Pioneers should only be able to found cities, and should cost population to produce.

Outposts should be created by selecting a valid empty tile and choosing a 'build outpost' option.  The outpost is then tied to the closest city's build queue at an appropriate cost.

That is all.

I think they're getting it right in LH. Pop cost for pioneers (or gold cost for that matter) doesn't ultimately change anything. City spam is still the answer it's just slower. More cities is still always better and the only "right" decision. By having an increasing number of cities cause an increasing empire unrest penalty (in LH) there is actually something to manage and balance expansion against.

I don't care if pioneers in the base game are free (labor cost though of course), cost gold, cost pop, it's all the same and fine by me. I'm looking forward to LH though.

This is a tough question, and in many ways it's at the heart of this great game.

Derek, here's an idea, and it could work with options 1 (the way it used to be, and still fun) or 4 (the way it is now, and also good, though the AI may struggle):  why not make the absolute number of Pioneers you can build configurable in the game set up along with the other parameters.  Unlimited Pioneers -- the current scenario -- would be the default of course.  But if you wanted a game about a few powerful city states (the Athenian League) you might choose a small map with 2 opponents and select 3 Pioneers as your limit.  Your capital is free of course, but after that you could only build 3 Pioneers total:  cities or outposts your choice, but only 3.  Interesting strategic decisions would arise:  a great tile, I really want to settle on it, but this is my last Pioneer and better tiles may be waiting in the great unknown....I have to make a decision.  With only 3 or 4 cities I am practically forced to play the highly developed city game (because of parameters chosen at game set up, along with Faction, map size, difficulty etc.).  This might also help the AI out because you could set Pioneer Limits for each AI separately (along with Faction, race etc.).  So I play a small map against two opponents with a 3 Pioneer limit all around, and I defeat the AIs handily.  Fun, but not too challenging.  Next time, I choose the same 3 Pioneer limit for myself, but give the AIs 5 and 7 Pioneers respectively for their limits.  Would this not help the AI out somewhat and the provide the further edge and challenge I wanted in that game on the small map? 

The idea has elegance because it doesn't change the way Pioneers are produced or anything fancy.  It just sets an absolute limit on the total number you can build, and lets the player choose in some sense the kind of game he will be playing.  And it allows a subtle tweak to the AI strength, if the feeling is that it is struggling with the Pop cost (which does seem like the best choice at this point).

There may be a host of reasons why this can't work, but I thought it was worth suggesting.  I think it's worth considering whatever end up doing with Pioneers.  Fits with the highly configurable experience you want to offer your players.

Maybe if you go with option 3 you could help balance it by having all factions start with a pioneer? You could also make a trait that lets you start with an extra pioneer at the cost of points. You could also add extra labour cost at that point since players and AI already have options for early expansion by starting with a pioneer.

I always felt pioneers where game dominant, rushing them was the easiest way to get a win for me. I don't think gold cost hinders that much.

I agree with this ^ because just having a gold cost the player can just take that pick that gives them 500 more gold to begin with. Still a win situation. I usually take an economic character anyways as to have an early lead in income and then get civics along with that and rush build everything I can. WIN! Also with so much money I can buy other characters into war with each other. WIN! lol

I still think building a pioneer should cost population AND money for the player and the AI gets one free pioneer from the start on higher difficulties.

I agree with splitting up the city/outpost building - pioneers build cities, scouts or someone else builds outposts.

I really like the Masters Affliction paradigm of increasing the monsters.  That way the cost of pioneers doesn't matter - the key is clearing out the monsters before you have any hope of settling.  It prevents city spamming so much that you feel relieved and accomplished when you finally get to plant one.

Doesnt taking pop cost away from pioneer mean that now nothing except earthquake and death level 5 mana spell reduces pop?

That is quite a balance shift, with pop cost population growth was important, sovereigns call and well rather useful, pop growth will be more limited by food than by speed. Shifting it to gildar weakens life and strengthens air and wealthy a lot. Furthermore faction prestige will be a lot less important.

I like most (if not all) of those proposals. Very well thought!

Isn't this already happening at least partially? A higher level city is much more important than several low level cities. If I remember correctly, gold/research production increases exponentially with each city level, so a level 5 city is like 32 level 1 cities.

The higher unrest depending on number of cities it's a good way to slow expansion. I disagree however with the distance penalty (unless it's distance to sovereign, not to capital). The city upkeep based on buildings and/or militia sound cool.

That would only slow initial expansion. Not sure if it's worth.

Would be nice  

This one is a very good idea, and makes outposts consistent with the rest of resources AND with outpost upgrading itself.

This one is also very good idea. The game engine already has this scace resource called population, so why not use it? I would even go beyond and make unit replenishment cost all resources involved. Let's say that you have a unit costing 2 crystal 1 metal and 1 pop in a group of 3 for a total of 6 crystal 3 metal and 3 pop. If the group loses one unit in battle, healing that unit should automatically reduce that 2 crystal 1 metal and 1 pop from your pool. Make economy matter.

Is it not possible to have the population cost extracted from the player when the settle button is pushed, rather than when the pioneer is queued? Then you can make all the pioneers you like, but you can only settle cities when you have the population to start the new settlement, and outposts would effectively not be hit with the pioneer pop cost.

Alternatively, can scouts create outposts while pioneers create cities?

Screwing balance in favor of the AI: that's exactly the point of higher levels (although I would agree that artificial limit in total # of cities, if confirmed, should be fixed to something not limiting in terms of gameplay)

I am not suggesting to replace all existing AI perks with this one, only toning down slightly the long term perks in favor of more initial perks

Hey Furibar, could you elaborate a bit more about the Engineering mod?

Why I like pioneers costing population:

It gives meaning to the population growth rate. It is an extra interesting reason to make a city a town, to build the well and subsequent growth buildings.

It reduces pioneer spammage - extra growth is something one really has to work for, or to wait for.

From an AI point of view, here are the times to build a pioneer when the cost population:

1 If your city has reached it's population cap, queue a pioneer so that it keeps growing (possibly keeping producing what is already queued.

2 If you have found somewhere to settle, and you need a pioneer, and your city is not about to level up, queue a pioneer.

3 If you have found somewhere that needs an outpost, and you need a pioneer, and your city is not about to level up, queue a pioneer.

4 If you are not producing pioneers fast enough, get a town and increase its growth. Or upgrade outposts so they provide growth.

Personally I don't like the idea of not choosing the more interesting cost, because it is hard for the AI. In my opinion, the interesting part of the game is the expansion, and conquest of the monsters. If the computer players are not very good, just cranking up the difficulty is an easy solution.

Suggestion - higher difficulty levels could have increased growth rate for AI players, if one cannot manage to get them to produce their pioneers strategically.

They really should separate the pioneer portion of the pioneer from the outpost ability of it. Make an "engineer" unit that does the outpost part and just let pioneers be settlers and scouts. I was surprised there was no ability to create a new pioneer type unit. When they cost population points it was even worse. At least now I can churn them out like candy and get outposts and look for settlements although it would be nice to create one that has the "monsters not likely to attack" attached to it.