Too many cities !!

[Hassat Hunter]

there will be many counter strategies to careless expansion.

Such as? And do they make up for the excess resources someone with many cities will receive?

Even if it is seen as a problem by some players, then by agreeing a self imposed limit before the game everyone can be satisfied.

That's pretty naieve. Especially in a MP-game with strangers you never seen before. Rather give us a hard limit to set in the lobby than just making "selfimposed limits" since I can guarentee you they will be broken.

play the game according to your personal preferences

Again; It's not my preference. I don't mind having many cities, but I also notice how this can lead to a resource overload.

that you can easily limit yourself to any particular number of cities in any of your SP games.

Yup, that's the whole point isn't it. That it can't in MP. This *isn't* about SP. Pretty much everything about SP is going to be invalid in MP. All assumptions people make about their uberunits making easy prey, turn 100 the game is over, many cities is no balance issue, it's all going to be different in Multiplayer. Yet people still vaunt those ideas they got against bad AI in SP as if they would still be so when playing against a Human. Like they wont counter flying temple units and such...

So what is the problem, why don't you do that if that will give more of a challenge?

Cause this isn't about "wanting challenge", it's about balance. And balance is far out if all human players can create a temple unit PER turn. Even if one city is lost, it still wont stop having many hardcore units roam the map, perked to the max. And those battles can become long and exhausting and without end if more units get throw in the battle over and over. Hence "infinite battles"...

And now I'm pointing out that by using houserules agreed with your opponents this limitation can be extended to MP games that you play.

I only believe this if indeed a hardlimit is given for the host, and it's not up to making agreements in chat. Still wont fix the balance of the game. But hey, enjoy your everlasting fights which only end if one player does something extremely stupid or is fed up... or if in someway rushed to death...

[jk_bonn]

Again; It's not my preference. I don't mind having many cities, but I also notice how this can lead to a resource overload.

For saying it is not your preference you are complaining alot here in the forum!

When you want fewer cities on map in MP then i suggest small maps, then there is no room for to much cities.

PS: If someone spam settlers in MP i think he will be rushed by the player who spam units, takes equal time to produce and cost less. New founded cities are helpless for a good time and can be conquered easy.

As you posted here:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...0#post13993900

I just noticed you can actually cycle units... there are REALLY small < and > buttons in the bottom left of the screen when a unit is selected.

For someone who didn't even known this function in the game you know very much for multiplayer game in future, pls sent us your infos from the devs to share it with us too.

So pls stop trying to missionate us to your view of the world.

As everybody posted his arguments now i think this thread is worthless to discuss any further and i vote for close.

[player1 fanatic]

I thing the biggest issue with city spamming is big "explosion" or expansion later in the game, when all core cities (that where built from single capitol) get to level 5. Then each time there is some room cleared, like beating tough monster area, or part of other world, you can almost instantly populate it with dozen or so settlers.

[jk_bonn]

Then each time there is some room cleared, like beating tough monster area, or part of other world, you can almost instantly populate it with dozen or so settlers.

Sorry but at this i must made a big LOL!

Sure, 1 place from tough monster gives room for dozen settlers, sure......

You can be happy when it gives you place for 2 cities!
Sometimes i am not sure what game are you guys playing.......

And other worlds can ( and mostly will ) be limited in setup.

[player1 fanatic]

Of course it does. Especially if it cleared out area opens a path to more tame area.

[Nepene]

Such as? And do they make up for the excess resources someone with many cities will receive?

I've often burnt through 3000 gold in one intense turn. You need those excess resources to keep it hot.

Yup, that's the whole point isn't it. That it can't in MP. This *isn't* about SP. Pretty much everything about SP is going to be invalid in MP. All assumptions people make about their uberunits making easy prey, turn 100 the game is over, many cities is no balance issue, it's all going to be different in Multiplayer. Yet people still vaunt those ideas they got against bad AI in SP as if they would still be so when playing against a Human. Like they wont counter flying temple units and such...

It's rather hard to counter a flying temple unit. Or more likely, three or four. They could take out your capitol in two or three turns. What could you do against them, other than park temple units close by? And if your temple units are at your capitol they're not out defending your gold cities or taking gold cities.

Cause this isn't about "wanting challenge", it's about balance. And balance is far out if all human players can create a temple unit PER turn. Even if one city is lost, it still wont stop having many hardcore units roam the map, perked to the max. And those battles can become long and exhausting and without end if more units get throw in the battle over and over. Hence "infinite battles"...

With lots of strong units around you can easily kill several temple units a turn. In fact I'd imagine that it would be over faster because of this. You could easily lose several thousand gold's worth of units in a single bad turn, and whoever does worse in the first battle will be much worse off for every future battle. It's an unstable equilibrium.

[UncleJJ]

Such as?....

The strategies dealing with careless city expansion would include 1) take the city and keep it, 2) take the city and destroy it, if size 2 take settler, 3) threaten the city and draw more of your troops to defend it, then either send even more troops or move the troops away and attack elsewhere.

I can guarentee you they will be broken...

I won't be playing against people that intentionally break a houserule agreed before the game. If they don't make amends I'll quit the game. I don't play against cheats.

... I don't mind having many cities, but I also notice how this can lead to a resource overload.

I doubt your fears are justified. A new city gives very little for a long time, once you take the garrison into account. Core cities are pumping out far more resources than a few small cities.

That it can't in MP. This *isn't* about SP. Pretty much everything about SP is going to be invalid in MP...

This thread started out discussing SP and most posts are about that topic. MP has only been introduced recently. I am more concerned about SP, if I play MP I am prepared to take another persons wishes into account, but I don't want this bad idea to overspill into my SP experience, unless I can disable it. Most things that apply in SP will also apply in MP, essentially a GM's AI is replaced by a player, all other aspects of the game will be the same, unless we have simultaneous turns or something weird.

I only believe this if indeed a hardlimit is given for the host, and it's not up to making agreements in chat...

Explain just how this hardlimit would work, can you? Because it adds a whole load of new problems that you have not addressed, please think about it and tell us exactly what you are proposing! Will the limit be just about settling your own cities? capturing neutral cities? capturing other players cities? What happens if you hit the limit and then want to capture another city? Can you do that? what happens when you have a quest to settle a new city or you need to build a temple to a god? Is the hardlimit still hard? Can you destroy any city at any time? What sort of hardlimit are we talking about? Say max of 35 cities per player for the whole game or does it only hold up to turn 100? What happens if one player wants a max of 30 and another wants 50?

Tell us and then explain why that is worth the trouble when we already have a working system that could be adapted by the houserules, as I proposed. Most players are honest and will stick to houserules. Those that don't will soon pick up a bad reputation.

[rash92]

why not just have a ton of options when you're starting the game? you can set it up so it works at present, you can set different hard limits like decreasing population to make settlers etc., and after you've set it and started the game, it's a hardlimit. can't see what's wrong about that. (multiplayer everyone decides on house rules and sets it up like that in options before the game so theres no cheating and it can be balanced this way or that)

[Hassat Hunter]

The strategies dealing with careless city expansion would include 1) take the city and keep it, 2) take the city and destroy it, if size 2 take settler, 3) threaten the city and draw more of your troops to defend it, then either send even more troops or move the troops away and attack elsewhere.

Going to take a long time if the opponent has 50 cities. In the meanwhile the other 49 will still produce resources. Yes, I expect many cities to change allegiance during the game. But with excess cities, that's not really an issue if you just loose a few..

Most things that apply in SP will also apply in MP

Exactly. That's why I think it would be best if any changes which will be done to balance MP will be added to SP beforehand for a thorough testing of the playerbase... Allowing MP to start with the least hassle.

What happens if you hit the limit and then want to capture another city?

It will be razed upon capture. Want to prevent that? Raze one of your own before-hand.

what happens when you have a quest to settle a new city or you need to build a temple to a god?

You'll have to sacrifice one of your cities if you want to complete it. Although temple might be done without if you have a spare holy spot.

Say max of 35 cities per player for the whole game or does it only hold up to turn 100?

Whatever the host set it to be. And everyone has to agree before the game starts...
(I hadn't even thought about allowing the option to expand the max the further the game processes. That's a good idea!)

What happens if one player wants a max of 30 and another wants 50?

You'll have to make an agreement before the game. Just like you would need to do with your negotiations with other players. Only with a lock, you can be sure it's held up, instead of finding out in turn 150 one player suddenly has more. Maybe not even noticing (gone over by capturing a city for example).

Also; settlers can still be constructed and send out as desired, only if the limit is reached they cannot construct their city. Handy for backups if one of your cities gets captured for example...

Most players are honest and will stick to houserules.

I don't share your faith in humanity I suppose. Also it would be really hard to manually keep to a limit of 100, since there is no real easy way to overview the amount of cities you possess. I suppose in both systems such needs to be added.

Those that don't will soon pick up a bad reputation.

New players can hardly know reputations. And scaring them off with several bad MP-experiences would be, well... bad.

[HozyM]

For me, having all these cities makes them so common that they're not special to have. After you get like 30 or 40 of these, one becomes just like the other in a sea of dotted cities across the map.

I'd like to see more focus put on cities by having less, make them special to have:
1. increase the spacing between 2 cities
2. decrees the size a city needs to grow from the 5 & 10 city levels.
3. increase the max level a city can grow, I believe now a city can't grow beyond 10.

Less cities that grow faster, that take up more space on the map with a higher city level cap.

[Grubnessul]

A city can growth beyond 10. IIRC it grows to like 12-13 without blessings.

I dislike a hardcap on the number of cities. If you want fast, quick games with low unit numbers, play on smaller maps.

[Hassat Hunter]

At lvl 14 the population increase becomes negative. So, 14's the max without prosperity.

[Spyre2000]

I was busy with work the last week so not around the forum much. But see there has still been little change in this thread.

I won't be playing against people that intentionally break a houserule agreed before the game. If they don't make amends I'll quit the game. I don't play against cheats.

I only believe this if indeed a hardlimit is given for the host, and it's not up to making agreements in chat...

Explain just how this hardlimit would work, can you? Because it adds a whole load of new problems that you have not addressed, please think about it and tell us exactly what you are proposing! Will the limit be just about settling your own cities? capturing neutral cities? capturing other players cities? What happens if you hit the limit and then want to capture another city? Can you do that? what happens when you have a quest to settle a new city or you need to build a temple to a god? Is the hardlimit still hard? Can you destroy any city at any time? What sort of hardlimit are we talking about? Say max of 35 cities per player for the whole game or does it only hold up to turn 100? What happens if one player wants a max of 30 and another wants 50?

Tell us and then explain why that is worth the trouble when we already have a working system that could be adapted by the houserules, as I proposed. Most players are honest and will stick to houserules. Those that don't will soon pick up a bad reputation.

I found it amusing that you suggest House Rules for city limits but when someone suggest to instead make it an option in the game you seem to reject it out right because it posses to many "problems". You just said you would quit if someone cheats. Well what if you had a house rule no more than 30 cities. All those questions you asked still apply. Would you rage quit simply because someone captured a city making their total 31? Besides things like city limit can be hard to track if you don't incorporate it into the game. In large maps where people can easily have 50+ cities are you really going to take the time to count all their cities to ensure they aren't under the limit. And how do you prove they were intentionally building past the limit as it could be pretty easy to get over zealous and make 52 cities instead of 50 if you don't bother constantly keeping track of the count.

My experience with MP games is that without some form of tracking system for reputation that "bad reputation" doesn't mean anything. House rules also only tend to get heavily used among close friends who know each other and play a lot together. They don't get adopted by the community at large unless the majority of the community agrees there is some fundamental balance issue that needs addressing, so it's there to prevent exploits. If anything it's usually the people with House Rules that get the "Bad reputation" as much of the MP community tends to view them as unable to cut it in open competition. So the House Rules crowd often breaks off into it's own subset of the larger MP community.

Yup, that's the whole point isn't it. That it can't in MP. This *isn't* about SP. Pretty much everything about SP is going to be invalid in MP. All assumptions people make about their uberunits making easy prey, turn 100 the game is over, many cities is no balance issue, it's all going to be different in Multiplayer. Yet people still vaunt those ideas they got against bad AI in SP as if they would still be so when playing against a Human. Like they wont counter flying temple units and such...

Cause this isn't about "wanting challenge", it's about balance. And balance is far out if all human players can create a temple unit PER turn. Even if one city is lost, it still wont stop having many hardcore units roam the map, perked to the max. And those battles can become long and exhausting and without end if more units get throw in the battle over and over. Hence "infinite battles"...

Honestly I don't think they are going to get the point until MP comes out. Some people just can't see the forest from the trees until they experience it themselves. And even then sometimes they try to isolate themselves in their own well constructed world (House rules) refusing the acknowledge the problem that their very own self imposed rules are trying to address, it's a form of denial.

I say people either admit something is perfect and therefore no self imposed limitations are needed. Or admit that there is room for improvement and that they actually put forth some suggestions instead of just shooting down other people's ideas. Even if that idea is adding your House Rule as a toggle option to the game because you apparently think it's worth doing or you wouldn't of made the house rule in the first place.

The game has balance issues when it comes to cities and saying you can choose not to exploit those issues is not addressing them. When or IF we actually get a competent AI I expect to see it expanding much more rapidly then it does now and overwhelming the player with large armies. So much so that it forces the players to start taking advantage of the city spam tactic just to get the needed income to make and upgrade the units needed to counter a good AI. Which is also the point, That sub-par strategies against an incompetent AI does not mean it's balanced.