Well, isn't that a problem for all 4x games, for both AIs and human players? I'm not saying it's unfixable, but it's pretty hard to get it balanced right. We'll see I guess.
Upcoming patch info!
- Thread starter Vlade Divac
- Start date
Well, isn't that a problem for all 4x games, for both AIs and human players? I'm not saying it's unfixable, but it's pretty hard to get it balanced right. We'll see I guess.
Uncle_Joe
Prince
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2005
- Messages
- 491
Civ4 had a fairly nice drag on conquest via the scaling maintenance costs of having a larger empire. Yes, there were ways around it (and there should be IMO), but in Civ5, there is almost no drag at all on conquest. It's just too profitable to gobble up huge chunks of land.
True. I think the way to go for civ v looks to be using the global happiness mechanic. Increase unhappiness penalties if needed (for puppets and annexed non-courthouse cities), and more importantly make 'very unhappy' a place you really do not want to be in.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
Yeah I see that. sorry, I'm too used to seeing overly negative posts on here I guessI agree, it does still need some work.
I'm not sure about the puppets, I mean conquering has never been something you were punished for in previous civ's - at least not in the drastic way puppets used to gut your income without due diligence. You may well be right though, we don't have any revolt mechanics or culture flipping for cities any more to offset what you gain when you conquer territory.
Well ideally....
1. Cities in resistance would have their territory controlled by the original owner of the city
2. To reduce resistance turns, a unit in the city tile is needed.
3. Cities in resistance would have 0 combat value, the unit in the city tile would be the only defense, acting as a normal unit.
4. Cities that are being razed would be in resistance... a unit in the city tile would be required to reduce city population.
.....Those would provide a Militarily slowing effect on conquest.......
5. Puppets would have 0 benefits (outside of territory) but 0 costs. They would only produce Hammers for their own buildings, Food for their population/growth, and Culture to acquire tiles (no culture to the social policy pot...no social policy costs, no gold produced...no building maintenance, no happiness effects positive...or negative, no science or GPP produced, no trade route income produced)
6. Annexing would be impossible at -10 or more Happiness
The last two would be an important drag.... at -10 unhappiness, you could not increase your output, except by building buildings/policies.
Is it me or is there nearly never a need to annex a city now, EVER?
If the puppets sit quietly making culture, money and science without constructing everything AND don't raise my policy prices, why would I need to annex?
It's not like you need more than 3-5 cities continually pumping units even on a large map.
Even like that you'll be skirting the maintenance price limits for cost-effeciency..
It just doesn't play like CIV when all you can do is either raze enemy cities (like now) or puppet them (post patch), and annexing doesn't really give you anything that's worth the unhappiness except a city you can use to quick-buy an army in an enemy continent..
And most probably you'd rather raze it or re-puppet it afterwards if you could because actually owning a city does you more damage than not owning it in CIV5.
Hell, and even then it's probably better to raze than puppet, because with fewer cities you have less unhappiness so those cities can grow and be production powerhouses...
WTH?
NOT CIVy!
If the puppets sit quietly making culture, money and science without constructing everything AND don't raise my policy prices, why would I need to annex?
It's not like you need more than 3-5 cities continually pumping units even on a large map.
Even like that you'll be skirting the maintenance price limits for cost-effeciency..
It just doesn't play like CIV when all you can do is either raze enemy cities (like now) or puppet them (post patch), and annexing doesn't really give you anything that's worth the unhappiness except a city you can use to quick-buy an army in an enemy continent..
And most probably you'd rather raze it or re-puppet it afterwards if you could because actually owning a city does you more damage than not owning it in CIV5.
Hell, and even then it's probably better to raze than puppet, because with fewer cities you have less unhappiness so those cities can grow and be production powerhouses...
WTH?
NOT CIVy!
I like all of those, but you've hit the nail on the head there. Being able to annex regardless of your global unhappiness is what breaks the mechanic as a way of limiting growth and war-mongering. It's why the 'ignore unhappiness' strategy breaks the game.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
Well currently, the fact that you can puppet also breaks that. (since puppets are productive in the gold/science/culture sense if not the hammers for units)
This is just a guess, but I believe people are misunderstanding the new added bit about '* City - Add a Puppet city strategy that turns off training buildings and emphasizes gold. (new 10/14)'.
I don't think this means you will be able to check a box and the puppet will stop making buildings and produce wealth. I read it as 'the AI who controls your puppets will now have another strategy 'option' to choose from that is in fact not building anything and focusing on gold production'. It will still probably build a few useless buildings before the AI decides you might not really need that armory for a city that will never build units.
Who knows though, I could be reading it wrong too..
I would still Annex when I can afford it, because then I can perform Production, Culture, or Science specialization much better then Puppet AI which focuses on Gold buildings.
If a city landscape is favors and I need a Gold City, then puppets are fantastic. Although I can still see them make things you don't want.
If a city landscape is favors and I need a Gold City, then puppets are fantastic. Although I can still see them make things you don't want.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
Well....
they don't "Cost" you culture, unlike a normal city, so a Puppet with a few exceptions will make a better Culture city for your empire than most normal cities.
You will need to annex to make them a Production city... but that means Wonders or units.
As for science... that is largely balancing the happiness and getting a Library. Otherwise,the Puppet will do just about as well as a regular city.
The overall problems
1. Puppets give too much productivity for a conquest leading to runaway empires
2. Puppets give culture while not adding to culture Costs.
Uncle_Joe
Prince
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2005
- Messages
- 491
Yes! This is exactly what I was trying to get at. Sure, you COULD annex them and be a bit more efficient, but keeping them as a puppet will be a very very attractive and easy alternative....IMO, TOO attractive and easy.
I'd like to see puppets be LESS efficient, not MORE, but maybe that's just me...
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
I thought puppets would be overpowered until I played them and they bankrupted my empire. I feel there needs to be a compromise. I think the most logical is they can give you gold or, if you want, build buildings, but they don't contribute culture or give you a penalty. Or maybe that's what this kinda is. If you don't want to pay building maintenance, they won't build buildings and you won't get culture from them.
It would be interesting if puppeting was a more serious decision, one that created a city state under your allegiance, rather than a mildly nerfed territory gain, along with the same game mechanics exploitable by other civs (not for the purposes of UN voting though, of course).
That's a completely half-baked idea though, obviously.
Tylerryan79
Emperor
I read the new AI for puppets like this: Puppets will still build only buildings(not build pure science or gold), but if there is a choice between building a baracks(aka "Training buildings") or a bank("Gold" I think the wording is confusing, and they mean gold buildings) the AI will choose a bank over the barracks. Banks, and the wealth buildings that follow it, have no upkeep and make them desirable to build first. I don't read it as a puppet will build pure wealth. Now if they are puppeted for too long your runnig the risk of building all the good buildings, and the AI has no choice but to start selecting barracks, armories etc.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
OK, I think that makes sense. Fits better with what Greg said too. Not a dramatic change, but will help keep you from bleeding gold when you puppet cities.
Tylerryan79
Emperor
Actually I reread it again, and it might mean building pure gold... Lol my bad!
No, i think you were right the first time. The post is talking about a build order ( I assume) so I think your previous post was correct.
It does seem to not make sense that the best way to get a cultural victory is to go on a conquering spree and puppet a lot of enemies............
Conquering actually gives you more towards a culture victory than you can get when just settling cities....
Messed up.
I think krik is right. but maybe less extreme...
I think puppets should give you 1/4 of the money they produce, no culture and no science, and cost you nothing in maintenance.
Conquering actually gives you more towards a culture victory than you can get when just settling cities....
Messed up.
I think krik is right. but maybe less extreme...
I think puppets should give you 1/4 of the money they produce, no culture and no science, and cost you nothing in maintenance.
eviltypeguy
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2010
- Messages
- 234
It doesn't. Valve has said repeatedly that they never release Steam sales numbers to third parties.
And I find it very unlikely that 2K Games would.
That's interesting, because I'd imagine that digital sales would be a larger proportion of the sales when the game is still new (particularly before it's released ) than when the game is a few months old or more. Of course, when the game goes through one of those fancy steam sales, it will have a surge in digital sales again, while boxed copies will be fairly gradual in their declining sales.
As much as we get a lot of steam hate around here, I really do have the feeling that a lot of people buy their games digitally, especially the people who spend a lot of money on games. Honestly, I would have bought the digital version had it not been more than twice the price of picking up the boxed copy.
) than when the game is a few months old or more. Of course, when the game goes through one of those fancy steam sales, it will have a surge in digital sales again, while boxed copies will be fairly gradual in their declining sales.As much as we get a lot of steam hate around here, I really do have the feeling that a lot of people buy their games digitally, especially the people who spend a lot of money on games. Honestly, I would have bought the digital version had it not been more than twice the price of picking up the boxed copy.
