Megacities viable or not , you be the judge . I say its harder at the begining but when you start to roll its more rewarding then ever before
- Thread starter religiousphanatic
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I agree. Its still ridiculously broken. And with the addition of nobles and citizens giving trade routes this only makes it more powerful.
As you can see its still the same situation as in previous patches. The goddamn aqueducts that they refuse to remove.
And on top of everything the AI still struggles to get a city over 100 pops
As you can see its still the same situation as in previous patches. The goddamn aqueducts that they refuse to remove.
And on top of everything the AI still struggles to get a city over 100 pops
- 3
- 1
getting a lot of import routes from a lot of nobles looks neat, but you cant increase the income per trade route and the routes dont have the extra benefits they used to.
Wether the main focus of the city is tax money or research, focus on one detracts efficiency from the other, so i think it can be resonably good to have several large metropoli rather than one huge capital.
... I havnt played a game in 1.5 where iv really felt compelled to push the limits of pop / city efficiency in the later stages of the game, but generally, I don’t feel like its worth pouring as much influence into investments in the capital as before, as compared to building more cities and metropolises and doing other things.
... i find i can reach the point where the nobles in my capital province dynamically generate enough import slots to stay fed even while growing. After this point i will reduce the priority of this influence expenditure - in the grand scheme of things, i can increase my research eff or gold income in other ways that are sufficient (& maybe even better).
Wether the main focus of the city is tax money or research, focus on one detracts efficiency from the other, so i think it can be resonably good to have several large metropoli rather than one huge capital.
... I havnt played a game in 1.5 where iv really felt compelled to push the limits of pop / city efficiency in the later stages of the game, but generally, I don’t feel like its worth pouring as much influence into investments in the capital as before, as compared to building more cities and metropolises and doing other things.
... i find i can reach the point where the nobles in my capital province dynamically generate enough import slots to stay fed even while growing. After this point i will reduce the priority of this influence expenditure - in the grand scheme of things, i can increase my research eff or gold income in other ways that are sufficient (& maybe even better).
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
One question: Did you reach this high number of pops mainly because of enslavements during wars? (with the slaves promoting afterwards)
Often times I see people claiming a reduction of the pop growth, so that mega cities aren't a thing anymore. But as far as I recognize most of the pops are coming from enslavements during wars and only a small amount from natural growth. So a decrease of the pop growth might just make the growth mechanic obsolete, if my assumption is true and therefore it wouldn't be a good solution.
Often times I see people claiming a reduction of the pop growth, so that mega cities aren't a thing anymore. But as far as I recognize most of the pops are coming from enslavements during wars and only a small amount from natural growth. So a decrease of the pop growth might just make the growth mechanic obsolete, if my assumption is true and therefore it wouldn't be a good solution.
- 1
They're definitely viable and still probably the "meta" way to play. But I still hate them and will never do them.
- 2
- 2
- 1
Focusing on few metropolises insted of one will increase the power base of other characters if its not in your capital province so it needs to be dealt with caution.
Valid solution would be having 2 huge cities in one province, capital one, one slaves only and other one for the rest, but there will be desired ratio problem so when you have 2 of them, neither will push nobles up due the lack of population and your province will starve due the lack of trade routes. As it can be seen from the picture those RP are 70% of my nations RP and cash is like 30% of nations income in year 555 every half year i get one trade route due the promotions ,the one and only bottleneck is speed of building construction , this building are i mean at least 80% of them constructed with idea for speed and cost reduction 15% otherwise it wouldnt be possible, idea changed in first 25ish years ingame when it started to be a problem.
Regular slave is giving you 0.03 of income ,per slave ofc, my slave is giving me 0.18 so increase is quite drastical also same for RP with nobles .
- 1
- 1
As stated by most players here, the main problem with Mega cities and why they are simply better is how the building system in Imperator works. Since it provides % modifiers. A city of 200 pops will always produce more than 2 cities of 100 pops each.
Unless they revamp the building system. Mega cities would always be meta.
Unless they revamp the building system. Mega cities would always be meta.
- 1
- 1
Megacities are a thing until they add housing, crime, actual infrastructure, available space, maintenance costs of all this infrastructure (someone is going to pay for cleaning of these aqueducts, sewers and thermae), illnesses, ports throughput.
So of course you will be able to grow a supercity. But it will require money, and in return give you problems and ask for even more money.
So of course you will be able to grow a supercity. But it will require money, and in return give you problems and ask for even more money.
- 1
- 1
It still should be rewarding to grow a big city, but the scaling needs balance and the bigger the city, the bigger the challenges should be to maintain it.
Important is a somewhat fun and immersive mechanic to keep megacities in line.
There are many ways to achieve this, like different buildings at a certain size (fire department(s) with maintenance cost as one possible example or without it a megacity gets an event, where a city fire starts and you have different choices - like investing a lot of money for last minute fire fighters and rebuilding subventions = less pop deaths or you choose to not invest a lot of money, but therefore more pops are dying and maybe even some buildings get destroyed or damaged, if a building damage feature is integrated)
Same can go with diseases and/or other factors, which are implemented in an immersive way and to some extent with own required buildings. So the city management aspect becomes bigger. Don't get me wrong. This shouldn't get out of hand and being a own game within I:R, but a somewhat more complex city management system, however it looks in the end, would definitely benefit the game and would only affect larger cities within your empire = no ridiculous micromanagement!
Edit: I would be happy, if the devs adress buildings and city management as one of their main content in the next update after 2.0 Marius. Imo the current building and city system is a really great foundation, but definitely should get enhanced.
Important is a somewhat fun and immersive mechanic to keep megacities in line.
There are many ways to achieve this, like different buildings at a certain size (fire department(s) with maintenance cost as one possible example or without it a megacity gets an event, where a city fire starts and you have different choices - like investing a lot of money for last minute fire fighters and rebuilding subventions = less pop deaths or you choose to not invest a lot of money, but therefore more pops are dying and maybe even some buildings get destroyed or damaged, if a building damage feature is integrated)
Same can go with diseases and/or other factors, which are implemented in an immersive way and to some extent with own required buildings. So the city management aspect becomes bigger. Don't get me wrong. This shouldn't get out of hand and being a own game within I:R, but a somewhat more complex city management system, however it looks in the end, would definitely benefit the game and would only affect larger cities within your empire = no ridiculous micromanagement!
Edit: I would be happy, if the devs adress buildings and city management as one of their main content in the next update after 2.0 Marius. Imo the current building and city system is a really great foundation, but definitely should get enhanced.
Last edited:
- 2
Actually im not satisfied , will make a bigger one but with Etruria
- 1
.png){kind=avatar}
Im not sure how to best fix it. We could just nerf aqueducts to 3 pops for example or have a scaling upkeep costs based on the nummer of identical buildings or something. I'd personally prefer adding other systems to punish super large cities like disease/plague and bigger cities needing a public baths building for it and/or fires happening from time to time destroying buildings. I'm not sure how to solve pops in the capital having several times the output of other pops best but we could have some "unemployeed" pop type or where newly migrated pops in cities start of unemployeed and offer no benefit and just eat food and it's be up to the player to get them out of the slums into being productive.
- 2
- 2
Let's just be honest and say we want a hard cap on the number of pops a city can have and not worry about adding events that punishes player for playing well.
- 4
Nerfing aqueducts to 3 pops is just bad. Aqueducts aren't really that great save a few cities within your empire. This would simply make mega cities harder to start but once you get it going it would still not solve the issue.
- 3
I still say that a stop-gap solution to the problem of megacities is to cap the possible productivity gains from buildings. Should be straightforward to implement, rebalances City Buildings to actually have a use in small cities.
- 2
You disagreed with me on pop hard cap but proceed to propose building hard cap? How is it any different? And how does that work anyway? Cap it at a percentage? Give a bonus percentage but give limit on how high the actual result numbers can go?
Yeah, I disagree with having an arbitrary cap on the number of Pops you can have in a Territory. I'm perfectly fine having the # Pops in a Territory uncapped, I think the issue is the efficiency of each Pop is currently uncapped, I'd rather see efficiency controlled instead.
It would work as stated in the link: Buildings provide a bigger bonus, but they apply to a # of Pops each, rather than every Pop in a Territory. The upper limit of efficiency for every Pop is therefore defined, and buildings are used to reach that limit. You can have other factors change that upper limit, as long as they aren't stackable (eg. Major River/Ports gives a higher Max Efficiency for generating Trade Routes, or Metropolis provides a boost to Max Efficiency) to give you a reason to favour building up some territories over others.
- 2
As I see it, very large cities are not currently much of a "problem" as compared to earlier patches.
The problem lies in the built-in discrepancy between the value of buildings and other modifiers in large cities as compared to smaller ones. it's not hugely beneficial to stack pops, but it is up to a point clearly more beneficial than the alternative - and the falloff is simply that of opportunity cost and gradual trivialization of the resources produced. There's not really any dynamic incentives or considerations - nor any risk involved in building one or a few cities very big (outside multiplayer where 1 big city paints a bullseye on your forehead)
Large cities are fun, and IR arguably has an underrated foundation for a civ builder, as it allows granular management but doesn't require consistent micromanagement everywhere as Stellaris does.
I think very large cities should stay a thing, and potentially be made stronger under optimal circumstances... But I think the growth / size of cities deserves another dimension in terms of game mechanics. I've made this argument before: Sqiualor
forum.paradoxplaza.com
The problem lies in the built-in discrepancy between the value of buildings and other modifiers in large cities as compared to smaller ones. it's not hugely beneficial to stack pops, but it is up to a point clearly more beneficial than the alternative - and the falloff is simply that of opportunity cost and gradual trivialization of the resources produced. There's not really any dynamic incentives or considerations - nor any risk involved in building one or a few cities very big (outside multiplayer where 1 big city paints a bullseye on your forehead)
Large cities are fun, and IR arguably has an underrated foundation for a civ builder, as it allows granular management but doesn't require consistent micromanagement everywhere as Stellaris does.
I think very large cities should stay a thing, and potentially be made stronger under optimal circumstances... But I think the growth / size of cities deserves another dimension in terms of game mechanics. I've made this argument before: Sqiualor
Squalor - A mechanic that dynamically disincentivices and disperses extreme concentration of pops
(edit: this was submitted on August 20 and was voted on enough to get third place in the SPQR that week) Background - population efficiency and large cities: After the changes to the population and trade systems in 1.5 its become clear that the...
- 3
Guys, its not so easy to scyscrape like you are discribing it as a problem , i had to move shitload of slaves in entire campaign, maybe 20% is from migrations the rest is from movement.
Every 5 or 6 years depending on the pop capacity , you do need to invest quite a lot of time for this to work ,definitely not so easy effort like how it was before and ammount of pi which you need to spend what you can use on somthing else is amazing
Every 5 or 6 years depending on the pop capacity , you do need to invest quite a lot of time for this to work ,definitely not so easy effort like how it was before and ammount of pi which you need to spend what you can use on somthing else is amazing
- 1
Why is the first bold arbitrary and not the second? How would you put a satisfying number in that #? What's stopping me in putting forth a rationale of my own in the number of pop cap? I mean, now that I look closer to your proposal, it's really great for a "build and forget" approach. Since there is really no point in growing cities, then every city you conquer just need to make sure it conforms to one of the building templates and just forget about it.
Way I see it, this is this forum's version of EU4 forum's anti-blobbing complaints, which will not stop until WC is mechanically impossible. And accordingly, I think this also will not stop until megacities are not a thing anymore.
Last edited: