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

[acluewithout]

Are Specialists a bit underrated? I think they give more base yield than the equivalent project, don’t they? They’re also not to shabby if you can get some +% bonuses eg via Governors.

Giving Specialists a flat yield boost would be very boring. Linking GPP to specialists would also really bork the current game balance and would undercut projects in particular. If specialists are going to be buffed, it needs to be something a bit more nuanced / tactical.

Personally, I’d like to see their yields linked to government tiers. So, maybe reduce them down to 1 yield, and then add +1 yield per government tier. You could maybe have a late game policy card that helps too.

 

[Sostratus]

would undercut projects in particular.

Is there a difference between having GPP on districts+buildings and running projects vs having GPP on both district/building+specialist and running projects?
I almost feel that the current setup rewards city spam more than it should - I strongly support wide play, and expect many city empires to be able to muscle out smaller ones via production and gold advantages- but there's no specialization or ability to emphasize.
I would love to see specialists pick up 1 gpp each- so 2 size 7 cities running campus/TS/CH could nearly be matched in GPP by a size 16 city running all 3 specialists for each of those districts. (or 13 if you only care about blue+purple.) That seems closer to fair to me. Plus, it gives any science spammer a strong reason to aim for size 13/16 instead of cap at 10 (assuming a ~+1-2 yield buff); and all the attendant inputs needed to facilitate that (extra food, extra housing, extra amenities.) Particularly the housing- it's hard to get 16 housing just by having a scattering of farms and a granary and fresh water, but it's cheaper than building a new campus and TS. I would prefer a balance where you want to squeeze out that one extra pop from your empire's resources knowing that it'll net you an extra specialist in that big city, because that puts pressure on other systems. I know we now want to stop right at 10 because of the cards, but I feel a little empty that a city is "done" so quickly. A city wouldn't really mature then until the mid 20s. Put some ambition back in those mayors!

This is more driven by gameplay integration than anything, but it relies on a very particular balance between buildings and specialists. CS bonuses completely throw a wrench into it, so it's not quite perfect yet. (Also: early game, if you had an abundant food start, a limited specialist economy could be semi-viable. I know that's a common ask!)

 

[acluewithout]

Is there a difference between having GPP on districts+buildings and running projects vs having GPP on both district/building+specialist and running projects?
I almost feel that the current setup rewards city spam more than it should - I strongly support wide play, and expect many city empires to be able to muscle out smaller ones via production and gold advantages- but there's no specialization or ability to emphasize.
I would love to see specialists pick up 1 gpp each- so 2 size 7 cities running campus/TS/CH could nearly be matched in GPP by a size 16 city running all 3 specialists for each of those districts. (or 13 if you only care about blue+purple.) That seems closer to fair to me. Plus, it gives any science spammer a strong reason to aim for size 13/16 instead of cap at 10 (assuming a ~+1-2 yield buff); and all the attendant inputs needed to facilitate that (extra food, extra housing, extra amenities.) Particularly the housing- it's hard to get 16 housing just by having a scattering of farms and a granary and fresh water, but it's cheaper than building a new campus and TS. I would prefer a balance where you want to squeeze out that one extra pop from your empire's resources knowing that it'll net you an extra specialist in that big city, because that puts pressure on other systems. I know we now want to stop right at 10 because of the cards, but I feel a little empty that a city is "done" so quickly. A city wouldn't really mature then until the mid 20s. Put some ambition back in those mayors!

This is more driven by gameplay integration than anything, but it relies on a very particular balance between buildings and specialists. CS bonuses completely throw a wrench into it, so it's not quite perfect yet. (Also: early game, if you had an abundant food start, a limited specialist economy could be semi-viable. I know that's a common ask!)

Might take me a bit to work through all that. But to pick up one point: personally, I find projects are sort of key to managing large empires and “specialising” cities. Usually, I just focus on a few core cities. The other various cities, usually smaller than my core cities, I just leave set to projects, so I don’t need to worry about them. If there was a way to loop / repeat projects, it’d be perfect.

 

[rattatatouille]

Is there a difference between having GPP on districts+buildings and running projects vs having GPP on both district/building+specialist and running projects?
I almost feel that the current setup rewards city spam more than it should - I strongly support wide play, and expect many city empires to be able to muscle out smaller ones via production and gold advantages- but there's no specialization or ability to emphasize.
I would love to see specialists pick up 1 gpp each- so 2 size 7 cities running campus/TS/CH could nearly be matched in GPP by a size 16 city running all 3 specialists for each of those districts. (or 13 if you only care about blue+purple.) That seems closer to fair to me. Plus, it gives any science spammer a strong reason to aim for size 13/16 instead of cap at 10 (assuming a ~+1-2 yield buff); and all the attendant inputs needed to facilitate that (extra food, extra housing, extra amenities.) Particularly the housing- it's hard to get 16 housing just by having a scattering of farms and a granary and fresh water, but it's cheaper than building a new campus and TS. I would prefer a balance where you want to squeeze out that one extra pop from your empire's resources knowing that it'll net you an extra specialist in that big city, because that puts pressure on other systems. I know we now want to stop right at 10 because of the cards, but I feel a little empty that a city is "done" so quickly. A city wouldn't really mature then until the mid 20s. Put some ambition back in those mayors!

This is more driven by gameplay integration than anything, but it relies on a very particular balance between buildings and specialists. CS bonuses completely throw a wrench into it, so it's not quite perfect yet. (Also: early game, if you had an abundant food start, a limited specialist economy could be semi-viable. I know that's a common ask!)

It's a bit extreme, but I've made it so that districts and buildings can't earn GPPs (save for Wonders and beliefs like Divine Spark) and Specialists/Projects/Policy Cards are the only reliable way to earn GPPs in my mod.

 

[InDubioProReo]

I really enjoyed playing Tall and then later bursting into whatever my chosen victory type requires me to do. While Civ 6 is also very fun, I really hate small, 4-5 pop cities with bad production and/or food. India was so good in Civ V, I loved going mega tall. (so were Aztecs)

 

[nzcamel]

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?

Well in terms of population a wide empire can have as many people in it as a tall empire, so that's not quite right.

 

[_hero_]

The biggest problem with tall is that each additional pop is on average weaker than the previous one. Not only on a percentage increase basis, but also on a net yield basis. Your cities correctly always use their best yielding hexes first, gradually taking weaker and weaker hexes until eventually they start using 2 yield specialists or 1 yield tundra tiles. The extra pop doesn't in any way make any of the districts in a city better either.

So all else being equal why would you ever choose another pop in a big city to gain 2 yield vs a new 1 pop city with a 6+ yield hex and the ability to build more of the "good" districts that you already built in the big city?

Districts need to get better as pop grows if you want to make tall viable. Something like each pop increases district adjacency bonuses by 10% would be a start.

 

[acluewithout]

Is there a difference between having GPP on districts+buildings and running projects vs having GPP on both district/building+specialist and running projects?
I almost feel that the current setup rewards city spam more than it should - I strongly support wide play, and expect many city empires to be able to muscle out smaller ones via production and gold advantages- but there's no specialization or ability to emphasize.
I would love to see specialists pick up 1 gpp each- so 2 size 7 cities running campus/TS/CH could nearly be matched in GPP by a size 16 city running all 3 specialists for each of those districts. (or 13 if you only care about blue+purple.) That seems closer to fair to me. Plus, it gives any science spammer a strong reason to aim for size 13/16 instead of cap at 10 (assuming a ~+1-2 yield buff); and all the attendant inputs needed to facilitate that (extra food, extra housing, extra amenities.) Particularly the housing- it's hard to get 16 housing just by having a scattering of farms and a granary and fresh water, but it's cheaper than building a new campus and TS. I would prefer a balance where you want to squeeze out that one extra pop from your empire's resources knowing that it'll net you an extra specialist in that big city, because that puts pressure on other systems. I know we now want to stop right at 10 because of the cards, but I feel a little empty that a city is "done" so quickly. A city wouldn't really mature then until the mid 20s. Put some ambition back in those mayors!

This is more driven by gameplay integration than anything, but it relies on a very particular balance between buildings and specialists. CS bonuses completely throw a wrench into it, so it's not quite perfect yet. (Also: early game, if you had an abundant food start, a limited specialist economy could be semi-viable. I know that's a common ask!)

I’ve thought about this a bit more. You’re making a good point (as always).

But I still think I prefer linking GPP to Buildings, Projects and Cards, not Specialists. I think having it linked to Specialists would mean too many GPP in the game, and wild fluctuations as players / AI flip between specialists. The current system requires a big investment to get GPP - build or buy districts and buildings, or have you city do nothing else but run projects (which if it’s a low production city, won’t help you rush a great person because it’s too slow).

I don’t think Specialists need a buff in terms of wider gameplay. You can already get plenty of yields and GPP without them. Making Specialists Super valuable will just mean every city is the same - big pop, slot lots of Specialists.

What I’d like to see is maybe Tier 3 Buildings providing an extra specialist slot, and the ability for players to choose each type of Governor more than once (say 3 times max). That way you could have a small number of cities with really high science culture or whatever that would benefit from +% yield cards. So, you’d probably want to slot Specialists in these cities to maximise the +% boost. That would also boost high pop cities generally, without making every city need to be high pop.

As to high food cities, there should be a way that internal trade routes to high food cities should give more food. Maybe +0.5 food per Wheat or Rice after you build a Grainary and a Market or Lighthouse?