Slower expansion

[Willgar]

This thread interested me http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=256539&highlight=hinterlands

The thing i find most annoying is the almighty land rush that happens every game coupled with the high number of cities that the AI spams. Maybe this is a valid tactic but i am seeking a slower game style with less micro management of 30+ cities (my current large map game i have nearly 40).

I would like to see parts of the map as wild areas and "crusade" style wars waged between distant kingdoms not just every nations borders pressed up like sardines. So i started thinking how this could be possible and here is my idea:

1) only allow settlers to found new cities within 1 square of a cultural border but make the minimum distance between cities 4 squares. This will slow down rapid expansion.

2) Give each city a culture bonus based on its size - say 1 per population. This will prevent complete stagnation of expansion.

3) Only barbarian cities of size 6+ can be captured, if captured below this population, the city will auto raze the generate new barbarian troops and population and the next nearest barbarian city

Well that's it! not sure if it's balanced correctly or even if it would work as i hope but would greatly appreciate any feedback.

 

[Monkeyfinger]

Wider spaced cities + faster culture generation = gaps get filled quicker, not slower.

Just pick a larger map size and remove some of the civs. Like, if standard size, 7 civs is too cramped for you, play large size, 7 civs, or even huge size, 7 civs.

 

[Willgar]

Wider spaced cities + faster culture generation = gaps get filled quicker, not slower.

Just pick a larger map size and remove some of the civs. Like, if standard size, 7 civs is too cramped for you, play large size, 7 civs, or even huge size, 7 civs.

not really because you cant place a new city unless you have expanded your culture of an adjencent city, so yes the first few cities around the capital will spring up quite quickly but then you need to wait until these cities develop enough culture to allow for another city.

Also, its not about cramped, i just want to manage less cities

 

[Jean Elcard]

There are other ways too: You may link the allowed number of cities to certain techs or simply increase the support costs significantly for number of cities.

 

[Willgar]

There are other ways too: You may link the allowed number of cities to certain techs or simply increase the support costs significantly for number of cities.

MIght be easier and probably within my limited programming skills - thanks

 

[Jarlaxle135]

Would be interesting if you could set an option for number of buildable cities. Say, once you build 10 settlers, that's it. You can still capture cities, you just can't build more. Not sure if that is even possible.

 

[Sarisin]

I used to think the raging barb option was the answer to the expansion happy AI civs in the mod. That worked somewhat in .33.

However, I'm finding the new targeting system of the barbs in .34 that doesn't seem to know when to let go of a target can rule out this old governor of expansion.

One civ gets targeted (often the human player) and that civ is hammered continuously (or until wiped out) while AI civs spread allover the map without a need to defend against barbs.

I agree with the OP's points and wish there was a way to slow down the expand first, defend later mentality of the AI.

 

[Willgar]

Today, i have been playing around with the revolution modmod - it sort of slows down expansion although its a bit buggy and the AI doesnt play quite right but very interesting and refreshing game experiance

 

[Mailbox]

Just pick a larger map size and remove some of the civs. Like, if standard size, 7 civs is too cramped for you, play large size, 7 civs, or even huge size, 7 civs.

This just means that the expansion phase is slightly longer and all the nations are huge.

The ideal game for him, I'd assume, is one where everyone is limited in cities and most of the map stays dead space for the entire game. I just realized a couple ways this could be done. Playing a no settlers game and giving each civilization a few extra warriors and settlers in world builder, changing the XML for the civilizations so that every civilization starts with more warriors and settlers, or playing advanced starts with no settlers.

 

[Ranbir]

Maybe provide settlers based on events. Or a set of conditions need to be met for a new settlement to be a worthwhile venture.

I do like the idea of not having borders just pressing up against each other. I'm usually left not using military force to hurt barbarian cities just so I can delude myself into thinking wildland exists in this dark fantasy world.

Also I think cities should stop expanding their political borders after their city radius is filled.

These are my thoughts on this.

 

[Ri-Hatz]

Wild Lands! Thats exactly what I like/want too.

Not most of the borders pressing against each other, but some uninhabited lands would be great.
My ideal empire size is about 4 to 7 cities.

How about denying to build more settlers until certain techs are researched?
So you could conquer as many cities as you want but build only a few until reaching the needed techs.

 

[SwordofStriker]

Setting a build limit to settlers would be fairly easy.

That should be a simple XML change.

I am sure you would simply change the -1 (just a guess) to however many settlers you would want each civ to be able to build.

 

[Willgar]

Does anybody know of a mini mod that generates this kind of wildlands / hinterlands style of game play with less city spam?

 

[smusebaer]

when dealing with a big Empire, normaly i set most citys on autobuild and handle just the core citys.

 

[odalrick]

Setting a build limit to settlers would be fairly easy.

That should be a simple XML change.

I am sure you would simply change the -1 (just a guess) to however many settlers you would want each civ to be able to build.

Wouldn't that just limit the number you can have at one time, like national units?

 

[Ri-Hatz]

(warning! selfish advertising of own mod):

Fear not fellow slow-expansionists!

Help is on the way, in form of my ModMod:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=297538

 

[Falc]

The 'No Settlers' option achieves this pretty well. Combine with 'Barbarian World' so you at least have some expansion points available. Yes, it does mean that you'll need to expand through military means, which you might not be interested in...

 

[Sarisin]

The 'No Settlers' option achieves this pretty well. Combine with 'Barbarian World' so you at least have some expansion points available. Yes, it does mean that you'll need to expand through military means, which you might not be interested in...

Yes, that works, but....

You can be fairly certain that you will NOT see many barbs in your game as the entrance of most barbs is tied into the number of cities (not counting barb cities) on your map. If you like your games without many barbs, this No-Settlers option might be for you.

 

[Kael]

Yes, that works, but....

You can be fairly certain that you will NOT see many barbs in your game as the entrance of most barbs is tied into the number of cities (not counting barb cities) on your map. If you like your games without many barbs, this No-Settlers option might be for you.

Barbarian world generates barbarian cities form the games start based on the amount of players in the game. So though you are generally right that in normal gameplay the barbarians wont appear until there are a certain amount of cities int eh game, with barbarian world you can expect many more right form the start.

 

[xienwolf]

Also setting No Settlers disables the delay till Barbarian spawn (unless I remember wrong and it was the OCC which sets this up)