Gwenio1

Join Date 09/2010

+21

[Idea] Adminstration Cost

(not city maintainence)

To fix the spamming of cities, I suggest that there be an adminstration cost that is based on how many cities you have, and how spread out they are. It should be virtually none existant factor when only a few cities are owned (say four cities before it reaches a cost of one gildar), and the cost would increase more quickly the more cities are controlled. To measure spread out, for every N tiles the city is away from the next nearest town it adds an addition "city unit" to the adminstration cost (this would only apply when two or more are owned). The alternative (or as an additional factor) would be cities whose influence does not link to another cities' would count twice.

The admistration cost would simulate all the things that make running a large nation expensive: having orders delevered, moving resources to where they are needed, corruption in the officials of cities far from the capital, ect.

City spamming might still be common in the early game, but then as the game progresses it would become less worth while and many smaller cities would be removed, simulating the movement for small villages to large cities as civilaztion advances.

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

To add to the initial idea, there would be a re-researchable upgrade under civilization that reduces the cost so it does not become pointless to get more towns late in the game on large maps.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Similar to the 'maintenance' cost in Civ IV.

Overall, I'm in favor of ideas like this. They just need to be balanced for map sizes and different play styles. It shouldn't be impossible to create a massive empire, it should just be very hard to create and maintain that empire, which is realistic and adds gameplay challenge.

Successfully updated karma reason!

It would scale somewhat as things are now, as larger maps have longer games which result in more research of the upgrades the continually increase resource production. As I said earlier, there could also be a new upgrade specifically to reduce the cost of having a large realm. Then the cost would scale naturally with the size of the map. (Technically, better tech does make control lots of land easier)

Successfully updated karma reason!

Scaling can of course be either Linear or Exponential

Exponential works well to make early growth easier "low cost for first few then large increases" eg - (Citynum-4 (min 1)) squared gildar per turn.

Linear works well for longer games, as it makes growth early-on hard, but late-on easy (as you have more gold, etc).

Then for possible technologies:

1) Provinces - the skill of managing provinces, parts of your kingdom that are semi-independant, is a task the romans learnt well. It drives down administration costs while keeping them "yours" - (1/2 cost maintainence - )

2) Colonies - granting independence - one of your cities becomes a 'neutral' city... but begins with a very friendly attitude to you and a full trade agreement of their resources - (no maintainance from that city)

3) Advanced administration - learn how to better manage local cities from your base city - (discount all cities up to 9 squares away from first city)

4) Super-duper advanced administation - up to 14 squares away

5) Efficient administation (base calculation ignores more cities - larger effect on exponential measurement).

(3/4 based on distance, 5 on number of cities - do you have a tight ring or a spread-out blob of cities?)

Successfully updated karma reason!

The idea is to encourage the player to no build a large number of cities with no valuable resources or strategic value, so upgrades that make packing cities close together are not a good idea, but upgrades that generically reduce the cost would be good.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Id' say the idea is to give people the choice to or not, but that there are consequences for either choice (rather than browbeating them into not doing something).

If someone wants to build cities close, with no benefit, and then spend (waste) techpoints to reduce the cost of those cities which provide little benefit then let them! Note, none of the above enable you to break the 5-square rule!

Anyway, sometimes resource distribution and landshape determine distribution more so than hardcore strategy!

Successfully updated karma reason!

I had just rather not encourage it by helping only those near the capital, though after thinking about it weighting cities by distance might be a good idea. I think a formula like DistanceToCapital / XY = I, where X is a constant based on map size and Y is a variable that starts at one and increases each time you research a specific tech. The sum of I for every city is added up and placed in another formula that calculates adminstration cost (likely exponitial, so cost is low for a small kingdom and high for a large one).

Successfully updated karma reason!

Definitely!

Another alternative is a CIV-like Forbidden Palace, etc, which makes the calculation (lower distance of capital/palace) / XY.

I guess in the end I personally dont want to stop city spam per se, but I want to see it be one strategy option, rather than the main/default strategy option. Similarly, people right now can really focus on one tech tree, or spread it around.

If the only way you could city spam was with

a) good resource support (possibly, but not necessarily, .05 food per population point + city maintainence costs)

and/or

administration techs (that make administration possible with reductions to the ratio (note other techs can help too, and magic), etc)

Then you make city-spamming a strategic option, not the bane that many people see it as, and the choice to do it would limit you in other ways. Sure, build your mega empire ... more cities for me to invade, blast to shreds, trade to YOUR enemies, etc.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Later I will be posting a more refined version at https://forums.elementalgame.com/397068 that will have both the distance idea and something similar to the forbidden palace. The target result is building the smallest number of strategicly important cities and building as many cities as possible are equally valid and effective strategies.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Look forward to it, and commenting on it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Posted it, though I will be editing in the reasoning for this model (but it is the same as in the first post here).

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'd rather have a Building-based maintenance cost. (and perhaps have buildings/population matter a bit more??)

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Tasunke,

reply 12

I'd rather have a Building-based maintenance cost. (and perhaps have buildings/population matter a bit more??)

Some of the big buildings with an impact on the game compairable to that of a company of soldiers should, but I am not a fan of having all buildings take upkeep. It does not have to be one or the other, it could be both.

Successfully updated karma reason!

well, for instance, if your population gave you gold ... most all buildings could cost at least 1 gold per turn, and better buildings costing more. (except for housing of course, basic housing shouldn't have maintenance)

that might allow for larger armies to be possible as a trade off for not having all the best buildings.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I am moving over to https://forums.elementalgame.com/397365 for posting my ideas for cities and the economy as a whole. I would prefer to flesh out the idea of building maintainance there. It sounds like something that could be interesting if done correctly, but needs to be well thought out.

Successfully updated karma reason!