So, as the title indicates, I'd like to open up a discussion over yield inflation.
For context: With 1.3.0 I started a new game and paired Himiko (variant: Queen of Wa) with Tonga. Since RL didn't allow me much playtime before 1.3.0 I felt rusty and chose Immortal on 'Continents & Islands' on online-speed. I also chose the regroup-option. As mementos I chose +1 Diplo-Point & 100 influence after suzeraining a new CS. As usal antiquity was great fun. Took me some time to get Tonga going, but at the age's end I had suzerained 13 CS, explored 95% of the map already, led in every relevant regard and completed 3 of 4 legacy paths (military aside). Predictably, the 'Regroup'-option notwithstanding, I completely dominated Exploration-age with Hawaii from the get-go. Currently I am roughly at 50% age progression, but to be honest I don't know whether I will continue this game into Modernity, as I feel that I have won already. Though the insufficient challenge by the AI is its own topic, it of course ties into this dynamic as well.
Within this game, I am dominating yield-wise. Looking at the relevant markers of science and culture I am already nearing scores (both over 500) which I usually had in Civ6 only when I approached the endgame. And this is killing much of the fun for me. Why?
Well, most importantly the thrill of optimizing my city-planning for high adjacency-yields seems rather pointless, as another 10+ science for a well placed university does feel much, much less relevant in relation to the already achieved empire-wide yield. I mean, when I placed such a university in Civ6 (because I had strategically suzerained 2 science CS, sent 3 envoys to each, and maybe I had bought the Great Scienctiest with faith buffing universities ...) at a time, when I am somewhere between 50-150 science overall, this felt so much more consequential for its greater impact. Additionally, I have already won the game. What's the point of another increase then?
In that regard, the necessity for not only exploring (done that in antiquity thanks to Tonga) but also settling new city-locations does not arise with the same urgency as it would have in Civ6. At the beginning of the Exploration Age, I was able to settle a coastal town which would have greatly excited me in Antiquity for its potential as a city: Great-barrier-reef adjacent, additional reefs and maritime ressources plus a wonderful mountain range inland for juicy culture & hapiness adjacencies to top it off. This excitement simply wasn't there, when I actually settled the location in Exploration Age. Again, I was able to snowball my yields already by simply overbuilding in the two cities I had from Antiquity. This third city wasn't necessary at all.
The greater versatility of gold compared to Civ6 exacerbates the problem further: I don't need to buy builders and move them manually around to optimize my tiles. Usually this did not only take gold, but it also took time. In Civ7, once I reached an inflated gold-yield, I can use that gold to inflate my other yield further. During Antiquity I had actually settled one inland-townto connect the two coasts of my continent. This settlement was a prime-spot for monasteries. I put down 10 monasteries in one turn, further boosting my science by 40. Took me the gold-yield of 4 turns to do so. In Civ6 this would have taken me much more time, as I would have had to move my builders from tile to tile, maybe even chopping down wood or harvesting a bonus-ressource, before I'd be able to put the desired improvement down.
And not only is the settling of cities mostly as unnecessary as is an optimized city-planning, but also other instruments I'd normaly use to optimize my empire. Policy-cards, suitable CS, Alliances etc. In Civ6 I'd wrench my brain to theory-craft on all these levels. In Civ7 I feel much less nudged to do so. The game feels much less engaging from a certain point onward.
One could argue, that a more challenging AI would help with this problem and yes, of course I could play deity again. Yet I suppose there might be players who also want the feeling of being challenged below the highest difficulty-level ... and also the current yield-inflation does prove that the devs' intent to prevent snowballing in Civ7 did not only not work. It actually feels much worse in Civ7. And this is although I chose the regroup-option which was specifically designed to counter Civ's inherent tendency for snowballing.Sometimes I think, that a tweak to crises could help. As in: crises target the stronger civilizations more than the weak ones. As in: barbarians rather go on to loot wealthy civilizations or plagues rather strike more devastatingly areas that are more densely populated. I do realize that this can easily feel frustrating, if no reward is granted, if one survives such a 'stronger' crisis. Yet how to design such a reward which does not alleviate snow-balling in the next age by bloating your yields?
To summarize: I'd like yields to be toned down in such a regard, that city-planning is still important and consequential after Antiquity.
What are your impressions regard yield-inflation? Do you experience it as well? Is there a way to play with it and still having fun? What do you feel that should be done to adress the issue?
TLDR; Yields are too high too early, taking away the necessity to strategize, theory-craft and optimize. The game feels much early less engaging than previous iterations of Civilization.
For context: With 1.3.0 I started a new game and paired Himiko (variant: Queen of Wa) with Tonga. Since RL didn't allow me much playtime before 1.3.0 I felt rusty and chose Immortal on 'Continents & Islands' on online-speed. I also chose the regroup-option. As mementos I chose +1 Diplo-Point & 100 influence after suzeraining a new CS. As usal antiquity was great fun. Took me some time to get Tonga going, but at the age's end I had suzerained 13 CS, explored 95% of the map already, led in every relevant regard and completed 3 of 4 legacy paths (military aside). Predictably, the 'Regroup'-option notwithstanding, I completely dominated Exploration-age with Hawaii from the get-go. Currently I am roughly at 50% age progression, but to be honest I don't know whether I will continue this game into Modernity, as I feel that I have won already. Though the insufficient challenge by the AI is its own topic, it of course ties into this dynamic as well.
Within this game, I am dominating yield-wise. Looking at the relevant markers of science and culture I am already nearing scores (both over 500) which I usually had in Civ6 only when I approached the endgame. And this is killing much of the fun for me. Why?
Well, most importantly the thrill of optimizing my city-planning for high adjacency-yields seems rather pointless, as another 10+ science for a well placed university does feel much, much less relevant in relation to the already achieved empire-wide yield. I mean, when I placed such a university in Civ6 (because I had strategically suzerained 2 science CS, sent 3 envoys to each, and maybe I had bought the Great Scienctiest with faith buffing universities ...) at a time, when I am somewhere between 50-150 science overall, this felt so much more consequential for its greater impact. Additionally, I have already won the game. What's the point of another increase then?
In that regard, the necessity for not only exploring (done that in antiquity thanks to Tonga) but also settling new city-locations does not arise with the same urgency as it would have in Civ6. At the beginning of the Exploration Age, I was able to settle a coastal town which would have greatly excited me in Antiquity for its potential as a city: Great-barrier-reef adjacent, additional reefs and maritime ressources plus a wonderful mountain range inland for juicy culture & hapiness adjacencies to top it off. This excitement simply wasn't there, when I actually settled the location in Exploration Age. Again, I was able to snowball my yields already by simply overbuilding in the two cities I had from Antiquity. This third city wasn't necessary at all.
The greater versatility of gold compared to Civ6 exacerbates the problem further: I don't need to buy builders and move them manually around to optimize my tiles. Usually this did not only take gold, but it also took time. In Civ7, once I reached an inflated gold-yield, I can use that gold to inflate my other yield further. During Antiquity I had actually settled one inland-townto connect the two coasts of my continent. This settlement was a prime-spot for monasteries. I put down 10 monasteries in one turn, further boosting my science by 40. Took me the gold-yield of 4 turns to do so. In Civ6 this would have taken me much more time, as I would have had to move my builders from tile to tile, maybe even chopping down wood or harvesting a bonus-ressource, before I'd be able to put the desired improvement down.
And not only is the settling of cities mostly as unnecessary as is an optimized city-planning, but also other instruments I'd normaly use to optimize my empire. Policy-cards, suitable CS, Alliances etc. In Civ6 I'd wrench my brain to theory-craft on all these levels. In Civ7 I feel much less nudged to do so. The game feels much less engaging from a certain point onward.
One could argue, that a more challenging AI would help with this problem and yes, of course I could play deity again. Yet I suppose there might be players who also want the feeling of being challenged below the highest difficulty-level ... and also the current yield-inflation does prove that the devs' intent to prevent snowballing in Civ7 did not only not work. It actually feels much worse in Civ7. And this is although I chose the regroup-option which was specifically designed to counter Civ's inherent tendency for snowballing.Sometimes I think, that a tweak to crises could help. As in: crises target the stronger civilizations more than the weak ones. As in: barbarians rather go on to loot wealthy civilizations or plagues rather strike more devastatingly areas that are more densely populated. I do realize that this can easily feel frustrating, if no reward is granted, if one survives such a 'stronger' crisis. Yet how to design such a reward which does not alleviate snow-balling in the next age by bloating your yields?
To summarize: I'd like yields to be toned down in such a regard, that city-planning is still important and consequential after Antiquity.
What are your impressions regard yield-inflation? Do you experience it as well? Is there a way to play with it and still having fun? What do you feel that should be done to adress the issue?
TLDR; Yields are too high too early, taking away the necessity to strategize, theory-craft and optimize. The game feels much early less engaging than previous iterations of Civilization.
