 |
|
ChrisShaffer
|
 |
Iowa City, Iowa, United States of America
Aug 1999
time: 23:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Osweld
Size of the empire is directly related to the size of the map. As you can see, in that game the map is completely full, if they where playing on a larger map, there would likely be more cities. |
Um, yes, true, but that was the point of the original question. What size is this map? Does the screenshot show a small, medium, or large map? It's obvious that if they were playing on a larger map there would be more cities. What I asked was "is this a large map, if not how much larger can they be?"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
barefootbadass
|
|
You won't be able to expand as fast as in civ2, sure, but it will be even more important to expand as rapidly as you can and put your cities closer together when low on room, so you can get more armies, or at least this is what I would expect. But I may be wrong, there may also be cultural penalties(or missing out on cultural bonuses) for having lots of small cities.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
hexagonian
|
 |
Gnawing on your mind...
Jun 1999
time: 23:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by campmajor!
I just hope there won't be absolute limits like in ctp.
I really hated it when I conquered the weak AI civ and finding out that I now had too many cities. 
There is no such thing as too many cities! 
The bigger the empire the more culture you should have, because people will be proud to be member of this big empire!  |
Sorry, but larger empires do not necessarily mean better empires. (Look at Rome, 18th-19th century England, 16th-17th century Spain - and the problems they had maintaining a far-flung empire once they became huge) Having restraints on your empire based on size is a good thing, because it forces a player to not just ICS, or roll over smaller empires because he now has double the production capability of the next ranked civ in place due to the fact that he has just conquered a lot of cities. Don't get me wrong, if you like to play the game as a conqueror, so be it, but there should be consequences to that approach. (It may mean that you build less cities during the course of the game to take into account a militaristic bent.)
Personally, I would rather not have the 'blank check' approach of no limits, because then I have to consider the consequences of my strategy - which makes for a more challenging game.
(...misconception about CTP setup - there is a happiness penalty due to exceeding the empire size or distance limitation, but this penalty also translates into a higher crime rate which eats away gold/food/production - i.e., the corruption effect.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Andrew1999
|
|
A couple of other things I noticed in the map screenshot were:
1. The civs expanded pretty much evenly (looks like 10-15 cities each). In SMAC you'd usually have a couple of expansionist factions with 20 bases each and the rest would have two or three.
2. The AI colonized new continents and islands. Again, in SMAC they would usually just stick with whatever land mass they started on and leave half the world empty.
Both of these were also problems sometimes in Civ 2, but they were much more noticeable in Alpha Centauri.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-08-2001 21:48
I just think it will make the game more fun.
Perhaps, in Civ3 a city full of happy citizens does not mean a population boom, but the same thing that can occur also once in your whole empire: all worked tiles contribute one additional trade and shield per turn.
|