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. KrikkitTwo

    KrikkitTwo Immortal

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    12,316

    Well with districts I could see an easy "automation" of the "boring excess" cities.

    "Auto" governor doesn't build districts or Wonders, instead it only fills out districts, and builds the appropriate 'projects' if there are no buildings available. (you interrupt it at any time to put in a district and it does so, and then goes back to filling them out)

    Now there may be choices at certain points as to which building you get in a district, and the governor may choose there... but that shouldn't be as much of an issue, because you can sell/rebuild the right one (as opposed to a district, which you have to place on a tile)

    You could even have a governor that pops up whenever a city has enough pop to build a new district and asks (would you like to build another district in this city??)..and after you have placed it goes about filling it out.
     
  2. Ricci

    Ricci Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    531
    Don`t want to sound harsh but techs costing diferently is irrelevant as we are talking about the number of cities the players prefer to handle. The amount of opponents can also be modified be the player in each map size, to adjust even further the desired estimated number of cities.

    As far as starting alone in a huge continent not happening in any given setting I`ve played even once, still, for the sake of argumentation, I will agree such mechanic is good & wise. In cIV, for instance, expansion slows down your entire developement (due to city mantainance and of course the cost of building the settlers, workers and defending units), to an extent that if you focused only in expanding your country went bankruptcy and units started deserting (disbanded actually).
     
  3. m15a

    m15a Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,471
    District placement will be a decision that takes a lot of thought, but that extra decision is somewhat offset by the fact that you'll have fewer building decisions per city. If you build a science district, it's pretty likely that you'll build all the building to fill that district. So, that makes automation of those tasks (as KrikkitTwo suggests) a good idea. But even without automation, hopefully, you'll be able to set your city to build a science district and then add all the available science buildings to your queue right away - and hopefully that'll be a fairly sensible thing to do in many cases.
     
  4. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,507
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    Just a note. People use terms "tall" and "wide" here with quite different meanings. In Civ5 terms "tall" meant small number of well-developed cities and "wide" meant large amount of poorly developed cities. However, this differentiation appears only with strong expansion limits. Normally there is a choice between small number of well-developed cities (if you are not quick enough) or large number of well-developed cities.
     
  5. Ryika

    Ryika Lazy Wannabe Artista

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2013
    Messages:
    9,396
    Weird definition.

    Normally wide simply means an emphasis on expansion, while tall means an emphasis on growth, but Civ 5 is probably the only 4X in which it also means completely ignoring expansion after the initial phase.

    It makes sense to have the moderate versions of both empires be somewhat competitive, the "Expand first, win!"/"Have an isolated start, win!"-gameplay is usually found in older 4X.
     
  6. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,507
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    Normally growth and expansion are unrelated. So, using opposites as "tall" and "wide" is incorrect. Expansion doesn't prevent growth and vice versa. Of course, that's only the case if no limiting game mechanics exist.
     
  7. Zenstrive

    Zenstrive Ocean King

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    900
    Gender:
    Male
    Maybe there is a good incentive to go wide: Science accelerations.
    Settle near sea, sailing boosted
    Settle near mountains, mining boosted
    Settle near horses, horseriding boosted
    Got plenty of trade routes, economy boosted
    Or something like that. Should be interesting to see what the boosts are.
     
  8. Ryika

    Ryika Lazy Wannabe Artista

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2013
    Messages:
    9,396
    No idea where that idea comes from. Infact, you make a lot of these claims that don't match my experience with the genre, but rather seems to only focus on older Civ games. Many other games have or try to have mechanics that limit growth for with empires.

    The Warlock Series for example does so by having growth one of many "Improvement paths" to walk, forcing wide empires to often forego them in favor of other yields, a wide empire that also focuses on growth simply doesn't work because you end up in a very weak state during the midgame and will have a hard time defending against natural threats and other players. A tall empire that focuses on food first and then adds other yields however does work reasonably well.

    Fallen Enchantress has a system that "equalizes" growth between all cities, which does not quite work as a longterm-downside to massive amounts of expansion, but at least temporarily makes your cities stay smaller than an empire with few cities.

    Civ5 obviously has health, but also uses Policies and other unique bonuses to force you into an either-or-scenario.

    From what little I know about Endless Legion it "forces" each Civilization into a different "ideal" playstyle by the bonuses that are available and by how victory types work.

    etc.

    So no, I very much disagree with your claim that the two are "usually unrelated". Finding ways to separate tall and wide empires and making them both competitive and getting away from the "Expanding quickly is the only strategy!"-gameplay of old seems to be one of the big questions of the genre for which no universal answer has been found.
     
  9. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,507
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    That's exactly what I'm talking about. For "tall" to be opposite of "wide" the game needs some strong limiting mechanics.
     
  10. Ryika

    Ryika Lazy Wannabe Artista

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2013
    Messages:
    9,396
    So you're basically saying: "Differentiating between tall and wide only makes sense when the game has mechanics in place that force you to decide between tall and wide."?

    Okay. That's... obvious?
     
  11. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,507
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    Ok. Next steps are:

    1. The game don't necessary have such mechanics.
    2. We don't have any clues what Civ6 have one.
    3. Thus using "tall" and "wide" as opposites for Civ6 is incorrect.
     
  12. killmeplease

    killmeplease Mk Z on Steam

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,794
    Location:
    Samara
    tall and wide is a natural dichotomy, like intensive and extensive
    so its inherent to any strategy game, there is just a question of how exactly tall and wide plays are balanced in a particular game.
     
  13. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,507
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    That's one way to think about it. Not the only one, but definitely one used in Civ5.

    In my point of view:
    - Civ5. Tall vs. wide.
    - Previous civ game. Number of cities limited by corruption. That's completely different story as corruption actually forces you to develop your cities, so both having small empire with large cities and large empires with small cities are bad strategies.
    - Optimal for me. Early expansion vs. Delayed expansion with bonuses.
     
  14. killmeplease

    killmeplease Mk Z on Steam

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,794
    Location:
    Samara
    in civ1-3 you had to switch to tall for some time when your marginal cities approached uselessness but ics remained the dominant strategy and it felt just broken. in civ5 they broke the game the other way where you wouldnt want to expand past 3-5 cities / the medieval era in most cases. so they're about to find the right formula plus address the scaling issue. maybe if not in civ6 but in civ7 we'll see the nearly perfect ballance i hope. maybe civ4 was close but its maintenance mechanic was too obscure.
     
  15. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,507
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    Well, Civ5 was the only one which declared Tall to be a viable strategy and it ended up being broken. So this seem to be a problem. "Corruption" mechanics is far from perfect too, but it's much better.
     
  16. killmeplease

    killmeplease Mk Z on Steam

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,794
    Location:
    Samara
    its your personal opinion
    as they have abandoned corruption long time ago they should think different :)
     
  17. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,507
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    I'm against it too. I'm just telling Civ5 system designed to make tall civilization viable turned out to be even worse :)
     
  18. killmeplease

    killmeplease Mk Z on Steam

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,794
    Location:
    Samara
    btw civ5 initially favored ics too. there was a long succession of patches which led to the current state so they should be satisfied with what have they got.
     
  19. Hail

    Hail Satan's minion

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2009
    Messages:
    746
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mother Russia
    :eek:

    tall vs wide is a false dichotomy introduced by civ5 due to the way global happiness (works by) provided(ing) a limited supply of happiness.

    civ in an empire-building game: expand or die trying. :goodjob:

    the global happiness mechanic favors ICS since the only scalable way to obtain more happiness is to build more cities.

    the change that killed wide play in civ5 is +5% (std map) tech cost per new city penalty introduced by Ed Beach in some BNW patch. :goodjob:
     
  20. qwerty25

    qwerty25 Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    399


    The global happiness mechanic was flawed from the beginning. All it did was to limit city building near luxury resources. Which would subsequently give you four more happiness, that'd you'd need for the city that was just built.

    Besides trading extras with the AI, if they just increased the base amount of happiness from entertainment buildings there would be no use for them.

    I think every civ should have the opportunity to expand ( it's land not war) and it should continue to garner the civ benefits as it does so. The benefits could decrease as the civ adds cities.

    On the other hand, expansion through taking over other cities should clearly offer some detriment to prevent massive snowballing.

    As for solutions for tall vs wide perhaps we should have a separate thread to brainstorm ideas :p.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     

Share This Page