1v1 me bro.
Map size scaling
- Thread starter tu_79
- Start date
1v1 me bro.
tu_79
Deity
I'd keep the costs per city at 8%, but probably would increase the combat penalties. If they can be set at (captured cities / total cities in the game) * constant, that will make it.
On a related note I find the combat penalty for holding a capital too high. Anyone else?
ElliotS
Warmonger
I haven't noticed a problem. When the ball gets rolling I'm super hard to stop.
There's actually a better way as a warmonger though: Take most of an AI's cities and vassalize them while they still have a capital. You'll easily win culture or diplomacy that way, while avoiding combat penalties and having better diplomacy. Only reason to take capital is important wonders.
I mean it's unintuitive that not taking a capital can make more sense as a warmonger, but thems the ropes.
If I was going to make a change I'd make the penalty much smaller but per city taken. That would make sense to scale on mapsize like this cost used to, (Conquest is easier -> harder on map-size) and make razing more appealing. Problem is that I don't know if you can go below a single % with the CS changes, as the per city penalty would probably be: 4% on Duel, 2% on Tiny, 0.75% on Small, 0.5% on Standard, 0.35% on Large, 0.25% on Huge.
That, or make it 1% on small, 1% per 2 on standard, 1% per 3 on large, and 1 per 4 on huge. Not sure how the coding works. @Gazebo is any of this feasible code-wise? I don't want to waste time discussing it if it's not.
I like this change but your numbers dont add up.
Assuming an average of 8 cities per Civ, full conquest of a civ on Standard at .5% per city is only 4% total.
More realistically, you are a total warmonger if you are capturing more than 4 cities per Civ.
I think 2% per city on standard 1.5% per city on large and 1% per city on huge.
Duel can be 4% per city to reduce snowball, 3% on tiny, 2.5% on small.
This way each city take is at least a consideration towards combat power. Nobody is going to raze a city because of a measly loss of .5%
If you are taking too much combat penalties vassalize a civ instead. If you want to be thorough and wipe out your competitors you will have to go all the way and actually raze their cities.
This encourages taking strategic cities instead of useless ones that dont even have walls yet just because they are easy.
Assuming an average of 8 cities per Civ, full conquest of a civ on Standard at .5% per city is only 4% total.
More realistically, you are a total warmonger if you are capturing more than 4 cities per Civ.
I think 2% per city on standard 1.5% per city on large and 1% per city on huge.
Duel can be 4% per city to reduce snowball, 3% on tiny, 2.5% on small.
This way each city take is at least a consideration towards combat power. Nobody is going to raze a city because of a measly loss of .5%
If you are taking too much combat penalties vassalize a civ instead. If you want to be thorough and wipe out your competitors you will have to go all the way and actually raze their cities.
This encourages taking strategic cities instead of useless ones that dont even have walls yet just because they are easy.
I don’t think it is as straightforward as the existing system. In any case taking a capital is usually a gateway to snowball town for any victory condition.
G
Blue Ghost
King
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2016
- Messages
- 689
If it’s gotten to the point where it’s beneficial to specifically avoid capturing capitals when conquering, that’s unintuitive gameplay and worth looking at. Between the combat penalties and harsh warmonger penalties, capturing capitals right now is quite unappealing if you’re not specifically pursuing domination victory.
tu_79
Deity
I think it's been done before, in some beta.
I'm in favor of a combat penalty based on the number of conquered cities. I also like the tourism penalty based on the number of capitals taken. This will make domination to go for capitals and spare more non-capital cities, while cultural warmongers (Bonaparte says hello) could do just the opposite.
In that case, it will need to scale based on the number of potential cities to conquer. Using OP chart, that would be:
Map size, cities typically conquered; combat penalty per conquered city; final penalty
Duel, 1+1 = 2; 25%; 50% (*)
Tiny, 4x2+1 = 9; 6%; 54%
Small, 4x4+1 = 17; 3%; 51%
Standard, 4x6+1 = 25; 2%; 50%
Large, 6x8+1 = 49; 1%; 49%
Huge, 11x10+1 = 111; 1%; 111% (**)
(*) Duel is weird. It just takes 1 city for winning domination. But 50% penalty for each city is huge.
(**) Either make it 1 per 2 cities, either let huge map be where most razing occurs.
Assuming doublex55 projection of 4 cities taken for each civ, and aiming for a final combat penalty over 50%, if we give 2% combat penalty to Standard, it will be like (4 x 6 civs + 1 capital from the last civ = 25 cities taken) 50% combat penalty near the end. If someone likes to hoard cities, penalties can increase up to 100% combat penalty, actually preventing players from painting the whole map with a single colour.
EDIT. To make the difference clear.
Culture and research costs for each owned non-puppet: Tiny to Standard, +8%. Maybe 10% in Large and 12% in Huge.
Combat penalty for each conquered city under control: Duel 25%, Tiny 6%, Small 3%, Standard 2%, Large 1%, Huge 1%.
Tourism penalty for each captured capital: unchanged.
Last edited:
ElliotS
Warmonger
These numbers are WAAAAY too high. People hate this mechanic, so going too hard makes the game super unfun. I think it should end around 20%-30% during your last war.
tu_79
Deity
Easy. Round them down 50%. I just calculated the proportions among map sizes.
There is no point in making this change with smaller than 2% on standard. Seriously, what is the point in changing the mechanic if its so inconsequential it just gets ignored. How many cities are you usually capturing anyway? 30% is 15 cities. At .5% its 60 you are capturing every sijgle city in the world and you only want a 30% combat penalty, yet you claim the current penalty isnt too high? 4 capitals under the current system is 32%. And as you said, taking capitals shouldnt be discouraged. Your logic doesnt make sense to me.
tu_79
Deity
At 1%, expecting 4 cities conquerer from each civ (your numbers), the final combat will have a penalty of roughly 25% in standard. 8 civs in game, you have conquered 6 civs before the last one. 6 x 4 = 24 cities.
I think a 25% penalty is fair when you have conquered half of the civs on the map. My 2% per city is in line with the current 8% per cap penalty which gives 24% at 3 civs. You agree Its dumb that we are avoiding capturing the capital, right? Capturing 6 capitals puts you at 48% which is equal to the projected 50% penalty.
Last edited:
ElliotS
Warmonger
1- I'll admit I didn't math out my initial proposal. it should probably be 1% on standard.
2- Where are you getting 4 cities per civ from? It normally comes out to 5-6 for me.
2- Where are you getting 4 cities per civ from? It normally comes out to 5-6 for me.
Assuming an optimistic average of 8 cities per player, you probably capture their capital and most productive other 3 cities. Then vassalize them, or incur extra penalty from over warmongering. This means you can directly control half the cities in the world at 50% penalty.
You broke my rule. Don’t tell me what is or isn’t easy to do in the DLL. As always, people forget about teaching the AI. The system remains as is.
G
This is basically what I've come to the conclusion of, its just not worth taking capitals, or maybe 1 or 2. Even with highly promoted units or a big tech lead a 28% combat penalty is really harsh. It just feels really gimmicky to not be able to take capitals. I'm pretty sure the AI doesn't have logic to skip capitals, so if players do agree the better course of action is often not to take it, something should change (not the whole system though)
Txurce
Deity
Good point, if true.
