[R&F] Tall & Wide in Rise & Fall

[Hakan-i Cihan]

Who cares? Unless they make warmonger penalties mean something, I hope they do.

I hope too much warmonger penalty could be implemented as a negative score to the era score, but I don't think it has any negative scores.

 

[Victoria]

I hope too much warmonger penalty could be implemented as a negative score to the era score, but I don't think it has any negative scores.

War is tricky because winning a just war can be considered a golden age. The type of war must be considered to make it work at all well.

 

[leandrombraz]

Who cares? Unless they make warmonger penalties mean something, I hope they do.

That is what the new alliances is trying to accomplish, if it will actually succeed remains to be seen. Depending on how desirable the alliances are, diplomacy might actually be valuable.

 

[empresskiova]

I’m speaking from a mechanics perspective, not purely a gameplay perspective. We can worry about the diphorsehocky AI later, that’s Firaxis’s job right now.

The effectiveness of endless conquest is not being disputed, but rather the new effectiveness of tall. Is it effective? And more importantly, is it a viable strategy? Turtle strats shouldn’t be good, but they should have the ability to payoff.

In regards to Governors, I don’t expect all of the Governors to have 5 good promotions. But I did see where you have 12 points on the civics tree to use them. Oops.

Either way, you can still enjoy the Governor’s base ability, and pick and choose any other powers you want. The housing and amenities will still jumpstart your power. Regarding the diplomat, 2 envoys goes a long way to keeping a CS locked down. Some games (like Apadana-whoring) she won’t be neccesary. Other games, it will probably be helpful.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

Of course the mechanism encourages wide.

You have to have at least 7 cities of low loyalty to make full use of your governers. Otherwise their loyalty bonus are wasted.

This indicates that you have to have ~30 cities, since cities in loyalty problem shall not be a common issue, suppose at 20%.

 

[RohirrimElf]

OP:

- Governors - this is clearly a feature aimed at favoring tall empires. The number of governors will be limited, and furthermore, you can either recruit new ones or make existing ones stronger. So tall empire with a few cities and high level governors is likely to produce at least as much (if not more) as a wide empire with few governors.

I dont agree with you at all on the governor part in the discussion on wide vs tall. From the 3 governors we have seen out of the 5 perks. The third layer (4th and fifth or fifth perk) is all about the latest 2 era`s of the game. Which means investing heavely in one governor has no inpact untill very late of the game.
A governor with points invested in say air combat or nukes has no impact in most era`s in the game. Thus is it helpfull to go wide on governers and dont go into investing deeply in the governor trees.

The governor system has much benefit for "wide" empires. If say a civ has only 4 cities the governor system penalizes him at some point in the game. A few gouvernors have impact on city states or other AI cities (Armani and faith governor). But you are limiting yourself by not being able to put them in your own cities. As only one governor can be placed in a city. Ideally an empire with 7 (or slightly more) cities have more benefit from the new government mechanic than 4 or less cities (tall).

 

[Vahnstad]

Some governors can also be used for developing cities, instead of making strong ones even stronger, like the diplomat or the steward. The surveyor is a governor that does make strong cities even stronger (possibly even a low production, high growth city).

 

[_hero_]

I have no issue with staying small or tall, I just don't think it should be the objective. All the victory types are about expansion whether it's territory, culture, faith. My point is that going tall is not a victory condition. It's more like a survival tactic. If you can win that way then that's great. I just don't see the need to have a tall vs. wide debate.

It's not a question of intentionally staying small, as much as it is the relative value of small and mid-sized cities vs metropolises. A trade-off has always existed between getting more territory and improving what you already have. When getting more territory is always the right answer, it means that city development isn't valuable enough. When "wide" is always the right answer, it essentially marginalizes half the game. Only build industrial districts and commercial hubs in every city and ignore everything else except military? Great job, you've won on diety! I'm not sure I see the argument for that being good game design.

 

[stinkubus]

That would make sense if you could build the same district multiple times per city, but you can't. To win science you want to maximise he number of campuses, that can *only* be done by having tons of cities, their size barely matters.
Maybe say that a city over size 10 can build duplicate districts (at a cost penalty, and taking up a district slot), and cities above 18 can build triples. Large cities suddenly become useful.

Combine that with some buildings giving a % bonus, and city specialisation is suddenly back, in a more interesting way than before.

Most major metropolises have more than one elite Uni. I like this idea. You could even have a "research triangle" which could grant a huge boost once you get three unis built in each campus!

 

[pgm123]

Of course the mechanism encourages wide.

You have to have at least 7 cities of low loyalty to make full use of your governers. Otherwise their loyalty bonus are wasted.

This indicates that you have to have ~30 cities, since cities in loyalty problem shall not be a common issue, suppose at 20%.

It's not just loyalty bonuses, though. You also want to upgrade these governors. Getting seven governors is a wide play, but you can always go with fewer, better governors.

Also, Amani may be best played in a city state.