With no 'city spamming'... what will I do?

[congregation]

Hi. My name is congregation and I am a city spammer.

<everyone says "Hi congregation">

The way I understand it, each new city in CIV will be charged a 'new city fee' or whatever they call it. The more you build the higher the fee. This will alter my play style dramatically (not a hardcore civver but a leisurely mediocre one). I love making as many cities as posible and watch the trade value pile up. With only a few cities, what will I do?

So how many cities will be ideal? 6? 8? 12? They say huge amounts of cities is viable but you have to wait for them to start producing. Does this mean that you can expand but IF you expand too quickly, the fee will drive your commerce into the ground? But if you expand at a more leisurely pace your cities will be able to support the fee?

And who wants to be building cities in the modern era? Almost a waste of effort since it is going to take some time before it can actually contribute to your empire (cause of the fee) and by the time it does, Germany is launching off into space!

This new concept really intrigues me though. It will make me re-evaluate my core strategies and ultimately make me find new ways to win (at least I hope so).

So am I right in my facts? Boy would I love some hard and true facts. Just a table of the 'new city fee' would be wonderful!

 

[Gogf]

Firaxis may not even know what the final city fee figure is yet. They haven't given us any idea what it will be.

 

[tirpidz]

I personaly think the "fee" will be different.

I see it more like a corruption thing. When you have more city than your tech/gouv/etc can support you get comerce/$$$/other disavantage (I dont know if it would be on city scale or on you empire at large).

I assume the critical number of cities (the number of city you can control without penality) will be related to the map size.

So it could be set to allow you to reach other civs next to you pretty easily. The problem would arise when you decide to go on offensive and capture other cities. Therefore it would be nice to get an option to loot the city instead of razing it (you get bonus of "capturing" the city, without the penality of having to many cities). Also looting would let an option to the original owner of the city to rebuild it at some fee

 

[Yusaku Jon III]

From what I recall reading early on, Civ4 actually replaces the corruption model with a health/maintenance cost increase that relates to the distance from the capital or any strong culture city elsewhere within the territory. Therefore, you might benefit from concentrating first on building up an immediate "homeland" network of cities and roads and build up a number of military units fo defensive purposes. When you get to a certain level, you can try to expand beyond the homeland as you feel comfortable with it, but that's assuming that the growth model that I read about is still in place.

However, this "city fee" makes it a little different, but I doubt that it'll be prohibitive to building an immediate network of cities and trade routes. Looking at the bright side, you may not get "city-spammed" by the AI or human opponents, either.

 

[Roland Johansen]

I've read that there exist buildings that reduce the upkeep of cities (courthouse). Probably some more modern civics options also reduce the upkeep of the cities (decentralization?). Maybe the culture value of a city and the fact that the city is connected to the capital through a trade network also effect the upkeep of the city.

If it is done right than you will be able to sustain a larger empire when your empire becomes more advanced and more developed. So when you conquer some nations through time and become large, also new civic options and new buildings are being developed that allow you to sustain a larger empire. But if you expand enormously in the ancient age and become a huge undeveloped empire, then the city upkeep will hurt you.

This is my hope for Civ 4.

 

[GeneralEggbert]

I just hope they dont screw with my game too much... like they did with master of orion 3.... *shudder*

 

[Andrew_Jay]

I like the idea, especially how even distant cities can be just as productive as any other, you just have to pay more for them.

 

[nicae]

basically, cities will demand un upkeep when they are founded. as they grow, they will be autosufficient - trade, taxes and improvements will reduce that penalty up to a point where the city acutally GIVES you money. thats when you can go founding another city. of course that all depends on your tax levels, production policies, etc. so it will be something kind of under your control, although you wont be able to simply spam settlers all at once.

i hope that was clear enough

 

[JavalTigar]

Also being a civ with the trait 'orginized' reduces the fee and the cost of building improvements that help with the fee. So if you are a builder, organized is the way to go.(closet spammer as well)

Oh, and by the way congregation welcome to Fanatics.

 

[Grey Fox]

Adapt.

Learn how to make large empires, because I believe it will still be possible. Maybe slower then before, but you could maybe just settle further in between, and then settle in holes between cities. Make Border barriers towards the AI. Because they need an agreement now to even pass your borders. Etc.

 

[tirpidz]

hmm

can the cost of founding a new city will be used to give the new city basic infrastructure?

so you wont have to wait eternity to your new city to build an aqueduc or an hospital...

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

The key issue here is that, IMO, this is a far better way of limiting City Spamming than corruption was. As has been previously stated, though your city will have a cost, it will build improvements and units as effectively as a size 1 city right next door to your capital. The key issue is to think about where you place your cities, rather than plonking them just anywhere. Early on, close proximity to bonus food resources and resources vital for construction will be the key-especially if said tiles grant an income (which is no longer recieved from roads automatically). Even later on, though, finding locations close to luxuries and strategic resources will be vital, I believe, as will situating cities along rivers and coasts. So, as I see it, there is actually very little to stop you controlling a vast empire, so long as you can find the right locations for your cities, and are prepared to invest in making each city self-sufficient before the next phase of expansion.
Should be pointed out, though, that large empires are also more costly in terms of maintaining culture and research levels!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Andrew_Jay]

I wonder what this will do to wonder building, especially at the start?

With corruption currently, you can usually only rely on your capital and maybe some nearby cities early on. With this new method any city can be pretty productive, and a city put at the foot of some hills can quickly crank them out. Of course, your capital and other early cities will have advantages through more population and some better improvements, but I do wonder how big a change this will be.

 

[kolpo]

The way I understand it do you have to pay a falt fee for each city(no mather the size) and does that fee expand when you get more cities. the rate at which itincreases(with each new city) shall depend on difficulty, government, traits and buildings I think.

I personally like this system, you can now have situations where huge land mass are not inhabited and that nobody wants to expand yet.

It seems to me that having many cities shall in the beginning shall cost more then they make and later make more then they cost, so let the AI do the costly part and take the city after it is profitable

 

[Jaybe]

For Civ5 I want citizens to SPONTANEOUSLY become dissatisfied with where they are living and decide to leave Dodge.

They either migrate to another city or they found a new city by themselves without player (or AI civ) involvement. The civ then has the choice of whether to spend the effort & resources to support and defend the new city to enable collection of taxes from it. Unless they migrate to a city in another civ, of course. Which brings up a whole other can of worms: Do I want them BACK, or do I want to TAKE that city from the other civ?

If I do not support a new city, it can DECIDE to:
1. Join me (or another civ) with reduced support or higher taxes so;
2. Organize itself into a new civ or;
3. Raise its own funds through theft ... leading to potential punitive actions, annexation, repression and general bad feelings.

Civ-sponsored and directed expansion as with traditional Civ would also be allowed.

 

[superjib]

I like this system too !!
You just have to see our world !
OK USA are a big nation and the first power in the world !
But after you have Japan, Germany, United Kingdoms and France which represent a small area in the world !
You could'nt do the same in Civ 3 !