I don't know if this is already suggested but I think if that random events like in EUIV would be interesting. It will give you the feel that you controll an empire with problems etc. and the decisions could help with specializing different cities.

A potential method (that would have a lot of development costs associated with it) for curbing borough spam is to have city improvements take up space on the board, with boroughs providing additional control area as well as their other bonuses.

The-Cat-o-Nine-Tales, agreeing with a lot of what you said.

I would personally also like to see a soft cap.

Workers tasked to buildings would be an interestingfeature to play with; not too sure on the implementation end.

DevildogFF wrote:
How about using influence only for diplomatic negotiations and for random events?

Doing away with the Empire Plan or shifting it to a different resource?

I am partial to the idea of an Empire Plan, but current implementation is less than stellar.

Barabbas wrote:
IMHO Every borough should have a hard cap # of improvements, but as you add boroughs/districts, you increase the total possible # of improvements.

If Amplitude would fix the approval/boroughs connection I'd be on board for a cap like this.

Hard caps don't feel nice, but they can be easier to balance.

BadgerTemplar wrote:
Would you guys rather have a hard cap to building #s (You can only ever have X buildings per Y in a city) or a soft cap (Increase dust upkeep, purchase building plots)?

There is already a game mechanic for growing cities, so why limit it to either?

IMHO Every borough should have a hard cap # of improvements, but as you add boroughs/districts, you increase the total possible # of improvements.

How about using influence only for diplomatic negotiations and for random events? Like, you're presented with a problem as a random event and you can use influence to either super fix it using a lot of influence, sorta fix it with a bit of influence, or don't fix it using no influence.



Stuff like that.

Diplomacy does still feel rather empty. I want options to threaten other factions with war to make them agree to a trade, instead of just outright declaring war or having to bribe them with a ton of resources and worthless tech. I want options to mediate between other empires or trick them into aggression towards one another (a feature which feels crucial for playing the Roving Clans). Perhaps even an era 5 or 6 ability to form a council as part of an alliance, and then enact decrees that affect all members of the alliance if they are accepted by the majority, like world-wide trade pacts, etc. Depending on decrees in effect, perhaps anybody who leaves the alliance automatically declares war on all remaining members.



Random events that give the player a choice of how to react could be fun, if done right. However, if the outcome of a choice is not fixed, the player should still at least get a reasonable impression of what results are likely.



Science certainly can feel "underpowered" when your production capabilities fall behind your scientific progress. The same is true for Food: It feels mostly useful for getting more population to construct additional boroughs, and once the boroughs get prohibitively expensive, population growth feels a lot less important.



The hero skill trees are a prime example of lack of choice in many cases. I think ranged heroes in particular do not get any branches at all in their class tree. More meaningful choice for hero skills with less forced multi-tasking is required.





As far as hard or soft caps on buildings are concerned, I'm not usually in favor of hard caps, as they often call for a hard counter to allow growing the city. However, I think that they could be implemented well if boroughs, city size, and other factors are taken into account. Though I will say that if Amplitude implemented a hard cap on the number of buildings in a city, I would love to see "city screens" like in the Heroes of Might and Magic series. Those beautiful city views in HoMM3 and HoMM5 were what made me fall in love with that series.

Another idea for soft-capping buildings would be to rely on population rather than Dust upkeep. Any building that provides flat bonuses would require population to maintain at full efficiency, e.g. the Foundry providing its full 6 Production bonus only if a worker is assigned to a "buildings" tab, and drops to +2 production if not supported. That would require some GUI changes, though.

Zenicetus wrote:
For me, a good 4X game is one where I can prop up an ally on the far side of my main conquest target with bribes or gifts, to take some pressure off my immediate target. Even better, if I can manipulate two other factions to go to war with each other, to cut them down to size before I have to deal with them directly.

This! Diplomacy is only good for something if there's something I can do with it.

DevildogFF wrote:
I think the idea of building limits, i.e. 3 buildings per city core, 2 per borough (or something like that), is a really good start towards curbing "building spam" and can open up specialization cities.

Would you guys rather have a hard cap to building #s (You can only ever have X buildings per Y in a city) or a soft cap (Increase dust upkeep, purchase building plots)?

DevildogFF wrote:
yeah, this is why I don't like influence being used for empire plans. Leaves absolutely no benefit to appeasing other players with influence.

What are other options for influence? Spend it in marketplace? Or should it just remain a diplomacy resource?



Also, anyone else feel life Food and Science are underpowered?

Do the Hero trees feel empty or do the branches not make sense to other people?

DevildogFF wrote:
I think the idea of building limits, i.e. 3 buildings per city core, 2 per borough (or something like that), is a really good start towards curbing "building spam" and can open up specialization cities.

Yup, that would force you to specialize and grow wide, or if you want to grow tall, there have to be other constraints. Eador and FE:LH come to mind.

Lommeclan wrote:
I don't know if this is already suggested but I think if that random events like in EUIV would be interesting. It will give you the feel that you controll an empire with problems etc. and the decisions could help with specializing different cities.

I support this randomness. Rome 2, a mess as it was, did that right, I think. Every so often I was confronted by some crazy relative who took too much interest in surgery or a politician who wanted to sail down the Tiber in a party boat. It kept me making choices whose outcomes were random.

DotBeta wrote:
Some very good points made in this thread.



I only play games on random faction aside from when a new faction is added, one thing I can definitely agree on is that I always pick the same 8 tech with the other 2-4 more being optional depending on the situation, the only difference is which order I research them depending on my first city. the first era feels like a grindfest to me, especially every 20 turns when I know exactly how many points I need for my empire plan. I completely ignore influence until the last few turns then dump one of my city's pop into influence and pop a luxury resource like dye to further boost it, setup my empire plan then set my city's pop back to normal and forget it exist until just before the next empire plan rolls around.

yeah, this is why I don't like influence being used for empire plans. Leaves absolutely no benefit to appeasing other players with influence.

I think the idea of building limits, i.e. 3 buildings per city core, 2 per borough (or something like that), is a really good start towards curbing "building spam" and can open up specialization cities.



That, and the addition of mutually exclusive buildings (you want the foundry? well, that space was either for a foundry or an academy, so no academy in this city...) would go a long, long way towards fixing this issue.



I hate (but also admire) that the French don't "work" on weekends, haha. Never see anyone from Amplitude here on weekends!

Some very good points made in this thread.



I only play games on random faction aside from when a new faction is added, one thing I can definitely agree on is that I always pick the same 8 tech with the other 2-4 more being optional depending on the situation, the only difference is which order I research them depending on my first city. the first era feels like a grindfest to me, especially every 20 turns when I know exactly how many points I need for my empire plan. I completely ignore influence until the last few turns then dump one of my city's pop into influence and pop a luxury resource like dye to further boost it, setup my empire plan then set my city's pop back to normal and forget it exist until just before the next empire plan rolls around.

I really like what EL has to offer so far. Amplitude has fixed a ton of bugs in a short matter of time and is constantly releasing new content.

However, there are some things that I haven't seen addressed previously or fixed to my satisfaction.

This is my opinion on a few design choices and function implementations that I think need to be revisited.

My apologies if this comes across as a tad ranty.



#1: A lack of tooltip clarity

The tooltips that are in game function well. The missing tooltips greatly impede the players ability to make tactical choices.

I know Amplitude has said they are planning on adding more, I just want to see the priority of tooltips bumped up.

Especially Capacity and Research tooltips.

It feels bad to get information about a choice you have made only after you have made it.



#2: A hard focus on combat

Player interaction is currently limited to soft poking through diplomacy and hard stomping through combat.

Amplitude has alluded at other win conditions, but nothing really exists.

Sure, you can win by points IF you can survive a military rush.

To me, Beta = balance.

You cannot balance the rate at which combat wins you the game if you do not have the other win conditions or scenarios to playtest against it.

More exploit, less exterminate.



#3: A plethora of illusion of choice

Right now, build order is king.

I would argue that if someone ran the numbers we could find a First Order Optimal build order that would

guarantee a military rush victory based on the industry, dust, and strategic resource your city starts with.

Once something like that exists, playing a game becomes a matter of pressing buttons in a pre-determined order until victory is achieved.

How droll.



This exists because a lot of the "choices" offered in EL aren't really viable options to achieve a win.

Sometimes this occurs because EL is not feature complete or because numbers need to be adjusted. That's ok.

I don't like the focus of Order > Option. I don't like Dead Ends and Sporadic Choice.



ORDER > OPTION

Some Research is necessary (Rookery) others overpowered (Mill Foundry).

I could choose to research something else, but I wouldn't win, so that's not a choice.

Most games I will research the same 10 things in each era, only altering the order in which I research them based on my first city's FIDSI.

I want to feel like I have more choice than "those 30, rearrange the order of the first 5".

Build everything, alter order based on starting FIDSI.

Plop the hero from X faction good at Y FIDSI in Y FIDSI city, level them the same way every game.



DEAD ENDS

Ever built up a city based entirely around gaining science?

Ever specialized your empire into influence generation?

Ever settled in a grassland to max out food production?

Why is it an option if it's a mistake you make once?

I'm not saying take it out of the game, but instead make it a usable choice.

Some Hero trees aren't trees; they offer 1 choice followed by 1 choice followed by 1 choice.

Why is that a tree?



SPORADIC CHOICE

This crops up big time in Hero skill trees.

Sometimes in order to reach a skill great for a governor I have to take 2 skills good for a general.

That may be ok if I was going to reassign that hero, but that's five turns of time he isn't earning XP.

XP I need him to earn if I have to dual spec to achieve effectiveness.



IDEAS FOR FIXING THIS:

-Introduce new win condition-

Even retaining FOOs, multiple win conditions forces a player to make a choice of what FOO to use.

Choices become about sticking with a path or abandoning it.

Some research and buildings can be specialized with a specific path in mind;

making them optimal choices some times instead of: Always, Never, or In What Order.



-Re-balance FIDSI numbers (tiles, buildings, governors)-

Industry and dust are powerful right now.

Build everything grants more FIDSI than tiles, and stockpiles can be traded for other resources.

Dust can be used to buyout all buildings and stockpiles.

Food is only useful as long as population is useful.

Making use of population requires Science and Industry to research and build structures to increase population effectiveness.

Science can only be used to research. It has no other value.

It seems stronger to build more cities to capture science on tiles and through mass quantities of science buildings than to spec a single city into science.

Influence seems off on its own island.

Dust and Industry build into buildings to increase influence, but there's no exchange from influence to another FIDSI.



-Make buildings and research more faction dependent-

The Wild Walkers and Broken Lords are interesting and the Vaulters suffer economically.

Giving more unique research and building options related to their key FIDSI/play style/win style to factions makes encourages different play styles.

It also gives you more ways to balance each faction than "Nerf a universal building" or "Buff a faction specific unit"

ie. The Vaulters need some way to spend the extra science they accrue on other FIDSI OR science alone needs to be a way to win.

THESE DIFFERENCES SHOULD NOT BE RELATED TO QUESTS: quest completion is too difficult to balance between races or guarantee within a game.



-Don't use trees unless you are using the whole tree and keeping branches distinct-

World of Warcraft ditched their talent trees when it became apparent there was only one viable path.



-Don't punish a player for not taking a research-

Diplomacy. Markets. These seem like universal game features to me, not play styles.

I could be wrong, but if a research feels universally necessary, why not just have it unlock at reaching an era?

Having more things unlock at each era milestone would also make science rushing to unlock eras a more usable strategy.

Go science!



-Research should be based around FIDSI type, not tile-

-Research could unlock multiple structures-

-Offer FIDSI exchange research/buildings-

Dust Dredger and Lumber Mill are only as efficient as an Empire Mint IF every city you settle has water/forests.

This is less a concern with the BL or WW heroes being efficient on water/forests as heroes are a city by city choice;

research is an empire wide commitment.

I propose greatly increasing building variety and increasing the number of buildings a research unlocks.

Tile makeup is the most unique thing about a city, exploit that.

EL buildings only use an icon and XML information; they are incredibly studio resource efficient, exploit that.

i.e. Instead of researching Mill Foundry, you could research tier 1 Industry Structures.

This gives you a Lumber Mill (trees), Quarry (rocks), Water Wheel (water), and Glass Maker (sand).

Each would have costs and bonuses that reflect the nature of the tile.

This encourages good city placement, encourages city specialization, offers cities messed up by RNG a less efficient (but present) option,

and does not punish a player for spawning near regions they otherwise could not settle in at all. e.g. BL in grassland.

FIDSI exchange buildings would help RNG'd cities create the FIDSI you need to achieve your goals and

make specializing cities less detrimental if you must make a drastic strategy shift.



-Make trade routes carry a % of a cities FIDSI-

This encourages connecting and specializing cities.



-Greatly increase building upkeep OR introduce building slots-

-Increase the penalty for a cities dust income being negative-

Limit the ability for a city to just build everything.



#4: Approval, Boroughs

The whole approval system is wack.

Why is it in the game? Approval seems to function as a softcap for limiting empire growth.

It hits both sides of the 4X expand by limiting your capability to grow tall and wide.

Why does EL use approval to do this?



In my mind, approval is logically linked to the state of a city;

NOT ITS SHAPE, SIZE, OR NUMBER OF NEIGHBORING FRIENDLY CITIES.

I think war, FIDSI output optimization, available resources, sanitation, and entertainment should all influence a population's approval more

than those three things listed above.

I understand wanting to curve expansion. But why is the approval system the tool for the job?



And why does approval (through the boroughs system) limit the optimal shape of you city?

The 0.5.10 AI makes marvelous snaking cities that are incredibly FIDSI (thus Expand and Exploit) efficient.

BUT once the approval system is added to the mix, those otherwise good cities become hell holes. Why?

It is so nice that Minor Faction Camps, Ruins, and Water are not FIDSI dead zones,

BUT I CANNOT EXPLOIT THOSE ZONES BECAUSE THE APPROVAL SYSTEM FORCES ME TO BUILD CITIES IN ONE OF TWO SHAPES

SO I MUST AVOID THOSE SPACES LIKE THE PLAGUE.

Please revisit this system, not the numbers, but the ideas behind approval and city leveling.

What is it, what does it do, and how does it do it.



Thank you for taking the time to read all that, hearing from anyone else on these ideas would be great.

DevildogFF wrote:
What about EU4?

When they release the ultimate version with all dlc, I'll get it.

Zenicetus wrote:
Right, we need more diplomacy options, as long as it doesn't make the game too easy for steamrollers. Maybe trade is the key?



For me, a good 4X game is one where I can prop up an ally on the far side of my main conquest target with bribes or gifts, to take some pressure off my immediate target. Even better, if I can manipulate two other factions to go to war with each other, to cut them down to size before I have to deal with them directly.



It's still early days, so I hope EL will offer this kind of diplomatic flexibility.

Doesn't exist at the moment in EL, though Roving Clans look very interesting.

EcthelionHelm wrote:
I also don't like how the only way to interact with other players is to ignore them, or go to war. Very little ability to work together, can't use political power (ala council / city states CiV), no economic competition via wonders, trade is one way, and I doubt espionage / market will add much more interactivity.

Right, we need more diplomacy options, as long as it doesn't make the game too easy for steamrollers. Maybe trade is the key?



For me, a good 4X game is one where I can prop up an ally on the far side of my main conquest target with bribes or gifts, to take some pressure off my immediate target. Even better, if I can manipulate two other factions to go to war with each other, to cut them down to size before I have to deal with them directly.



It's still early days, so I hope EL will offer this kind of diplomatic flexibility.

Definitely agree on several points:



Not enough MEANINGFUL choices. Plenty of options, but only as small variations or sub optimal choices. Yes we can only choose 10 techs from tier 1...but there are probably 5 must have, 3 that are nice, and a few that are useless or only useful in specific cases.



The approval/terrain/Burroughs/uniform blob for each city system is awful



I also don't like how the only way to interact with other players is to ignore them, or go to war. Very little ability to work together, can't use political power (ala council / city states CiV), no economic competition via wonders, trade is one way, and I doubt espionage / market will add much more interactivity.

What about EU4?

DevildogFF wrote:
How is it a problem is CIV V? The policy tree and various win conditions give reason and ability to specialize.

The problem with Civ 5, as usual with games of this type, is the mostly uniform tech tree. Every faction moves through the same tech tree, and your choices don't matter that much because every faction has to move through it in a similar way, with only minor differences. You get the Aztecs moving through the same Western/Classical tech as if they're a European faction, instead of developing their own unique and very different economies and tech.



The way you break that 4X game curse is with a strongly differentiated tech tree for each faction, like the final Twilight of the Arnor expansion for GalCiv2, so there is no uber-winning strategy you can use for every faction.



I'm still hoping to see EL move in this direction, but right now it seems to me that the differentiation is mainly in faction combat styles, and not on the strategy level. There is still time to fix this, and it's not a game-breaking problem *yet*. But it's the one thing that gives a game like this "legs" and replayability... the motive to play again as a different faction because it actually does play very differently. They're getting closer in EL than in ES, but it's not there yet.

DevildogFF wrote:
How is it a problem is CIV V? The policy tree and various win conditions give reason and ability to specialize.

Not really. At each difficulty there is an optimal way to play and the only variability depends on your starting resources and where you settle. The different wining conditions create variability, but often you start your game with an idea of how you want to win, and have to settle on something else.



The only variability in cities is due to exploitable resources within your initial 3 tile radius because at higher difficulties the comp AI likes to forward settle like a mofo. Each city ends up being identical except the world or national wonders, but that's about it.



In MP, there is little to no variability. People have a winning strategy and when you try to get cute, you get demolished.



That's just my experience though.

Nasarog wrote:
The lack of specialization is a problem in CIV5 and Warlock. Eador and FE have some interesting choices that matter.

How is it a problem is CIV V? The policy tree and various win conditions give reason and ability to specialize.