1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

[GS] Shall we inherit number-of-city Science and Culture Penalty to Civ6?

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Lily_Lancer, Oct 25, 2019.

  1. PotatoMcWhiskey

    PotatoMcWhiskey Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2017
    Messages:
    26
    Gender:
    Male
    Recently played with a very interesting mod that made it so settlers cost 1,000 production, but you got one for free every time you researched a new technology from an era. It was an interesting game.

    I do think investing in new cities is too valuable. Perhaps of there was another type of district you could build that would essentially be another City center that brings all of its benefits and extended the range of the city's workable tiles could be explored. But that feels out of the scope of civ 6.
     
  2. The googles do nothing

    The googles do nothing Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2017
    Messages:
    555
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    That has the added benefit (to some) of making warmongering less profitable because foreign trade routes would be the main source of income. Creative rules like having bonus gold for having keeping a trade route open to each foreign capital would incentives not eliminating civs without directly penalizing dominations. Bring back on trade route for Market and Lighthouse and add a dedicated trade route per 6 population in a city.
     
  3. Sostratus

    Sostratus Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2017
    Messages:
    2,289
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    You have to be careful with this. Too many trade routes is a micro management hell i think we would all love to avoid; simply having bigger cities getting scaling up trade yields is probably better. It's still a pinch because trade routes being one per city really takes away the way they handled them in civ5, which was fixed number per civ. You don't want to end up with a couple big cities int he core and then a carpet of crappy tundra outposts just sporting markets so the core can be fed more yields. That said, we could always do a few other things, like how CivBE had trade routes per city but you couldn't move them around, one city could only support so many trade routes based on pop. But in general i think cities really get screwed over on trade infrastructure because specialty districts only add to the yield of a destination so even size 1 cities can take advantage of your built up capital, while the capital only has a bunch of 2 yield domestic routes available. Same for int'l routes. Regardless, its a bit of a side issue because the main culprit I was getting at is its so easy to raise money that you never struggle to pay for your districts.
    FWIW we also have a fixed 7 governors now, so there's a lot of effects around "cities with governors" that could be deepened on that front. Further, neighborhoods are quite weak and banning recruit partisans from the game would also be a big boon.
    ~~
    I consider empire mgmt to be very separate from science spam though. All the wide penalties in the world won't stop Gilgamesh from plopping down a couple cities and coating the land in ziggurats, destroying everyone who survived his warcart rampage with his massive tech lead. Hence, I suggested nipping science spam in the bud by making extremely high levels of science much less profitable - to the point that an empire would want to start focusing on other things at a certain point for the sake of efficiency (although they could always keep pushing science to eke out those marginal gains...)
     
    kryat, acluewithout and leandrombraz like this.
  4. KayAU

    KayAU King

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2014
    Messages:
    855
    Here's what I would like:
    • Some administrative limit to how many cities you can control efficiently, before facing penalties. The number increases throughout the game, based on Government, technologies (especially communication technologies), and policies. The penalties can be mitigated in various ways, but there would be a cost associated with it. You could also have unique abilities or wonders which interacted with this system. Games like Stellaris and Fallen Enchantress does something similar to this today, and it works very well.
    • Big cities need to get a huge boost, to make them a much more viable alternative than they are now. It makes no sense that a giant city should vastly underperform a much lower population spread out in numerous cities. The issue is that a giant city still only gets a single trade route and a single copy of each district, and those districts will perform the same. This is the equivalent of the commercial districts of London or Tokyo being worth approximately the same as the commercial district in Bakewell, England.
    The basic idea here is to introduce some natural limitations and pacing to wide play, and making tall more viable, but in a more flexible and logical way than what was done in Civ 5.
     
    King Rad, ezzlar and kaspergm like this.
  5. kaspergm

    kaspergm Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2012
    Messages:
    4,924
    I agree with both these posts.

    As discussed elsewhere, a much better (imo.) and more logical solution would be to scale back on the flat yields of science from districts and buildings, and have a strong(er) per-pop connection, plus give the campus buildings a range, so they serve citizens within a certain radius. Ideally, there should be a limit to how many citizens once campus can serve, but if that is too much micro, make the radius fairly small so you can't cover too many cities with one campus.
     
    King Rad and acluewithout like this.
  6. acluewithout

    acluewithout Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    3,361
    What @Sostratus said. Mostly.

    I'm not really against a wide science penalty, but I'm not entirely sure what the mechanic is trying to achieve. Frankly, I don't think it would curb ICS (really I-Campus-S) or domination, and could very easily be anti-fun if not well introduced.

    I particularly don't like catch-up mechanics, because the idea is you are meant to overtake other Civs in tech (although if we want some sort of catch-up mechanic more to represent how technology leaks out to neighbouring countries then I'm okay with that - although we sort of have that mechanic already with how international trade works and science alliances etc).

    To me, the main thing the game is missing is some sort of limited empire maintenance. I think @Sostratus 's suggestion of both making gold more scarce and more important is a good idea, although I don't think it would solve everything.

    The key thing is that there needs to a limit on Campuses. I'm not too fussed how that's achieved, but certainly maintenance cost might be one way to do it.
     
    kaspergm likes this.
  7. PotatoMcWhiskey

    PotatoMcWhiskey Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2017
    Messages:
    26
    Gender:
    Male
    Perhaps there could be a distinction between researching a technology and adopting it.

    Large, decentralized empires should have more "cost" associated with adopting a technological advancement. This can be logically followed since a smaller centralized country can implement a technology over its small territory quite quickly, whereas a larger empire needs to have a massive infrastructure investment to get the benefit of that technology.

    A simple example is laying down internet fibre in a place like Beglium vs the USA, comparitively speaking laying down enough fibre to cover the population is a much "cheaper" endeavour in Belgium compared to the US, since they have less land and population area to apply the infrastructure.

    To translate this into a game mechanic, rather than instantly getting the benefit of +1 food on farms from replaceable parts, perhaps it takes x turns for that to he implemented, where x is the square root of the number of cities you have rounded up/down.

    If you have 1-2 city, it takes one turn to implement the tech after you research it. If you have 2-6, two turns. 7-12 three turns and so on.

    Call it administrative debt, or Infrastructure delay. So if research a new unit on turn 50 with 9 cities, it takes 3 turns before you can actually build the unit, upgrading is still allowed. If you research universities it takes 3 turns before you can build them, but you can still purchase them etc.

    You could even have an expensive to maintain building that makes a city count less towards you "Administrative Debt", like the Courthouse in Civ5. Expensive to build and maintain and increases in cost for each one you build but lowers thee delay accross your empire by some amount.

    Just spitballing
     
  8. Sostratus

    Sostratus Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2017
    Messages:
    2,289
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    Hey, you're that guy from youtube!
    In general we can achieve the same effect for each of these points in two ways:
    Deploying a tech is mechanically what building whatever the tech unlocks is. IE, upgrading to the new unit, constructing copies of the new building, etc. A wide empire must spend a lot more production modernizing infrastructure. This effect would be much more pronounced if literally every building wasn't flat yields, and more stuff was per pop effects. Then you'd be spending more production to cover all your pops.
    Delaying a bonus from a tech is mechanically the same as having the bonus be instant but the tech take longer for bigger empires. Figuring out a balancing lever for science spam is the solution there.

    I do wish civ7 can be planned to have some sort of "administrative capacity" system in it, though, that I agree with. It need not be its own resource, but just the feeling that you're working to hold things together for most of the game would add a lot to the experience. I find those stages of the game where there is some tension around whether I'll cross the finish line to be the most fun.
    The reason I proposed it the way i did is because we constantly see posts where people touch on how the AI never makes a come back from being crippled early by some event. Again, with the type of system I laid out, you'd never actually be able to overtake anyone without having more science generation than them in the first place. It was really just a system to keep the spread of the civs in the game loosely +/- 1 era from the world era. But regardless of cheapening techs behind the world era, I think having a cost increase on the more advanced techs is definitely needed to slow down the snowballing of tech spam. So much of the game gets sucked away because you can reliably open up 3 era leads even on high difficulty. It's not a total wide/tall panacea but taking the worst of the science spam off the table does sooo much good for even being able to balance the playstyles to begin with.
     
    acluewithout likes this.
  9. Elhoim

    Elhoim Iron Tower Studio Dev

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2004
    Messages:
    2,412
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Isidro, Argentina.
    I've been playing with 1 amenity needed per pop and it really feels like it's the way it should be played. You get the wide empire penalties as luxuries start becoming scarce to cover a huge number of cities, so you are encouraged to settle/trade for new ones, and things like city parks and national parks start to shine for more than cultural win.
     
    acluewithout likes this.
  10. Monthar

    Monthar Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    2,028
    Location:
    Elmendorf, Tx
    Since expanding through domination cuts out a lot of those cost peaceful expansion has perhaps a few changes could be made in this area. Currently when capturing a city only buildings in the city center get pillaged, but the districts are left alone unless you pillage them before capturing the city. The other problem is war weariness doesn't have much effect on your core cities.

    Possible solutions.
    1) All districts and buildings get pillaged when capturing a city. All tile improvements get pillaged as well (or removed completely if they were already pillaged).
    2) As war weariness increases a percentage of your population revolts, ie. stops working, in all of your cities. The citizens that stop working also add a loyalty penalty equal to the loyalty bonus from population. Thus a city with 25% of it's population revolting would only have 50% of it's normal loyalty pressure from population, because the 25% not working would counter the same number of those who are working. These revolting citizens will still be eating just as much, but since they aren't working the city might start starving. When a city loses pop from starvation it will lose from the working population first.

    Along these same lines for peaceful expansion and to further hurt domination expansion, what if lack of amenities also cause population to stop working. Every negative amenity in a city means that many of its population isn't working. They aren't revolting so no loyalty penalty, but also no loyalty bonus from them either. This would mean having to invest more in entertainment and waterpark districts.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2019
  11. Lily_Lancer

    Lily_Lancer Deity

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    2,264
    Location:
    Berkeley,CA
    Does this seriously encourage you to capture others'?
    If under such situation maybe I'll even wipe out all nearby CSs just to increase the number of my cities.
     
  12. kaspergm

    kaspergm Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2012
    Messages:
    4,924
    Maintenance should certainly be a (bigger) part than it is now, I agree with that. But I still think the key in terms of Civ6 mechanics is that we need to use the area coverage mechanics that are already in the game. There are two reasons why we don't have a University in every city in real life, and those are 1) maintenance costs and 2) population limits. The first is marginally reflected in the game, the latter is completely absent currently.

    If a city is already "covered" by a University, the benefit of building another University should be minimal (extra specialist slots should remain, but basic yields not, and no additional per pop yields) and should generally not measure up against the maintenance cost of a University.

    The way to implement this would be fairly straight-forward: A University can serve citizens within a radius of X hexes (say, 6 hexes for instance), but has a maximum capacity of Y citizens (say, 20 citizens for instance). This means that one University can cover one pop 20 city, two pop 10 cities (given that they are within range), or four pop 5 cities (given that they are within range). But once those cities grow larger, you'll need to build additional Universities to cover them. This would also add the interesting option of what happens in mega-cities (allowing either for multiples of same district, or for upgrades to buildings to increase capacity).
     
    Meluhhan and Elhoim like this.
  13. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    11,304
    Cities in England = 51
    Universities in England = 106

    Cities in the US... maybe 350 (size greater than 100k pop)
    Universities in the US.... not clear, perhaps around 3000-4000 depending on what you call a university.

    I was surprised by these stats when I first noticed a few months ago.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2019
  14. cvb

    cvb Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2017
    Messages:
    446
    Right now I'm toying around N permitted campuses for 2*N² Population in all cities, regardless where.

    A general note: for me it is clear, that I'll implement such restrictions only for the human player (like diverse helps just for the AIplayers). As your "max 3 Campuses before turn 150" is derived from a HouseRule, I'm quite sure, it is meant the same. But how commonly is this approach?
    Eg.
    Is that valid for all players (or just the (single) human)? If so, is it compensated for the AIs somehow, perhaps free amenities for them?

    .
     
    kryat and acluewithout like this.
  15. kaspergm

    kaspergm Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2012
    Messages:
    4,924
    Well yes, those numbers are interesting. I guess you can always argue about the size limit as to what counts for a city in terms of the Civ6 equivalent, and you can cut down the actual number of Universities by eliminating some specializing in different branches and saying that that's an abstraction not included in Civ6, but even so, the number is higher than I would have immediately expected.
     
  16. PotatoMcWhiskey

    PotatoMcWhiskey Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2017
    Messages:
    26
    Gender:
    Male
    I think theres some consideration to be given to the fundamental game design of civ 6, which typically shys away from using complicated formulas to tweak things.

    Most modifiers in the game are flat %, or simple +/- numbers and the developers seem to be designing with this sort of stuff in mind. Generally they seem to be shying away from exponents in their calculations.

    So a system that use n^n is less likely to be implemented than a system that uses n+n. They also seem to try to keep a structure of (n+n....)*(1+n%-n%)=Output.

    That doesn't mean they shouldn't use exponents, but they seem to shy away from it.
     
    Sostratus likes this.
  17. Kaan Boztepe

    Kaan Boztepe Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2018
    Messages:
    309
    Gender:
    Male
    how about reducing the effectiveness of districts , after a certain number of cities depending on your government and era and maybe some buildings.
    like lets say in ancient era you get full benefits for X cities and then the more cities you have the worse of those other cities are until you get to monarcy and then the number increases to Y , you can also put governors in cities to allow for full benefits and add stuff like roads decrease it , railroads decreases it further , internet removes it but of course you need to build those stuff not just research it.
    it would also incentivise to build some other districts instead of campus everywhere.
    I am also for adding a lot more money sinks to the game so increasing the maintenance cost per district is a good idea , at least for me.
     
  18. Monthar

    Monthar Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    2,028
    Location:
    Elmendorf, Tx
    What if the we add a pop slot to the districts themselves and made it so the districts and buildings in them only provide the GPP and resource if a citizen is working it?
     
    Meluhhan and kaspergm like this.
  19. Sostratus

    Sostratus Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2017
    Messages:
    2,289
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    This sort of thing is where it gets tricky to identify the core problem, and thus solve it without totally changing the game design.
    If a citizen had to work the district, it wouldn't really change the fact that you still want a campus everywhere ASAP for the adj+buildings. Sure, i have to allocate a pop there now, but if all districts had this, it would only further push people to build campus/theater - because in most cases, the actual value of the adjacency on those is far ahead of the value from other districts adjacency, and likewise for buildings and specialists.
    Virtually everyone would agree that 1:c5science: is worth more than 1:c5production: and much more than 1:c5gold:. (If you go look at tile yields, the valuation is 1:c5science:/:c5culture:/:c5faith: = 1.5:c5food:/:c5production: = 3:c5gold:.) But in district adjacency, all these things are assumed to be equal: A CH gets a major adjacency from a river, a campus gets one from a geothermal fissure or a reef. In both cases it's +2, even though the +2:c5science: science is worth (according to the game's own tile yields!) +6:c5gold: gold. (See also buildings, eg a university vs a bank. the bank even costs more!) So other districts are actually quite underpowered; and this is yet another reason why players spam campuses: the alternatives are just not up to par.

    Yes, flat yield districts/buildings push wide, but just like civ5, if we slap on a penalty to discourage wide, all we will do is condense science spam to fewer cities. The extreme power of science in civ games is IMO the scarier monster to slay long term for the well being of the series. Because it's far easier to make playstyle balance like "fewer larger cities vs more smaller ones" work when you don't have the caveat "...and whichever one can get marginally more science will runaway with the game 10/10 times."
     
    Meluhhan and acluewithout like this.
  20. Monthar

    Monthar Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    2,028
    Location:
    Elmendorf, Tx
    How about replacing adjacency bonus with a population bonus? This would buff tall without penalizing wide. Perhaps something like campus and theater +1 for every 4 pop, industrial and holy site +1 for every 3 pop, commercial and harbor +1 for every 2 pop. Then change the adjacency policy cards to +50% population bonus for the district, and the buildings policy cards to +50% per citizen working in the buildings.
     
    King Rad and KayAU like this.

Share This Page