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. thecrazyscot

    thecrazyscot Spiffy

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    2,259
    I think there are loads of ways that larger cities could (and should) be better. I think a mix and match of all of these would probably strike a good balance:
    • Something as simple as adding production per population I think would make large cities much more capable, and makes all sorts of real-world and gamey sense. I don't know why they haven't incorporated that, as this change alone would make large cities so much better.
    • I also think that Specialists should be MUCH better than they are now. Even if GPP aren't tied to them, increase their yields by 50-100% and it would make tall cities much more capable without making small cities useless.
    • Have tier 2 buildings provide % yield increases instead of flat increases. This could very easily incorporate the new power mechanic as well, with a higher % increase when powered. This would make tier 2 buildings VERY useful for large cities and less so - although not completely - for small cities, which also makes all sort of sense.
    • Have tier 3 buildings provide many more specialist slots, with little other function. This means there's really no point in building them in small cities, but with increased specialist yields and % bonuses from the tier 2 building, large cities will benefit greatly.
    I think these changes will still allow both going "wide" and going "tall" to be viable. You could pump up your cities to take advantage of all those specialists, or you could build/conquer a zillion cities and plop a district + tier 1 building in each and still have a great output.
     
  2. Sostratus

    Sostratus Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2017
    Messages:
    2,291
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    The fact that the communism government locks this primo ability behind governors just drives me nuts. These big communism cities become really good - when you haul in 30 production from population, you can elevate a ton of cities to what is normally Ruhr valley only level of production. This would be a great ability to attach to the factory as a local bonus. (Only the city with the factory gets this.) That way there's more late game production and there's a reason to have more than a couple factories in your empire. Two birds, one stone!

    Protip: communism+legacy+work ethic belief is a fun combo for racking up hammers. Putting those +7 food farms to work!

    A district requires 3 pop to build (1->4->7->10 etc) and fully built has 3 specialist slots. My gut says things would align pretty well if essentially doubling your pop investment into a district via running specialists gave double the GPP, and some nice amount of extra yield - at least what the district's buildings provide.

    ~~~~
    Anyways, if nothing else, I think Indonesia, Cree, Australia, Kongo,and Inca all have solid Tall city bonuses.
    The first two have great housing form improvements. Indonesia just needs to settle islands etc and you can have 50 housing in some cities.
    Cree mekewap gives great housing and yields too.
    Aussies' Outback station is more just very strong when you carpet terrain with them, and more pop/ spaced out cities means more stations worked.
    Kongo obviously has the housing bonus plus 3 artifacts in a museum gives great yields too.
    Inca will be the food kings. I'm not sure what they will do with all that food - every city will be housing capped in no time- but at least they offer a break from having to spam large pockets of farms to get big cities. And they can fairly uniquely get huge early.
     
    679x likes this.
  3. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,918
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree that there is not enough reward for building good cities.

    However on the other hand ceding 90% percent on the map should be a disadvantage. No good strategy game or game period should be rewarding turtling as a staple strategy.
     
    nzcamel, Icicle, Temppu and 3 others like this.
  4. Leathaface

    Leathaface Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,720
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cork, Ireland
    I like to place at least a Campus, a Theatre Square and a Commercial Hub in each of my cities, so i'm aiming for at least 10 pop in each city. Plus i'm found of placing Industrial Zones in a good spot, as well as the Government Plaza in my capital (or next biggest city) and an Entertainment district so I can have a go at getting the Colosseum, so that is more districts needed.

    I think the game does reward you for having better cities in a way, though it's possible to win on Diety without high population cities.
     
    nzcamel likes this.
  5. rattatatouille

    rattatatouille Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2018
    Messages:
    140
    Gender:
    Male
    I made a mod where the aim was to improve tall play without penalizing wide play by revamping how districts worked.

    I did the following changes:
    * Removed GPPs from buildings and transferred them over to specialists.
    * Buffed specialist yields by doubling them (is 4 science per Campus specialist fine?)
    * Tier 1 buildings (Library, Amphitheater, Market, Shrine, Workshop, Barracks/Stable, Hangar) all provide tile-specific yield boosts.
    * Tier 2 buildings (University, Museum, Bank, Temple, Factory) all provide per-population yield boosts.
    * Tier 3 buildings (Research Lab, Broadcast Center, Stock Exchange, Power Plant, Airport) all provide per-district yield boosts.

    I also buffed up the Audience Chamber so that cities with Governors get a +10% boost to non-Food yields.

    For Gathering Storm I'm thinking of exploiting the Power mechanic so that Tier 2 and 3 building per-pop and per-district boosts get boosted when powered.
     
    nzcamel, Cyon, Amrunril and 3 others like this.
  6. pokiehl

    pokiehl Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2017
    Messages:
    1,156
    I really wish Specialists were more moddable...sigh.
     
  7. NukeAJS

    NukeAJS King

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Messages:
    833
    I get where you're coming from, but having a large city dotted by a couple of smaller ones is probably the historical model for stability. It would also balance itself nicely. From a raw yield POV, it makes sense to have a lot of small cities. From a loyalty standpoint -- that should only only if no one else is around. So -- basically the loyalty system but stronger. I'm definitely an advocate of this.
     
  8. UWHabs

    UWHabs Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,450
    Location:
    Toronto
    A simple change like doubling specialist yields would make me consider them more. Or even if that was a spaced out change, or some other change that grew as you went on. For example, if each specialist increased the yields of the other specialists (ie. 1 scientist = 2 science, 2 scientists = 2x4=8 science, and 3 scientists = 3x6=18 science), then that does directly help growing "Tall", since smaller cities simply cannot pack enough specialists in for the required yields. And in that case, you actually would need a research lab for that last scientist spot, since that last guy is worth 10 science by himself.

    I have played "tall" though and been successful. The Khmer are one of the best at it - you get tons of housing and food from holy sites and aqueducts, and if you choose the +1 amenities per holy site, and if you found your religion to give you Stupas as well, then you can really be rolling in amenities, while having a ton of food and housing to grow. We'll have to see if any of the new civs give more bonuses to growing large cities or not.
     
    nzcamel and cvb like this.
  9. acluewithout

    acluewithout Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    3,361
    Improving specialists across the board is a bad idea. Every city would be “great” and you’d no longer need to play the map. Instead, if specialists get boosted at all, I’d limit it to cities with a Governor (or promoted Governor) and or cities with sufficient power.
     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2018
    cvb and rattatatouille like this.
  10. Isengardtom

    Isengardtom Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2018
    Messages:
    231
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Antwerp, Belgium
    They could boost tall play by adding some special policy cards applying to cities over a certain pop
     
    Wyvern_Parade likes this.
  11. rattatatouille

    rattatatouille Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2018
    Messages:
    140
    Gender:
    Male
    Simultaneum, Free Market, Rationalism do that (partially). They boost Faith, Gold, and Science building output by 50% if the adjacency is 3 or above, and another 50% if the city is size 10 or above.
     
    nzcamel likes this.
  12. Elhoim

    Elhoim Iron Tower Studio Dev

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2004
    Messages:
    2,419
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Isidro, Argentina.
    Yes, it will include all the features of R&F, minus the civs.

    I find city state bonuses one of the core issues of the extremely flat wide, as with just a few envoys you get a huge per-city bonus which encourages this behavior. R&F fixed it a bit by tying it to buildings, but in the process made Tier 3 buildings not worthwhile. I would definitely re-work them:

    - Yields should be cut by half, and in turn, they could give great people points as well (less per city benefit, but a worthwhile empire one).
    - The code for placing them should not be so random, so you get at least one of each type for the first 6, then another one in the next 6, and so on. Would make the game more balanced, and avoid situations in which you get +6 science per building because there are 3 scientific CS in a game with 9 CS.
    - They need to bring back the maritime/food ones. I like the ones Civitas add.

    And also specialists should give more yields, that's a given.
     
    Trav'ling Canuck likes this.
  13. Amrunril

    Amrunril Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2015
    Messages:
    1,200
    If specialists really were buffed to the point of trivializing terrain yields, that would certainly be a bad thing. On the other hand, given just how underwhelming specialists currently are, I think there's plenty of space to improve them before that becomes an issue. If it is a concern, though, specialist yield increases could be tied to the adjacency bonuses of their districts or to resources present in the city.
     
    nzcamel and cvb like this.
  14. Trav'ling Canuck

    Trav'ling Canuck Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Messages:
    2,932
    Gender:
    Male
    Specialist yields could also escalate over time. One route would be to make each successive Specialist more useful than the previous, so that every building that provides specialist slots also creates Specialists who are more and more effective. Another route would be to simply boost the output of Specialists working powered buildings.
     
    nzcamel, acluewithout and cvb like this.
  15. Myomoto

    Myomoto Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2013
    Messages:
    421
    They really need to make specialists more attractive. It seems like a completely forgotten feature. Maybe remove the policy cards that give gpp and tie the points to specialists. It doesn't make sense that a super wide empire with low population cities generate more great people. You'd think having many people would increase your odds of some of them being great?
     
  16. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,918
    Gender:
    Male
    2 of these cards are useless due to the naturally low yield of the buildings. Faith and Gold tend to come from other sources. Rationalism works better as some Great Scientists boosts the yield of them, but honestly it's more of a modest boost and isn't going to really make small empires that great.

    And there's also Grand Opera, but it's okay, that's not worth mentioning at all.

    I would like the cards to be changed to city output instead of district building output.

    You don't play the map anyways. Most tile yields are too trivial to, improvements are trash mostly and the value is skewed towards whatever you can chop out in a city.

    It's especially bad in Rise and Fall, where settling dry flatland is fine cuz you can just chop a few things. Improvements themselves need massive buffs, because anything that's not a mine or a unique improvement/ability/maybe seaside resort is a wasted charge regardless of what the "I build farms for roleplay" crowd says.

    Making specialists useful would actually make growing cities useful.
     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2018
    rattatatouille likes this.
  17. local_hero

    local_hero Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    569
    Location:
    Sweden
    It's actually weird that there are no policies related to specialists or a specific type of specialists. A very neglected mechanic.
     
    nzcamel and Trav'ling Canuck like this.
  18. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,918
    Gender:
    Male
    They were probably devalued because of the attempts to "streamline" the game, but in reality setting specialists is not a complicated task. In Civ 4, I had no problem with auto assign.

    I think they should add City Maintenance. It isn't right that some crap in the middle of the desert can sustain itself.

    Something like...

    2g + 1g every 2 eras on own continent (So a city would cost 3g in Medieval and 4g industrial)
    4g + 1 g every 2 eras on other continents
    +2g if city is unhappy
    +2g if city is occupied

    No maintenance in the city with government buildings
    -50% maintenance in cities within 6 tiles of a government plaza or palace
    -
    Add a "Courthouse", which removes distance based maintenance and benefits from Autocracy.

    Also, there should be mandatory occupation periods and also unhappiness from occupation that lasts a fixed amount even after peace.
     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2018
  19. Socrates99

    Socrates99 Bottoms up!

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,124
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Michigan
    I like the idea of making specialists more appealing and tying gpp to them. What about also improving the yields of projects based on city size? If a larger city runs campus research grants it could not only finish it faster but get more beakers and GS points at the end. That way the yields are all a conscious decision based on projects and specialists rather than just tying per turn yields to population. Then the players running tall civs can hyper focus while wide might be a bit more versatile. At least both styles would be appealing then.

    I just don't want settling new cities to be nerfed. Hated that aspect of V and I got bored and quit pretty quickly after BNW. I love constant exploration and expansion. Finding new unsettled plots and grabbing them first is half the game for me. Take that away and I'll drop the game like a bad habit.
     
    Trav'ling Canuck likes this.
  20. Wyvern_Parade

    Wyvern_Parade Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2018
    Messages:
    116
    Like pretty much everyone else, I agree that specialists should be buffed. Another huge downside of growing big cities rather than settling more smaller cities is the lack of trade routes. I think you should be able to support more trade routes with more cities, but maybe adding additional trade route capacity when a city with a CH/market hits 15 or 20 pop would be a good change.
     
    Trav'ling Canuck likes this.

Share This Page