Will Civ6 punish players for expansion?

[Ryika]

To my defense, it all makes sense: Health is what Happiness is called in Beyond Earth, and "Endless Legion" is probably a result from me checking out the World of Warcraft Test Realm for the upcoming expansion, Legion.

Also, "Endless Legion" sounds pretty cool, if you ask me!

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.

This is just semantics now. It's very obvious what people mean when they're using these phrases and there is nothing wrong with using them the way they're generally being used.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

It is a little bit more than semantics.

The issue is if the "tall v. wide" trade off is present at all points in the game or only early on.

If more well developed cities=better (which is true with Civ3 corruption, civ 4 city maintenance and post ideology civV). Then it is not tall v. wide,
It is
Tall first then wide (conquest/late expansion)
V
Wide first then tall (REX/compbow+development)

Pre Ideology civV stopped useful expansion long enough to favor tall-wide....but the costs of conquest (to go wide late) and the ability to end the game soon after ideologies (w great scientists) meant there wasn't enough time for "late wide" to pay off (except in a terra game.

 

[Seek]

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.

I'd guess that's why we have the district projects rather than perpetual conversions.

 

[stealth_nsk]

This is just semantics now. It's very obvious what people mean when they're using these phrases and there is nothing wrong with using them the way they're generally being used.

That's the problem I've started with. Different people on the forum and in this very thread use these terms differently. One says "Districts favor tall empires" meaning they require developed cities, other says "Districts favor wide empires" speaking about city specialization. And in reality they speak about the same - districts are designed for many highly advanced cities and Civ5 terms of "tall" and "wide" don't apply here.

 

[Ryika]

That's the problem I've started with. Different people on the forum and in this very thread use these terms differently. One says "Districts favor tall empires" meaning they require developed cities, other says "Districts favor wide empires" speaking about city specialization. And in reality they speak about the same - districts are designed for many highly advanced cities and Civ5 terms of "tall" and "wide" don't apply here.

No, they're not speaking about the same, and no, they're not talking about many well developed cities. They speak about wide and tall as they're being used properly, they just disagree with the implications of districts - why? Well, because depending on how they're tuned they can be beneficial for and/or favoring both types of empires.

Tall: Large Cities mean that you can put a lot of Districts into a relatively small area. There's lots of potential for adjacency bonuses, %-modifiers and yield-stacking.

Wide: Districts mean that you'll have a lot of good spots for the different types of terrains, which means that you are very likely to have some prime locations for all of the ones that you need, and the way specialization could work is that you have a lot less "mandatory" infrastructure that you'd otherwise need to build in every single city.

...just to name some initial thoughts. Given that we still don't know the exact details of the system both outcomes seem possible. Literally nobody but you is talking about "tall and wide at the same time" as far as I can tell.

 

[daft]

I'd suggest that all units produced in cities should cost 1 free population, and settlers 2-like in CIII. On top of it, unit and added city maintenance(for each new city) would bring with it corresponding lack of funds for research, culture (and faith).
So the statement that expanding quickly and producing settlers in great numbers would bring with it falling back in technological research, as well as culture penalties, but should definitely be possible.
For the imperialist players out there it would mean the possibility of creating a huge empire is there, but the fallback in tech and culture is certain as well.
Increased Corruption(CIII) and Number of cities maintenance (CIV) could also be added as penalties to expansion but to a much, much lesser degree than in those games, they were over the top.

So Expansion would have to equal/become Aggressive Expansion (much like throughout history), the need to create large armies to escort the settlers, to protect the new cities, to fight off hordes of barbarians and other, also looking to expand, civilizations.
Going for expansion would mean also becoming a warmonger, a technologically more, or less backward warmonger.

The more units you produce, civilian or military, the more population you lose from your existing cities, meaning a large empire would consist of large numbers of small cities, as compared to less expansive civilizations, with fewer but larger and richer cities.

The early (and mid game) wars for land and resources would intensify, letting players who enjoy combat strategize and enjoy the game more.

In civ1 and civ2, when you conquered a rival city, you gained a tech from that civ (if they had any you didn't own already), this could be added back to benefit expansionists (it could be a random tech), not just as a bonus to one tribe.

However, ancient Rome was huge, but at the same time a very advanced nation, so perhaps choosing the Militaristic-first, expansion of any non settled yet land after you conquer the cities of other nations philosophy could be more beneficial than the vice versa approach. Would mean less population loss. Also much less, or none, technology This (militaristic conquest and expansion) approach however, should bring with it the danger of coalitions of nations allying against such tribes and instead Golden Age an Age of Decadence.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

I think Civ V's attempt to balance Tall v. Wide totally destroyed the game. First, it lead to some horribly clunky mechanics that make zero sense conceptually. National Wonders, Global Happiness, and the science penalty were the most egregious--all of these are totally nonsensical. I realize civ isn't a simulation but it should still have its rules make some modicum of sense. It's horribly jarring when your capital starts taking huge production and growth penalties because you captured an enemy city, or if the little harbor town you founded across the map suddenly makes your national wonders cease construction. Really, really, clunky, and it's obvious none of these would ever have been implemented if not for the supposed need for Tall-Wide balance.

Second, if you don't have to expand to have a competitive civ, the whole point of the game goes away. There's no tension or urgency in the early game. Just kick back and relax and watch your population bars fill up rather than going out there and fighting for land. If you're trying to go wide--which in Civ V will actually take effort, make the AIs hate you, and destroy your science--you're being a sucker. Passive play does better.

The solution to this is very easy though. Have wide be better than tall. Why not? Why shouldn't expanding be better than not expanding? Shouldn't developing a large and strong empire be better than not doing so?

 

[Socrates99]

The solution to this is very easy though. Have wide be better than tall. Why not? Why shouldn't expanding be better than not expanding? Shouldn't developing a large and strong empire be better than not doing so?

That's been my question for a long time. I usually get the same stock answer about "different play styles" or whatnot. I get it, people don't want to have to REX or go on conquest every single game. The balance just seemed a tad off by the time BNW dropped.

Personally I preferred III's corruption or IV's increasing maintenance over V's multitude of punishments. At least with those I felt like I could overcome the penalties quicker and they didn't have the heavy handed effects on my core cities.

I think I'd like to see a way for them to reward slow, deliberate expansion rather than punish late game expansion or fast, early expansion. Perhaps its something they could do through the new civics tree.

 

[historix69]

Tall will probably be more difficult in Civ6 since wonders and districts take a tile and so will likely reduce the maximum Food and Production output of the city compared to Civ5 (unless they compensate with a new feature). You no longer can build a large number of wonders in a tall Super-Wonder-City ... also it is not known yet how specialists will work in Civ6 ... a tall city with size 36+ usually would have a specialist economy ...

According to the devs, Civ6 will use local happiness and not feature the Civ5 global happiness system ... if the player quickly reaches the local happiness cap in early eras, the player will need to expand to not fall back ...

 

[Socrates99]

According to the devs, Civ6 will use local happiness and not feature the Civ5 global happiness system ... if the player quickly reaches the local happiness cap in early eras, the player will need to expand to not fall back ...

Housing sounds like it could be the "new health system" basically stalling the unfettered growth you could achieve in V. I'm not sure how I feel about it. I liked that V didn't have a mechanic limiting population with tech like previous versions.

 

[Hail]

Housing sounds like it could be the "new health system" basically stalling the unfettered growth you could achieve in V. I'm not sure how I feel about it. I liked that V didn't have a mechanic limiting population with tech like previous versions.

the size of the food box depends on the difference between max. housing capacity and used housing capacity.
the bigger the max and the lower used capacity -> smaller food box.

the housing capacity is a soft cap.

from here.

P.S. "you get housing from water." - Ed Beach

 

[Felis Renidens]

Housing from water because housing isn't actual houses but more like 'how many people can a city support'. A city with an access to fresh water can support larger population, and it was even more important in ancient times.

I think it's good if the food box indeed depends on the difference between available and used housing. It will mean new cities in good location will grow fast - so you could expand quickly if you have good spots. Expansion for the sake of expansion will leave you with many small towns. I suppose it will to a balance between wide\tall that depends on the map.

 

[Socrates99]

the size of the food box depends on the difference between max. housing capacity and used housing capacity.
the bigger the max and the lower used capacity -> smaller food box.

the housing capacity is a soft cap.

from here.

P.S. "you get housing from water." - Ed Beach

And you got health from fresh water access in CivIV. Health was a "soft cap" in almost the same way because you could mitigate it with varied food sources and fresh water. In the end it was still a mechanic that tied tech and population cap together. Since population is a major contributor to science output it created a snowball effect that I was never a big fan of. I'm just hoping they avoid that with this housing thing.

 

[Lanzelot]

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

Hmm, in a nutshell, the answer to this question is: "because it was member of a coalition with three very powerful nations: Russia/Sovjet Union, France and USA". And this is one aspect of Civilization that needs improvement in my opinion: the concept of "alliance" or "mutual protection pact" exists in Civ since Civ3, but it never worked satisfactorily. The AI was/is just too erratic. In Civ3 it often happened to me that I was good friends with an AI, had trade relations, a defensive pact, had helped them against their enemies, and then out of the blue they attacked me for no apparent reason. If Firaxis could only turn the AI into a "reliable contractual partner", the game would be much more fun (and realistic), because long-term strategic alliances (like the one between USA, Great Britain and France that lasted basically from 1917 to present day NATO) would be possible in-game.

 

[Acken]

Theres both amenity and housing. Hard to guess how they both interact. As they seem to be local stuff id be tempted to say they are mostly growth limiter but maybe they also have a global composant to them for expansion limiting.

What id really like them to work on is late game settling. Cbp with advanced settlers made it a lot more worth it. Another way could be to make sure trade routes used in lagging cities have some advantage.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

It sounds like England will benefit from wide play, particularly on non-native coasts.

 

[Lanzelot]

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 ...

The only thing in Civ III where this mattered was the Forbidden Palace.

Not really. In Civ III you did not need to have a certain number of buildings as precondition for the Forbidden Palace, you only needed a minimum total number of cities (map-size dependent). So a completely different concept: settling more towns did not make it harder for you to build that national wonder, quite the opposite: it was a necessary pre-condition for building it...

However, other National Wonders required a certain number of buildings as a prerequisite:
- 5 Hospitals were required for the Battlefield Medicine wonder (units heal in enemy territory)
- 5 Stock Exchanges were required for the Wallstreet wonder (5% interest on your savings)
- 5 SAM Batteries were necessary for the SDI wonder (75% chance of intercepting nuclear missiles)

 

[ColtSeavers]

That's been my question for a long time. I usually get the same stock answer about "different play styles" or whatnot. I get it, people don't want to have to REX or go on conquest every single game. The balance just seemed a tad off by the time BNW dropped.

Personally I preferred III's corruption or IV's increasing maintenance over V's multitude of punishments. At least with those I felt like I could overcome the penalties quicker and they didn't have the heavy handed effects on my core cities.

I think I'd like to see a way for them to reward slow, deliberate expansion rather than punish late game expansion or fast, early expansion. Perhaps its something they could do through the new civics tree.

that's what they promise, more than "one" (meaning 3-4 cities max) way of victory... let's see, whether they keep it

 

[wiggawuu]

I hope the CIVIC CARDS and GOV SWITCHING will allow you interchange through out the game to give you the opportunity to slow city expansion or encourage settling.

I hope were moving away from the concept of HAVING to choose form the START whether or not you want to play tall or wide.

I'll pissed if this is the situation again. Its so annoying having to play so linear in CIV5.

 

[Acken]

that's what they promise, more than "one" (meaning 3-4 cities max) way of victory... let's see, whether they keep it

Civ5 allows for more than 3 4 cities. Multiple way of victory was already possible in civ5. The argument has more to do with the ease to do so.