It's funny how little we know about what we're actually doing in spite of trying to pay attention, with how bad the UI is.
Towns Are Broken, I Have A Fix (Higher Growth Rate, More Expensive Cities)
- Thread starter tman2000
- Start date
To me, I think cities should count as 2 towards your settlement limit (obviously you'd need to increase the limit, change what the first era requirements are, etc...). If a town counted 1/2 towards the settlement limit, and I get the specialization, that could definitely be better than converting it to a city.
Since we're already adjusting the limit, maybe 3 for a city and 2 for a settlement would balance out better? (Maybe even down to 1 for a specialization, but that may be too low.)
EpicWestern
Warlord
- Joined
- May 6, 2015
- Messages
- 267
A lot of the game needs work but from around 10 games of deity so far town/cities seem exceptionally balanced. I'm getting a good mix of towns and cities in all my games and am usually using different types of specializations. Usually, I will convert towns to cities whenever I can early/mid game, the question is just whether I have the gold or not. Also I think its best to almost always push over the settlement limit (the happiness hit isn't that bad), so you should frequently have towns that you simply can't afford to convert.
Yzman
Deity
I tend to have ridiculous amounts of money at some point but I just dknt see point jn converting to cities...
aelf
Ashen One
I just tried this strategy out in a Deity game as Maya with Trung Trac. The rolling system of camels and gypsum really is strong, but I was lucky enough to start with 2 camels and 2 gypsum within reach with my third and fourth settlements. I also got lapis lazuli, which was a great help.
But I did get declared on by an AI, probably because of the aggressive settling to secure these resources. And ol' Ben Franklin wasn't even hostile at that point. Luckily, I'm playing Trung Trac and I was able to kick his butt handily. I was also not getting enough gold to turn all my settlements into cities. I had to spend some gold on buildings to grab the needed resources and on a wall due to the war. But the strategy did allow me to set up 3 strong cities. I didn't bother making a fourth partly because I was blowing through the tech tree a bit too quickly to stall the end of the age.
I guess in conclusion, this strategy needs strong gold generation, which might be civ/leader-dependent. And I wonder if you have to intentionally throttle progress to avoid reaching certain milestones too quickly. Another thing I learned is that this strategy might be the best bet for completing the wonder-building culture legacy path on higher difficulties.
This could just be a bug with the tooltip, but I'm hoping it's a bug in the calculation of the actual payment.
No, it doesn’t work like that. Towns send their food to cities, not a copy. The food is divided equally between all the cities that are connected. You can easily check that on the food breakdown in the settlement info.
Noble Zarkon
Elite Quattromaster - Immortal (BTS)
Super Moderator
Hall of Fame Staff
GOTM Staff
Supporter
I feel that was a big part of what OneMoreturn missed in his video, half the point is to enable people to play Tall but with a wide empire.
Menocchio
Warlord
I also tried it out, though maybe not in the best optimised way (Confucius/Rome), and it ended up being the first game of VII I've ever had to call quits on. The main issue was war: around end of Antiquity I faced an angry Amina and Tecumseh, Tecumseh snatched my latest town right before the age transition, and then in Exploration they got back at it again as a tag team before long and that was all she wrote. I'm used to having piles of gold sitting around, which cities are ultimately a huge drain on—gold is flexible, instantaneous, and functions irrespective of a settlement's productive capacity. Being able to summon an army from the aether, or instantly develop a settlement with whatever buildings you want, is helpful in a way that's hard to quantify.
Making towns into cities in Antiquity is too much of a gold sink, though it sure is good for getting the wonders at least. I'm sure there are particular leaders and civs that can really benefit from it, but it's not something you should "always" aim to do with every settlement.
Noam Braumsky
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2025
- Messages
- 10
I just played a Carthage -> Chola -> Qing run as Augustus with the goal to Townmax as much as possible, including taking Augustus's memento that gives an extra settlement limit for the antiquity age. Playing with 1 city in Antiquity and 3 from exploration on, I felt town spamming was extremely strong. This was a pretty optimized set-up apart from playing Chola (who are a pretty big letdown imo) but I took a clear lead very early on and was blasting the 7 deity AIs in every yield type by the end of the game, including science despite trading heavily through Qing's resource malus. I ended the modern age with every legacy path completed apart from military.
Clearly towns are best oriented towards economic victories since they provide so much gold, but I felt I could easily pursue any victory path playing with a few cities and a vast amount of towns. I need to try for an optimized tall run as well, but so far I feel pretty convinced that playing around a ton of towns with few cities is a perfectly viable strategy on the highest AI difficulty with most playstyles.
Clearly towns are best oriented towards economic victories since they provide so much gold, but I felt I could easily pursue any victory path playing with a few cities and a vast amount of towns. I need to try for an optimized tall run as well, but so far I feel pretty convinced that playing around a ton of towns with few cities is a perfectly viable strategy on the highest AI difficulty with most playstyles.
Surely you reach a ceiling especially in antiquity, with how much you can upgrade your first city? At that point you'd switch over to support the growth of a second city, switching back to the first city once you unlock new buildings. If you tried that, you might do even better.
Noam Braumsky
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2025
- Messages
- 10
I would have converted cities in the Antiquity era if it were possible, but Carthage's unique ability disables this - you only get your capital. I was still able to find things for my capital to do since I had wonders to build and units to spam to fight some drawn-out wars. I was also spamming merchants since my trade routes kept getting disabled due AI wars and the cost of them doesn't reset after they disappear (hopefully not intended) so that also constituted a decent production sink.
Steinernein
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2011
- Messages
- 33
I also think if you went something like Xerxes / Han you probably wouldn't want to maximize city count because you'll most likely get more out of great walls + chalcedony seal etc. Then in the Exploration Age nab Serpent Mound / Forbidden City / Shwedagon Zedi Daw. You'll also be drowning in culture and gold.
Has drongo gotten better since moving over to civ7?
I remember he was more technical at the very start of his aoe4 channel, but slowly devolved into clickbaiting and only having 10% substance in what he says in a video and going off on tangents vs other commentators that put me off of his stuff to this day.
I remember he was more technical at the very start of his aoe4 channel, but slowly devolved into clickbaiting and only having 10% substance in what he says in a video and going off on tangents vs other commentators that put me off of his stuff to this day.
The streamer scene definitely was more fun and still had some innocence at the start of CivVI (around the time this started as a business model). Then we had the promoting phase, where the distance to the companies got smaller - and now we get these combative streams ( some with a weird hostile undertone). The vitriol against VII in the comments probably doesn't help.
Another suspicion for me is that the game just isn't entertaining as a stream, and that is frustrating if you want to earn money with that.
A stream needs to show us what happens in the game, and the UI is giving these guys a hard time to do that. You have to keep track of a lot of things in your head - which doesn't translate to a laid-back viewer across the screen (and they have to constantly say something entertaining at the same time).
Another suspicion for me is that the game just isn't entertaining as a stream, and that is frustrating if you want to earn money with that.
A stream needs to show us what happens in the game, and the UI is giving these guys a hard time to do that. You have to keep track of a lot of things in your head - which doesn't translate to a laid-back viewer across the screen (and they have to constantly say something entertaining at the same time).
WillK96
Chieftain
I agree with the increased cost to cities improving the value of towns. I also agree with customizing where the food from towns goes. To make towns more useful, I'd change 3 more things:
1. I'd increase the settlement limit by about 50% in Antiquity and Exploration
2. I'd make food much harder to get in cities.
3. I'd make the town specializations much more focused and powerful. For example, I'd allow Fort Towns to spend production to build units (maybe at a decreased cost or at half cost, while the rest of the production is converted into gold) and trade towns to build merchants, fishing quays, and trade buildings, I'd allow Urban Centers to build/buy at least the tier 1 science and culture buildings, Hub towns to build/buy influence buildings (I'd also allow the hub town to generate influence based on foreign settlement connecitons, Farming and Mining towns to +3 their production on improvements rather than +2, etc... I'd also prohibit or increase the cost of buying units in the non corresponding town. Want to buy an Archer in the urban center town? That's going to be double the cost buying the archer is in the current build of the game. Same for buying a merchant in a fort town, etc.
I think this would make town play a lot more complex. Do I want to have a fort town near the closest civ for logistical purposes? Or do I want to build a hub town for the added influence? Or a mining/farming town that is more difficult to defend, but gives the cities more food/gold?
Right now, at least in the first two ages, town play is very sterile.
I'd also decrease the settlement restrictions in the modern age. Want a farming town 2 tiles away from the capital? That's fine, the capital will just ceded the tiles its grown into to the town's first ring. In this way, towns would function as a modern day suburb and or urban agglomeration with a different focus (Thinking of NYC and something like Buffalo - which would be like 1 tile away IRL).
Thoughts? I think this would introduce some really interesting and complex decision making into the game beyond the current meta, which is to basically leave it on growing town until you have to change it because of a crisis or some other rare instance (Carthage's bonuses, etc...)
1. I'd increase the settlement limit by about 50% in Antiquity and Exploration
2. I'd make food much harder to get in cities.
3. I'd make the town specializations much more focused and powerful. For example, I'd allow Fort Towns to spend production to build units (maybe at a decreased cost or at half cost, while the rest of the production is converted into gold) and trade towns to build merchants, fishing quays, and trade buildings, I'd allow Urban Centers to build/buy at least the tier 1 science and culture buildings, Hub towns to build/buy influence buildings (I'd also allow the hub town to generate influence based on foreign settlement connecitons, Farming and Mining towns to +3 their production on improvements rather than +2, etc... I'd also prohibit or increase the cost of buying units in the non corresponding town. Want to buy an Archer in the urban center town? That's going to be double the cost buying the archer is in the current build of the game. Same for buying a merchant in a fort town, etc.
I think this would make town play a lot more complex. Do I want to have a fort town near the closest civ for logistical purposes? Or do I want to build a hub town for the added influence? Or a mining/farming town that is more difficult to defend, but gives the cities more food/gold?
Right now, at least in the first two ages, town play is very sterile.
I'd also decrease the settlement restrictions in the modern age. Want a farming town 2 tiles away from the capital? That's fine, the capital will just ceded the tiles its grown into to the town's first ring. In this way, towns would function as a modern day suburb and or urban agglomeration with a different focus (Thinking of NYC and something like Buffalo - which would be like 1 tile away IRL).
Thoughts? I think this would introduce some really interesting and complex decision making into the game beyond the current meta, which is to basically leave it on growing town until you have to change it because of a crisis or some other rare instance (Carthage's bonuses, etc...)
Eh... He mostly just plays the same game every time. Build cities, transfer camels and gypsum, get production buildings, repeat. But he had more variety before he found that strategy. And sometimes he does something fun like the giant Great Wall of China.
I will say that he seems to be having fun and isn't complaining about the game, though!
Noble Zarkon
Elite Quattromaster - Immortal (BTS)
Super Moderator
Hall of Fame Staff
GOTM Staff
Supporter
I think that goes against what they are supposed to be - a way to play Tall effectively in a 4X game without having to crimp wide play.
WillK96
Chieftain
They aren't an effective way to play Tall now because they don't provide significant enough bonuses to the cities with the current specialist caps. This would really allow someone to play tall by allowing their city(ies) to be the driving engine of their yields with the towns playing a more specialized support role.
