Should the building cost price increase mechanism in the current version be weakened or cancelled?

[Xandinho]

I really liked this change, and it made the game more interesting for me. I also noticed a slight delay in the victory condition races during the Modern Age.

I believe their original intention at launch was for players to convert only three or four of their settlements into cities, while keeping the rest as towns. The problem was that cities were simply much better than towns, so there was no real reason to keep them as towns. Now, there’s an actual decision-making cost that has genuinely changed how the game is played: is it really worth converting so many settlements into cities at the expense of making buildings significantly more expensive?

Moreover, these changes also affect social policies and civilization bonuses that interact with towns, which used to be pretty useless before.

 

[stealth_nsk]

There are actually 2 limits, solving 2 different problems, but affecting the same number. Scaling with number of cities is about city/town proportion and scaling with the number of buildings is about specialization, which still doesn't work really well.

As a result, tall/wide balance now looks like this. Tall is small number of unspecialized cities with a lot of supporting towns, while wide is about many cities which have to specialize, because they can't afford multiplied penalties. In theory look fine, but due to towns being pretty powerful, tall is superior.

I think the idea of balancing two things with one number is a bit wrong, because it's much harder that way. But the concept is pretty clear.

 

[Leucarum]

I don't think it quite achieves either goal yet. Big step in the right direction though.

Specialization isn't a thing, it's more that Science/Culture/Gold are the key yields so you push those buildings everywhere you can.

And Urban Center gets you too close to being an actual city, so you still end up with the ability to spam tier one buildings so tall is still somewhat wide.

I think they need to break up the buildings that Urban Center would give you into other town types and remove the Urban Center altogether.

And then I think a rework of adjacencies/base yields is needed. They increased base yields, which has kind of weakened the value of adjaceneies which in turn makes specialization less appealing since you'll just build the key buildings without good adjacencies anyway.

And then I'd say maybe make the +5% per building be applied to all buildings of other types (maybe even make it harsher to compensate), so if you want to specialize a city you are encouraged to do so, and with adjacency mattering more... Hey you actually should?

 

[Krikkit1]

I don't think it quite achieves either goal yet. Big step in the right direction though.

Specialization isn't a thing, it's more that Science/Culture/Gold are the key yields so you push those buildings everywhere you can.

And Urban Center gets you too close to being an actual city, so you still end up with the ability to spam tier one buildings so tall is still somewhat wide.

I think they need to break up the buildings that Urban Center would give you into other town types and remove the Urban Center altogether.

And then I think a rework of adjacencies/base yields is needed. They increased base yields, which has kind of weakened the value of adjaceneies which in turn makes specialization less appealing since you'll just build the key buildings without good adjacencies anyway.

And then I'd say maybe make the +5% per building be applied to all buildings of other types (maybe even make it harsher to compensate), so if you want to specialize a city you are encouraged to do so, and with adjacency mattering more... Hey you actually should?

I think keeping Urban center as City light is good... but have it either +100% cost to purchase non warehouse buildings OR +50% cost to purchase nonwarehouse per non warehouse already present.

 

[Leucarum]

I think keeping Urban center as City light is good... but have it either +100% cost to purchase non warehouse buildings OR +50% cost to purchase nonwarehouse per non warehouse already present.

My other complaint about it is that it's the only specialization you turn on and off. You can leave it off until you want a building and still let your town grow. It would be nice to lose that micromanagement.

I'm not sure if increasing costs is also a sufficient disincentive. Obviously it is at some point, but at that point you've basically nuked the specialization from orbit. I think there's more strategic depth to be gained from breaking it up.

 

[pjotroos]

My other complaint about it is that it's the only specialization you turn on and off. You can leave it off until you want a building and still let your town grow. It would be nice to lose that micromanagement

That's one of my major issues with Bulgaria, coincidentally. I just did some save/load experimenting with their pillaging, and it looks like the food transfers to growing towns normally, but gets lost in the ones that specialised. So optimal play is height of tedium; back to growing in all, pillage rural tiles, specialise before end of turn. Feels dreadful.

Back on topic, I think empire-wide scaling cost increase on a specific building is how you rein in urban centres. The current penalty barely applies in them.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I don't think it quite achieves either goal yet. Big step in the right direction though.

Specialization isn't a thing, it's more that Science/Culture/Gold are the key yields so you push those buildings everywhere you can.

And Urban Center gets you too close to being an actual city, so you still end up with the ability to spam tier one buildings so tall is still somewhat wide.

I think they need to break up the buildings that Urban Center would give you into other town types and remove the Urban Center altogether.

And then I think a rework of adjacencies/base yields is needed. They increased base yields, which has kind of weakened the value of adjaceneies which in turn makes specialization less appealing since you'll just build the key buildings without good adjacencies anyway.

And then I'd say maybe make the +5% per building be applied to all buildings of other types (maybe even make it harsher to compensate), so if you want to specialize a city you are encouraged to do so, and with adjacency mattering more... Hey you actually should?

I agree to everything except breaking Urban Center. I think it's nice that every town has its identity and it's nice that we started building towns finally. So, instead of nerfing Urban Center, I'd pump up other specializations a bit.

For city specialization - the goal, as always is to provide impactful strategic choices for players. So far it's mostly about setting the building order than actual specialization. You still want all the important buildings in your cities. Not sure if it's that important to push specialization further, though.

 

[UWHabs]

I agree to everything except breaking Urban Center. I think it's nice that every town has its identity and it's nice that we started building towns finally. So, instead of nerfing Urban Center, I'd pump up other specializations a bit.

For city specialization - the goal, as always is to provide impactful strategic choices for players. So far it's mostly about setting the building order than actual specialization. You still want all the important buildings in your cities. Not sure if it's that important to push specialization further, though.

I go back and forth on Urban Centres. I do like the notion of a mini-town, and being about to potentially use some nice adjacency slots by your towns, without having to worry about the city cost and the management. But I do wonder if they are too good and make cities not quite obsolete, but just not nearly as valuable. Maybe they should break the rest of the town rules - have urban centres stop sending food to cities, and don't convert production to gold. Basically because they're mini-cities, they actually have to consume stuff, so that becomes even more of a cost.

 

[Siptah]

I go back and forth on Urban Centres. I do like the notion of a mini-town, and being about to potentially use some nice adjacency slots by your towns, without having to worry about the city cost and the management. But I do wonder if they are too good and make cities not quite obsolete, but just not nearly as valuable. Maybe they should break the rest of the town rules - have urban centres stop sending food to cities, and don't convert production to gold. Basically because they're mini-cities, they actually have to consume stuff, so that becomes even more of a cost.

I think this would be a good call. I also think mining towns could get a buff in exchange for not sending food (either more gold or bonus resource copies).

I think hub towns are competitive enough, and trade towns are situationally useful.

If farming/fishing lack behind at some point, they could slowly grow while sending food (based on the extra food from the specialization, not the food total).

 

[m_mus]

Thank you for the input so far!
One thought that came to mind is that when Civ7 was announced and its city/town-differentation with it, I did not only find it interesting gameplay-wise, but also immersive as settlement hierarchies are "a thing" in history. Taking this up: As is right now, cities benefit from towns by being sent their food. But why have it only as a one-way relationship? In history towns persisted around cities as the latter were advantageous for towns as well. Think of the late Roman empire and the introduction of its apparatus of bureaucracy, whose instutions were concentrated in the 'metropolis' of a given province from which the towns of the countryside were administered. This 'administering' should have some impact, ideally a positive one, on the towns in question. Or even an asymmetric one: greater public order (+hapiness) for the price of greater tax extraction (-gold). Often a metropolis/city also served as the trading hub where surplus goods were sent to as marketplaces for long-distance trade. I won't go into any further detail, as this would require its own thread, but I can think of ways to make the city-town interaction more interesting and strategically rewarding...

 

[stealth_nsk]

I go back and forth on Urban Centres. I do like the notion of a mini-town, and being about to potentially use some nice adjacency slots by your towns, without having to worry about the city cost and the management. But I do wonder if they are too good and make cities not quite obsolete, but just not nearly as valuable. Maybe they should break the rest of the town rules - have urban centres stop sending food to cities, and don't convert production to gold. Basically because they're mini-cities, they actually have to consume stuff, so that becomes even more of a cost.

Honestly, all this "Send food to city" mechanics asks for revisit. The game has too many trade and connection mechanics with different rules, all of them are automatic and opaque.

 

[Crashdummy]

I voted yes, but i think this is something that a modder can do, and maybe it would be something worth being added to the advanced settings of the game, since a lot of people like this restriction

I think these kind of restrictions are bad and people should be allowed to play how they like without being punished

 

[Leucarum]

I go back and forth on Urban Centres. I do like the notion of a mini-town, and being about to potentially use some nice adjacency slots by your towns, without having to worry about the city cost and the management. But I do wonder if they are too good and make cities not quite obsolete, but just not nearly as valuable. Maybe they should break the rest of the town rules - have urban centres stop sending food to cities, and don't convert production to gold. Basically because they're mini-cities, they actually have to consume stuff, so that becomes even more of a cost.

I suspect the problem there is that you can switch in and out of urban center and growing town. So Firaxis would probably have to make it a one-way decision? Not sure how much reworking that would take. I don't hate that as a solution though. Maybe not a 100% reduction but enough that you have to consider it.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I suspect the problem there is that you can switch in and out of urban center and growing town. So Firaxis would probably have to make it a one-way decision? Not sure how much reworking that would take. I don't hate that as a solution though. Maybe not a 100% reduction but enough that you have to consider it.

I thought about it too, just forget to write. My idea is to have some cooldown on town specialization switch.

 

[Krikkit1]

Honestly, all this "Send food to city" mechanics asks for revisit. The game has too many trade and connection mechanics with different rules, all of them are automatic and opaque.

They definitely need a unified way to make connections that applies to all.

Suggestion
Connections form one of 3 ways (connections also are "owned" by a player
1. Automatic Land connection: automatically forms between any two of your settlements within 10/15/20 pathable land tiles (builds road)

2. Sea connection: automatically forms between two of your settlements with water trade buildings* within X pathable water tiles (Ocean not considered pathable till Shipbuilding)
*Buildings that Can be placed on coast..even if they are placed on a Nav River (Quay, Lighthouse, Wharf, Shipyard, Port, Carthage UBs) X depends on the building. (the trade ability of the building does not go obsolete)

3. Trade Route: can form to Foreign Settlements or your own Settlement... require a Merchant but can form at increased distance (from Trade route increase)... when a Merchant is used, the new Settlement automatically connects to all of your Settlements that it can, in every way it can (Sea and Land..Land will form roads)

Then
Trade Network: Your Capital is part of your Trade Network
A Settlement is part of your Trade Network if it has one of your connections to a settlement that is part of your Trade Network

Rail Network: Your Capital is part of your Rail Network if it has a Rail Station
A Settlement is part of your Rail Network if it has a Rail Station AND
one of your Land connections to a settlement that is part of your Rail Network
OR
a Port and one of your Sea Connections to a settlement with a Port and Part of your Rail Network

Your specialized Towns distribute to any of your cities the town has one of your connections to
Hub Towns get influence bonuses based on any settlement that it has one of your connections to

 

[Leucarum]

I thought about it too, just forget to write. My idea is to have some cooldown on town specialization switch.

I have no idea how much work that would be for Firaxis to change Plus the best thing Civ7 did was reduce micro. Maybe better to look for solutions that don't increase it.

 

[Krikkit1]

I have no idea how much work that would be for Firaxis to change Plus the best thing Civ7 did was reduce micro. Maybe better to look for solutions that don't increase it.

I think the better solution is to make the Urban Center worth staying in, and less just switching to.

Can buy certain nonwarehouse buildings at increased cost (to keep it from being overpowered)
and
Current Reduced maintenance
and
Bonus to yields for non warehouse buildings?, bonus to adjacencies? (for more reason to stay in that form)

 

[kaspergm]

It was a genuine question.

Sorry, I read your post the wrong way then.

 

[Leucarum]

I think the better solution is to make the Urban Center worth staying in, and less just switching to.

Can buy certain nonwarehouse buildings at increased cost (to keep it from being overpowered)
and
Current Reduced maintenance
and
Bonus to yields for non warehouse buildings?, bonus to adjacencies? (for more reason to stay in that form)

It already gives reduced maintainance... Maybe it only gives yields from those buildings while you are in urban center mode.

I still think it would be a more interesting gameplay choice if the different towns each gave a different building personally...

 

[UWHabs]

They definitely need a unified way to make connections that applies to all.

Suggestion
Connections form one of 3 ways (connections also are "owned" by a player
1. Automatic Land connection: automatically forms between any two of your settlements within 10/15/20 pathable land tiles (builds road)

2. Sea connection: automatically forms between two of your settlements with water trade buildings* within X pathable water tiles (Ocean not considered pathable till Shipbuilding)
*Buildings that Can be placed on coast..even if they are placed on a Nav River (Quay, Lighthouse, Wharf, Shipyard, Port, Carthage UBs) X depends on the building. (the trade ability of the building does not go obsolete)

3. Trade Route: can form to Foreign Settlements or your own Settlement... require a Merchant but can form at increased distance (from Trade route increase)... when a Merchant is used, the new Settlement automatically connects to all of your Settlements that it can, in every way it can (Sea and Land..Land will form roads)

Then
Trade Network: Your Capital is part of your Trade Network
A Settlement is part of your Trade Network if it has one of your connections to a settlement that is part of your Trade Network

Rail Network: Your Capital is part of your Rail Network if it has a Rail Station
A Settlement is part of your Rail Network if it has a Rail Station AND
one of your Land connections to a settlement that is part of your Rail Network
OR
a Port and one of your Sea Connections to a settlement with a Port and Part of your Rail Network

Your specialized Towns distribute to any of your cities the town has one of your connections to
Hub Towns get influence bonuses based on any settlement that it has one of your connections to

Yeah, consistent connection rules would be huge. I'd also probably change the Merchant's function to not just repair one connection, but basically it can be a "repair all connections" for the current settlement, if you, for example, discover a new path that would connect some settlements, built a bridge that didn't update other connections, or something like that. The current setup where you need this direct road, except you never know if 2 roads that cross count as taking the bypass route or not, is so awkward to deal with. Basically it ends up being where if you settle all your cities costal, you end up with great trade hubs. Anything else, and it's so hit or miss whether they actually connect.

I think the better solution is to make the Urban Center worth staying in, and less just switching to.

Can buy certain nonwarehouse buildings at increased cost (to keep it from being overpowered)
and
Current Reduced maintenance
and
Bonus to yields for non warehouse buildings?, bonus to adjacencies? (for more reason to stay in that form)

Personally I tend to stay in them because I'm lazy and don't like switching them around. The reduced maintenance can be a fairly decent bonus, especially if you're happiness constrained, getting that like +5 or +10 bonus happiness can be worth a decent chunk of yields (plus if you've got the bonus yields for specialized towns, that adds up too).

Maybe one solution would be that for all growing towns, they get the +50% food, but they get like -50% to all other yields (or even just science/culture). They usually don't pull in much, so it wouldn't be a huge negative to most of them except the occasional Grand Canyon town, or if you have some UI that gives you a separate bonus.