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

[GS] Will Gathering Storm give a reason to go Tall, or provide a new Civ that would be good at it?

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by tiamats4esgares, Dec 20, 2018.

  1. tiamats4esgares

    tiamats4esgares Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2013
    Messages:
    70
    I don't post here often, and haven't in a long time, but Civ V is one of my favorite and most played games of all time. That being said, I could never get into Civ VI because going Tall wasn't a thing. While I sometimes went wide in Civ V, I most often found myself going Tall, and I loved the strategy.

    All the info I'm seeing about Gathering Storm excites me, and I may actually want to play again. But I'd really like to know if I can finally go Tall now, or is this just a dream that will likely never be fulfilled?
     
  2. Temppu

    Temppu Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2016
    Messages:
    160
    Gender:
    Male
    I recommend playing Civ VI enough to realize that the whole notion of Tall is outdated and gamey. Sure, some prefer playing as a builder and some like warring more, but why should the fifth city make four of your first cities worse? Bigger cities no longer equals less cities and of that Im glad about.
     
    Babri, nzcamel, Socrates99 and 15 others like this.
  3. Vandlys

    Vandlys Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2017
    Messages:
    363
    Location:
    New Atlantis
    The problem I have with this argument that more cities/citizens also don't automatically make a country better. In Civ VI however, more cities equals more science, more culture, etc. So, if we have that gamey system in the game, why shouldn't a tall gamey system be valid?

    Small countries like Singapore and Denmark do great, while large countries like Russia or Brazil aren't high on indexes like education, disposable income or happiness per capita.

    I reckon it might not be the solution you are looking for, but the Let's play tall mod inhibits players to build more than a select number of settlers. I sometimes switch it on because I find it helps reducing turn times and micromanagement.
     
    Julia97 likes this.
  4. AmazonQueen

    AmazonQueen Virago

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,998
    Location:
    Gingerbread Cottage
    I would like there to be more incentive to grow cities to be larger, but I wouldn't like anything as restrictive as the Civ V system which punished expansion too severely.
     
  5. SammyKhalifa

    SammyKhalifa Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Messages:
    5,068
    I'm not a fan of the "tall" terminology, but big cities should be better than smaller cities, not worse like they practically are now. There's nothing "gamey" about that. The game should give you incentive to make bigger and bigger cities as well as more and more cities, and right now it doesn't. There should be incentive to make more high quality cities instead of a village with a campus next to it.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2018
    Myomoto, Elhoim, Kmart_Elvis and 5 others like this.
  6. kryat

    kryat Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2017
    Messages:
    534
    Gender:
    Male
    I don’t think it’s too gamey to put rubber bands on wide expansion. Arguably, larger empires should have less cultural cohesion and should be more prone to civil wars. I really wish they had included a base loyalty penalty into the system in R+F that would have made players work to keep their empire under their control, rather than incentivizing total conquest of neighbors.

    That said, there’s a possibility the new power mechanic could be used to encourage players to build more T3 buildings that appear to be worth more than a single new city with a T2 building. But this remains to be seen. The real problem is that there is very little reward for more citizens as opposed to more cities. They really need to give specialists a buff too, since smaller empires are also severely limited in their recruitment of GP points.
     
    Myomoto, Julia97 and Jkchart like this.
  7. Wizard-Bob

    Wizard-Bob Always remember to Find Your FUN!

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    170
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Florida
    In looking at the Inca first look, they may appeal to "tall players" as they seem to reward an isolationist playstyle. Add in the uniqueness of the Maori, and I can see that Civ6 may appeal to more players than ever.
     
    Larsenex likes this.
  8. Temppu

    Temppu Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2016
    Messages:
    160
    Gender:
    Male
    Per capita indexes arent really a thing in Civ games. More population=more science and culture, even if the first populations yields 1 and the second 0.5. Moreover, Denmark can use the resources of Greenland and Faroe Islands due to regional ownership, should the citizens in main Denmark be unhappy due to having cities in these remote places? According to Civ V rules, yes they should.

    Balance between larger cities vs more cities =/= Tall vs Wide. Playing tall means you dont want to bother microing more than four cities due to laziness. Playing wide = building new cities always when possible. Balance between larger or more cities is a game property that can be always improved, to incentivize two distinct game styles is artificially dichotomizing strategy.

    Moderator Action: Please do not troll in the forums. Calling other players lazy because of their play style is just not acceptable. leif
    Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 20, 2018
    Icicle likes this.
  9. kryat

    kryat Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2017
    Messages:
    534
    Gender:
    Male
    No, but the people in Greenland should seek to gain independence because they are more isolated. Which is actual reality.
     
  10. criZp

    criZp Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,382
    Location:
    Nidaros, Norway
    of course you can go tall in civ 6. it just isn't a good strategy because not building cities "just because" isn't good strategy.
     
    nzcamel likes this.
  11. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    10,224
    Well people win on deity with just one city so go large if you wish.

    A city the size of 20 pop gives 6 culture and 10 science so that is not to be ignored. It is sad they nerfed city science from 0.7 to 0.5 as that not only discouraged larger cities but also made the AI struggle more. It did make the proportions closer to the ratio of science to culture in the rest of the game.

    The right strategy for you is the one that makes you happiest, winning is a false vanity thing.

    A green or gold card for doubling pop outputs would spice the game up I think.
     
  12. fabituz

    fabituz Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2013
    Messages:
    10
    Location:
    Brasil
    Make bigger cities should challenge a player in things like polution, corruption and crime. For wide empires we have rebelions and civil wars. Running a wide and tall civ should be a double challenge, not a snowball fest. IMO the worst mistake is to link science and population (at best pop could give a marginal science result)
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2018
    Myomoto, Elhoim, Kjimmet and 5 others like this.
  13. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    10,224
    Brave statement. The rest I agree with but this ...
    I agree that poorer countries have larger pops with less education.... but... if you had a larger city with the same education standards as a smaller city you should get proportionally more bright people and if the opportunities were equally as large the science output should be also.
     
    Myomoto, Elhoim and CPWimmer like this.
  14. Amrunril

    Amrunril Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2015
    Messages:
    1,065
    I think Civ V's final balance iteration tends to act as something of a straw man in these conversations. I don't think anyone wants to return to the days when settling more than four cities was almost always a bad idea. I do, however, think the game would benefit substantially if the benefits from high population cities were increased. Buffs to specialists would be one good way of doing this, as would making the yields of high tier buildings scale with population and reworking the amenity formula so small cities aren't automatically more efficient in that regard. I don't think anything we've seen so far for Gathering Storm will have a major effect on the trade offs between expansion and growth (my favorite way of describing this dynamic without introducing too much Civ V baggage), but this is the sort of thing that tends to be affected more by balance patches than expansion mechanics.
     
    VermelhoRed, Babri, nzcamel and 8 others like this.
  15. Trav'ling Canuck

    Trav'ling Canuck Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Messages:
    2,873
    Gender:
    Male
    I, too, love Civ 5, and have gone back to playing it after giving Civ 6 vanilla and Civ 6 R&F a fair shake. The main difference for me in Civ 5 is the tension in growing your cities. Most of your yields come from people, so you need food to grow big. But you also need happiness, so you need to invest in that. And to get the most out of your people, you need buildings, which in Civ 5 unlike in Civ 6 multiply population yields so are critically important. So you need hammers to build those buildings. Buildings come with maintenance costs, so you also need gold to pay for them. Pretty much everything on the production menu is something you want and want now as you're always falling behind in something, and it's a challenge to figure out what you need most at this point in time. Plus in Civ 5 the AI would swamp you if you didn't invest in good relations and a decent military, and that was true all the way through the game, not just the Ancient era.

    Civ 6 does not have that same compelling game play, for me. It wouldn't take much, however, for Civ 6 to get there. The main issue is that most of the things on the production menu are fine for flavour or for fun or because you simply want to try something new. For me, though, by the time the Medieval period rolls around, half the time I look at the production menu and I don't need or want anything from it. That almost never happened in Civ 5, certainly not until the late game.

    We don't know enough about GS yet to know whether this has changed or not. I can say that two big, and related factors, that would change things are (a) boosting the value of Specialists, and (b) boosting the value of Tier 3 buildings overall. We do know that how Tier 3 buildings work is being changed with the new power system. How exactly it will play out, we'll need to wait and see.

    My recommendation would be wait for a few months until the early impressions of GS are out. From what you've described, R&F would not be for you, but GS may or may not be.
     
  16. SammyKhalifa

    SammyKhalifa Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Messages:
    5,068
    Can we narrow it boil it down to the point that losing the 2pop=1science formula was what killed big cities? I know there are other things but this seems like the biggest.
     
  17. Steamboat Willem

    Steamboat Willem Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2018
    Messages:
    138
    I think the biggest is that buildings in Civ6 give fixed amounts of yields, rather than percentages like they did in Civ5.
     
  18. AmazonQueen

    AmazonQueen Virago

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,998
    Location:
    Gingerbread Cottage
    I don't mind buildings giving fixed yields. I don't think population by itself should have massive benefits for science, not if the population is working farms and mines. I'd prefer to see specialists boosted.
    Perhaps transfer GPP from the buildings to the specialists who work in them.
     
  19. Infixo

    Infixo Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,418
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warsaw
    Yup. It is beyond my comprehension why GP points come from buildings not people thus making the entire specialist concept almost useless :(
     
    Babri, Myomoto, Seek and 2 others like this.
  20. Steamboat Willem

    Steamboat Willem Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2018
    Messages:
    138
    There is a lot that still can be done with the loyalty system IMO. Give conquered cities a permanent or long lasting negative loyalty. Give additional negative loyalty based on the distance from the capital and whether the city is on a different continent. Concepts that existed in previous versions, but now implemented with a more appropriate mechanism.

    EDIT: Another benefit of if would be that you could change the loyalty effect with the difficulty level. No effect from distance on Settlers, -1 for every tile on Deity. Note that as long as you have enough population near your city, the loyalty of that would drown out the distance effect, so it inhibits ICS because small cities don't project loyalty far enough, but for grown empires it won't matter much. Note that that is a significant improvement over the Civ4 mechanism.

    You could also see something that if you have say 4 cities at a different continent that keep each other loyal and one of them flips, the others would rapidly start losing loyalty as well.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2018
    Seek, Alexadamz, acluewithout and 2 others like this.

Share This Page