City Scoring Change Idea

[Valdoroth]

The current game increases score per city linearly, despite the expenses being exponential. Therefore, I propose that cities also increase each as you have more, but not as steep of a curve as the cost. I've made a simple formula that separates the "low-high" gaps a bit more. Currently, there are only a handful of nations above 27 cities so most nations would either lower in score if below 20 cities, or increase if above that from ~100-500 score. I've included a chart to visually show it as well.
[(Current city count - 2)^2]*3

Cities	My Scoring	Current Scoring
1	0	0
2	0	50
3	3	100
4	12	150
5	27	200
6	48	250
7	75	300
8	108	350
9	147	400
10	192	450
11	243	500
12	300	550
13	363	600
14	432	650
15	507	700
16	588	750
17	675	800
18	768	850
19	867	900
20	972	950
21	1083	1000
22	1200	1050
23	1323	1100
24	1452	1150
25	1587	1200
26	1728	1250
27	1875	1300
28	2028	1350
29	2187	1400
30	2352	1450

[Micchan]

No because makes too easy downdeclares in the low range

[Prezyan]

This seems like it'd only make fighting at the upper tiers more difficult to achieve due to how the war mechanics work.

[Valdoroth]

54 minutes ago, Micchan said:

No because makes too easy downdeclares in the low range

I thought about that too. I was trying to think of a way to make it more than one slope (like a cubic function)

[Matthew Mann]

A cubic function would work a lot better. I think having the function steep for the first few cities to prevent downdeclaring and then at around 15 cities have the trough so that although it goes down slightly, because less people are there, it will have less impact on the game. This means quick score change nearer the start and end, but a slower middle.

*Let me pull up desmos and see what I can do

[Alex]

What about a function of decreasing returns to scale for cities? The extra military capability from 25 to 26 cities is arguably far less important than the extra military capability from 1 cities to 2 cities.