Making Colonies/Mid-game Settling Fun, Viable, and Accurate

[ManoftheHour333]

The example of british textil industry show us that build improvements right on the same cotton producing tile or city would not be historical since acces to raw material is just one factor, the proximity to consumers, energy sources and provide local jobs tips the scales in favor of investing on homeland industrialization before the vulnerable and cultural foreign oversea colonies. Another later case of industrial textile alternatives are sythetic fibers like rayon, nylon and polyester vs the natural silk.

By the way a population system that allow migration and include identity elements like Heritage (ethnicity) and Profession (social class) would be key for both economic and cultural mechanics, and relevant to colonial and industrial phenomena.

I can 100% guarantee that we'll never seen a population-level mechanic implemented in civ...WAY too controversial. Also, social classes and heritage would be systems that I could see getting way to complex, quickly which would bloat a game even more than Civ VI is already.

The most I could see would be a population-movement mechanic where cities could lose population to other more prosperous civs if there has been a nearby war, or a weather-related event occurs...there would be slight ways to prevent populations from migrating (happiness or something like that) but overall, that should be a minor system the player has little control over...like in real life. God knows the Irish government didn't love 50% of they workforce emigrating away (Ignoring the British shenanigans lol).

 

[reddishrecue]

I can 100% guarantee that we'll never seen a population-level mechanic implemented in civ...WAY too controversial. Also, social classes and heritage would be systems that I could see getting way to complex, quickly which would bloat a game even more than Civ VI is already.

The most I could see would be a population-movement mechanic where cities could lose population to other more prosperous civs if there has been a nearby war, or a weather-related event occurs...there would be slight ways to prevent populations from migrating (happiness or something like that) but overall, that should be a minor system the player has little control over...like in real life. God knows the Irish government didn't love 50% of they workforce emigrating away (Ignoring the British shenanigans lol).

Population migrations already happen in humankind and will probably happen in civilization 7, I would like that and it would make sense. Weather issues also happen in civ 6 except that the population gets lost, buildings get damaged and units get damaged.

 

[BuchiTaton]

This may be a stretch but what if in later ages, resources could be "turned" into others (i.e. horses into horseraces, iron into vitamin plants, cotton plantations into textile factories) that allow players to increase their trade routes' efficiency without needing to constantly expand?

Of course build industry to improve the bonus from resources like cotton or iron make a lot of sense.

This part is also OK...

By just allowing for the improvement to be improved (Maybe by not even using a builder charge) each tiles could be made into all sorts of new opportunities...whaling tiles could become whale watching tours in the information era, mines+quarries could be produced into more efficient "plants" that give more production+science,

Because it only need to implement a new technology/civic that would change the bonus provided by the resource, for example all yours tiles exploiting Whales could change from give you Production to give you Tourism by research the Environmentalism civic. But the problem is the idea of the tiles with the resource to be changed like you said here...

On a side note, the idea of tiles being "improved" later on in the game would be something that would make a lot of sense. I've always hated that horse tiles stay as horse tiles...wouldn't those be converted to either a) a ranching development, to b) a horse track? By just allowing for the improvement to be improved

- Horses: It is already wacky that you can not gain new breeds of horses once domesticated from the wild ones I mean medieval France did not depended of horses imported from Kazakhstan to have Knights in their armies. Do not add the need to build Racecourses over random places when the biggest horse races in the world are near wealthy cities not in the Eurasian Steppe from where horses are native. It would be easier if horses gives some cultural bonus since start and once researched the civic Professional Sports in the Contemporary Era it provide a global bonus to Entertainment district.

mines+quarries could be produced into more efficient "plants" that give more production+science, and plantations could become "plantation houses" (Better name I'm sure) that give extra housing and happiness for citizens. The resource doesn't have to stay stagnant-it can change and give important late game bonuses! Which may incentivize late-game expansion if you need to acquire those resources...bringing things full circle XD

- Most resources from mines and quarries are still relevant on any era and their bonus can be abstracted in the same way on many eras. For example Copper as metal to make tools and weapons in early game could be represented by Production yield like also would for electronics in later eras. Still research Electronic technology could allow Electronics Factories with an additional bonus if you own Copper.
- Plantations also do not need any real change, wine or tobacco still are valuable but now are outshine by resources like oil and industrial products like cars and electronics. Maybe the closer to be a significative change about plantation resources is allow to produce Biodisel on the very late game with a new tech/civic.
- Cotton, a Textile Factory is perfect but it should NOT need to be built on the Cotton tile.
- Iron, vitamins are a side note we are talking about an Industrial Furnace, massive steel production used on buildings, ships, machinery, etc. are the real deal.

So is great to improve “old” resources but just if:
1- There is a significative new and valuable application for the resource.
2- The change is linked to the research of a new Tech/Civic which usually would automatically change the bonus/yield the resource produce for your entire empire.
3- When a new building is justified it would be built in a logical place, for example a Refinery will NOT be built over the Oil producing tile.

It is important to not turn the improvement of X resource in an annoying task, also do not add to the messy district placement.

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

The example of british textil industry show us that build improvements right on the same cotton producing tile or city would not be historical since acces to raw material is just one factor, the proximity to consumers, energy sources and provide local jobs tips the scales in favor of investing on homeland industrialization before the vulnerable and cultural foreign oversea colonies.

When a new building is justified it would be built in a logical place, for example a Refinery will NOT be built over the Oil producing tile.

This is a great point and something Civ VI struggles to portray (if it was at all a goal). Part of colonization and the modern world has been the surge in complex trade relations where inputs can be imported, processed, and then exported anew to the world, leaving the industrial nation significantly wealthier (though not without its own costs...). I am not even sure it would be possible to build a refinery or textile mill in the way that they have historically been present. In JNR's bonus resource improvement mod, I believe the improvements are restricted to the city with access to the resource.

By the way a population system that allow migration and include identity elements like Heritage (ethnicity) and Profession (social class) would be key for both economic and cultural mechanics, and relevant to colonial and industrial phenomena.

I certainly would appreciate a more in-depth population identity and agree completely that its importance is well illustrated by colonization and industrialization.

 

[ManoftheHour333]

Population migrations already happen in humankind and will probably happen in civilization 7, I would like that and it would make sense. Weather issues also happen in civ 6 except that the population gets lost, buildings get damaged and units get damaged.

Migration and populations moving is obvious. I was moreso saying that we wouldn't see "ethnicity" like another user mentioned wanting. God knows how it'd fair if a population that is identified in some way as "Chinese" moved to a Japanese city to become "Japanese" lol. Also, it'd be too annoyingly complex IMO. I'd rather see more complex trade relations and city dynamics (Something the player can control) over complex population migrations/ethnic groups (Something the player can't control). I can just see this getting out of hand really fast.

 

[ManoftheHour333]

This is a great point and something Civ VI struggles to portray (if it was at all a goal). Part of colonization and the modern world has been the surge in complex trade relations where inputs can be imported, processed, and then exported anew to the world, leaving the industrial nation significantly wealthier (though not without its own costs...). I am not even sure it would be possible to build a refinery or textile mill in the way that they have historically been present. In JNR's bonus resource improvement mod, I believe the improvements are restricted to the city with access to the resource.



I certainly would appreciate a more in-depth population identity and agree completely that its importance is well illustrated by colonization and industrialization.

The first part 100%. Civ VI's problem is that it's waaaaay to focused on the early game (Something I've touched on) and the mid to late game slogs.

The movement and acquisition of raw materials should have some effect on how you develop your larger cities in the mid-game; industrialization should frankly just have more requirements than a tech. To increase your production and build vital buildings, the player should be forced to either colonize unclaimed lands and build earlier era improvements in these lands to extract resources, or, eye up their neighbors and conquer them. If the player went for an earlier war and has more territory (Or if they player got a very, very lucky start), they may have these resources already in their territory...and in that case, it'd be up to them to defend their stuff and build those improvements to extract these resources, and power their late-game development. Basically, their cities and trade routes should shall HARD in quality if the player is not somehow expanding in the mid to late game. Yeah it makes peaceful play hard...but IMO that playstyle is often boring and unrealistic in the context of how Civ portrays civilizations and nations (Which has it's problems as is lol).

Population "identity" would work well in an industrialized world...but in my opinion I think it should not be implemented. Attaching an identity to a population unit that could be transferred between civs would be a disaster of controversy (I'm sure Georgian populations would love joining Russia...) and this level of hyper-realism just isn't needed. Population migration due to natural disasters, famines, or wars is something that could happen between civs-just don't attach that identity to them since they will just ruin things (And add too much unneeded complexity). An idea for this I had was to make culture of increasing importance throughout the eras-civs with lower cultural output may have a harder time keeping citizens loyal and as a result, these citizens may join other civs with higher culture. It makes culture as a currency more valuable and forces even the hard science-focussed civs into acknowledging and growing this vital metric. Culture should definitely still be tied to tourism for a kind of CV but culture by itself needs to hit harder and become a way to control and influence civs...science does this through increasing military techs but culture really doesn't...which should change.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Migration and populations moving is obvious. I was moreso saying that we wouldn't see "ethnicity" like another user mentioned wanting.

A possible Immigration mechanic would be one of the main uses for heritage/religion/profession since there should be some motivation for population to immigrate in first place.

God knows how it'd fair if a population that is identified in some way as "Chinese" moved to a Japanese city to become "Japanese" lol.

Immigrate do not mean to change their identity. Did Jews lost their religion or heritage after many centuries around the world? And even if some peoples did what is the problem about chinese immigrrant integrating to Japan? If we change this to Irish moving to USA and become Americans, should we "LOL" about it?

Either by conquest, immigration or alliance peoples of different cultures endend living in new lands and leaving his mark. In game this could be name Tradition, as a cultural legacy that do not even need to be blood-related since many of these include things like beliefs, art styles, techniques, foods, etc.

Also, it'd be too annoyingly complex IMO. I'd rather see more complex trade relations and city dynamics (Something the player can control) over complex population migrations/ethnic groups (Something the player can't control). I can just see this getting out of hand really fast.

It would be as complex as developers want. All game mechanics could be complex, included warfare, religion, economy, etc. But all of the ones on game are already abstracted and simplified. The actions of the players would have obvious effects like:
- Embrace Freedom of Religion then more religious minority population would move to your empire from the other regions where they live oppresed.
- Build more Universities and more Academic population would immigrate to your nation.
- Be fair with your population of X heritage and their homeland country would have a nice diplomatic bonus.

There is nothing realy complex about it, is a system of pros and cons from player actions based on the affinity to X or Y identity parameters of population units. It is in player control because population would neither immigrate or change heritage if there is not a significative action from the players.

Population "identity" would work well in an industrialized world...but in my opinion I think it should not be implemented. Attaching an identity to a population unit that could be transferred between civs would be a disaster of controversy (I'm sure Georgian populations would love joining Russia...) and this level of hyper-realism just isn't needed.

In game Georgia can turn muslim, while Russia can nuke and raze georgian cities and this is OK, but would be wrong to have georgian pops moving to Russia?!
If on game gerogian population have a good reason to move to Russia they would do, you know players could actualy play Russia as a more frienly nation if they want.

An idea for this I had was to make culture of increasing importance throughout the eras-civs with lower cultural output may have a harder time keeping citizens loyal and as a result, these citizens may join other civs with higher culture. It makes culture as a currency more valuable and forces even the hard science-focussed civs into acknowledging and growing this vital metric.

Similar to CIV4, where strong NAMED cultures can flip the loyalty from one civ to other. By the way in your model georgian population would still end joining Russia if the later have higher culture.

Population migration due to natural disasters, famines, or wars is something that could happen between civs-just don't attach that identity to them since they will just ruin things (And add too much unneeded complexity)
Culture should definitely still be tied to tourism for a kind of CV but culture by itself needs to hit harder and become a way to control and influence civs...science does this through increasing military techs but culture really doesn't...which should change.

Since in your model Tourism is a significative part of Culture output and this influence loyalty and immigration, then your population would end moving to live on countries with huge tourism atraction. This seems OK since in reality people moves to live to someplace after a nice trip, BUT by far most immigration is derives from misery, people seeking peace, freedom, jobs, etc. And apart from natural disasters the reasons to leave their homeland (includead war) are related to social classes, religion and heritage.
By the way most natural disaster before late game would be random and unrelated to player actions, unlike war, religious persecution and lack of jobs that can be controled by players.

Finally you make it look like if cultural influence is one direction when is in both ways, immigrants also influence the culture of their new homeland. That on game could mean new bonus for your empire from those immigrants.

 

[Zegangani]

Yep, BuchiTaton is right.
Immigration would be vital for an Ethnicity/Heritage Mechanic. I mean, if we have an Immigration Mechanic with something like; City X loses a Citizen to City Y, then there is not much fun in that, and gameplay-wise it would be bad Design, since it would be just a passive system that solves your Housing Issues (assuming we will still have something like that), without you lifting a finger, or just rarely. Ethnicity/Religion would add another layer to it, something that impacts the gameplay directly, something that improves the Empire management aspect of the Game, but it doesn't need to be a really deep mechanic or a complex one.

I imagine an Ethnicity Mechanic similar to the Religion in Civ6, where a City can hold Citizens with different religious beliefs. Except that the Player can't control it, but only influence it to a degree. Citizens would immigrate based on various things (War, Disaster, Health/Housing Issues, searching for Employment/Education...etc), while the Player may have some control over those things (like improving your Culture/Science output, providing enough comfort (Food/Health/Housing/Resources...), Freedom of Religion...etc). I also see this as a way to give some more Abilities to the Player, like a City that has the majority of its Citizens from a specific Civ, then that City will gain an Ability specific to that Ethnicity. And if you have enough of Citizens in your Empire with that Ethnicity, then that Ability will work nation-wide (but only in Cities with at least 1 Citizen with that Ethnicity). You don't need a system where you have to make each Ethnic Group happy, I think just having multi Ethnic Cities should be enough to reward the Player with some new Ability or just increased Yield generation in those Cities. And having a multi-ethnic Empire helps with culture victory and in the late game it attracts more Tourists from the People's home Nation.
So your main Goals with Ethnicity would eirther be:
- Work for the things that attract Immigrants, and open the borders for them: get as many Ethnicity Abilities as possible and use that to win the culture victory or improve your diplomatic relationship with Empires of origin.
- Apply Policies that keep your own (ethinic) Citizens from migrating to others (to stay as your majority ethinic group), while allowing others to join your Empire (Diplo bonus with Empires of origin),
- or Apply Policies/Actions for Isolation (and keep your Empire stable).

This would add some dynamism to the Gameplay without you needing to control each and every Citizen with an ethnicity. I mean, just like you don't need to control Religion in your Cities in civ6 (unless your going for the religion victory). You might influence immigration but it will still be a passive thing that's running on auto mode, like how Loyalty works, where the Player just needs to think about where to settle, get a Governor and grow Pops. Everything would be represented in the UI (Stats, estimated Turn(s) till a City gains/loses a Citizen...etc), perhaps something like a combination of the Religion and Loyalty Lenses. Same thing with Tourism, since we already don't have direct control over Tourists from specific Empires, or even our own, in Civ 6, we can only increase our global Tourism influence. So Immigration/Ethnicity should just be another thing that affects Tourism while also decreasing the effect of the other things that influence Tourism (like Rockbands, or GWAMs and Relics being the main Tourism attractions), and the UI should take care of everything necessary to know.

Or at least, that's how I would like it to work, and more or less how I want to mod it into 4XP (Immigration and Ethnicity - no specific Design yet).

 

[reddishrecue]

Migration and populations moving is obvious. I was moreso saying that we wouldn't see "ethnicity" like another user mentioned wanting. God knows how it'd fair if a population that is identified in some way as "Chinese" moved to a Japanese city to become "Japanese" lol. Also, it'd be too annoyingly complex IMO. I'd rather see more complex trade relations and city dynamics (Something the player can control) over complex population migrations/ethnic groups (Something the player can't control). I can just see this getting out of hand really fast.

I would like to see more trade also, like air trade and then you could add the airport and all the fighter unit's capability to intercept. Not only that but air trade would bring in more profit than the sea and land trade that already exist.

 

[ManoftheHour333]

Yep, BuchiTaton is right.
Immigration would be vital for an Ethnicity/Heritage Mechanic. I mean, if we have an Immigration Mechanic with something like; City X loses a Citizen to City Y, then there is not much fun in that, and gameplay-wise it would be bad Design, since it would be just a passive system that solves your Housing Issues (assuming we will still have something like that), without you lifting a finger, or just rarely. Ethnicity/Religion would add another layer to it, something that impacts the gameplay directly, something that improves the Empire management aspect of the Game, but it doesn't need to be a really deep mechanic or a complex one.

I imagine an Ethnicity Mechanic similar to the Religion in Civ6, where a City can hold Citizens with different religious beliefs. Except that the Player can't control it, but only influence it to a degree. Citizens would immigrate based on various things (War, Disaster, Health/Housing Issues, searching for Employment/Education...etc), while the Player may have some control over those things (like improving your Culture/Science output, providing enough comfort (Food/Health/Housing/Resources...), Freedom of Religion...etc). I also see this as a way to give some more Abilities to the Player, like a City that has the majority of its Citizens from a specific Civ, then that City will gain an Ability specific to that Ethnicity. And if you have enough of Citizens in your Empire with that Ethnicity, then that Ability will work nation-wide (but only in Cities with at least 1 Citizen with that Ethnicity). You don't need a system where you have to make each Ethnic Group happy, I think just having multi Ethnic Cities should be enough to reward the Player with some new Ability or just increased Yield generation in those Cities. And having a multi-ethnic Empire helps with culture victory and in the late game it attracts more Tourists from the People's home Nation.
So your main Goals with Ethnicity would eirther be:
- Work for the things that attract Immigrants, and open the borders for them: get as many Ethnicity Abilities as possible and use that to win the culture victory or improve your diplomatic relationship with Empires of origin.
- Apply Policies that keep your own (ethinic) Citizens from migrating to others (to stay as your majority ethinic group), while allowing others to join your Empire (Diplo bonus with Empires of origin),
- or Apply Policies/Actions for Isolation (and keep your Empire stable).

This would add some dynamism to the Gameplay without you needing to control each and every Citizen with an ethnicity. I mean, just like you don't need to control Religion in your Cities in civ6 (unless your going for the religion victory). You might influence immigration but it will still be a passive thing that's running on auto mode, like how Loyalty works, where the Player just needs to think about where to settle, get a Governor and grow Pops. Everything would be represented in the UI (Stats, estimated Turn(s) till a City gains/loses a Citizen...etc), perhaps something like a combination of the Religion and Loyalty Lenses. Same thing with Tourism, since we already don't have direct control over Tourists from specific Empires, or even our own, in Civ 6, we can only increase our global Tourism influence. So Immigration/Ethnicity should just be another thing that affects Tourism while also decreasing the effect of the other things that influence Tourism (like Rockbands, or GWAMs and Relics being the main Tourism attractions), and the UI should take care of everything necessary to know.

Not sure I exactly agree with Butchi and you in how ethnicity would be easy to implement successfully without the tedious micromanaging. I mean, I think population growth and loyalty are busy enough to manage in the late game and assigning an attribute to a movable population unit is just too much of something that's not needed. There's no way AI would be able to properly use this mechanic and if it's this complicated/micromanagy, multiplayer civ is just not going to be popular. I just continue to struggle to see how and why it would need to go this depth...but this is going into a wholly different question regarding the Civ games.

However, I think immigration can easily be implemented well in a way that is impactful without the baggage of adding specific traits to attract and split up ethnic groups. What I would like to see "expanded" on in Civ VII is the use of government policies. I think it was a really realistic yet fun way to treat a Civ's cultural/social policies (Although I do think ideology/late game government diplomacy was butchered pretty badly lol). What I never understood was why policies that affect your citizens (Amenity and growth policies) were assigned diplomatic, economic, or militarical...it all just made no sense since caring for one's citizens should be something all it's own. Scientific output, extra production, or trade can all be traced back to economic decisions but accepting immigrants or feeding one's citizens is something much more different.

This is where I think a new class of policies beyond the few we have should come in..."domestic". Domestic policies would be ones engineered to interact with citizens and should be forced upon the player at the first government (Every early government should choose 1 policy). Interestingly, like dark age policies, they should all have strong pro and con affects directly dealing with your citizens. An easy example would be that by slotting in one policy, for example "Freedom of Religion", citizens in nearby empires who do not belong to the state's main/founded religion should face negative pressure. What that would do would make those citizens produce less food towards generating population in the non-religiously tolerant cities and decrease a metric of happiness...all while increasing the religiously tolerant players' city populations. If conditions don't increase for the religiously intolerant cities, then all growth would stagnate and soon, the population would join the more successful players' cities. Hence, immigration. Through the tech tree, this whole system would increase in complexity as you gain the ability to more Domestic policy cards that interact with each other, and other civs' domestic policies. In the industrial modern era, there could be a card "Police State" that prevents all immigration to other players but lowers cultural output and science in all cities. Furthermore, having "Free Thought" could attract more immigrants (Increasing population and production significantly) but decrease loyalty in cities without a governor or something. Either way, I think this is a system that could be implemented through a policy and add some dynamics in how players react to their neighbors' social policies+governments. But I'll stand by my assessment that having these individual populations retain their "ethnicity" is just either a waste of time that no one will want to implement, or would be just too much baggage. Immigration can have affect through governmental policies and cities that have received immigrants could have positive+negative effects...but I think that's where I'd like it to end. I personally struggle to see how ensuring the loyalty/happiness of individual ethnic groups would be fun when wonder building, war, culture generation, GP, trade relations/economics, religion, and more are just rife for more interesting and fun gameplay. But just my opinion and like I said earlier, I think your suggestion was interesting to say the least!!

 

[ManoftheHour333]

I would like to see more trade also, like air trade and then you could add the airport and all the fighter unit's capability to intercept. Not only that but air trade would bring in more profit than the sea and land trade that already exist.

Air trade would be hella cool! I think Civ VI really messed up airplanes with the aerodrome shenanigans. In 500hrs of Civ I have never attacked a city with planes since all my flatland is more useful for wonders, dams/aqueducts/IZs, or farms. If they had just made it so that encampments could house planes it'd be so much easier. And with how they modeled aerodromes, plane trading wouldn't work well.

However, I could also see airports being a good neighborhood improvement/building...and here could be where buying "trade planes" could come into their own since in the modern era, a lot of goods are shipped to sell to citizens via plane while larger items and raw materials are all traded through shipping containers. I think it could prove a natural option that could provide a bunch of profits but have high startup costs until the Information Era. And yeah, it would make planes much more useful!

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

It would be as complex as developers want. All game mechanics could be complex, included warfare, religion, economy, etc. But all of the ones on game are already abstracted and simplified. The actions of the players would have obvious effects like:
- Embrace Freedom of Religion then more religious minority population would move to your empire from the other regions where they live oppresed.
- Build more Universities and more Academic population would immigrate to your nation.
- Be fair with your population of X heritage and their homeland country would have a nice diplomatic bonus.

This is a good and simple idea that seems like it could be implemented more or less painlessly. I would personally prefer more complex population and immigration mechanics, but this would be a good place to start.

An easy example would be that by slotting in one policy, for example "Freedom of Religion", citizens in nearby empires who do not belong to the state's main/founded religion should face negative pressure. What that would do would make those citizens produce less food towards generating population in the non-religiously tolerant cities and decrease a metric of happiness...all while increasing the religiously tolerant players' city populations. If conditions don't increase for the religiously intolerant cities, then all growth would stagnate and soon, the population would join the more successful players' cities. Hence, immigration.

Essentially, yes, Freedom of Religion as a policy ought to put pressure on other nations, in offering an alternative to their oppressive policies (not to say that freedom of religion is inevitable or the only alternative). That said, tying it to loyalty, while possibly simulating religious tension, unfortunately leaves open this weird interpretation where a religious minority is suddenly "disloyal" for not supporting the policies that structurally exclude them.

On a side note, this is generally my reservation, at least as a guiding principle. It was disturbing in Civilization IV that the player could simply unleash inquisitors and eliminate Holy Cities and other religious groups. It is sad that this element has persisted. With regard to population, the question would be more how to acknowledge these historical contributions without opening grounds for persecution and extermination.

The movement and acquisition of raw materials should have some effect on how you develop your larger cities in the mid-game; industrialization should frankly just have more requirements than a tech.

Adding requirements to industrialization sounds like a great idea! Following a more deterministic approach, that could include access to coal, textiles, and land, but it could be more open than that.

Air trade would be hella cool! I think Civ VI really messed up airplanes with the aerodrome shenanigans. In 500hrs of Civ I have never attacked a city with planes since all my flatland is more useful for wonders, dams/aqueducts/IZs, or farms. If they had just made it so that encampments could house planes it'd be so much easier. And with how they modeled aerodromes, plane trading wouldn't work well.

I like the idea of air trade, but agree that it rarely comes into play for me. Part of it has to do with how the end-game is far less engaging. The real trade-offs for building are the early- and mid-game choices in land allocation.