Should players be allowed to *build* a puppet city?

Should players be allowed to found Puppet Cities?

  • No.

    Votes: 8 66.7%
  • Yes. But with current Puppet rules.

    Votes: 2 16.7%
  • Yes. And with all the changes you mentioned.

    Votes: 1 8.3%
  • Yes. But with different changes.

    Votes: 1 8.3%

  • Total voters
    12
  • Poll closed .

OTAKUjbski

TK421
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
1,511
Location
not at my post
I feel penalized for wanting to peacefully build a great civilization. :confused:

As the game stands now, peacefully expanding isn't really an optimal growth strategy. Even if there is good land to move into, doing so too much ultimately slows [if not stops] Social Policy advancements. This seem to be the case even more so on Huge maps.

The best option is conquering and puppeting neighbouring cities.

MY SUGGESTION:

Allow players to build a new city but set it as a Puppet.

I believe for [at least] player-built Puppet cities, they should ...

  • ... affect Social Policy cost by 65% of normal.
  • ... incur a -20% :c5food: growth penalty.
  • ... allow citizen management via the governor (not tile-by-tile).


Any thoughts?
 
I agree that this is a problem but I'd like to use the current puppet rules. They may not be the best rules but I think that they would be a good starting point.
 
I'm not sure about the pros and cons in terms of balance of such a change, but it would definitely seem realistic to be able to build a puppet city.
 
Personally, I think fixing culture costs itself is a better idea. Removing puppet culture, and 10% more per city sounds more reasonable than the current 30%
 
Puppet states shouldn't be so good that people would want to build them.

Is that to say the current situation is better -- that regular cities are so undesirable we generally don't want to build them?

Or am I just mistaken? Have I missed out on something that explains why a regular city is just as (or more) desirable to build than a conquered Puppet?`
 
Or am I just mistaken? Have I missed out on something that explains why a regular city is just as (or more) desirable to build than a conquered Puppet?`
because puppets are overpowered.
my suggestion:
puppets give no commerce, no science, but traderoute and 50% of resources from their territory (minimum is 1, e.g. 1 gold). no unhappiness from population also, only 2 unhappiness from city itself.
ps: creating puppets from own cities is a good idea. they could be called "colonies".
 
This would be interesting in sort of a "colony" analog.
I would want there to be restrictions though.
So, maybe you can only do it if it is a different continent from your capital. So you start this colony which acts on it's own behalf as a "puppet."
But then, I think that puppet should have the ability to revolt against the main civ if it isn't being treated well.
 
Yeah the puppet concept would seem to set up quite a good basis for a colony feature to be well developed. Presumably colonies would provide slightly more benefits than puppets, however.
 
Back
Top Bottom