I support this suggestion. Moving this value to the XML would open a lot of possibilities. It could be placed in the map type, so more "barren" map types would have a lower value and "fertile" map types would have it higher.

Me too! Please me the cap XML-based so we can lower or raise it at our discretion!

Another way to implement this would be for the maximum total for any tile to be an option set at the beginning of the game.   9 would be the default maximum but you would be able to choose numbers from say 5 to 13.    That would allow everyone to pick how they want this game mechanic to work.

Agree

How about if you can only violate the 9 yield rule in wildlands?

Yes, the "super tiles" would not be intended for starting positions, but for wildlands. This gives an additional reason for clearing wildlands as a couple of days ago another poster complained that wildlands needed more incentives to clear them.

I really like your point Derek.   And yes, exactly what you said is the point I've been trying to convey.   I miss finding that uber spot.  It's like finding a really awesome weapon.  It completely alters the game progress, and you're excited about it.   That *was* the best part about stamps.  I cleared them just to build cities.  <edit to make shorter>

I see four potential solutions that could work individually or in conjunction. Here they are in the order of coolness (in my opinion)

1.  add ability to flag a tile as contributes to a cities resources after the cap is applied.  So when You are making a stamp, you can flag that cool 3x fire node as "contributes after cap applied."  This could also allow modders to bypass the cap by flagging all tiles as "contributes after cap" if they really wanted that in their mod. ( wouldn't, I'd use it exactly as I just said )

2.  Allow it to be modded.   Particularly if we could alter said xml during gameplay, so we could add uber spells that would raise the cap dynamically.  Of course, this would require some way of seeing what the tile would be if the cap were not present.  Then we could use advanced spells and technology in our mods to tap into these difficult to utilize resources.  

3.  An adjustable cap implemented during map creation.   Leave 9 as the default, and let it adjust from 6 to 12 / no cap.   I do not dislike this solution.  

4.  Create a field around your starting position that creates the cap only for those fields.   This sounds like the most complex solution, and the least fun.   

 

Lastly, breaking game balance with a mod isn't hard.  just make a 1 production cost building that yields 10000 production.  yay. I win.  Or alter my soverign in his xml to make him level 80.  Yay. i win again.   But there are so many cool things I could DO with this ability in a mod, it would be fun for all.

Yeah I like the hardcap, I think the yields are pretty good now.  Having said that the occasional "special" tile in the wildlands or in a hard to get to location would be cool.

Great post from Kael - good to see a detailed explanation on the reasoning that has gone into it.

Derek, with respect to your reasons why you like Yield Limits:

1. I want to make a decision based on choices, not limitations. If you want me to have a choice, force me to make that choice on factors such as up-front value versus later value (production and mana are great up front, but gold takes while to accumulate). If I see a spot with 4/4/3, let met have its fullest benefits. It is no fun seeing it and expecting to have it, then learning you can't have it.

2. Spells and other effects can increase from 5/3/3 for instance and part of the value within the choice is how to develop your choice later and not just when you settle it. When I want to specialize a city in a certain way, I shouldn't have to "remember not to increase any value about X" and factor every several turns; this burdensome micromanagement is not fun. Also, mods that increase yields by changing values or through a spell become worthless unless the 9 cap is removed.

3. Controlled Pacing: As the game moves on, my ability to improve a city beyond 9 will happen. Part of the choice is that I can "go tall" by having 3-4 cities with 12 or 15 instead of 10 cities with 9.  This is far more fun, gives me a new spectrum of choice (tall vs wide, rather than forcing tall) and gives more value to the conclave/city/fortress decision. This decision gains value because with a max 9, I have the same choice every time, while if I had a town with 12, I would have to think "this would be a great fortress, but... it could also be the "best" city ever."

4. Why do we want more yields? Because some maps might "require" 5 cities with 3/2/0 as being the only options with maybe a 4/1/1. Seeing the 5/3/3 tile I saw once was in the middle of 2 other spots: a 4/1/1 and a 3/3/1 or ONE 5/3/3.  This presented me a perplexing decision that, instead of making me choose between 2 bad things, or 2 good things, would have made me choose how to play that current game. Tall or Wide.

That said, the player who knows how to change numbers in XML does so because they want a different experience; making this feature in the XML puts your idea onto the field but lets the player change it if they want to.

To answer your question about motive: I want to play a "Tall Empire" with a diplomatically peaceful game with other empires, fighting through the wildlands and doing quests until I feel my Tall Empire is ready to "Pull a Ghandi".

Still getting used to LH, great work.

Derek, while I appreciate all of your points, and agree with many of them, I still feel that making the cap an XML variable would give the dedicated, mod-prone player an extra choice while not invalidating the balance of the normal game.

After all, as someone has already mentioned, modding the XML already provides several ways to break the balance, or to "cheat" over the AI, or to circumvent meaningful choices for the player - see for example the XML defined sovereign customization points, which can be raised in order to give the player an unfair advantage...

An XML-based tile cap would have a very similar functionality, no? It would make the standard game balanced and fair, but give modders a chance to play around with it if they felt it would serve their purpose...

Having said that, I do like the idea of special, "very high yield" tiles that are found as parts of quests or in the wildlands as a special reward

Placing an Uber-City should have the opportunity cost of NOT placing 2 "good but not uber" cities.

I recently saw a game with a 5/3/2 and 3 spaces north AND south were a 4/1/1 and a 3/2/1. I chose the uber city because I prefer a style that uses less, but bigger cities, known in Civ5 as "Tall Empire".

Also, the number of unusable tiles, and the desert tiles and the city distance limits...  there is enough in store already to create a choice regarding the UBER city.

And yes, knowing one is clearly better does remove the element of a choice, but what makes me still choose is that there is NOT one good spot, and one bad spot.

Instead, there is one great spot, OR a few good spots. The only "way to go wrong" then, is having one good spot OR one bad spot, in which case fault lie not in the good spot, for being too god, but in all the spots around it for not having at least 2 other good spots to force the 1 great vs 2 good choice.  Otherwise, if my choice is between 2 bad spots, I won't have a good one in the end.

Of course, I am not arguing because i want a change in the base-game, I am arguing because I make core edits and this is one of those things I want to change. Believe it or not, LH was the first update I have done since 1.2 because I got sick of re-making all my core edits over and over and over and over...

First post, but this is really obnoxious. Please let this be moddable, it is a SINGLE player game, why force us to accept a hard cap???

I think the solution that would appease everyone the best, would be the ability to flag a tile as contributing to resources after the cap calculation.  Then the wild lands could easily be made to exceed the cap, and modders could alter other tiles as they saw fit.  Everybody wins.