 |
|  |
 |
|
Ralf
|
 |
Sweden
Mar 2000 time: 06:14
|
|
Check out this SCREENSHOT.
It seems to me that the old Civ-2 problem of inefficiently exploited AI land-areas is about to reincarnate in Civ-3 as well. 
Time and time again, in Civ-2 (and in SMAC), I bumped into AI-empires that have founded their cities, either too close, which resulted in heavily overlaped city-areas (check out screenshot) , or too far apart from each city, with too much unexploited & wasted chunks of land-tiles between them. Even worse, was the problem with too many inland-cities and too few AI-coastal cities.
My own strategy was often to prioritize coastal-cities at first, then working inwards with inland-cities. By comparision, the city-locations (at least for the three American cities) in above screenshot seemes to be much the same hit-and-miss affair, as in Civ-2 & SMAC. (the yellowish Salamanca-city and citys belonging to that civ, seems to be better spaced out though).
I really HOPE that they (Firaxis) at least have added the ability in the scenario/map-editor to manually pinpoint potential (player-invisible) city-locations all over the map - as many (or few), and as ideally & effectively spaced as the map-creator wants them. Thus forcing the AI to only found cities on these pre-designated locations. If only they could give me some little hint that the latter have been implemented. It sure would be a huge relief...
Last edited by Ralf on 23-05-2001 at 00:00
|
|
|  |
 |
|
senowen
|
 |
of the night
May 2001 time: 00:14
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ralf
Time and time again, in Civ-2 (and in SMAC), I bumped into AI-empires that have founded their cities, either too close, which resulted in heavily overlaped city-areas (check out screenshot) , or too far apart from each city, with too much unexploited & wasted chunks of land-tiles between them. Even worse, was the problem with too many inland-cities and too few AI-coastal cities.
My own strategy was often to prioritize coastal-cities at first, then working inwards with inland-cities. By comparision, the city-locations (at least for the three American cities) in above screenshot seemes to be much the same hit-and-miss affair, as in Civ-2 & SMAC. (the yellowish Salamanca-city and citys belonging to that civ, seems to be better spaced out though).
|
The thing is, it looks like the Americans are the player, i.e. someone at Firaxis, and the other civs are AI civs which have much better city placement than the Americans.
Does anyone else see it that way?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ralf
|
 |
Sweden
Mar 2000 time: 06:14
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Theben
Also remember that many of those resources won't appear until after you discover a technology...city placement won't be as easy as before... |
Yes, but even if special resources/ luxuries are more vital and pivotal then ever, the basic raw empire production-strength STILL comes, first and foremost, from the old trusty 21-square food/shields/trade city-areas. Therefore its important that these AI city-areas are more optimally placed on the map, with more coastal-cites (if possible) in the beginning, then working inwards, thus ensuring best possible land-area exploitation on small- to medium-sized islands, and on land-masses with lots of headlands/capes.
If the number of squares not covered with fixed 21-square city-areas is reasonably minimized, then the exploitation of special resources/ luxuries will more or less, take care of its self with help of expanding culture-borders and colonies.
Both new cities and colonies can always be founded later, in order to pin down any surfacing resources/ luxuries further down the tech-tree, anyway.
Last edited by Ralf on 24-05-2001 at 17:28
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14. Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|