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. qwerty25

    qwerty25 Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    399
    I do hope expansion isn't punished as badly in civ 5.
    On the other hand, I've wouldn't want snowballing.

    I wonder if it is even possible to allow large expansion without utterly crushing other players.
    edit: and without invincible city defense
     
  2. Acken

    Acken Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2013
    Messages:
    5,635
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    QC, Canada
    Yes through catch up mechanics like Spying etc.

    It's boardgaming 101. Catch up mechanics are the main way to make sure a game isn't decided too quickly and allow every player to keep having fun.
     
  3. qwerty25

    qwerty25 Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    399
    Ehhhh I don't think catching up itself is enough to solve the problem. Unless I'm not seeing it correctly?

    I understand there are some catchup mechanics such as The Internet in civ 4 which gave you the technology if two other civ's hand it and The Internet in Civ 5 which doubled tourism. Trade routes offer more science to the civ with less tech. Spying also allows you to steal tech.

    However, these mechanisms while allowing you to close the gap between one civ and another civ's science will never actually allow one to eclipse the other. Which of course kinda make sense, what would be the point of having more science if the second civ could outpace you with catchup?

    Though perhaps more importantly, the military snowball effect is more prominent than tech. Once a civilization starts on a path of destroying other civs it both gains more yields and removes them from the other civilization.

    There are some "limits on expansion" with happiness and the high city defense. (which i guess isn't really catchup)
    However, unsurprisingly the late game frequently becomes boring once victory is assured after a certain threshold of military power is acquired.

    edit: There are some great mods that do "production/military catchup" which is what i think you're referencing. I think one had bonus military units spawn near the capital when a city was taken. And the revolutions mod had some capibilities of cities rebelling.
     
  4. Thormodr

    Thormodr Servant of Civ Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    Hopefully they'll take off the shackles. Civilization 5 was terrible in that aspect.

    I'm not in favour of rampant REXing, of course, but it looks like there will be a lot of competition in your build queue so expanding rapidly may not always be in your best interests. Especially if the Barbs are souped up which it appears they are. :)

    Perhaps they have finally struck a decent balance. Time will tell.
     
  5. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,507
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    So far it looks like quick early expansion is the only viable strategy, which is sad to me. I'd like to see more strategical variety.

    Of course, even this is better than Civ5 shakles for wide empires.
     
  6. Valmighty

    Valmighty Warlord

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    122
    But in the real life, small countries are also strong, technologically advanced, developed countries. They have no significant differences with countries with vast lands and many cities.

    So it will be ridiculous to have a vast land and leave the other countries tech by 200 years.

    The problem is how to find balance in gameplay. I wonder how in real life small countries do that?
     
  7. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,507
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    In real life it's done through diplomacy, which requires details not possible for computer game. It's not possible to keep realism here, so developers need to choose what part to abstract - artificial bonuses for small civs as in Civ5 or make small civs much less viable. The latter looks better for gameplay.
     
  8. Thormodr

    Thormodr Servant of Civ Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    A rough balance of power. Countries like the Netherlands or Belgium can exist because of the good will of other more powerful nations. Also, the more powerful nations do not wish for their rivals to take over the Netherlands or Belgium and gain an advantage over them.

    This hasn't been modelled particularly well in Civ down through the years, to be honest.
     
  9. Ikael

    Ikael King

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2005
    Messages:
    873
    An ideal system for regulating expansion would need to:

    - Punish stupid expansion, so you get to make hard, interesting choices
    - Reward intelligent expansion, so you get a sense of progression and growth
    - Make wide play viable, so people can enjoy building huge empires
    - Make tall play viable too, so people can enjoy tending few yet huge metropolis too
    - Avoid ICS, so there's room for expansion during all the stages of the game
    - Avoid civs snowballing, so there's competition and intrigue until the very end of the game

    It is probably one of the most crucial parts of civ design, yet the hardest to get it right. This is probably the mechanism that I am more eager to know in dettail. As for how to solve it:

    Option 1: Consider cities as long term investements a la civ 4, costly in the beggining, but that they will always pay off in the end (one of the best approaches so far)

    Option 2: Penalice the entirety of your civ for expanding a la civ 5 (the worst option, in my opinion)

    Option 3: Make each new city increasingly less efficient a la Civ 1-2-3 (an solid alternative, but it would need to be very carefully balanced in order to work properly)

    Option 4: Make each playstyle (wide VS tall) a way of specializing your civ, with expansion benefitting your civ in some aspects while damaging it in others (a road not yet taken that could be really interesting, IMHO)
     
  10. Nixalo

    Nixalo Warlord

    Joined:
    May 15, 2016
    Messages:
    186
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't think there will be harsh penalties to expansion per

    It sounds like there will be two options for early empires.
    WIDE. Many small cities with few districts and low population.
    TALL. A few high population cities with multiple districts each.

    With local happiness, new cities probably will not drain an empire. However large empires will be underdeveloped outside the capital since cities are population capped by amenities, builders use charges, and population is a limit on number of districts.
     
  11. KrikkitTwo

    KrikkitTwo Immortal

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    12,316
    With local happiness,
    Wide= many medium pop cities
    Tall=few medium pop cities

    So there needs to be some serious penalty/cost to expansion or REX becomes the predominant strategy.
     
  12. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,507
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    This. I should add there should be serious penalty for EARLY expansion. Later in game other civs are enough to be the limit and it's better to see whole map filled with cities.
     
  13. 4N4C0ND4

    4N4C0ND4 King

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2013
    Messages:
    413
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Spain
    I just came with an idea reading this thread: how about giving a civic/tech that makes new cities starting with 3/5/10 pops? or already pre-built buildings, just like when you chose to start latter than 30000BC?

    The problems is that expansion, because of opportunity cost, is either done early or never. There is no real incentive to train settlers past classical/medieval because by the time the city becomes viable, game is already over.
    Sometimes you really want that oil or allu, but it's barely needed because you can usually get those resources by trade/CS.
     
  14. Nixalo

    Nixalo Warlord

    Joined:
    May 15, 2016
    Messages:
    186
    Gender:
    Male
    There seems to be a pop limit on number of districts so a Civ that pops out a settler before growing them tall will have few districts. It looks like you need to reach pop 6 or 7 to build your second district.

    A tall empire will be able to work on infrastructure earlier and can dominate the early-mid game.

    You have to see the big picture.
     
  15. historix69

    historix69 Emperor

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,241
    I think a lot depends on early income and upkeep ... Civ4 was balanced in a way that early massive expansion could quickly bankrupt your nation. However I do not want an upkeep system for cities which counts population, number of cities, distances and then calculates an exponential increasing value ...

    To expand you need to build a settler and/or military units which cost upkeep and prevent you from building maybe a marketplace or a trade-unit to generate income ... the new city usually will not be able to pay for itself/its first buildings and it will need a garrison to prevent other players from conquering it ... so like in many games early expansion/war is limited by the national budget ...

    In Civ5, a city with size 2 can buy/build a settler ... to slow down ICS, the minimum size of the city to build a settler might be raised to 5 or 10 so new founded cities will not immediately spawn new settlers.
     
  16. Icaria909

    Icaria909 Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2008
    Messages:
    564
    I think the district system works best with expansion, all else equal. With 12 districts per city, only a few locations per map will have sufficient resources to support more than a few cities with so many districts. I imagine that for most maps, most cities will be medium size and require lots of specialization to make them valuable and only through expansion will a player develop the network of medium sized cities needed to win effectively. Having said that, I am sure a small empire game will still be viable, except now, it will require a starting location with sufficient food resources.
     
  17. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,507
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    About seeing the big picture, do you remember there's no global happiness here? Without it, there's no "tall" as having less cities gives no advantages to each individual city.
     
  18. stiiknafuulia

    stiiknafuulia King

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2016
    Messages:
    603
    Tbh, I always thought that the headlong expansion phase in Civ II, III and (to an extent) IV was by far my favorite part of those games. The manifest destiny of ballooning to fill my own continent filled my heart with resolve and purpose... After that the game became about coasting to a science or cultural victory, which to me was far less interesting, so I usually just rolled up a new map rather than finish the 'consolidated' game.

    Given this precedent, I'd rather they focus on making AI empires competitive with the human player in the late game (without it seeming gimmicky) than curtailing the perfectly natural desire to gobble up your ancestral homelands. :D So far no Civ game has fully accomplished this. Granted that on Immortal and Deity an AI or two could occasionally balloon to a great size on another continent, and so you had to do something to stop them from winning before you did; but imo those difficulties felt too gamey otherwise, giving you no chance at reliably building early Wonders and constraining you to a narrow 'optimal' tech path. Civ VI is so far looking good in this regard, with its terrain requirements for Wonders and division of the tech tree into two distinct halves (giving you a fighting chance in culture even if someone is running away with tech, or vice versa).
     
  19. historix69

    historix69 Emperor

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,241
    To make "tall" a viable alternative to "wide", the infrastructure/output of "tall" cities must be able to grow exponentially to compensate the exponential growth of going wide ... or the game needs to end soon enough before the exponential growth of wide becomes effective ...

    In Civ5 the infrastructure was limited ... there were only a limited number of specialists-slots, only limited number of bonus-buildings to enhance output of a city ... There are games which allow to enhance/upgrade buildings infinetely ... this would mean : higher population, higher boni, higher upkeep, higher output for tall cities ... however the infinite number of possible upgrades makes those games boring for many players ...

    If there is no turn limit and science costs are increased like in earlier games, going wide is usually the only way to accumulate enough research to build the spaceship ... (I remember a game in Civ3 where I had around 100 fully developed cities near the end ...)
     
  20. KrikkitTwo

    KrikkitTwo Immortal

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    12,316
    The point is expansion must have a penalty (and a fairly steep one) to balance the benefits(which are more the earlier you expand).

    To make it a difficult trade off in the early game I would make settlers actually very expensive...have that expense increase the more settlers/cities you have, and possibly include something to encourage late settling (like the tech/civic idea)

    You could also tune down the benefit of an early city (making it slower to grow for example)
     

Share This Page