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

Supercity vs Specialized Cities

Discussion in 'Strategy and tips' started by Thunderbrd, Oct 25, 2011.

  1. Epona222

    Epona222 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Messages:
    197
    I think wonders reducing the cost of research buildings would be a fine idea, but with some provisos.

    It occurred to me that possibly the reason that I (and possibly Joseph II as well?) am struggling with this and some of these wonders are causing quite so much of an issue is because of my playstyle, those arguing that this is not much of an issue just simply do not prefer to play the game in the way that I enjoy best and don't realise the issues that it causes some of us!

    I am very expansive and enjoy the game most when I've set it up almost so that I am in sandbox mode (and the thing I hated most in CIV 5 besides its lack of depth, was that it did just not allow for this, and was aimed more at a smaller centralised empire with a strong military component to the game - just look at the requirements of some of the national wonders that required a certain building in every city, that's just not ever attainable if you keep building more cities - anyway, I digress).

    I end up with many small cities, and I play with civic city limits off, because for me most of the fun is in having lots of cities. Once I have a second or third city founded after tribalism, I always have at least one city building a settler unit (and sometimes multiple cities pumping out "new city packs"), right throughout the game. I do not have loads of spare cash. I have few AI civs on a gigantic map, and I try to take most of them out and take their cities (and get their base cultures through assimilation) early on. I leave a couple that are in out of the way spots, but my ideal is to have a large empty map to expand into. Yes, there are lots of different ways to play CIV, this is one of the ways I enjoy it most, a sandbox freestyle type of play.

    In my current game I have not yet researched writing, but I hit the Classical era from the glass blowing tech. I have 19 cities. I have the pre-writing tech research buildings in every city, loads of myth buildings. My income is not at all good because I'm paying a lot in city maintenance and city distance maintenance (I captured and kept a couple of cities from other civs all the way over the other side of the Eurasian type landmass on a gigantic Terra map).

    Once I hit writing I am going to enter a dark age, because most of those free research buildings/myths will obsolete and changing civics to interpreters/written tradition will not make up the shortfall. Even though I could build the Kemetism temple religious wonder to give me a school of scribes in every city which would set me up OK again in terms of beakers, there is no way I can afford the cost of a school of scribes in 19 cities - because it's not the same as using the research slider which I can do in 5% degrees, it's all or nothing, I can't build it without destroying myself.

    The way it is currently favours smaller empires with bigger cities, a more expansive "sandbox" mode is hugely difficult (because every time you found a new city it gets whichever -gold building you built the wonder to provide, but without any beaker production to provide any benefit, thus effectively preventing expansive play), and it is a mode of play that was always viable in vanilla Civ IV/BTS or ROM/AND, and C2C up until recently!, so I don't like that it's now become so difficult! And I do not want to lose the fun that I have, playing the way that I like to play it, to be forced into a different playstyle.

    Onto something a bit more constructive!

    I have a proposal. Introduce some National Wonders that will balance things better for those who prefer to play a more expansive game, but won't be relevant for those who keep things smaller and more centralised.

    Example: (Insert appropriate name here, something like "national scroll repository"), National Wonder. Available at Writing, Obsoletes with Printing Press. Requires School of Scribes, requires scrolls or tablets. Requires: civ must have more than 15 cities.. Benefit - halves cost of school of scribes in all cities in your civ.

    Similar thing for libraries, using the same techs as library for available and obsolete, requires that your civ must have more than 30 cities (or possibly higher). And so on for more advanced research buildings.

    It would put the fun back into playing an expansive "sandboxy" type game, and probably not affect those who prefer a smaller, more concentrated civ, so don't have their economy suddenly go down the tubes because they built a wonder that turned out to be more of a hindrance than a help. In fact if someone can point me in the direction of a tutorial on how to make and add wonders, I'll even try to do it myself, to see if it works for me and for the few other people who like to play in a similar way who are finding things difficult right now!
     
  2. Hydromancerx

    Hydromancerx C2C Modder

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    16,281
    Location:
    California, USA
    @Epona222

    Well historically one of the problems of large empires is the fact that they were just too large too fast. I suspect this is at the core of your problem. Many little cities are going to hurt your economy, especially if they are half way around the globe.

    I am not sure what to say since that's actually the way its suppose to work to discourage uber expansion.

    EDIT: As for modding go check out the Tutorial in this section. Buildings and Wonders are made the same way except for a few minor setting to make it a building, national wonder or great wonder.
     
  3. Epona222

    Epona222 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Messages:
    197
    Listen you can talk about what happened historically all you want (and I'm an archaeologist) but I'm about to go and send a stack of Mammoth and Bear Riders against one of my foes, and I'm pretty sure that there's no historical basis for that.

    The point is that there are those of us who play the game in different ways, WHY do you need to discourage uber expansion, if some of us like that? It is more difficult now than it ever was in vanilla CIV IV, so it's not as if you're just trying to keep it balanced in line with the original, you're actually stifling a method of play that was in the original game.

    Why do you want everyone to play it the same way? I love C2C and that's one of the reasons I will post about things I like and don't like (if I didn't care about it so much, I wouldn't waste the energy), but it's become impossible to enjoy myself in the way I used to because of recent changes. I don't WANT to play it in the same way as everyone else! I want there to be more freedom for different types of game! Why are you stifling large empires and limiting the viable playstyles rather than trying to accommodate a wider range?

    Edit: thanks for pointing me in the right direction, if I have to get this so I can play it again in a way I enjoy and that is in line with the original game in terms of difficulty of doing so I will try to do it myself if need be. Cheers.
     
  4. BlueGenie

    BlueGenie Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,575
    I think it's more to keep different playing styles balanced against each other. If I may be so bold as to interpret the use of "über" in "über expansion" to mean "super", i.e better than anything else that can be done. So it would be a way to not have an expansionist play style become better than any other way of playing. Large Empires will grow to become better than small empires, always, it just takes a little more time, which in my book is good and perfectly alright.

    This is coming from a long time civ player (me, since 1992) who has been along for the Civ ride and seen it changing. In most of the games (including Call to Power) expansion has been the major best way to play, nothing came even close to it. Seriously über in fact. I'm also an expansionist and like to expand fast and furiously. Since Assimilation in C2C I've also started wanting to take over other nations cities when before I just razed and set them where I thought was better. Having halts (including the "City Limits") on that makes, for me, for a better game where it's not all about expanding fast and taking over everything and winning because of a larger nation than anyone else. Because that's where Civilization WAS at for a very long time. Biggest empire won. Period.
    Not having that in C2C makes for a more balanced game where various playing styles are actually more possible than they have been before, ever.
    With saying that I'm still of the firm belief that a Bigger Empire still wins in C2C, it just takes a bit more to get that bigger empire stable. Once it is though...

    Oh, I'm not railing down on anyone. I think it's good that people view things differently and I've enjoyed your posts so far Epona222. The issues you are raising are valid and all I've been trying to do is explain either how things work or how I view them.

    Cheers *smile*
     
  5. JosEPh_II

    JosEPh_II TBS WarLord

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    16,029
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Western IL. cornfields
    @Epona,

    I "Feel" every word you've posted. And it's been my core concern for some time now. That's why I've labeled myself as an avowed City Spammer (No City Limits On and No Fixed Borders On either). But as you aptly pointed out the Mod has drifted away from being versatile in ways to play.

    I don't play "exactly" like you (but very similar and for many of the same reasons) but I do like Giant maps with only 7-9 AI. So everyone has a chance to expand, explore, and then exploit, and maybe eventually exterminate. This is a 4X game last I looked. I like large empires too and it's something else when your 40 city empire goes up against that 42 city AI Empire because the AI was Given a chance to expand and develop in my style of play. Or you get invaded by that 50 city empire that is 10 tech levels ahead of you and it take everything you can muster to hold it off. BUT, with the reduced gold income, the increased maintenance in ALL forms it getting harder and harder to play this way.

    I feel the same way, and agree wholeheartedly, and it's been a growing thing for several versions now (actually all the way back to version 14). It's been subtly put out there, either adapt to this way or choke on your way. It's not right. There have been nights when I feel that invisible hands are reaching out and choking the life out of my C2C games. The frustration is palpable at times. And I Really have tried adapting.

    So Please! I'm begging the Modders, reduce the cost of Research bldgs, reduce the city maintenance, the civic maintenance. Is612's start on inflation is the 1st positive step I've seen in a long time for players like me and maybe Epona too. The Pendulum has swung to far to the left. Please, start pushing it back to a more middle ground, Please!

    JosEPh
     
  6. Epona222

    Epona222 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Messages:
    197
    BlueGenie thank you for your comments (and I'm another old-school civ fan, going right back to the start), most of all I am just really beyond upset that wonders that used to be quite valuable and required work to set up the groundwork so that I could build them are now going to send my economy down the drain, because I have more than the requisite number of cities that the mod is designed for (and trying to enforce). I'm probably phrasing it wrong and sounding more annoyed than I am, but us expansionists/sandbox game types need a break at this point, and I don't like to think that there's a deliberate attempt to limit those who prefer my type of playstyle, I know getting the AI right must be incredibly difficult, but surely it's a case of the AI can't keep up with this sort of playstyle so lets cut it off for the player - I'd rather have it available (even as a startup option with a warning that you were in more of a sandbox/beta (or even alpha) mode) than just be cut off from it. And I don't want it to be the better way of play necessarily, I just want it to be viable, not without penalty, but not a penalty so large that you're washed down the drain at Writng/Modern Physics (if you last that far)

    I love C2C you know, I just want to play it the way I want to play without my economy dissolving, it was already difficult enough to play an expansionist game.

    Edit: And Joseph II, thank you for your response as well. I knew that at some point due to either alignment of the planets (or just plain old probability!) that we would end up agreeing on something at some point :D Thanks for commenting. (Although as a dyed in the wool leftie, I am not sure about your pendulum comment :D )
     
  7. BlueGenie

    BlueGenie Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,575
    The point about wonders that give free buildings shouldn't give free buildings that cost a lot of money I agree with. It's counterproductive, especially considering that they are Wonders.
    I also think Oxford University, and other Science Wonders, should NOT have the base cost equal to the base research they give, simply because they ARE Wonders.

    If that's taken care of you, me, and other expansionists, can support more cities with a decent research rate again.

    Cheers
     
  8. JosEPh_II

    JosEPh_II TBS WarLord

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    16,029
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Western IL. cornfields
    I was gonna say to the right but then the conservative in me "made" me type left. ;)

    The other night 6 planets were visible at dusk, so it must of been that. And they arced from SE to NW with the moon just a bit to the North.

    My expansionism was detailed in another thread (about Berry Bushes) and how my city growth and ability to expand has been beaten down. It took my capitol till 5280BC to reach pop 3. And that it was 2840BC when I finally founded my 3rd city. Even on Epic Speed this is much much too slow. And I do not use City Limits On.

    I just can not grow my cities to be able to build tribes/settlers to get expanding until much later in game years than I used to be able to do in this Mod. The 2nd X is in a choke collar as things stand in the mod now. And my style of play is gasping for some air.

    JosEPh
     
  9. Koshling

    Koshling Vorlon

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    9,254
    I also agree on these two specific points (well a slighty more shaded view on the free buildings, as per my previous post at the end of the previous page, but the end aim is similar).
     
  10. Epona222

    Epona222 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Messages:
    197
    Yes I mean I am not asking for an easy ride, I expect to have difficulties when playing an early expansion game, and there always were penalties in the vanilla game for doing so (Dude, Where's My Economy?), but it's gone from being an interesting challenge (which is something I enjoy) to an impossibility (which is just wrecking my playstyle and ruining my enjoyment of the game, there's a world of difference between facing a challenge and just not being able to do it!)



    It's the fact that plenty of previously useful Wonders have been rendered worse than useless in my games that I am having trouble with, Wonders should be a chance for you to get some positive result, rather than having to weigh up whether I can afford it or not and whether it will result in economic collapse!

    I live in a city with a multitude of banking establishments and headquarters and a top university with lots of different well regarded colleges under its umbrella, last time I checked, it was not the university causing a financial crisis, some of the banks have had government bail-outs though :lol:
     
  11. Hydromancerx

    Hydromancerx C2C Modder

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    16,281
    Location:
    California, USA
    This is just an idea but what about if the "Expansive" trait was given some special features that allowed players like Epona to support large empires? Something else would have to counter balance this but it would give them a way to be a "sandbox" player if they pick an Expansive Leaderhead.
     
  12. DRJ

    DRJ Hedonist

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,514
    Location:
    Hamburg, Germany

    There are several things sandbox players can do and thus I suggest not to change anything (the school of scribes already cheaper by a trait as well, so pick creative+expansive civ)

    If you are a sandbox player just don't check 'revolution', don't check that 'civics give +3 unhappiness if you have more than X cities' and and/or make sure you play on easy difficulty so your base happiness/city is higher (or better not lower than on higher diffculties) which allows you for even more cities (even wih the option 'civics give +3 unhappiness if you have more than X cities' enabled).

    I really see no need that anything should be changed at all. Maybe you guys should request your own 'sandbox' game option (might be also good for new players to this mod to get a feeling as for all the changes it provides they could overrun them), but for me most fun is to have a small civ, max 4 cities to chiefdom due to unhappiness, see AI run away to math once I reach chiefdom and then rage a crusade of catching up and send shiploads of spies and stuff to destabilize the leading civ into imploding to stop their race to the stars... of course I would be too weak militarily to stop a 100-something advanced AI stack even if I had only elite units and the better general... maybe rings of fortifications help...

    Btw I think the more troops are on a tile the chances for epidemics taking out lots of troops for some turns (like 'ship can't move for 2 turns' event) and making their health bars yellow should be substentially high. Ai should of course learn to adept to this behaviour and avoid über-stacks for the most time because of that chance.

    @Jospeh if you still have problems to play the way you like, what about trying the settler difficulty? The conservative in you must be enjoyed to feel like in the wild west again?^^

    Here's a little soundtrack for you
    Spoiler :

    :cowboy:

    If settler also too hard, what about a new difficulty (sic!) called. "W." ?
    Spoiler :
     
  13. Hydromancerx

    Hydromancerx C2C Modder

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    16,281
    Location:
    California, USA
    Low blow. Remember those and the "punk" techs are alternative timeline stuff. That's why they are in blue on the tech tree in my signature.
     
  14. AIAndy

    AIAndy Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2011
    Messages:
    3,414
    I still consider it counterintuitive that modifiers also multiply the costs. I see the -:gold: on a library as the cost that is required to run the library but why should having a bank in the city increase that?

    In short, I vote for changing it from
    City:gold: = Sum:)gold:) * :gold:mods
    to
    City:gold: = PositiveSum:)gold:) * :gold:mods + NegativeSum:)gold:)

    Might also be worth it to do the same with the other commerces.
     
  15. DRJ

    DRJ Hedonist

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,514
    Location:
    Hamburg, Germany
    Together with inflation reform, (as inflation also has some indirect multipliers, I think), that's the way to go I think.
     
  16. Koshling

    Koshling Vorlon

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    9,254
    But they don't. Your base economy genetaes X amount of gold. You then invest that in various ways, some goes to pay for running your infrastructure (aka buildings that consume gold like the research buildings), the remainder is available for you to invest via your banking system and so on (and hence gets multiplied). If you sepnd everything in infrastructure there is nothing to invest, so I don't see it as counter-intuitive at all.

    That's not to say I don't think there is any problem, just that I don't think this mechanic is it per se.

    Now, one way to more directly model what I said above (and I'm just tossing ideas around here), would be that negative gold does not actually apply to base gold at all, but instead to city maintenance. That way you don't have the modifier issue because it simply isnt an input to the quantity that gets modified, AND you benfit (and suffer!) from civic effects on city maintenance, which may be more appropriatee.

    The downside is that banks and so on become more or less useless in pure cost centres. Currently they reduce the amount of the net negative. This way they wouldn't impact it at all so they'd be left doing nothing whatsoever in cities filled only with negative gold buildings.
     
  17. JosEPh_II

    JosEPh_II TBS WarLord

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    16,029
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Western IL. cornfields
    Here's a simple fix; cut the cost of -gold on research buildings by 50%. Simple xml changes I believe would do this. If a Library base is 5 research at a "cost" of 5 gold, which I think is the base, reduce that -gold to 2. (Yes, I know that is more than 50%, but rounding down. :p ) Then let Epona, me, and others like us play with it for a bit. If it's workable we'll tell you. If there is an underlying problem still we'll let you know that too.

    Well how about it?

    Ps I actually like AIAndy's suggestion.

    JosEPh
     
  18. Koshling

    Koshling Vorlon

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    9,254
    Just redcing costs will leave us back in the previous too-much-gold state for those of us that DON'T play the high-expansion no-REV style. We needto come up with somethign that doesn't preclude either (AIAndy's or my suggestions above would both be plausible options in that regard I think)
     
  19. JosEPh_II

    JosEPh_II TBS WarLord

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    16,029
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Western IL. cornfields
    But we've never actually balanced this. It was an Arbitrary decision made and now the feed back is coming back, The cost is too much.

    As for:
    Maybe it's a trade off that you all will need to stomach as you've made us do? All give and no take is not balance, it's dominance and basically says play this way or else. And we've been living with the "or else". Now we're asking you to take some. Isn't that fair and just?

    JosEPh
     
  20. Koshling

    Koshling Vorlon

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    9,254
    Would be if you were modding ;) More seriously though, yes (to a degree).
     

Share This Page