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. Redaxe

    Redaxe Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2013
    Messages:
    1,519
    Civ 5 actually didn't do too badly with this once you get Ideologies. A civ like the Netherlands or Belgium with only a couple of medium sized cities would actually survive quite well if everyone in the region followed the same ideology. If everyone in the region has identical ideologies, mutual declaration of friendships & friendly with neighbours etc, that is sufficient

    But generally civs like Belgium are best represented as CityStates - they do offer a great possibility for a smaller civ to thrive based on citystate alliances.
    After the 'Holy Roman Empire' functioned in this way - it wasn't a centralised entity but rather a loose coalition of allied citystates.
    I hope that does remain a strategy in civ 6.
     
  2. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,507
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    I don't think tall should be as viable as wide. It's 4X game, the eXpand and eXterminate should give benefits. The main problem is - there are no alternatives to early expansion and that's not good. The should be other viable early game strategies.
     
  3. Ryika

    Ryika Lazy Wannabe Artista

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2013
    Messages:
    9,396
    The way I see it "tall" as in "Focus more on growth than expansion, but don't disregard expansion" should be a valid strategy ONLY if you're lucky enough to get a good starting area, and with a good enough starting area it should be stronger than expansion-heavy strategies. Otherwise wide as in "Expand constantly, but not rapidly" should be dominant. That way a good player has to master both, and has to decide which strategy is appropriate for which starting area.

    Tall as in "Build X Cities very early on and then don't expand for the rest of the game" should never be a top tier strategy, and wide as in "Rex as much as you can as early as you can" shouldn't either.
     
  4. historix69

    historix69 Emperor

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,241
    I see a "penalty" as extra-costs which are added to the opportunity-costs of expanding ... the penalty will force players to adjust their play-style to the penalty-system ... the result will be like in Civ5 where the global-happiness forced AI to settle on stupid places near new luxuries and often prevented them from building a functional, strong nation/empire ...

    If settlers become more expensive, conquest becomes more attractive ... if costs of settlers raise with number of cities, conquest becomes more attractive and the result will be that a nation with a large number of maybe 100 cities won't be able to settle a single city and can only rely on conquest ... nobody wants such a game ...

    (Rise of Nations (RTS) had a system of linearly increasing costs for everything and number of settlers was limited to something like 8 ... on the other side a single game of RoN often was finished after 15-30 min (depending on your nations accumulated boni) so you cannot compare it)

    I posted the map sizes of Civ5 in a recent post ... it is a huge difference if playing on a duel map or on huge/giant ... rules for expansion should be reasonable for all map sizes ... huge/giant has a lot more room for early expansion while a duel map has not ... One of the problems with National Wonders in Civ5 was that they do not scale well with bigger map size where players are intended to build more cities ... if a player doesn't want to build/conquer a lot of cities, he/she better plays on a smaller map ...

    Civ5 boosted early expansion with Liberty (free Settler, +50% Settler-Production in Capital) and by providing a free, strong, build-in ranged city-attack which allowed to found new cities without guarding them ... I remember one of my 1st Civ1-games where I started, built a settler in my capital, founded my 2nd city and the very next turn a barbarian horseman destroyed it since it was undefended ... removing the boni for Settler-Production and reducing the city-defense and attack in Civ5 would increase opportunity-costs (settler, garrison) for expansion ...

    Regarding the National Wonders in Civ5, I think it would have been a better design if they were simply tied to completing the Tradition-(Tall)-Tree instead of scaling costs with number of cities and having stupid requirements ... Liberty then would really represent the wide-tree and should be buffed with more per-city-boni to balance the game.
    (Unfortunately buildings in Civ5 are tied only to opening a social policy tree, not finishing it.)
     
  5. Chinese American

    Chinese American Hamtastic Knight

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Messages:
    432
    Location:
    Chinatown, USA
    it doesn't matter if you can REX if everybody is doing it too. that's what makes the opening game fun. you're supposed to expand and explore in a true 4X game. the excitement to check out suitable spots for new cities, the fear of finding a barbarian or enemy warrior, archer, or horsemen is just around the corner, who can snatch your settler or defenseless city.

    the problem in 5 it doesn't evoke any feeling. no joy or fear or excitement. well, it does feel claustrophobic. your borders stay the same for the entire game. there is no expansion phase. you don't even feel like the need or urge to expand. you stay huddled in your own areas for all 500 turns. (fending off barbarians for 500 turns.) it's a travesty to the series.

    The true problem with older games was ICS. Theoretically you could build every building in every city, no matter how many tiles that city owned. However in VI, that strategy should be shackled with districts limiting what each city can build.
     
  6. KrikkitTwo

    KrikkitTwo Immortal

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    12,316
    The ideal version would get rid of the settler altogther (until middle ages or so)

    Rather, the map (at least the good terrain) would start out filled with cities and barbs, that you then made part of your empire either militarily or diploculturally. (They should probably be semimobile when first acquired..able to move 1-2 tiles before settling in their permanent position)
    Upon acquistion they get renamed to your empire ..or start out with names from a nearby empires city list.
     
  7. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,507
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    That's one of ideas floating around for a long time, but I'd say it would remove a lot of fun form the game. You know, when my wife plays civilization, whe calls me to help her "settle" and we discuss placement for a new city. It's quite huge part of the game.
     
  8. KrikkitTwo

    KrikkitTwo Immortal

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    12,316
    Thats why a newly acquired city (except from a major civ/CS) should be relocatable by 1-2 tiles(maybe 3).
     
  9. King Jason

    King Jason Fleece-bearer

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Messages:
    2,027
    Yea... this is a pretty fundamental aspect of the game, imo. I remember reading somewhere that the Strategic view of civ5 even stemmed from all of the "dotmap" threads that people would start that were created solely to discuss city placement and expansion options with other places.

    Example:

    Those kinds of threads were all over the place back when I was on the boards regularly while playing civ4. Settling is a huge part of the fun and strategy.
     
  10. TheMarshmallowBear

    TheMarshmallowBear Benelovent Chieftain of the BearKingdom

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2006
    Messages:
    7,265
    Location:
    Inside an Ikanda.
    Lol, all I ever do is just be like AI and place my cities 3 tiles apart... Don't ask me why I've adopted this.
     
  11. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,507
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    Civ6 has some surprise for you...
     
  12. historix69

    historix69 Emperor

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,241
    I think in the beginning of Civ5 the ingame-advisor often suggested to settle in 3 tiles distance ...
     
  13. qwerty25

    qwerty25 Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    399
    Perhaps cities everywhere would be a bit too much of an impediment? (assuming cities have the same strength as before) Why not more of a village, in-between a barbarian encampment and city.

    When you "settle" your city you gain the population from the village and it turns into a farm/neighborhood. Just think of your city as a castle oppressing the nearby peasants. :D Of course you'll have to defeat the barbarian and the village first before being able to settle.
     
  14. Valmighty

    Valmighty Warlord

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    122
    Thank you for the explanation guys.

    But what i have in mind is not that small. Let's say the biggest countries in the world are Russia, USA, China, and Canada. In terms of military power, productivity, technology, they are not eclipsing the smaller countries like for instance England and France.

    So in my understanding, England and France do exist NOT because of the good will of the stronger countries, because they also have great military power. If it's by colonies, it was centuries ago. I keep thinking they can be advanced in technology and economy because they join defense pact like NATO so they can neglect (or at least lower their budget) each of their military, but their military powers are also great.

    Is it the number of the developed cities, not the land?

    This makes more sense. How impossible is it? Diplomacy by joining military forces? Defensive pact?
     
  15. MIS

    MIS Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    302
    Location:
    Philly,
    I disagree with this. 1. Most of Canada's land is worthless. 2. America absolutely eclipses UK economically, militarily, production wise etc. Why did England win WWI and WW2? (I'm English, by the way). Britain's whole economy is only 50% bigger than California's
     
  16. Nixalo

    Nixalo Warlord

    Joined:
    May 15, 2016
    Messages:
    186
    Gender:
    Male
    Tall is not halting and lowering your city growth by making a settler and working good tiles deadiler. I could see religious, science or culture civs going tall early as they can build and work good tiles earlier.

    It all depends if having 7 medium cities is close to in power as 4 medium cities with 2 extra campuses, another holy site, and another encampment.
     
  17. Thormodr

    Thormodr Servant of Civ Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    A lot of Canada's land which is not viable for large cities is still mineral and resource rich. It is hardly worthless.
     
  18. master__jj

    master__jj Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2006
    Messages:
    70
    The biggest problem is not REX but ICS, imho. The districts (and the limitations they bring) seem to solve this problem.

    I do however hope they give the city states more power. It just doesn't feel logical that some civ's follow other rules than others. "Why don't you expand, Brussels, there's silk right next to you?" "Oh je suis desolé, I'm not allowed to." I know city states still exist today, but those are a result of history, not a deliberate choice. It doesn't feel natural...
     
  19. TheMarshmallowBear

    TheMarshmallowBear Benelovent Chieftain of the BearKingdom

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2006
    Messages:
    7,265
    Location:
    Inside an Ikanda.
    I know right. It's taking away my wonder-mongering it's taking away my defense system, it's taking away everything I knew, I'm going have to go back to Settler to learn Civ 6 :lol:

    Naah, I started doing it after I noticed AI does it. Don't ask me why the hell I tried to play as AI, maybe I wanted an even playing field so I dumbed my strategy down for them :mischief:
     
  20. Ricci

    Ricci Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    531
    "... Prior to V expansion had very little downside and..." This I cannot live with. Civ4 (which I respectfully suspect you haven't played) had a pretty important downside with every city you founded, in terms of empire economy, especially the farther away from capitals it was located. The fact that smart locations made less punishing and/or earlier economic recovery choices was the key of succes for this crucial aspect of the game (you can even get some instant economic benefit from a new settlement gaining new happiness and health resounces for your core more developed cities).
     

Share This Page