 |
| |
|
|
yin26
|
 |
This space reserved for Darkstar.
Apr 1999
time: 14:37
|
|
Matches10:
Hi, and welcome. Things like that have been tried in varying degrees. In the Ages of Man (free) expansion to Call to Power 2, for instance, distance from capitol and government determine how far away and how many cities you can have before various levels of unrest set in. Usually, however, you can research a wonder or zip toward a government advance that allows for cities further away, more of them and so forth.
The bigger reality, though, is that even with these limitations, you can almost always tweak cities to counter the problems, and even if this means that they are barely making a profit or, indeed, are losing the overall empire money, it's easily absorbed. Then, once you have that wonder or government that makes larger empires easier to sustain, you've already got the cities ready to go. One tweak, then, would be to make cities *not* part of the general coffers until much later in the game so that your cities in high-gear around the capital can't take up the slack for those newer cities farther away.
Another approach, as I've suggested before, isn't to make the cities go away but to introduce a different empire management scheme (in this case, state-based) that then alleviates the micro --or, at least, makes for different and hopefully more interesting micro-- associated with so many cities.
So what really gets me down isn't so much the expasion part (which is fun, actually) but a) the mindless micro and b) the fact that the AI simply can't keep up. Civ3 tried to get at this a bit with city expansion, most apparant with what I termed "Settler Diahrrea" -- and this kind of worked except that the AI disregarded your borders completely when in the land grab phase, and it took a lot of the atmoshphere out of the game.
Somewhere in here is a good mix of limiting city producivity in relation to empire size / government / tech, etc. and, perhaps, by introducing different kinds of management schemes as those changes occur. Again, I don't mind being a city sweeper early in the game (what else is there to do but to gleefully squeeze that extra 2 gp from a slider bar?), but toward the middle and end game, I want to think more about how government policy on energy conservation, for example, helps and hinders my empire overall rather than continuing (by now) to find those slider bars a pesky lesson in repetitive motion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Matches10
|
|
Thanks for the welcome. I joined having been a visitor to the site a while back. I was a player of the original CTP and then later Civ III, being a long time player of the original. I rather belatedly read about the new release and came here to check out the news.
I suppose the idea of micromanagement never got to be too much for me but I can definitely see your point. I guess fundamentally though the Civilization series will always be city-based. And maybe the reason I never got to be all that good at the games was simply that I didn't take the time to micro-manage. I just like the story, the strategy and generally speaking the previous game left me wanting. I hope the new civics, religion, etc are enough to make the new game worth my while.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:37
|
|
Well I have to say, Yin, that on the matter of "Settler Diahrrea" at least they seem to have gotten things right-i.e. making borders completely non-porous to other civs unless you have an open border agreement with them. In fact, if I understand it, non-open borders keep all but Spies and missionaries out of your territory now-unless one side declares war. What I hope, though, is that there is a 3-tiered border control system-Open, Normal and Closed-with closed borders keeping everything out, but at a cost to your trade income.
Anyway, I think between this and the sheer early cost of cities, I think that incredibly large ancient/middle age empires will be fairly rare indeed.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:37
|
|
You see, my belief is that you have 'normal' border states-which keeps out all 'conventional units'-including settlers and workers. However, as unconventional forces, missionaries and spies could probably still slip across (as, possibly, could other unconventional units). Closing your borders would, IMO, lock out even these units-but would restrict your trade opportunities (and we know that closed borders has this effect). Then, on the other side of the ledger, my belief is that the Open Border arrangement lets ALL units, belonging to that civ, to cross your borders-but with the added bonus of greater trade revenue.
As I stated, though, this is just a belief-a belief I hope will be confirmed  !
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:37
|
|
Truth be told, Platypus, we still don't know all the details regarding borders and rights of passage (assuming the latter is even still in the game). All we really know is that closed borders shut out missionaries-PERIOD-but hurt your ability to do trade. Beyond that, there is still not enough info.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirian
|
|
Pennsylvania, USA
Dec 2001
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by yin26
Markos: I'm glad you're fighting the good fight. It reminds me a bit, though, of Hussein's Communications Director standing near the exploding Bagdhad Airport claiming all the infidels have been wiped from Iraq. |
Baghdad Bob! 
I disagree with your definition of ICS, yin.
There is a very simple equation involved. Either more cities is always better, or at some point there is a point past which more cities are never better. Either of these mechanisms has only one right answer, and neither could fuel a lasting and replayable infrastructure for a strategy game. To be really good, it would have to be sometimes beneficial to expand but not always. However, that is easier said than done.
Beyond this equation is the question of map size. If you don't like managing a lot of cities, play on smaller maps. If the mechanic is fun up to a point, find that point for yourself and only play maps that run out of room at or before you reach the unfun point.
I mean... It really is that simple.
A. Bigger is always better.
B. Smaller is always better.
C. Something well designed, with interesting choices to make.
-and-
Assuming that Option C is the case (for the sake of argument here, since, like, nobody has ever really delivered Option C)...
1. Small maps or maps played with extra civs would be more crowded, offering one type of strategic situation.
2. Large maps or maps played with fewer than normal civs would give lots of elbow room to everybody, meaning more cities per faction.
3. If the game mechanics are such that it is only viable to support X cities, but the maps have room for Y cities and Y is so much higher than X that in every single game there are huge sections of land nobody can afford to settle due to game rules that arbitrarily limit their size... Well. I think that game would have less legs than Civ. I would certainly not call it well designed! 
4. Assuming the map size and amount of space fits the game balance, you can dial the crowdedness up and down to suit your taste.
From what I gather, your definition of ICS is not "bigger is always better" or "more, smaller cities are always better than fewer, larger cities" but "If bigger is ever better, than that's ICS." With that, I must disagree.
- Sirian
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-09-2005 03:05
|