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. skyclad

    skyclad Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    488
    Not to sound like a broken record but I really hope that they do it more in the civ4 style fashion this time around.
    Basically, founding a new city is a drain on your economy, increased maintenence cost etc. But after you build courthouse and it grows it can start paying for itself. This meant that you would never have settleable parts of your continent empty in the late game. Even a city working just a fish, a mine and a couple of coastal tiles would be worthwile eventually. It would not slow down your research or any other nonsense... However it was impossible to expand very fast because it was such a drain on your economy.

    Civ 5, every city you settle is a punishment in culture, science, and happiness. Wow :eek:
    It still frustrates me I can have a spot with mines, riverland, cattle and sheep etc but it is absolutely worthless to me because I already have 4 cities and this new spot has no unique lux :confused: seems like my people would prosper in this location but it would actually slow down my scientific and cultural progress as well as make my people unhappy.
    Perhaps return to making settlers actually cost pop to produce. This way the "wide vs tall" (silly topic to me) tradeoff is really there.
     
  2. KrikkitTwo

    KrikkitTwo Immortal

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    12,316
    Civ V cities can pay for themselves as well.
    (After all with civ4 sci=gold, your civ4 city cost science as well)

    Its just a little harder for the civ5 city to do so.(requires certain techs/policies)
     
  3. Seek

    Seek Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,410
    The way I see it, the reason why civ 4's corruption worked was because commerce = science via the slider (and culture, but w/e, science is king).

    So expansion in civ 4 penalized science as well.

    The culture penalty in civ 5 made good sense in that it's more difficult to have a unified culture over a vast empire and administrative costs are higher also. The only real issue in civ 5 imo was that happiness was so strict - but that's incredibly hard to balance, as evidenced by BE, which softened the happiness penalties leading to ics.

    But coming back to gold-as-expansion-limiter, building maintenance could be a real issue if going wide in civ 5 too. This was easily overcome by exploitative AI lux sales which, if not addressed, will make corruption equally trivial in 6 (and since gold does not equate to science it's less important anyway). Additionally, let's not forget that corruption was for all intents and purposes a random number that the computer spit out at you, and was far from clear to the player (going against Firaxis' recent trend towards more clarity).

    So overall, I prefer the science cost for new cities, though I liked the culture cost as well. We know there's no growth cost, but we don't know if pop=science this time around, so it may not be that significant.
     
  4. King Jason

    King Jason Fleece-bearer

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Messages:
    2,027
    Great post.

    From what I can glean from the previews, though things are subject to balance changes or revamps - science appears to be tied to population again. In the e3 demo, the capital starts with 2.7 science, and the newly constructed city starts with .7 science. I've made the assumption that the palace building provides 2 science, as the palace usually provides starting yields. Further, before that new city is constructed, you can see the pop of the capital is 4, and the science output of the empire is 4.6.

    Now, .7 x 4 population is 2.8
    + 2 science from palace is 4.8 which is slightly off.

    However, if the actual value is .65 well then .65x4=2.6, 2.6+2= 4.6

    So it appears, as of that demo, the palace produces 2 science, and each population produces .65 which the display seems to round to .7 (which is not uncommon in civ displays). Though various shots seem to imply that value may diminish as populations rise.

    It's not a 1:1 ration, and the impact of districts and their bonuses appear to be pretty big in comparison.
     
  5. Thormodr

    Thormodr Servant of Civ Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    Not liking the sound of population = science making a return in Civ VI.

    Mind you, hopefully they'll not have the ridiculous food shipping internal trade routes. I suppose farm spam will be limited somewhat by the desire to build wonders and districts.

    So, it should in theory work better than in Civilization 5.
     
  6. Martin Alvito

    Martin Alvito Real men play SMAC

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,332
    Population = science was a thing in CIV too, it was just that the pop point needed a cottage (or Gold/etc.) tile to work in order to become science.

    Obviously they're going to punish us for expansion; that's been a thing since Civ III. The question is by how much. All that really needs to happen is that the optimal empire size turns out to be a good bit larger than what you can comfortably settle in the early game on the highest difficulty. Then we'll be forced to pry dirt out of an AI's cold, dead hands rather than turtle in a corner all game.
     
  7. toft

    toft King

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    Messages:
    758
    Location:
    €urope
    -----
     
  8. Nixalo

    Nixalo Warlord

    Joined:
    May 15, 2016
    Messages:
    186
    Gender:
    Male
    Basic on the videos I've seen, new cities get a soft cap of 3 pop and districts are limited by pop. Capitals can reach 6 pop befre hitting the soft cap.

    Therefore, your capital has to produce all your settlers for the early game. So really the question is when do you stop settler production for your capital and focus on districts and buildings?

    4 cities? 6 cities? 10 cities?
     
  9. sugerdady87

    sugerdady87 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2006
    Messages:
    284
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    I agree with Ryika that wide should be dominant and that tall should be "a valid strategy ONLY if you're lucky enough to get a [great] starting area." There's no way a 3-4 city civilization should be preeminent over a 12 city empire. It's far too unrealistic and require artificial limitations which disrupts what should be the natural flow to the game. In the real world, there were always huge incentives for States to expand geographically (I the counter-argument is that Civ isn't a real life simulator, but it's a weak one).
     
  10. historix69

    historix69 Emperor

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,241
    * When playing Civ5 on huge/giant map size, the per-city-increase for Science costs is 2.5% (or 2% as shown ingame) which equals +100% science costs per 40-50 cities which is not a big problem and makes wide valid.
    * The per-city-increase for Culture costs is 5%. Since Social Policies often provide a per-city-benefit, the per-city-increase is rational and can be reduced to 3.35% by using Liberty/Representation, that is a +100% policy costs per 30 cities.
    * Global Happiness can be dealt with by combining certain Social Policies and the Forbidden Palace. Strong culture and Religion help .... (see here for details : http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=568530 )

    The "penalty" for early expansion in Civ5 is that you can no longer build the National Wonders at rational costs. Compare the situation
    - where you build 4 cities, build all National Wonders at relative low costs and then expand by building/conquering 10 cities (around renaissance) with the situation
    - where you build 4 cities, expand by building/conquering 10 cities (in ancient/classic era) due to opportunity and then try to build all National Wonders.
    The effect of National Wonders is completely local but the requirements and costs scale with number of cities, e.g. National College is +50% Science in 1 city but the costs for N cities are to build N libraries and 125 + N x 30 production or so. Ancient and classic wonders cost 250 production or less. Having 5 cities increases the price for a National Wonder already to 275 production, having 10 cities to 425, having 50 cities to 1.625 which exceeds the expensive modern era wonders. And it takes some time to build a library in each newly founded/conquered city. If you are expanding continuosly, you will always be short by 1 or more librarys ... If you build a National Wonder and later expand, the National Wonder will continue to function even if preconditions to build it are no longer fulfilled, e.g. a National College once built does not require a library in all cities to function.

    In Civ3 I think it were 8 buildings as precondition and in Civ4 it were 4 buildings both with fixed costs. To make OCC (One City Challenge) valid, the precondition was changed to 1 building in every city and costs scaled with number of cities ...

    Looking at the historic Roman Empire controlling the mediterranean area and western europe, they would have had a hard time building Circus Maximus with the per-city-penalty to National Wonders.
     
  11. Ricci

    Ricci Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    531
    Yes there is a way, as so many examples in history have shown us, the fact remains smaller empires can (and many times should, game wise) be pre-eminent for a certain period of time, epoch. This is exactly the result of a mantainence cost for more cities as cIV displays. Where you should leverage that momentum because you know (many exceptions apart) that a larger empire will eventually surpass this pre-eminence you talk about.
     
  12. Ricci

    Ricci Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    531
    I believe you both are looking the sole tree but the forest here. Not incorrect statements mind you. In cIV system, population wasn`t a gain neither a cost over science per se, but as well over production (if working prod tiles or not because you needed to work a cottage just to pay for the new pop -specially if it is a new city location-), or culture, or espionage, etc.
    The slider in part, as Seek said, and other mechanics, makes it flexible enough for the player to choose (to the extent of his empire structure and his own skill) which outcome will be most hit by new pop. It wasn't necessarily science. This rigidity aspect, say +%5 costs in science for new city, is what takes away the leveraging of your empire`s economy, for instance, amongst many others.
     
  13. agonistes

    agonistes wants his subs under ice!

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    2,296
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Vermont
    This thread makes me angry. Since Civ III, there seems to be a drift from the creators away from large armies, large maps, and large civs towards small armies, small maps, and small civs. Is there a Starbucks somewhere where the junior league intellectuals get together and say, "Well, Bob, the ideal size for an empire is 6 cities on a large map. Nobody wants bigger than that."

    Drives me up the wall. :mad: :mad: :mad:

    Hey Devs... YOU may think these 6 city civs are a blast... but for some of US, the civ V maps were constricting, even the huge ones. For me personally, the game is unplayable its so small - I have to stick to 'Winter is Coming.' Why not have a design that allows for large civs - if a player wants a smaller civ, he can always have one.

    The maps should be getting bigger and bigger, not smaller and smaller.
     
  14. joncnunn

    joncnunn Senior Java Wizard Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    8,621
    Location:
    Missouri
    The only thing in Civ III where this mattered was the Forbidden Palace.

    Civ IV national wonders required 5 cities to have the type; that is the ones that required a building at all. There was also a limit that a given city could only house two national wonders.
    When the OCC checkbox was checked in advanced options prior to game start in Civ IV, all X building requirements were reduced to one and the max number of national wonders allowed was increased, but you still couldn't build all of them.
     
  15. historix69

    historix69 Emperor

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,241
    Thank you for clarification ...
     
  16. Magil

    Magil Monarch

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,618
    I believe it's actually a side effect of one-unit-per-tile. It makes everything feel smaller. Still, in Civ3/4 there was plenty of room for sprawling empires with armies of dozens of units. In Civ V that would be overwhelming and horribly impractical due to the "carpet of doom" effect. The map would have to be enormous for ~50 units to successfully attack each other within the constraints of 1UPT.

    Civ VI seems to be taking a step with districts that makes me want more space on the map, so I do hope the maps are bigger, but support units, unit corps, and armies should help ease some of the unit carpet woes. So it's possible they're gonna get it right. I'm hopeful.
     
  17. Tabarnak

    Tabarnak Pô Chi Min

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,902
    Location:
    Québec
    Maps should be bigger. Civ5 didn't address well that part. It should rationnally be included in the 1upt approach.

    We can see the impact of mp games on bigger maps like Hellblazer's map pack. Liberty is suddenly more appealing and more options are available overall.

    I don't wanna kill the 1,2 or 3 cities static games but these approaches should be more ''risky'' and make diplomacy harder than if you have a bigger empire...and not the opposite like civ5.
     
  18. Thormodr

    Thormodr Servant of Civ Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    I agree with the above posts. There should be much larger maps. People should be given the opportunity to play with huge sprawling empires like in Civs past.

    If people want dinky little empires, they can do that with smaller maps.

    I don't mind playing a smaller empire every once in awhile but most of the time I want to see colossal empires crashing into each other. :D
     
  19. Jimdigriz

    Jimdigriz Prince

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    301
    Location:
    Wales, UK
    Maybe Im odd but I just cant help playing Civ the way I have always played - Marathon, Huge Maps, go as WIDE as possible! I just cant help it. Ive tried to go tall and I just don't like it - I want to dominate the world! :D

    Yes there are problems with this (National wonders are really difficult unless you time them well) but any other way just seems....weird to me.
     
  20. Jimdigriz

    Jimdigriz Prince

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    301
    Location:
    Wales, UK
    +1! Not just me then! If people want their little 4 hour tiny games that's fine. When I play Civ Im playing a game that lasts MONTHS!
     

Share This Page