Wide vs Tall--Balance?

[Sprenk]

I've seen discussion of Wide vs. Tall in Civ VI in several threads, and I find myself wondering--maybe there's something for both play styles? Without Civ V's severe happiness mechanic, there's not much to stop you from carpeting the map with small cities, a la Civ II. But building up cities which can produce enough of any of the yields to be competitive looks like it's going to take more time and attention. There are "housing" limits which require extra buildings to surpass, and without that housing the number of districts in any city will be severely limited. In other words, there seem to be perks for going tall.

Will the benefits of each play style really be roughly balanced? Who knows, but it least the developers seem to be using the carrot of districts, not the stick of happiness penalties.

 

[Acken]

The problem is that so far theres not much evidence going "tall" gives you any mean to go taller than wide. By that I mean that so far I havent seen evidence that growth is reduced by empire size.

 

[Magil]

If we're going to have this discussion again, then someone needs to explain to me why "wide" and "tall" should be balanced. I can see no reason for it that isn't arbitrary.

 

[rastak]

If we're going to have this discussion again, then someone needs to explain to me why "wide" and "tall" should be balanced. I can see no reason for it that isn't arbitrary.

So design for one or the other kind of like Civ 1 & 2 and everyone just adapt? That's absolutely an option.

 

[Magil]

So design for one or the other kind of like Civ 1 & 2 and everyone just adapt? That's absolutely an option.

I'm just legitimately curious. I always thought a well-managed empire was both "wide" and "tall". You expand until there's no room left to expand, and then you build upwards--grow, build infrastructure, military, whatever. An empire that has huge borders but with undeveloped cities is an empire in desperate need of development. An empire that is very small but has highly developed cities is, at best, a second-rate contender.

This whole "wide versus" tall thing entered the series with V and didn't really exist as a concept before it, and I still don't see the point of it or why it was a design choice. I'd be more glad if it simply didn't enter into the thoughts of the designers for VI, because I still can't understand it. There is legitimate tension, to me, in trying to find the right balance between outward and inward growth, and to say that there are two distinct playstyles, which each emphasize one of the two, removes the payoff for what I would consider "good empire management".

 

[Amrunril]

I think it makes less sense to talk about balancing tall vs. wide empires and more sense to talk about balancing vertical growth and horizontal growth. In a game of civ, you should constantly be choosing between developing your existing cities and adding new ones (either by settling or by conquest), and it's important that both be viable options depending on game conditions and personal preference. There's no reason, however, to think of the choice as a one-time, binary one. That was only the case in Civ V because of the near necessity of choosing either Tradition or Liberty, and Civ VI is unlikely to have any comparable dichotomy.

 

[rastak]

I'm just legitimately curious. I always thought a well-managed empire was both "wide" and "tall". You expand until there's no room left to expand, and then you build upwards--grow, build infrastructure, military, whatever. An empire that has huge borders but with undeveloped cities is an empire in desperate need of development. An empire that is very small but has highly developed cities is, at best, a second-rate contender.

This whole "wide versus" tall thing entered the series with V and didn't really exist as a concept before it, and I still don't see the point of it or why it was a design choice. I'd be more glad if it simply didn't enter into the thoughts of the designers for VI, because I still can't understand it. There is legitimate tension, to me, in trying to find the right balance between outward and inward growth, and to say that there are two distinct playstyles, which each emphasize one of the two, removes the payoff for what I would consider "good empire management".

I get where you are coming from. From day one when I cracked open the box of Civ 1 I was mainly concerned about building great cities, not expanding. Which made me a TERRIBLE player of both Civ 1 & 2. I tried to adapt but wasn't really what I wanted to do (expanding always). Anyway, I'm guessing there were others who had hoped expanding to every square inch of available land wan't the only way. Civ V kind of provided that. I would like Civ to be viable for both strategies myself, but I can adapt either way it goes. It is only a game afterall.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

We've seen two features discouraging the spamming of cities: first, escalating costs of Settlers, and second, cities founded later don't have as many amenities (and therefore won't grow so big). But both of these look to me like fairly gentle measures. There's nothing to compare with Civ V's brutal global happiness mechanic or equally brutal science penalty.

I agree with Magil, though, that balancing Wide and Tall is a fool's errand anyway. Claiming territory and not claiming territory should not work equally well in an empire-building game. If you can do just as well by sitting back with a few cities as you can by aggressively competing for land and getting many, then why bother with the latter? One of my favorite parts of Civ IV is the phase from about 2000 BC to 1 AD, when the map rapidly fills up as everyone tries to seize the good land before their neighbors do. You're walking a razor's edge, since expanding too recklessly will destroy your economy--but then, if you get stuck at three or four cities, you're in big trouble long-term. In Civ V, that tension is gone. Only got to three cities? No problem. Take a few overpowered Tradition policies and you'll rocket past the competition anyway.

Any attempt to make four city empires consistently competitive with ten city empires is going to result in a flawed game where expansion doesn't really matter.

 

[rastak]

We've seen two features discouraging the spamming of cities: first, escalating costs of Settlers, and second, cities founded later don't have as many amenities (and therefore won't grow so big). But both of these look to me like fairly gentle measures. There's nothing to compare with Civ V's brutal global happiness mechanic or equally brutal science penalty.

I agree with Magil, though, that balancing Wide and Tall is a fool's errand anyway. Claiming territory and not claiming territory should not work equally well in an empire-building game. If you can do just as well by sitting back with a few cities as you can by aggressively competing for land and getting many, then why bother with the latter? One of my favorite parts of Civ IV is the phase from about 2000 BC to 1 AD, when the map rapidly fills up as everyone tries to seize the good land before their neighbors do. You're walking a razor's edge, since expanding too recklessly will destroy your economy--but then, if you get stuck at three or four cities, you're in big trouble long-term. In Civ V, that tension is gone. Only got to three cities? No problem. Take a few overpowered Tradition policies and you'll rocket past the competition anyway.

Any attempt to make four city empires consistently competitive with ten city empires is going to result in a flawed game where expansion doesn't really matter.

I do totally understand your point. When I read about the upcoming Civilization in a gaming magazine in 1991 it talked about building a civilization to stand the test of time, not kill everyone and occupy every square foot you can. I get that most people want to do that. I always liked the notion of building something greater than my fellow rulers, not squeezing out every inch of land. That said, I get it's not how everybody feels nor likely optimal. I liked the fact in Civ V I could build a Civ to stand the test of time without going full on cockroach approach of showing up everywhere.

Anyway, just my thought. I've gone full on warmonger too, just not too often.

 

[Sprenk]

Wait a sec. Yes, if you're seeking a Conquest victory then yes, expansion is an inevitable corollary. But if you're seeking a culture win or a space shot? Does the "winner" inevitably have to be the biggest civ geographically? Then why isn't Russia the real-world champ in all areas? Quality over quantity has a place.

 

[Magil]

The Roman Empire is widely considered one of the greatest civilizations in history. For years in Europe, it was held up as sort of a standard to be aspired to, there were attempts in the Medieval period to establish successor-states to the Roman Empire. Yes, it eventually fell, but it persisted for centuries, since the "crowning" of Augustus as the first Roman emperor. It was certainly a civilization that "stood the test of time", as Greco-Roman culture has persisted and spread throughout the Western world for centuries after the empire's fall.

The Roman empire was a very large empire--at its height, Wikipedia says it covered 5 million square kilometers. But while the Roman empire was known for its strong military, it was also well-known for its architecture, its inventions, its philosophy, its culture, its political systems, and its art. It was hardly an empire filled with shanty towns. Well, that's the ideal anyway, how it was in reality is certainly up for debate.

But I always thought this vision of the Roman empire was the ideal one should aspire to in Civilization. I want to establish an empire that has a flourishing culture, state-of-the-art science, breathtaking monuments, and Pax Romana. And yes, massive borders, an empire that stretches from coast to coast, holding sway over millions of people over thousands of miles. To focus on one or two aspects and ignore the rest is, to me, to betray the ideal of building a civilization which stands the test of time.

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

If you can do just as well by sitting back with a few cities as you can by aggressively competing for land and getting many, then why bother with the latter?

That's all that needs to be said about why actually balancing them is bad design. I'm all for giving small empires a VC they're competitive in or even more suited for, like the pre-BNW CV but BNW took it a tad too far by making them as good or better at all VCs.

 

[Atlas627]

Expanding should always be worth its own effort, but it should not always be worth the opportunity cost.

In Civ5, expanding was sometimes not even worth its own effort because of the massive penalties for expansion. Expanding outward was sometimes just a bad idea.

What it should be is that expanding outward is sometimes not AS good as expanding upwards or improving what you have. And sometimes it should be. And hopefully, there are game mechanics that create an ebb and flow so that you switch between expanding outwards and upwards throughout the game.

So purposely going Tall needs its own benefits, and purposely going Wide needs its own benefits. The optimal state should be Tall and Wide. Tall and Wide should both be viable ways to get to Tall & Wide, but differently.

Tall probably needs to make their core cities powerful and then pump out an army. Wide probably needs to quickly expand but then only has to defend their territory.

 

[rastak]

The Roman Empire is widely considered one of the greatest nation-states in history. For years in Europe, it was held up as sort of a standard to be aspired to, there were attempts in the Medieval period to establish successor-states to the Roman Empire. Yes, it eventually fell, but it persisted for centuries, since the "crowning" of Augustus as the first Roman emperor. It was certainly a civilization that "stood the test of time", as Greco-Roman culture has persisted and spread throughout the Western world for centuries after the empire's fall.

The Roman empire was a very large empire--at its height, Wikipedia says it covered 5 million square kilometers. But while the Roman empire was known for its strong military, it was also well-known for its architecture, its inventions, its philosophy, its culture, its political systems, and its art. It was hardly an empire filled with shanty towns. Well, that's the ideal anyway, how it was in reality is certainly up for debate.

But I always thought this vision of the Roman empire was the ideal one should aspire to in Civilization. I want to establish an empire that has a flourishing culture, state-of-the-art science, breathtaking monuments, and Pax Romana. And yes, massive borders, an empire that stretches from coast to coast, holding sway over millions of people over thousands of miles. To focus on one or two aspects and ignore the rest is, to me, to betray the ideal of building a civilization which stands the test of time.

I didn't aspire to be like Rome, although I am of Italian decent. More like China, but to each his own.

 

[Magil]

I didn't aspire to be like Rome, although I am of Italian decent. More like China, but to each his own.

Perhaps not the best-expressed viewpoint I could've explained, but I was trying to use an example of a historical empire that was very large yet also famous for its architecture, science, art, and culture. Certainly, in Europe, there was a lot of Rome-love going on during the Medieval period and the Renaissance, it seems like.

But I don't necessarily mean just Rome in particular. More like, the ideal that the Roman empire represents. It certainly captured the imagination and awe of people for centuries.

 

[sugerdady87]

If we're going to have this discussion again, then someone needs to explain to me why "wide" and "tall" should be balanced. I can see no reason for it that isn't arbitrary.

You beat me to this statement. Also, ultimately, the way most people advocate for balance is by adding arbitrary rules which makes no sense by themselves other than to stifle expansion. Why in the world is there a science penalty for settling more cities?

The Roman Empire is widely considered one of the greatest nation-states in history. For years in Europe, it was held up as sort of a standard to be aspired to, there were attempts in the Medieval period to establish successor-states to the Roman Empire. Yes, it eventually fell, but it persisted for centuries, since the "crowning" of Augustus as the first Roman emperor. It was certainly a civilization that "stood the test of time", as Greco-Roman culture has persisted and spread throughout the Western world for centuries after the empire's fall.

The Roman empire was a very large empire--at its height, Wikipedia says it covered 5 million square kilometers. But while the Roman empire was known for its strong military, it was also well-known for its architecture, its inventions, its philosophy, its culture, its political systems, and its art. It was hardly an empire filled with shanty towns. Well, that's the ideal anyway, how it was in reality is certainly up for debate.

But I always thought this vision of the Roman empire was the ideal one should aspire to in Civilization. I want to establish an empire that has a flourishing culture, state-of-the-art science, breathtaking monuments, and Pax Romana. And yes, massive borders, an empire that stretches from coast to coast, holding sway over millions of people over thousands of miles. To focus on one or two aspects and ignore the rest is, to me, to betray the ideal of building a civilization which stands the test of time.

By definition, an Empire is not a nation-state. It's actually the opposite.

 

[Ryika]

The main reason why wide and tall - tall as in "expand slower and focus more on growth, not as in "stop expanding before the midgame" - should both be viable is because it allows more strategical choices. If only wide is viable, then every games revolves around finding ways to expand as much as possible as quickly as possible. That can get old very quickly.

There you have your explanation for why people think that way.

 

[Magil]

By definition, an Empire is not a nation-state. It's actually the opposite.

Noted. I can correct that then.

The main reason why wide and tall - tall as in "expand slower and focus more on growth, not as in "stop expanding before the midgame" - should both be viable is because it allows more strategical choices. If only wide is viable, then every games revolves around finding ways to expand as much as possible as quickly as possible. That can get old very quickly.

There you have your explanation for why people think that way.

Ya'know, my point was that a well-managed empire was both wide and tall, not that "only wide is viable".

Certainly, we need balancing factors to keep the concept known as Infinite City Sprawl in check. But you see, the strategy enters the picture when there is a desire to always claim more land, because land is power. And if land is power, then more should be better, right? But the tension should be in having the economic and military power to support the land you claim. Expand too fast, devote too much to pure land-grabbing, and you may find your cities taken from you by your rivals, or your economy could collapse.

But, see, that's not a matter of a "tall" strategy and a "wide" strategy. That is trying to find the right balance between the two--the desire to build upward and the desire to expand outward. IMHO, if you remove the tension in finding that right balance, by saying it's viable to focus one or the other to the near-exclusion of its counterpart, then you lose a lot of the strategy that makes Civilization an interesting game.

 

[Leathaface]

We've seen two features discouraging the spamming of cities: first, escalating costs of Settlers, and second, cities founded later don't have as many amenities (and therefore won't grow so big). But both of these look to me like fairly gentle measures. There's nothing to compare with Civ V's brutal global happiness mechanic or equally brutal science penalty.

I agree with Magil, though, that balancing Wide and Tall is a fool's errand anyway. Claiming territory and not claiming territory should not work equally well in an empire-building game. If you can do just as well by sitting back with a few cities as you can by aggressively competing for land and getting many, then why bother with the latter? One of my favorite parts of Civ IV is the phase from about 2000 BC to 1 AD, when the map rapidly fills up as everyone tries to seize the good land before their neighbors do. You're walking a razor's edge, since expanding too recklessly will destroy your economy--but then, if you get stuck at three or four cities, you're in big trouble long-term. In Civ V, that tension is gone. Only got to three cities? No problem. Take a few overpowered Tradition policies and you'll rocket past the competition anyway.

Any attempt to make four city empires consistently competitive with ten city empires is going to result in a flawed game where expansion doesn't really matter.

IIRC that is only gold cost, not production cost. Plus there is a Civic card that gives a very large boost to producing settlers quickly.

 

[Aheadatime]

My opinion is that wide empires should be difficult to attain/maintain, but more rewarding if done correctly. Let's do what I call the '0 to 100' test, and look at extreme ends of the spectrum for reference.

If your 'civilization' consists of you and three other people, chances are you'll quickly establish a way of things regardless of how it takes shape. Because your actions directly correlate with your own health and well-being, as a group, you'll most likely be deciding on actions that are self-evident and agreeable. "Lets hunt, fish, and look for good farm land. Tomorrow, we can work on shelters."

Now to take it to 100, if we gave an individual or a group of individuals command over the entire planet and all of its human inhabitants, what are the odds their decision making will benefit the entire race? Their rule reaching so far and being so absolute, surely corruption has a high chance at seeping in and manifesting via unpopular laws/procedures. Even without corruption, what are the odds that a group so small is adequately equipped to understand and maintain a population so large? There will be dissonance, even if we start to create branches of governments trickling down into regional institutions. This gets complicated, inefficient, and creates room for mismanagement.

So if you look at the area in between those two extremes, the difficulty should slowly increase, but so too should the rewards. This is my take on it, anyway. How to do that, I don't know. Global happiness seemed semi-promising at first, but after mastering the game, it turns out it was balanced improperly. There should never be a set number of cities that is the 'best' way to build. Whether it's 4-city tradition or every-tile-on-the-map-spam, there shouldn't be a way to play the game that makes people say 'you're doing it wrong' for choosing otherwise.