both in the early and late game.
The importance is that the system is relevant both in the early and late game.
historix69
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Messages
- 1,412
Expansion is necessary, e.g. to claim land, to grab strategic ressources or to establish a military outpost ... if the location is not suited for a self supplying city, it usually has to be supported with money from the national budget. So a limiting factor might be high upkeep.
Increasing Tech Costs per city is nonsense ... scientists usually don't care how many cities a nation has ... (Imagine you have a SuperScienceCity and a hundred size 1 cities. Why should all those small settlements slow down progress of the scientists in the SSC?)
Problem in real life is that more scientists do not necessarly solve a problem faster than a sufficient group of scientists due to redundant results.
(A pregnant woman usually gives birth to a baby after 9 months, but taking 9 pregnant women do not mean that you get the baby in 1 month. Instead they give birth to 9 childs after 9 months. If babys were like Techs in Civ than 270 women would deliver a single baby after 1 day of pregnancy.)
Possible solutions for Civ would be to
- limit science contribution of additional cities or
- introduce Tech projects (babies) (, e.g. every city can work on its own project but progress of one city is not cumulative with progress of another city) or
- limit science in general like in Civ3. (In Civ3 there was a science limit that every tech was researched in minimum 4 turns and maximum 40 turns. Civ3 had massive Tech Trading and Science and Cash Income were both based on Trade Income and sliders.)
Increasing Tech Costs per city is nonsense ... scientists usually don't care how many cities a nation has ... (Imagine you have a SuperScienceCity and a hundred size 1 cities. Why should all those small settlements slow down progress of the scientists in the SSC?)
Problem in real life is that more scientists do not necessarly solve a problem faster than a sufficient group of scientists due to redundant results.
(A pregnant woman usually gives birth to a baby after 9 months, but taking 9 pregnant women do not mean that you get the baby in 1 month. Instead they give birth to 9 childs after 9 months. If babys were like Techs in Civ than 270 women would deliver a single baby after 1 day of pregnancy.)
Possible solutions for Civ would be to
- limit science contribution of additional cities or
- introduce Tech projects (babies) (, e.g. every city can work on its own project but progress of one city is not cumulative with progress of another city) or
- limit science in general like in Civ3. (In Civ3 there was a science limit that every tech was researched in minimum 4 turns and maximum 40 turns. Civ3 had massive Tech Trading and Science and Cash Income were both based on Trade Income and sliders.)
Kouvb593kdnuewnd
Left Forever
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 4,146
We are talking about a game not about how stuff work in real life so real life arguments for or against a system weight lightly in my opinion.
The general idea is that smal cities should be a potential drain to your empire and that there is some sort of mechanic that shackle the power of a large empire even in the later stages of the game which civilization IV maintenance system could not do.
The general idea is that smal cities should be a potential drain to your empire and that there is some sort of mechanic that shackle the power of a large empire even in the later stages of the game which civilization IV maintenance system could not do.
Battlehelm043
Warlord
From what I am understanding each city will have its own local happiness, in addition to projects it needs to complete. When building buildings in each district that in effect eats up city production time. Which means you not only need to balance each city with the types of districts with the quality of terrain; but you must also constantly increase a city's food supply and housing supply. If you don't the city will cease to grow and even drag down your tech/culture. This would in a sense slow down expansion because you now have a drain on your empire. To build faster requires good production tiles and a larger pop, but if you are just spamming cities your core few may be doing well, yet the others may revolt and drag you down like a lead weight.
It was indeed interesting to hear that when building buildings inside a district it still takes up the production slot in the city which I think would balance things for expansion nicely. I sense this new balance will enable a person to expand, but in a way that is controlled and beneficial to your empire. Since we must read the location more than ever pointless cities would be a boon on your empire and eat resources.
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....
It was indeed interesting to hear that when building buildings inside a district it still takes up the production slot in the city which I think would balance things for expansion nicely. I sense this new balance will enable a person to expand, but in a way that is controlled and beneficial to your empire. Since we must read the location more than ever pointless cities would be a boon on your empire and eat resources.
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....
kaspergm
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 5,831
I'd agree if discussion was whether we should have a limiting mechanism or not, but that's not the case. I think we all agree some mechanism should be here. If discussion is between two mechanisms that do the job equally well but one makes sense in terms of realism and the other doesn't, realism becomes a valid argument for one over the other.
