UHV, Number of cities and tech rate

[outofthebox]

Hi,

After playing several times England and Russia i wish the tech rate wasnt so bad with large number of cities that are needed to complete the UHVs.

The current mechanic leads to stupid gameplay like founding whatever cities at the last moments and then give them away ASAP after the UHV goal is completed.

Also the current mechanic doesnt favor war at all, since its costy to war only to gain uber crap cities that will divide your tech rate by 2, 3 or more.

So anyway to change this at all to encourage actualy holding on to those cities?

 

[iOnlySignIn]

(1) Remove raze city penalty to Stability. It makes no sense.

(2) Tech Rate/City Penalty reduced from 8% to 5%, but starting threshold reduced from 10 cities to 5 cities. Specifically, this means:

The Old System: Tech penalty 8% per city for every city above 10 cities.

The New System: Tech penalty 5% per city for every city above 5 cities.

This helps larger civs with >18 cities, but prevents super-techers with ~10 cities (such as AI England). In theory.

 

[Arizael]

(1) Remove raze city penalty to Stability. It makes no sense.

(2) Tech Rate/City Penalty reduced from 8% to 5%, but starting threshold reduced from 10 cities to 5 cities. Specifically, this means:

The Old System: Tech penalty 8% per city for every city above 10 cities.

The New System: Tech penalty 5% per city for every city above 5 cities.

This helps larger civs with >18 cities, but prevents super-techers with ~10 cities (such as AI England). In theory.

Bad idea. Only civs with 19 and more cities would actualy profit from this. Since most ais usually colapse before reaching this number, all you are doing is boosting the large human player againts the ai.

The current problem with razing is, that 90% of time u don't raze to cripple your opponent, but to reposition crappy city for a new one.
Razing didn't happen much historicaly, especialy later, so the player should be punished somehow for doing it.

 

[iOnlySignIn]

all you are doing is boosting the large human player againts the ai

That's exactly my intention. It seems to me to address the concerns of the OP directly.

 

[killerkebab]

Would it be a bad idea to 'reverse' the stability penalty incurred from razing if the player settles a city nearby in the following turn (or turns)? That way we could reposition cities without destroying our stability rating.

Whilst you could argue that playing with bad cities is part of the challenge, I still don't like the idea that the human player has to pay for the AIs poor judgement

 

[artyom]

does city razing give a permanent hit to stability?

 

[strijder20]

does city razing give a permanent hit to stability?

Yes (until you collapse/become a vassal).

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

Removing the raze penalty would definitely help human Mongolia.

And seriously, there are so many bad cities, that we really need this.

 

[jammerculture]

i don't think we should remove the raze penalty, rather an option to disband the city should be given with a certain civic, maybe occupation, or after a certain tech.

in early history cities were razed, later important cities were sometimes stripped of their importance by the conquerors, and the centers of government shift to their own settlements.

 

[dzdydx]

Would we still get the razing penalty if we cultural flip the city but then choose to disband it? We wouldn't get the diplomatic penalty so I'm assuming no penalty?

 

[Bair_the_Normal]

Removing the raze penalty would definitely help human Mongolia.

And seriously, there are so many bad cities, that we really need this.

As well as the Mughals, England, and Prussia.

 

[Leoreth]

Would we still get the razing penalty if we cultural flip the city but then choose to disband it? We wouldn't get the diplomatic penalty so I'm assuming no penalty?

No, that doesn't count as razing.

 

[Jusos2108]

(1) Remove raze city penalty to Stability. It makes no sense.

Moving city razing stability penalty is the worst idea ever in terms of domination and conquest victories. It would completely twist the game balance and make all victories that much easier. Heck, you go on a never ending rampage and wipe all your enemies off the planet with superior units. It is not like that kind of behauvior wouldn't cause severe instability within your empire. Getting razing instability makes perfect sense when you think of it. I sincerely hope that Leoreth is not even considering it.

I think it is really historical to get penalty for razing cities in the conquered areas. Even nowadays China suffers from this when moving people from the dam areas.

I would rather focus on AI city founding. And if your stability doesn't allow city razing, you might really need to improve your game on other aspects anyways.

 

[iOnlySignIn]

Moving city razing stability penalty is the worst idea ever in terms of domination and conquest victories. It would completely twist the game balance and make all victories that much easier. Heck, you go on a never ending rampage and wipe all your enemies off the planet with superior units. It is not like that kind of behauvior wouldn't cause severe instability within your empire. Getting razing instability makes perfect sense when you think of it. I sincerely hope that Leoreth is not even considering it.

I think it is really historical to get penalty for razing cities in the conquered areas. Even nowadays China suffers from this when moving people from the dam areas.

I would rather focus on AI city founding. And if your stability doesn't allow city razing, you might really need to improve your game on other aspects anyways.

Of course, whatever you say. You're the resident Domination/Conquest expert. My style does not involve a lot of conquering, so I don't really know what I'm talking about.

Per your example though, I think it'd be awesome if building the Three Gorges Dam allows you to raze a few of your own cities.

 

[Leoreth]

I don't think I will remove it. If there's a smart way to alleviate its side effects I'll take it, but the intention of the penalty is also to prohibit the behaviour Jusos described, and that for good reason.

Now AI city placement is another ambivalent thing. I think there are several AIs that could need improvement, but in general it's not desirable for the AI to strive for 20 tile cities.

 

[artyom]

since a player would raze a city to simply to found it in a different tile, it would make sense to not have a stability penalty

 

[strijder20]

Little suggestion: don't penalize razing in one's core/historical area.

 

[iOnlySignIn]

Little suggestion: don't penalize razing in one's core/historical area.

That's a good balance, but doesn't help in case of crap cities in Mexico for America, or crap cities in Russia/Italy/France for Prussia.

Another balance, if you control more than twice (or three times?) the number of cities you razed, you shouldn't get a Stability penalty.

More than 50% of Americans do not know where Canada is (which is something I really love about them). I doubt they'd care if America razes a few cities in Iraq or Afghanistan:

"We'll make a big f**king crater out of the Middle East for all I care."

 

[srpt]

I heard more than 50% of Americans believe the sun orbits the earth.

there used to be a Canadian TV show wherein a comedian went to America and tried to get people to sign petitions banning "the polar bear hunt in Toronto" or supporting people who were being evicted from their igloos etc. he got lots and lots of funny footage. I think it was called "Talking to Americans".

found it

 

[Leoreth]

"We'll make a big f**king crater out of the Middle East for all I care."

I assume "none" was not an option?