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. CivScientist

    CivScientist Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    125
    Well, recall that Rome eventually split up into two empires when it grew too large and its leadership was no longer effective. Once Alexander the great died, his empire was split up among his generals in part because none of his generals were charismatic enough to rule in Alexander's place.

    The historically large empires weren't large simply because they could conquer all their neighbours. Plenty of powerful, aggressive empires end up stalling their expansion and/or splitting up after a while; usually when a leader dies like in the case of Alexander the great.

    What allows an empire to grow truly massive and sustain their large size? Charismatic leadership for starters. A unified culture hegemony helps. In the end, though, the biggest factors tend to be trade and effective, organized governance. Finally, technology multiplies all these effects making it easier to have a large empire in later eras.

    Honestly, the most realistic mechanic that challenged expansive empires was the corruption mechanic a al Civ 2. Ancient empires truly couldn't expand to massive sizes in great part because border territories were far away from the emperor and the local leadership was far more loyal to enhancing their purse than furthering the emperor's goals. And, generally, there was nothing the emperor could do about it.

    But it seems the corruption mechanic is now considered a poor game mechanic that no one wants to return to. Growing Happiness and Health penalties per city is probably less realistic but it's a lot more interesting to play with.
     
  2. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,507
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    History don't have game balance, that's one of the reasons why game shouldn't try to be historical simulation.
     
  3. Socrates99

    Socrates99 Bottoms up!

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,153
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Michigan
    People disliked corruption because there wasn't much you could do about it. I know it's more realistic but it's basically a hard cap. That creates that "lack of interesting choices" situation.

    I wonder if they could implement a corruption mechanic that scales back as the game progresses. Large empires are easier to maintain now with modern communications. It might mitigate initial REXing but would allow late game expansion.
     
  4. historix69

    historix69 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,241
    It is important that the corruption scales well with different map sizes (distances as well as number of cities) ... players will create bigger maps than expected and when there are hardcoded values, corruption might become unmanageable unless you leave large parts of the map unsettled. (Just think about National Wonders in Civ5 with fixed extra-costs per city for all map sizes ... no problem on duel map, but big problem on huge map)

    The capital - city distance for corruption in early eras should be calculated by travel-time instead of calculating distance by coordinates ... building roads / railroads or a harbor for a ship route should reduce the travel distance and so lessen corruption ... Focus on Infrastructure ... think of the Roman road network ... In modern age "with modern communications" the distance should become more irelevant ...
     
  5. Socrates99

    Socrates99 Bottoms up!

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,153
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Michigan
    Smart idea to tie it to travel time. I like it.
     
  6. Staler87

    Staler87 Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    267
    Location:
    Right now? Computer Chair.
    The biggest problem with corruption is it allowed for unlimited expansion. There was no downside to having more cities so you might as well go ICS. This became the required strategy at high levels.

    Personally civ IV got the whole expansion thing right. It punished players for expanding too rapidly and for keeping a whole bunch of crappy cities. It did not punish players for having more, good, cities. It wasn't perfect but it worked a lot better than corruption or global happiness.
     
  7. Socrates99

    Socrates99 Bottoms up!

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,153
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Michigan
    I don't think I ever played a IV game that didn't begin as a landgrab. Filling in every empty space as quickly as possible before your neighbors could was pretty standard. IV's system did slow down warmongering though. Not really sure it was much better than III or V.
     
  8. Acken

    Acken Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2013
    Messages:
    5,635
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    QC, Canada
    There are also other factors. Make an ai agressive and threatening and spamming settlers without defense is no longer that good.

    Shouldnt be a privilege of wide empires to be attacked though. Like civ5. The ai should be a threat for everybody.
     
  9. Big J Money

    Big J Money Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    1,022
    To answer this thread, generally speaking, Civilization has always rewarded players for purchasing the expansions...
     
  10. Staler87

    Staler87 Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    267
    Location:
    Right now? Computer Chair.
    Yes civ IV's early game was REX dependent but this is a 4X game not sim city. Even still building cities too close together and building cities too quickly could still get you in trouble in civ IV. Civ V's system encouraged not expanding which is very odd. I mean it basically made it a 3X game. Civ I-III basically did nothing to discourage expansion as every city was worth something even if it was close to nothing. Cities would never lose you stuff. The reason I think civ IV's system was the best is it recognized that there has to be some discouraging factor to randomly plopping cities down everywhere while still not punishing players for plopping down cities in good spots and expanding into useful territory.
     
  11. Zenstrive

    Zenstrive Ocean King

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    900
    Gender:
    Male
    What we need is government AIs, a la Endless Legend. That game has so many mechanics done right.
     
  12. qwerty25

    qwerty25 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    399
    Endless legend had many things. But balance was not one of them.
     
  13. x2Madda

    x2Madda Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2013
    Messages:
    346
    Cannot agree with this enough.

    There has to be a balance between "fun" and "not too immersion-breaking" when it comes to Civ games.

    I disagree with Acken that the AI needs to be super aggressive militaristically, that just leads to gaming the system. Making the AI war each other or finding the next 'pillage-repair' cheesing tactic to better win wars.

    Happiness was easy to understand although global happiness was a little problematic.

    Although I could be wrong, I feel that to truly balance tall and small vs ICS (which wide empires usually end up becoming) should come down to interesting choices players have to make, instead.

    Civ5 almost got that right, making new cities later wasn't very effective as they lacked basic infrastructure. The "problem" was that taking a city by war was almost always the better option. This lead too "I have an army, may as well use it" which meant domination victories were not only the fastest win times but generally imbalanced as a whole.

    You could ignore unhappiness, even with the unit penalties incurred and provided you struck with horse archers and horsemen, you could clear your continent before the enemy had composite bowmen to defend itself with. That's very big reward for very little risk because if the war doesn't go your way, you can fall back, sue for peace and you still have an army to defend yourself with.
     
  14. Magil

    Magil Monarch

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,618
    Of course it began with a land grab. Why shouldn't a Civ game start with a land grab? This is a game where you build an empire. But it was still entirely possible to crash your economy in IV if you expanded -too- fast, to say nothing of the possibility of aggression from your neighbors or barbarians. There was a balance that needed to be struck, and really, I think that's all the game needs.
     
  15. historix69

    historix69 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,241
    - Unhappiness gives a -2% on production per unhappiness point which can be expensive loss empire wide
    - If you are low on happiness and conquer an enemy city and raze it, your productive core cities are still hit by the unhappiness penalty ... (I think this is one point nobody understands nor accepts why taking over/razing cities in a war far away throws your complete nation into a Dark Age ... it would be more realistic to have those conquered cities perform poorly due to lack of support from your empire instead of punishing all cities ... especially if you gonna raze them anyway ...)
    - Cities which are completely happy based on local happiness still suffer from global unhappiness.
    - Early war in Civ5 is an option and fun but comes with the consequence to loose realistic option for National Wonders (like IronWorks, Circus Maximus, Hermitage, ...)
    - Waiting with expansion until Renaissance (Nationa Wonders) meant that new founded cities would not develop fast enough to influence victory. Even with TradeRoutes and RushBuying buildings, these resources were better spend elsewhere ...
     
  16. ProMeTheus112

    ProMeTheus112 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2016
    Messages:
    247
    Location:
    Grenoble, France
    You build a civilization! :p
     
  17. thejayq

    thejayq Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    Messages:
    45
  18. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,507
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    Yes, exactly. So even if there's no global happiness, the hapiness replacement is used to restrict expansion. A bit crazy.
     
  19. thejayq

    thejayq Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    Messages:
    45
    Indeed. I suppose the crazy part is that entertainment is linked to expansion rather than only to local happiness, which would have made more sense to me. On the other hand in civ 5 we had the same link, more theaters provided more opportunities to expand.

    Finally, the Colosseam is now confirmed as a wonder that is interesting for expansionists.
     
  20. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,507
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    There's some logic behind it. It's like cultural identity tying together large civilizations, Pax Romana, things like this.

    I wonder how it's implemented, though. Wouldn't like to see Global Happiness under new name - it turned out to be not that great.
     

Share This Page