1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Will Civ6 punish players for expansion?

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by historix69, Jun 23, 2016.

  1. Socrates99

    Socrates99 Bottoms up!

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,000
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Michigan
    That might be kind of neat. It could work like Europa Universalis 4' colonial empire mechanic. Outlying territories join together and leave the empire to form a separate entity. They remained allies but the AI took control. Think Canada or Australia to Great Britain.
     
  2. Magil

    Magil Monarch

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,618
    The "revolution" style mechanic in Civ IV was something they did so that overseas expansions could form their own colonies as vassal states, which may then be able to split away. It was largely pointless and unfun, if I recall correctly.

    The most important factor in determining whether or not to add a mechanic is whether or not it's a fun or interesting mechanic, not historical precedent or "realism".
     
  3. Brianstorm

    Brianstorm Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2016
    Messages:
    177
    You mean vassal states? Wish we had them back in V since conquering capitals is so important. There was a separate mod for revolutions that added a lot IMO.

    Seems they're going with an age of exploration motif and along with continents having names I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of colonial mechanic. An easy way to counter your issues would be to make it more dynamic and less of a penalty to lose said colonies. Like how Britain lost the 13 Colonies but went on to conquer India, a mid-game set back doesn't mean you're screwed.
     
  4. historix69

    historix69 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,241
    I think most players would enjoy it rather to build small nations which would become vassals/friends/member of a commonwealth (e.g. GB, Canada, SA, Australia) instead of loosing cities in a revolution to a rebel state like UK against USA.
     
  5. Drakarska

    Drakarska Epic Dadness

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2010
    Messages:
    2,539
    Location:
    Twilight Zone
    Ermm, how about a minor correction there from "most players" to say " a percentage", or something along those lines.
    I'm all for peeps playing the way they want to, but part of the 4x is supposed to be expansion. Not limited to just a handful of cities, and then calling it a grand empire.

    Personally, I rather enjoy playing on huge + maps and controlling quite a few cities, and not having over half the map wasted because you get ridiculously punished for it as the player did in Civ V.
     
  6. Ricci

    Ricci Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    531
    I think you are refering to the "grant independance" mechanic/option. Which organized some overseas cities into a new state colony, in the form of a vassal state (with particularly excelent relations due to the granting of independance). It was difficult to have this new country revolt and set free from your grip, but it did happen.
    It could be improved to an extent but it was pretty solid and nice mechanic, and really usefull depending your strat.
     
  7. JtW

    JtW Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2010
    Messages:
    575
    Location:
    Poland
    I loved that mechanic. It was one of my favorite mechanics in the whole series.
     
  8. ClavisRa

    ClavisRa Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2006
    Messages:
    20
    Location:
    Oneonta, NY
    Adding a city should not have an corresponding negative mechanic. What constrains empires should be things like competition, diplomacy, opportunity cost and terrain. Would be great if empires naturally developed a variety of types of cities of differing sizes that contributed in a different ways, such as trade, military value, resource development, and food.

    The district mechanic goes a long way towards this. What if resources were made more interesting, so that instead of the simplistic method of developing a resource and automatically having it available empire wide, the amount of resource you get depends on how many citizens work it. So, you might want to build a small city in an otherwise inhospitable area to develop a resource, and have to develop the city enough to have enough available citizens to maximize the resource extraction. Also, developing resources in a city and benefitting from them would come with an opportunity cost of using citizens in other ways.

    A mechanic that directly imposes a cost for adding a city to a civilization is clunky and generic, and best avoided if at all possible.

    The problem in Civ was always that the growth model for cities made creating new cities the best investment far too often. As long as expansion is appropriately costed, there will be interesting trade-offs between adding cities, growing cities, and getting short-term maximum production from cities (like focusing efforts to get a Wonder, or reach a science goal). (I still remember the days of making a fast 2nd city that was dedicated to popping out Settlers as fast as possible. Yipes.)
     
  9. b5fan

    b5fan Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2013
    Messages:
    7
    I would hope that expansion is controlled in the following manner:

    1. Unprotected settler spam is contained by barb invasions early. (You will have to protect your new cities with a decent military)
    2. Expansion should only end when you hit another empire's borders. At that point the wars should begin.

    The perversion that is a 4-6 city tall science win should never happen in civ 6. Last I checked the space race was run by two huge empires (US vs USSR). Switzerland didn't send a man to the moon last I checked.
     
  10. skyclad

    skyclad Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    488
    Can I buy you some cookies sir? :D Agree completely. This whole "tall" thing doesnt even make sense to me. Sure there are some great small nations like belgium and netherlands, and even luxembourgh! But In the real world 50% of the land area is not empty wasteland claimed by nobody...
     
  11. Felis Renidens

    Felis Renidens Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 25, 2016
    Messages:
    542
    Location:
    Israel
    I remember winning space victories with 3-4 cities in Civ1 and Civ2. It was always possible, at least at low difficulties. 3 sort of forced me to expand to get rare resources. Most of these were useless and boring. Civ 4 required high population for the UN. Strangely as much as people say 4 cities are optimal on Civ5 it is many times boring and I tend to expend more than this.

    I hope Civ6 will have a good balance and make having more cities fun. With the district system I really hope it will.
     
  12. Socrates99

    Socrates99 Bottoms up!

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,000
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Michigan
    It's definitely more boring to stay small its just that more often than not expansion doesn't reward you with a quicker win time. Once I realized that the extra cities were slowing me down they stopped being fun to make.

    Bigger maps aren't so bad though. Since the penalties aren't as harsh.
     
  13. Felis Renidens

    Felis Renidens Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 25, 2016
    Messages:
    542
    Location:
    Israel
    So you prefer shorter win time with less fun to longer win time with more fun. I think that reading about strategies might have ruined the game for me a little and might disappear once Civ6 comes out. Before BNW expansion wasn't a problem at all and it took me time to realize this is what slows me in BNW (I just thought they made research times longer). I think it was a bad move because in Civ5 filling\conquering the continent is actually fun. I think they recognize it as a bad move because they remove global happiness, make culture more important and hint at some science\culture trade-off that may be related to size (seemingly larger empires will have more culture and less science) - so I'm hopeful that balance will return.
     
  14. Magil

    Magil Monarch

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,618
    The problem is that ICS ruled supreme in vanilla V and Gods and Kings. So they overreacted drastically in BNW to attempt to compensate. The results are less than satisfactory.
     
  15. Minor Annoyance

    Minor Annoyance Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,247
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario
    I think the reason civ6 will be different is changeable civics.
    In civ5 you picked tradition early and that was your civ for the game. In civ4 you had the bureaucracy civic which increase production and commerce by 50% in your capital. It was, I assume, meant to allow a small civ to keep pace with others until it could grow. Later you could switch out when the situation changed.
    Now that civ6 has brought back changeable governments and civics there may be early civics that are good for small civs but will be outclassed by later civics once the empire has grown.
     
  16. Socrates99

    Socrates99 Bottoms up!

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,000
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Michigan
    I definitely do not prefer shorter win with less fun. The problem is expansion stops being fun when it not only no longer gains you an advantage but actually slows you down.

    I have enjoyed hyper expanding with the new CV though. A really fun game is CV with a warmonger lean. Assyria is my favorite for this because the UA helps you to never fall too far behind and the UB gives you an extra place to hide stolen works. Just target whatever Civ is producing the most tourism and steal their works and wonders.

    I'm hoping the split tech tree means culture favors wide and science favors tall but neither is necessarily penalized.
     
  17. Felis Renidens

    Felis Renidens Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 25, 2016
    Messages:
    542
    Location:
    Israel
    Oh, I am really wait for the random god to give me Assyria (I know I can pick them, that's just not how I play). I may remove the penalty, shouldn't be very difficult. Or just wait for 6 to come out.
     
  18. Pepo

    Pepo Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2012
    Messages:
    302
    Wide should always beat Tall if there aren't any depth economic system in the game. To fix that on BMW the devs added all the features mentioned in the OP ending in the current situation: Tall beat Wide in any competitive situation. of course you can still win by conquest , but it is suboptimal.

    I know it is unpopular , but I think that Civ VI should forget the stupid Wide Vs tall argument. Why it is stupid? Because it is erroneous and unreal. It should be called less vs more. Tall vs wide refer to an empire with a small number of highly developed metropolis vs one with a lot more of smaller cities. In reality, "wide " empires in Civ just mean having more cities of cities at similar size vs a Civ with less cities of a similar size. Civ doesn't had any deep mechanics to allow small civs to survive against bigger ones. What they did in BNW is artificial , sloppy and counter-intuitive. What need to be balanced is the rated of expansion so that there is no ICS. Sliders did it well (although at latter eras they were mostly irrelevant) . Other systems may work as well. Civ should reward for going wide , making it a risky investment that's yield results, one system where economic growth and expansion should be balanced. Civ IV did it well , but it could be improved

    PS: we can all dream about a system where research isn't tie to your civilization size. Victoria 2 (paradox game) did it well with a literacy system. But I doubt that it will ever be implemented in a vanilla civ
    Ps2: also population=science is a very stupid system that vastly favors civs with more pops. I don't understand why people disliked commerce; it was way more balance
     
  19. Magil

    Magil Monarch

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,618
    While I will always say that "wide vs tall" is crap that shouldn't be a part of Civ, I would think that it'd be the other way around. Scientific progress would greatly benefit from having more resources to exploit, more locales to explore, more places to conduct research, while a culture can stay much more unified and identifiable if it isn't diluted by regional variation.
     
  20. Socrates99

    Socrates99 Bottoms up!

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,000
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Michigan
    Personally I agree. Even if they were 100% balanced and both were optimal tall would still be better because its easier. Less to protect, less production spent on settlers, trade income is higher relative to maintenance, less chance of incurring the wrath of your opponents, etc. I hate the idea of actual balance between the two to be honest.

    I only pointed to the tall scientific and wide cultural empires because that was the way V was leaning. Go wide for more GW slots, more landmarks, museums, etc. while tall is better for focusing the population in well developed cities to crank out beakers. Only drawback to that in V was the fact that well developed tall empires with a tech lead snagged all the wonders in their mega-hammer producing cities. Adding requirements and putting wonders on tiles means they'll be more spread out. That'll favor wide empires.
     

Share This Page