Yield value discussion (food vs others)

Discussion in 'Community Patch Project' started by Tomice, Feb 25, 2016.

  1. Wario Mario

    Wario Mario Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2006
    Messages:
    277
    Location:
    Wario Ware INC
    Faith for the most part isn't generated by number of cities. The amount generated by extra shrines and temples is rather small compared to the amount you'll get from pantheon beliefs which may or may not favor tall or wide - but that's down to the player's choice to choose those beliefs.

    Science though - even without the science per culture, you will still generate more science total with more cities than fewer. Let's say you have the chance to put down a near-worthless city (and there's nowhere else left to settle). Without that penalty, there is no reason NOT to build that city, since even if it will never generate more than 2 science, that's two science you didn't have before (plus whatever it may earn in other yields). Basically, there needs to be some reason not to spam cities everywhere.


    They do indeed provide decimal amounts - in the library's case, +0.25 per citizen.
     
  2. Gamewizard

    Gamewizard Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    1,234
    ICS is Infinite City Sprawl, or the strategy where you expand to as many cities as possible, regardless of terrain. This is why the per city science penalty was introduced, to encourage fewer, better placed cities that could grow "tall".

    I don't believe a science penalty is necessary to discourage expansion. That is what happiness is for.
     
  3. tu_79

    tu_79 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    7,370
    Location:
    Malaga (Spain)
    Ice Cream Sandwich :p
     
  4. Wario Mario

    Wario Mario Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2006
    Messages:
    277
    Location:
    Wario Ware INC
    I disagree.

    Civ3 tried to do this with "corruption" - cities gave less gold and shields (civ3's hammers) the more you had and the further away from your capital they were. But it didn't work. Even if a city was so corrupt it would never amount to more than 1 gold and shield, it was still 1 gold and shield more than not founding it.

    Civ4 tried to replace "corruption" with maintenance. The civ4 civilopedia gives this example: if 1 city costs 1 gold, 2 cities will cost 4m 3 will cost 9, 10 will cost 100, etc. The idea was that if you built cities without solidly establishing them, you'd drown in maintenance costs (buildings themselves were free). It was a step in the right direction, but more cities was still always better if you could afford it.

    Civ 5 was the first to actually have a reason not to build a city or spam them everywhere. Everyone keeps talking about happiness - but the real city limiter in civ 5 has always been the science (and to a lesser extent, culture) penalties for cities. You need to make sure a new city will at least keep you breaking even with the penalties it adds.
     
  5. tu_79

    tu_79 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    7,370
    Location:
    Malaga (Spain)
    Agree.

    Science penalty is to add variety to strategies.
    Happiness is to balance tall vs wide.
     
  6. tu_79

    tu_79 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    7,370
    Location:
    Malaga (Spain)
    We are too used to win by being tech dominant, maybe if tech leaders suffer smaller armies, smaller territories and slower production, being the tech leader won't be so appealing if you aren't going for a scientific victory.
     
  7. Wodhann

    Wodhann South American Norse God

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Messages:
    1,507
    (Un) Happiness is there to punish sloppily managed empires (without it, players could play however the hell they wanted with reckless abandon). It punishes wanton expansion, to a degree.

    Science/culture penalties are there to slow down snowballing. Without them, the player with the most cities can easily secure an unshakeable position of leadership by having better tech and more policies than everyone else, happiness be damned.
     
  8. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    18,325
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    The CBP, with the existing 1citizen:1science model, is actually more prone to benefit from ICS than the changes I propose.

    This is what I'm anticipating, truth be told. Being ahead in science generally means that you are going to be ahead in everything, because science is the 'me-too' byproduct of lots of cities with higher-than-average population. De-linking that discrete connection means that high science doesn't necessarily translate into higher production, higher population, or higher culture (as it so often does now). It'll now come down to managing food v. science v. culture v. production (with faith and gold as accelerants), which is a far more complex strategic quandary than simply maximizing growth.

    There will still be many, many benefits associated with being tech leader (first access to new units, yield increases, wonders, etc.), but there's also the associated cost of not having the biggest army, or gaining access to most of the wonders you unlock.

    To refine my earlier plans:

    • Building attributes that produce science based on x city yield (production/faith/gold/etc.)
    • 'Finisher wonders' for each policy branch (moving some existing wonders into these roles), so that players who focus on culture in lieu of science will have earlier access to some valuable wonders. Tradition, for example, may 'open' with the Pyramids, and then Finish with the Hanging Gardens. These wonders may actually be removed from the tech tree (so that unlocking the policy is all that is needed to start on them).
    • The reduction of yields from specialists early on, but a slightly more rapid increase by the mid-game (to reduce snowball from getting too many early scientist specialists)
    • The reduction in yield-inflation across the board by removing per-population yields from a few buildings in each category (and replacing them with flat bonuses)
    • The removal of the free science per citizen
    • Slight reduction of the research cost penalty from the # of cities
    • Modification of happiness system to make larger cities harder to keep happy

    I think this is a fair list. If anyone has thoughts on which wonders might best belong as openers/finishers for each branch, feel free to brainstorm.

    G
     
  9. supracseduch

    supracseduch Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2015
    Messages:
    206
    While two science is two science, the unhappiness from that underdeveloped city can easily reduce your national science output by more than that. If your science gain is at least 200, each point of local unhappiness there can cause you to lose at least 2 science per turn if your happiness drops below 10. Growth in that city makes it that much more prone to local unhappiness. If you plan to intentionally leave it underpopulated to compensate for its underdevelopment, you lose the ability to take full advantage of the yields per x population from buildings. You also find that your happiness per luxury is lower than it could've been had you not settled that extra city.

    I admit that with the stuff we have in place right now, removing the per city science penalty will undoubtedly break wide play. Of course, this is a radical change that would come with compensatory changes if it's ever implemented. It can be made to work if we wanted to. To be honest, I'm okay with the current way science works. This is pretty much just a brainstorming activity to help along with the implementation of these experimental changes, because who knows, they might end up working better. Such changes would be betas at first anyway.
     
  10. grmagne

    grmagne Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2015
    Messages:
    266
    Location:
    Toronto
    Why would a player choose to go Tall versus Wide? It seems that every incentive to play Tall is being stripped away.
     
  11. DarkZero

    DarkZero Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2015
    Messages:
    266
    This is the cpp, is there even "tall" and "wide" split anymore?

    This is a genuine question by the way because I have not played vanilla in a couple of years.

    Currently the way to beat deity is go have as many cities AS BIG as they can possibly be, a tall and wide empire is the way to go now.
     
  12. Legen

    Legen King

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2015
    Messages:
    864
    I don't think Tall's incentive should be about Wide having some penalties, but about having specific strengths. Building wonders faster, spawning more great people and having more profitable trade routes are examples of what could be incentivized, with proper tweaking. Having fewer cities also increases your tourism modifier toward civs with more cities than you.

    If Wide starts to produce far more science than Tall, we could consider raising the gold cost of roads, as Wide depends more on them to control isolation and military logistics. If starting a city connection is expensive to begin with, then the new city should be planned to develop enough to compensate for the initial gold sink.

    Tradition focus on Tall gameplay, as well as specific civs. Brazil is notable because there's a large tourism modifier for having less cities than the other civ, as well as a "50% :c5culture: culture converted to :tourism: tourism" part of the UA that only applies to the :c5capital: Capital.
     
  13. Atlas627

    Atlas627 Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    2,913
    I worry there are not enough small ways to increase science production, but it might be fine. Have to test it!

    I like the idea of removing some wonders from tech and making them policy-only. However, how will someone look up the Wonder yields? Do they have to go into the Civilopedia? Gross, but not terrible.

    For the Policy wonders, are we trying to have them be era-appropriate?

    Tradition: Opener - Mausoleum of Halicarnassus (GP bonus and early production but Construction might need a buff), Finisher - Hanging Gardens (lets you work all the specialists you now have and free gardens, makes more sense at the end, after you have built some other cities. Don't want that food to just go to waste while you build settlers)

    Progress: Opener - Pyramids (lets you expand while expanding, seems like a Progress thing), Finisher - Angkor Wat (lets you get tiles to improve since you have such quick infrastructure improvement)

    Authority: Opener - Statue of Zeus (gives you Forge for lots of production and city attack), Finisher - Terracotta Army (gives you extra army now that you've had time to build some without losing tons of infrastructure)

    Piety: Opener - Hagia Sophia (gives people a chance to jump in on the religion race if they really want Piety but have no religion yet), Finisher - Borobodor (separates the Piety completers from each other)

    Statecraft: Opener - Forbidden Palace (lets anyone get a chance to participate in the World Congress), Finisher - Summer Palace (lets the true diplomats differentiate from each other by letting their emissaries travel without open borders)

    Aesthetics: Opener - Leaning Tower of Pisa (lets anyone dip for GP production but helps Great Work GPs more), Finisher - Sistine Chapel (extra culture boost for lategame policies if you want them)

    Industry: Opener - Big Ben (lets anyone dip for extra gold spending bonus but helps more if you have tons of gold which more Industry will provide)
    , Finisher - Empire State Building (huge lategame gold boost, though it might need a small buff to be worth a finisher)

    Imperialism: Opener - Brandenburg Gate (lets anyone dip for some combat stats), Finisher - Pentagon (yes I know this is very modern but 1) civs that invest fully into Imperialism probably don't have much culture so they won't unlock this for awhile, 2) they'll unlock Ideologies first, so they need an incentive to finish the tree, and 3) this is the only appropriate effect remaining that isn't an Ideology wonder)

    Rationalism: Opener - Porcelain Tower (lets any diplomatic civ dip for research agreement boost), Finisher - CN Tower (yes I know this is very modern but 1) if you have good tech (like you would with this tree) you'll have unlocked and been investing in Ideologies instead of this tree, so it needs to be a big bonus, 2) this wonder used to provide Broadcast Towers after any civ built them, but now that helps you fill in Ideologies if you want to finish Rationalism first and risk building the wonder, and 3) its also the only growth bonus left...)

    Ideology Wonders should stay as-is.

    Note I didn't touch Great Library (everyone wants access to a free tech), Oracle (everyone wants access to a free policy), Cathedral of St. Basil (its very powerful so it would be a finisher, but the whole point is to let even religious duds get a chance to enhance, so gating it behind the whole Piety tree seems bad), Stonehenge (the point of Stonehenge is to give people a chance to be in the religious race no matter what), any wonders with terrain requirements (dont want a policy wonder to ever be a dud), any of the wonders that affect golden ages (everyone needs golden ages), or any of the tourism wonders (the whole point of the tourism rework is that everybody wants tourism). I also didn't use any Wonders from Eras earlier than the policy tree, though I did use some from later eras.

    Opinions?
     
  14. DarkZero

    DarkZero Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2015
    Messages:
    266
    Looks good to me.
     
  15. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    18,325
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    Actually looks quite good. Nice work!
    G
     
  16. Atlas627

    Atlas627 Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    2,913
    omg Senpai noticed me :blush:
     
  17. Dallandra

    Dallandra Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    96
    Those looks good overall, except for a few.

    Angkor Wat, Leaning Tower of Pisa and Sistine Chapel all provide very generic but empire-wide buffs. They're always worth getting, regardless of playstyle, because they have such generic but strong effects. In fact, I find them so essential that I always try to gun for them unless I have a really specific path through the tech tree in mind.

    Especially the latter two are very powerful for any playstyle, to the point where they by far outshine the very specific choices we have here for Piety and Statecraft. In fact, the Piety ones feel really weak in comparison, even for Civs that can make increased use of them.

    The overall idea is sound, assigning more wonders to policy trees, but Aesthetics is already such a good "generic" tree to take if you don't have as much synergy with the Piety or Statecraft tree, that it'd narrow down the numbers of Civ where I'd consider it worthwhile taking either of those over Aesthetics even more.


    tl;dr: Might be a playstyle thing, but I'd 100% pick Aesthetics over Piety or Statecraft with most Civs if those wonders are put behind that tree, removing even more early/mid-game choice.
     
  18. Atlas627

    Atlas627 Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    2,913
    I believe Faith is the flexible yield and Piety is the flexible one of the 3 mid-game trees. Aesthetics is investing culture into gaining more culture, so you'd need great culture to get any sort of return on investment. That sounds like specialization to me.

    It is totally possible for the actual numbers to be weak enough that the wonder still isn't worthwhile. For example, nearly everyone says they NEVER build the Angkor Wat. I think they will be more likely to build it if it is not competing with the other great buildings at that tech level, and it is the finisher for its tree because only 1 playstyle actually needs its buff: rapid infrastructure expansion. Tall civs tend to have enough culture/gold to get all the tiles they need because they're busy working specialists, and expansionist civs don't grow fast enough to need more tiles in any individual city.

    The opening wonders for Piety and Statecraft seem pretty generic to me. The Piety one lets you either get a religion or add significant faith production to your empire which you use on someone else's beliefs. The Statecraft one lets you participate in the World Congress DESPITE not investing into CS, but having more votes means everyone else has fewer so its still worth it for a Statecraft civ. The Aesthetic opener wonder operates similarly, providing a GP bonus that anyone would want but helps specialist-working civs far more and culture-specialist-working civs even more than that. If you haven't invested heavily in culture, can you afford taking the Aesthetics opener just to RACE for the Leaning Tower? Maybe, but someone else who did invest in culture should have opened it before you. If you haven't invested heavily in culture AND you haven't invested in specialists, it totally isn't worth it.

    If necessary, we can buff or nerf the wonders, as I suggested for a few in the first post. But I think those are the best options for the types of bonuses to provide while also being thematic. I think this might just be a playstyle thing.
     
  19. Acken

    Acken Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2013
    Messages:
    5,637
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    QC, Canada
    Don't really like binding wonders to policies even further. Feels like it will restrict you even further in your wonder choices/opportunities (basically removing 6-7 wonders from your reach). It also boosts the value of finishers and getting them quick, discouraging mixing trees (more than already). Don't know, I don't feel it promotes choices. You'll also have to balance trees around that.

    I just can't see what it really promotes or what problem it fixes.

    Edit:
    This illustrate pretty much what I'm saying... you'll build the wonder because that's the only one available to you.
     
  20. Dallandra

    Dallandra Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    96
    Then it is a playstyle thing, but the more I think about it, the less I'd ever pick any of the other policy trees at that point. Even when I don't focus on culture, Aesthetics brings more to the table than the other two medieval choices in most situations. But whatever, my opinion seems to always be the minority and my playstyle gets shafted in every mod lately, so I just don't care anymore.


    Can we at least make it an option to switch back to the current distribution of wonders to policy trees, if this goes through?
     

Share This Page