1. Firaxis celebrates the "Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month", and offers a give-away of a Civ6 anthology copy (5 in total)! For all the details, please check the thread here. .
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Old World has finally been released on GOG and Steam, besides also being available in the Epic store . Come to our Old World forum and discuss with us!
    Dismiss Notice

Reasons to stop expansion

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by indradiva, Oct 11, 2016.

  1. Haggbart

    Haggbart King

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2010
    Messages:
    851
    Location:
    Norway

    Well yeah maybe in theory, but in the end of Marbozir's game the settler cost is not even half the district cost. So instead of delaying/stopping you from settle MORE cities, the system might have an (unwanted) side effect of encouraging you to settle more instead of improving your existing cities.

    And at one point, conquering allready improved cities might be the most cost effective. Not that I have anything against that, just hope the AI will be up to it.
     
  2. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,514
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    How building a district could compete with building a settler in price only? Building a Campus will give way more science than a newly found city, building an Entertainment complex to make city happy will give tonns of everything and so on.
     
  3. Haggbart

    Haggbart King

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2010
    Messages:
    851
    Location:
    Norway

    Sure, I'm just saying that when you've built a certain amount of districts in your core cities it might be a valid strategy to deny the other players the remaining land and at one point conquer developed cities rather than developing your own. Which may or may not be intended. I would've thought settler cost would increase much more steeply than district cost, but I guess balancing is not done yet anyway.
     
  4. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,514
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    We need to actually play and see. If you can't just spam settlers to settle everything as fast as possible while being effective, that means there's some balance in place.
     
  5. Lord Yanaek

    Lord Yanaek Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,497
    Numbers might change before/after release but even if they don't, cities without any districts won't really help your economy. Apart from a few culture from monuments, they can grow and get some hammers but what for. No Science, no Great People, no Faith (maybe from pantheon), Wonders would take forever ... those cities would only be useful if they connected some strategic/luxury resources and in this case i'm glad we can have ways to do this at minimal cost. Plant a city, build walls, garrison some troops and you have basically a military colony on your borders, somethings i wish CiV had allowed. However, i hardly call this expansion. It's more strategical land grabbing like you used to do with Great Generals (but to a greater extend) which, i guess from your second post, is what you meant. Looks like a valid strategy but hopefully not a dominant one.

    Otherwise, i think the number 1 reason to stop expanding is when you have nowhere to expand. The rest is opportunity cost at the time of building a settler that will slow down expansion without stopping it.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2016
  6. x2Madda

    x2Madda Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2013
    Messages:
    346
    Actually I disagree, players are punished for not expanding and indeed they always have been, even in Civ5 the small stratagem worked best with a handful of (4) cities. Land denial is a very real thing and if a player is unable (or unwilling) to expand then they should still be competitive otherwise they can just quit that game/map because they will never ever be in a position to catch up or win.

    Mindless expansion is a valid tactic because not all of your cities need to focus on producing settlers, they can make military or world wonders or workers or districts or... The point being that every single city, is a boon to your empire in some way shape or form. Even a city that is founded on ice, with no hammers, no food, no yields of any kind is both tiles your opponent cannot take and fogbusting to stop barbarian camps spawning.

    I don't know if you played civ:be but until they tightened negative modifers for spamming cities it was a perfectly valid way to play.

    Civ5's approach of making tall viable and increasing punishments for spamming cities in early game is what offered it balance. If you boxed the AI in, they were still able to function and you did yourself more harm than good by planting dead cities (unless you sold those same cities to the AI).

    Going further back, Civ3 made each city a huge cash investment so while you would eventually recover the cost per city, spamming cities would flat out bankrupt you to the point you could destroy yourself, reaching an unwinnable state.

    At launch, Civ6 seemingly offers rising district, worker and settler costs as its limiter on city spam which is a good idea. Then we see cards that offer -50% settler cost and -30% worker cost and then I think "didn't we have those in Civ:be? Didn't those completely undermine the limiters on city spam in civ:be?"

    Lets not pretend Civ6 is perfect in every way, shape and form just because it is new. The same defence of "the dev team will fix it before launch" were made for civ:be. If boxing the AI in is the smartest way to play in Civ6 then regardless of map, it will be the 'done' thing.

    This is why people are asking "is small still viable?", so far it seems national wonders are gone and staying small also seems to offer little benefits with the new wonder system. It seems like One City Challenge is dead as well since a start with say, marsh or hills already removes the ability to build most of the wonders in the game!
     
  7. Lord Yanaek

    Lord Yanaek Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,497
    Yes, i don't think OCC will be an option, and if it is it might be really difficult.

    I wouldn't say Civ6 killed "small". I think small have always been dead, even in CiV (apart from some unusual strategies to exploit diplomacy and religion in order to win with 3-4 small piety cities).
    I've never considered Tall=Small. Often, even on higher difficulties (up to Deity) i could have more land (and sometimes population) with a 4-5 cities tradition than (some) AIs empire had with 10-12 cities liberty. I wouldn't call such an empire "small", centralized would sound closer to the truth.
    I don't know if it's still possible to get a "centralized" empire with only 4-5 cities. We'll have to see.

    As for boxing the AI, well, we'll also have to see whether it's possible to get settlers close enough to them quickly with the new barbarians, defend the cities without walls for ranged strike and have borders grow fast enough to actually stop them (or you might very well end up with a city isolated inside enemy territory).
     
  8. MistyRonin

    MistyRonin Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    225
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Finland
    All historical civilisations worked to expand their land in a certain degree, even the Venetian Republic. *Warning: Nerdish remark* As The Matrix's Morpheus would say, we humans are like virus, we expand and expand and take all the resources...

    You just have to see how in the last two centuries humans expanded and grew, we even multiplied our numbers few times during the last century...

    So what should stop human expansion? Limited world resources or other civs. Of course the more you expand the trickier is going to be to control and make all cities efficient, unless you are a super-micro-manager and spend few minutes per city in each turn.
     
  9. Olleus

    Olleus Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,478
    Location:
    Beyond the Veil
    They can get gold from tiles, and automatically get science and culture from pop. In fact, considering campuses and buildings there in give +x science rather than +x% science, growing by 1 pop in a brand new city in the middle of nowhere gives exactly as much extra science as growing your capital by 1 pop. When you take into account housing and amenity limits - as well as the ever larger food cost in increasing the pop of a large city compared to small one - the best way of improving your science is to build a settler and dump it somewhere with access to food.

    This is what worries me the most about Civ6. A return to old fashion REXing and ICS as the optimal strategy by far.
     
  10. Danzo_87

    Danzo_87 Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2014
    Messages:
    202
    to be honest that virus quote was from Agent Smith when he was interrogating Morpheus :p
    but yeah, agreed with you that land would be the limiting factor for expansion, and also the aversion for war as we advance through the era
     
    MistyRonin likes this.
  11. MistyRonin

    MistyRonin Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    225
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Finland
    Oh heck! You are totally right. I gotta watch the triology again before I lose my nerd license. :eek:
     
  12. Lord Yanaek

    Lord Yanaek Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,497
    Mhh, i've read exactly the opposite that population doesn't give you anything just by itself (don't remember exactly where but this was in this forum). Who's right then? I haven't watched closely enough the streams to know so i'm really just asking. If they really give you as much then yes, those non-district cities will be much more valuable thought they won't grow as big.
    Gold from tiles will obviously help you but how much is it compared to other sources? Again, i don't have numbers.
     
  13. Haggbart

    Haggbart King

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2010
    Messages:
    851
    Location:
    Norway

    If I'm not mistaken, I read that each pop gives 0,3 science (please correct me if I'm wrong). So it's likely that at some point you will get more bulbs pr hammer out of a new city than a campus district. And maybe as important: you deny everbody else the opportunity to settle that spot.
     
  14. Lord Yanaek

    Lord Yanaek Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,497
    Thanks, i didn't know about the science per pop. Doesn't look that big but it's hard to judge without all the numbers so we'll have to see if it makes a real difference. Few science is better than no science of course, but is it worth the opportunity cost is the real question. This of course, is without " strategic settling" which i already said looks like a very valid strategy, and one i'm glad we can use now, i always wished CiV had something similar.

    Having this strategy available is actually nice. It would be an issue if it's dominant to the point that it's the only valid one. We'll have to see this after release.
     
  15. Browd

    Browd Dilettante Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    11,966
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Rural Vermont
    Science is 0.7 per population point, while culture is 0.3.
     
    Olleus likes this.
  16. Haggbart

    Haggbart King

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2010
    Messages:
    851
    Location:
    Norway
    Thanks, got the numbers wrong. So a city with food access would give quite a lot of science without any districts at all.
     
  17. indradiva

    indradiva Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    170
    Colonization and Ilkum don't reduce costs, they just increase production. Expropriation does, but it's a late-game card.Also, Feudalism obsoletes Ilkum, so you'll have to pay full costs for builders. Again, civ:be had overpowered trade routes, which seems not to be the case in civ 6. They're harder to get, too, especially if you're landlocked. You also have almost no control over district costs, there's only one card for encampments. So I would prefer 1 city with 5 districts to 5 with 1.

    As I said in the OP, 4-5 cities aren't viable. 6-10 seem to be optimal, It's not that big in civ 6. 15+ would be what I call big.
    I don't care if somebody settles somewhere, they will be easier to convert and later on, you can declare war of Territorial Expansion. And a city with a campus in good location will produce more science than two cities of the same size without one. And don't forget about great people and spies, they will greatly speed up your progress.
     
  18. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,514
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    I'd say largest cities will produce science roughly equal to science of full campus district or maybe a bit more. But campus district is 1 tile, while growing city to 20+ requires a lot of tiles for food and housing.
     
  19. Haggbart

    Haggbart King

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2010
    Messages:
    851
    Location:
    Norway

    I'm not so worried about other people settling, I'm more worried that this will be an advantage you have over the AI that the AI won't be able to counter.

    In Marbozir's game the settler cost was half of the campus district cost, and several cities didn't have good campus locations. Two new cities with okay food access will give a lot more science at 0,7 bulb pr pop than one sub-par campus district will.
     
  20. Olleus

    Olleus Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,478
    Location:
    Beyond the Veil
    Not much less than city with a campus at all, and the difference shrinks as cities become larger.

    If you want to maximise science per food/production, lots of small cities is best. It's easier to grow pop wide than tall.
     

Share This Page