Should we add more late game buildings?

[CppMaster]

The core issue though is that the happiness system is based on needs across all categories

Yeah, that's a good insight. How about if unhappiness was from only 2 sources that are best for the city? That way cities can be specialised without much happiness penalty.

 

[pochesun]

No to buildings.
But there should be something done with OP scouts, exploring the map too fast.
Also, increase cost of military upkeep relatively to current income and overall make late game win conditions way more difficult to achieve.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

Yes, please. Late game is terribly boring with almost nothing to build. Bad for those who just like immersion and don't race to win.

 

[Stalker0]

It’s a bit overwhelming to ask about integrating all of these. Surely some ideas are stronger than others. I don’t think it’s productive to present this as an omnibus.

Agreed, especially since we haven't yet seen what the newly 4UC is going to look like in terms of overall gameplay. We are ingesting a massive change to the game, so to vote on another just feels extremely premature.

 

[hokath]

Just to be clear, we wouldn't vote on this until a congress, after 4UC has gone through all its phases.
I'm not proposing a special session.

So on the principle of new buildings @Stalker0, at some later date, are you for or against?

 

[Stalker0]

Just to be clear, we wouldn't vote on this until a congress, after 4UC has gone through all its phases.
I'm not proposing a special session.

So on the principle of new buildings @Stalker0, at some later date, are you for or against?

I am always up for the discussion, but if its a "what would I vote right this moment", its no.

When I look at most of the late game buildings proposed, I think teh entire concept of what a late game building is needs to be re-examined. Just adding yield generators and more X is not the answer. We already have PLENTY of that.

I am more in favor of National Wonders that can do specific functions, huge cost scalpel solutions for specific problems or VC. They could even be mutually exclusive, so you choose one amongst a list.

They should change the game in interesting ways and have an immediate impact (I am personally fine at that point if they have 0 ongoing yields, just more inflation we don't need).

And above all else, they should precisely and directly help you win the game, no more, no less. No subtle "this gives you more yield X which will help you do Y which will somewhat help you win". Just flat out "this will move your VC along".

 

[azum4roll]

I am always up for the discussion, but if its a "what would I vote right this moment", its no.

When I look at most of the late game buildings proposed, I think teh entire concept of what a late game building is needs to be re-examined. Just adding yield generators and more X is not the answer. We already have PLENTY of that.

I am more in favor of National Wonders that can do specific functions, huge cost scalpel solutions for specific problems or VC. They could even be mutually exclusive, so you choose one amongst a list.

They should change the game in interesting ways and have an immediate impact (I am personally fine at that point if they have 0 ongoing yields, just more inflation we don't need).

And above all else, they should precisely and directly help you win the game, no more, no less. No subtle "this gives you more yield X which will help you do Y which will somewhat help you win". Just flat out "this will move your VC along".

Do you agree on moving victories back in general? Having 3-4 eras of "late game" just doesn't feel right.

 

[Stalker0]

Do you agree on moving victories back in general? Having 3-4 eras of "late game" just doesn't feel right.

I can't tell until I get my hands on the new version. 4uc adds a ton of things that might change the pace of the game, so no idea.