06-01-2005 04:13									#1
	Urban Sprawl? (like ctp2) Full PM-box? Change here!

I like how cities expand in ctp2:

Size 1-6 the citizens occcupy the ring of 8 tiles around the city (each citizen occupies 1/6 of a tile

size 7-18 they occupy the classic civ X shape city site

as population grows, the city radius expands.

Ctp2 also automatically assigns workers to tiles, this streamlines the game, and to my surprise IMHO doesn't detract from the game.

I'm sure I haven't included all varaints in my poll, so post any others here.

	07-01-2005 20:03									#2
	Tired of ads?

I'm not sure. On the one hand it's realistic that the radius expands with the population, OTOH it doesn't make planning easier. In the long run I want big cities, maybe - but in the short term I want many cities, or I'm disadvantaged. Maybe it should become possible to "unite" nearby cities, like New York, Brooklyn etc?

	07-01-2005 21:16									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

CtP2's system is stupid and has the opposite effect that it should, because urban sprawl doesn't occur over the scale represented by a dozen tiles. Urban sprawl in civ scales would be represented by more densely packed cities, not less densely packed ones.

	07-01-2005 21:51									#4
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Its not even "urban sprawl". In CtP2 the radius a city collects resources from expands as the city grows, which makes sense. Its got nothing to do with densely packed cities.

I prefer the civ system still but only because in CtP2 it isnt balanced right WRT tile improvements and specialists.

	07-01-2005 22:01									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Its not even "urban sprawl". In CtP2 the radius a city collects resources from expands as the city grows, which makes sense.

Not really, not in the way CtP2 does it. NYC doesn't collect resources from some expanding radius around it, it gets resources from all over the place. The problem is that the entire system is broken once one goes into modern times, and a lot before as well. Egypt fed Rome. There's no way to have that happen in C3 or CtP2, and it's somewhat clunky in C2.

	07-01-2005 23:27									#6
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker quote: Its not even "urban sprawl". In CtP2 the radius a city collects resources from expands as the city grows, which makes sense. Not really, not in the way CtP2 does it. NYC doesn't collect resources from some expanding radius around it, it gets resources from all over the place. The problem is that the entire system is broken once one goes into modern times, and a lot before as well. Egypt fed Rome. There's no way to have that happen in C3 or CtP2, and it's somewhat clunky in C2.

It makes more sense than a fixed border for the whole of history.

Of course if someone wanted resource collection could be changed in any way in CtP2, it will never change in civ3.

	08-01-2005 00:32									#7
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker CtP2's system is stupid and has the opposite effect that it should, because urban sprawl doesn't occur over the scale represented by a dozen tiles. Urban sprawl in civ scales would be represented by more densely packed cities, not less densely packed ones.

Not necessaily true - here in Chicago, sprawl is continually occuring outward. Areas that were farmland 10 years ago to the west of the city are now suburbs and are considered part of the Chicagoland metro area.

Having said that, scale is a laughing matter in all civ games, because none of the games accurately reflect it.

	08-01-2005 01:24									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Not necessaily true - here in Chicago, sprawl is continually occuring outward.

Sprawl is not expanding a few hundred or a thousand miles outward. It's still within one tile on a map.

	08-01-2005 01:26									#9
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Maquiladora It makes more sense than a fixed border for the whole of history.

Not really. CtP2's system ensures that the optimal arrangement of large cities is *very* far apart, when the opposite is true - in reality, the large cities cluster together, and other areas stay very rural. If the world was CtP2, some city in the middle of the Midwest would grow to 20 times the size of NYC.

	08-01-2005 01:50									#10
	Full PM-box? Change here!

When I left the city Pheonix in '87 it was 650 square miles 2/3 the size of the state of Rhode Island, they kept on annexing dessert. Cities most often expand by adding subburbs. The metropolis from Boston to Washington DC is one example, another is Los Angeles.

If a city's population doesn't expand upward it has to expand outward, or get more cramped.

	08-01-2005 02:40									#11
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Not really. CtP2's system ensures that the optimal arrangement of large cities is *very* far apart, when the opposite is true - in reality, the large cities cluster together, and other areas stay very rural. If the world was CtP2, some city in the middle of the Midwest would grow to 20 times the size of NYC.

And consider that the NY metro area consists of many smaller cities in New Jersey, as well as suburbs. Heck, even LA is one huge collection of city-sized suburbs which, last I checked, are entities in of themselves while still part of the LA umbrella

Same with Chicago...
Naperville, and Aurora both have 100,000+ people each, yet are considered part of Metro Chicago.

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Sprawl is not expanding a few hundred or a thousand miles outward. It's still within one tile on a map.

Please go back to the second half of my post - scale, as represented in a civstyle game is laughable.

Anyone here believe that it takes many turns for a ship to sail across an ocean while a train can haul units across the map in one turn??

Happens in the civ3 world all the time...

	08-01-2005 08:00									#12
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

People who know me, knew this was coming....

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker quote: Not necessaily true - here in Chicago, sprawl is continually occuring outward. Sprawl is not expanding a few hundred or a thousand miles outward. It's still within one tile on a map.

quote: Originally Post in the List Worker builds suburbs I have also be wanting a good way to deal with Urban Sprawl/Suburbs. Currently, for astetic reasons, I use the Urban Sprawl graphic for rail roads. Looks good, but then you get the Urban Sprawl everywhere. I have been wanting a "Suburb" tile improvement. The graphic would be similar to a "town". Suburbs would only be allowed to be built in the inner eight squares surrounding the actual city (maybe even giving cities the ability to build naval/costal things even if they are one tile back of the coast) and only on flat terrain (Grassland, Plains, Desert). Have a suburb add one or two of each food/shield/commerce (added food to show that the city is now larger population wise, added shield to show that there is infact more than one city working to complete something, and added commerce for all the extra trade that goes on). Building a Suburb comsumes the worker.

Think about this. It really solves ALOT of proplems.

	09-01-2005 03:04									#13
	Support Apolyton

I am familiar with the thread about globalising a city's food production, that's an additional intriguing idea, tho frought with problems. I consider it fairly independant at this stage of design, we could adopt one, none, or some combination of both. I wish I'd included in my poll cities that grow slower than linearly, so we could get some kind of vote on that.

	09-01-2005 03:11									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Funny thing is, we already pulled off the suburb idea a while back in modded CTP2

City sprawl in CTP2 is not really any different than it is in civ3. You have to plan for city placement in both, allowing for eventual growth. The growth margins are just greater in CTP2, and actually promote the idea that the farflung tiles are less productive, which also happens in society.

Most countries are a collection of cities and small towns. All areas on a map generally have some sort of production/commerce value. In civ3, you normally have more gaps in your empire that do not produce anything. In CTP2, those gaps are rarer because of greater sprawl, and better reflect that even the most rural areas in a country has something to contribute to society.

	09-01-2005 14:30									#15
	Remove this text

I think that the city radius should expand with improved transportation systems. Tiles 2 steps from the city would require roads (or a river) to be included in the radius, tiles 3 steps away would require rail, and tiles 3 steps away would require motorways.

	10-01-2005 22:28									#16
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by realpolitic When I left the city Pheonix in '87 it was 650 square miles 2/3 the size of the state of Rhode Island, they kept on annexing dessert. Cities most often expand by adding subburbs. The metropolis from Boston to Washington DC is one example, another is Los Angeles. If a city's population doesn't expand upward it has to expand outward, or get more cramped.

They don't expand outward on a civ scale, though. Look at the distribution of cities in the US, for instance - you have areas of sparse and (mostly) low-population cities and areas of densely packed, high-population cities.

	10-01-2005 22:31									#17
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I'd like to see city growth based upon trade and immigration, growth just because of local food supply isn't very realistic... especially in modern times where refrigeration and transportation allows food to be shipped from farms to cities.

	11-01-2005 01:29									#18
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by hexagonian Please go back to the second half of my post - scale, as represented in a civstyle game is laughable.

Except in this case you can't ignore it. Just think - what distribution of cities does the CtP2 model produce? Areas with sparse, high-population cities, and areas with dense, low-population cities. Simply looking at it on the map, it looks exactly opposite reality.

	11-01-2005 02:23									#19
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Except in this case you can't ignore it. Just think - what distribution of cities does the CtP2 model produce? Areas with sparse, high-population cities, and areas with dense, low-population cities. Simply looking at it on the map, it looks exactly opposite reality.

...and this is the exact same model produced in civ3 - you choose to either build cities close together and crimp city growth, or spread them out farther to maximize tile usegae. Large 21-tile cities are further away than 8-tile cities.

Please read my followup post from above...and I will try to clarify what probably could of been settled in a clear matter if the designers of CTP2 had simply labeled the 'cities' differently...

quote: Originally posted by hexagonian City sprawl in CTP2 is not really any different than it is in civ3. You have to plan for city placement in both, allowing for eventual growth. The growth margins are just greater in CTP2, and actually promote the idea that the farflung tiles are less productive, which also happens in society. Most countries are a collection of cities and small towns. All areas on a map generally have some sort of production/commerce value. In civ3, you normally have more gaps in your empire that do not produce anything. In CTP2, those gaps are rarer because of greater sprawl, and better reflect that even the most rural areas in a country has something to contribute to society.

Perhaps a better way to look at the issue is the 'cities' of CTP2 should have been labeled by the original designers as regions, provinces or states, instead of cities. This would maintain the scale issue very nicely.

	11-01-2005 16:41									#20
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

But even then... the Boswash region is smaller than, let's say, Texas, but has more people living there than all the prairie states combined. I wish I knew a way how to simulate the Real World where some areas are the bread-baskets for the megacities.

	12-01-2005 03:10									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by hexagonian ...and this is the exact same model produced in civ3 - you choose to either build cities close together and crimp city growth, or spread them out farther to maximize tile usegae. Large 21-tile cities are further away than 8-tile cities.

They're still all pretty close together. The problem is, ultimately, with the entire system, but CtP's makes it a lot worse.

	12-01-2005 03:12									#22
	Support Apolyton

I agree Kuciwalker. THe whole notion of city radii to gather resources is stupid. THere are many areas in the world where massive cities are close together. Look at the Northeast United States, for instance. New York, Philadelphia and Boston are relatively close together. And people living in those cities don't go out and collect resources... things are shipped to those cities from other parts of the country and world.

	12-01-2005 06:27									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Ancient-to-medieval cities in Eur and NME were supported by farms no more than 25 miles from the city. Around the Med some cities chose to export goods in exchange for grain because the sea trade made it possible, yet in nearly all cases farming the surrounding lands (all within the city tile except for absurdly small scale maps) could have supported them.

Cities ruled and collected high value resources from wider regions because they could, not because they had to.

	12-01-2005 19:41									#24
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Expanding city radius is good, because it is one of the things that encourage the building of a few large cities instead of a mess of small ones. IOW, part of the solution to ICS.

	13-01-2005 01:44									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Except it produces results opposite what one observes IRL. It's the wrong solution to the problem.

	13-01-2005 01:49									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

...and yet no solution or alternative is offered

	13-01-2005 02:41									#27
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker quote: Its not even "urban sprawl". In CtP2 the radius a city collects resources from expands as the city grows, which makes sense. Not really, not in the way CtP2 does it. NYC doesn't collect resources from some expanding radius around it, it gets resources from all over the place. The problem is that the entire system is broken once one goes into modern times, and a lot before as well. Egypt fed Rome. There's no way to have that happen in C3 or CtP2, and it's somewhat clunky in C2.

Yes it's really broken in modern times. Wealthy countries may be able to afford more food, (it takes 20 pounds of grain protein to produce 1 pound of beef protein, and still Americans become obese), but rich countries have lower fertility rates:

Rich:
Europe's fertility rate started dropping around 1860, by 1930 it was around break-even. Now it's population would be aging, execpt for immigration.

America:
Dropped to nearly 2 children/couple around 1960. Increase since then was "population bulge" : baby boomers reaching childbearing age.

Poor:
Africa: near breakeven now largely because of AIDS, famine, some birth control used.

China: government encouraged children through 1970's, near breakeven now because of government coersion.

India: still having plenty of babies

South America: Huge families are still the rule, some increase in birth control.


Its the poor countries of the world who are causing the population increase. Food is no longer the cause of overpopulation.

If anything, entering the Modern Era, lowers the increase in population.

	13-01-2005 02:53									#28
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Except it produces results opposite what one observes IRL. It's the wrong solution to the problem.

No, from your point of view it's the right solution for the wrong problem. From a gameplay point of view, CtP2's solution works nicely (as UR explained). From a historical point of view, it works just as poorly as any other part of Civ (or CtP). I mean, really, when you think abou it, what part of civ is actually remotely historically accurate? Combat is unrealistic, trade, scientific advancement, city production, resource collection, etc. Nothing is remotely accurate, yet it's a fun game. To quote Chris Crawford (game designer and founder of the GDC):

quote: There are few games that show any flair for simplification. 'Sid Meier’s Civilization' is one; Sid was so brutal in his simplification of history that I sometimes wince at the game's inaccuracies. Yet the result of Sid's design parsimony was one of the greatest computer games of all time. A lesser designer would have succumbed to the temptation to pile it on.

Civ may be a game about history, but let's not pretend it's actually trying to be accurate in it's portrayal of it...


BTW, note how in the list effort and other suggestions posted in this forum, people do often have the tendecy to pile it on

	13-01-2005 02:54									#29
	Suffering from ads?

There have been solutions offered to ICS... see Civ3 List.

For ex: Vagabond's Urbanization solution. He introduced the idea of letting improvements have "positions" that can be filled by workers just as terrain tiles. These workers would generate a trade arrow or two and a resource befitting the improvement type (typically shields). They would also "power" the improvement, so that an unfilled factory would only provide a 25% increase to shields, etc.

	13-01-2005 04:42									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by hexagonian ...and yet no solution or alternative is offered

I've said that the entire system is fundamentally flawed. C3's is least flawed in that the result at least looks like reality.