No more corruption!

[remconius]

If I understand correctly corruption will be replaced by maintenance costs.

So all cities can be just as productive, but the further away from the capital / FP, the more expensive they will be.

I wonder if there be a point where an extra cities costs more than it produces? So as long as you are rich you can increase food and hammer production at the expense of total gold/science/culture.

The other question is how maintenance costs are determined? Number of cities, distance from capital.

And what will be more expensive? basic city, each improvement, each citizen?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Mostly Speculation here, but I feel strongly that both distance from capital and Optimal City Number will still feature strongly in this new model for city maintainance. I also believe that city improvements will cost money on top of city maintainance-but that is definitely just me guessing.
I definitely think this system will work a hell of a lot better than the previous corruption system.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[apatheist]

Optimal City Number is still a hack, though.

 

[remconius]

There is also a mention that if you expand too fast too early maintenance will catch up with you. You can still expand a lot as long as you're core can support the fringe cities, I suppose.

 

[player1 fanatic]

I wonder if there be a point where an extra cities costs more than it produces? So as long as you are rich you can increase food and hammer production at the expense of total gold/science/culture.

And when you expand too much you get USSR.
Lots of shields (pardon... hammers), and little gold or science.

 

[apatheist]

Are you kidding? The USSR had great science. It's pretty amazing what they did given the weak economy and ineptness of the political leaders.

 

[Andrew_Jay]

USSR: Lots of shields (pardon... hammers).

Literally.

I think this is awesome. In Civ3, every new city, no matter how corrupt, added at least something to your empire. This makes you actually plan your expansion a lot better, and makes you ask yourself "do I really need a city here?"

In interviews they've mentioned that some Civs might be better off handing border cities over to another player as they get too expensive. Another interesting option would be to simply abandon them all together - I think it was mentioned that barbarians will have quasi-cities, imagine just cutting unwanted cities off, leaving them for someone else to pick up.

 

[Superkrest]

from the last update..it was my interpratation that the game will be more about management and will be very hard to have massive empires. and resources will be more evenly distrubited. make a long story short ..it will take alot of skill to be huge..which i think levels the playing field and allows very productive small empires(thank the lord)

ps. the soviets were the first in space..and the first satalite...it was simpily that the US outspent..not outscienced. To become a world super power with half the economy of the rival speaks volumes of soviet science

 

[apatheist]

Another interesting option would be to simply abandon them all together - I think it was mentioned that barbarians will have quasi-cities, imagine just cutting unwanted cities off, leaving them for someone else to pick up.

That would be nice, but I doubt it's in the game. You can either disband it, give it to the AI, or wait for someone to take it. If the game supported secession, you could give the city independence, but we don't know that it does.

 

[player1 fanatic]

Are you kidding? The USSR had great science. It's pretty amazing what they did given the weak economy and ineptness of the political leaders.

Ok, switch words "gold and science" to economy.

 

[sir_schwick]

Hopefully they will also remove the free-tile that is the city center. This and removing the free tile makes the value of the city more important than the number or size.