But returns do multiply historically. I'm not very comfortable with a civ game that slows down the rate of advancement as the centuries progress, with ever greater artificial penalties on growth. Multiplication of rewards is very important in order to encourage large cities, whilst diminishing rewards will ultimately encourage hordes of small cities.
A game which artificially caps growth rates for leading civilizations loses some of the 'thrill of the chase' in catching up with rivals, or keeping your lead. I noticed a lack of this in civ3, with the minimum four turns tech advancement, and the reduced cost of techs for those behind in the tech tree.
A more realistic way of keeping growth in check would be to limit the opportunities for extremely large cities by reducing the amounts of arable land in the game, and making certain resources finite.
A game which artificially caps growth rates for leading civilizations loses some of the 'thrill of the chase' in catching up with rivals, or keeping your lead. I noticed a lack of this in civ3, with the minimum four turns tech advancement, and the reduced cost of techs for those behind in the tech tree.
A more realistic way of keeping growth in check would be to limit the opportunities for extremely large cities by reducing the amounts of arable land in the game, and making certain resources finite.
Comment