 |
|  |
 |
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
Here's an interesting idea for Play the World (although I doubt they'll impliment it)
Why not be able to abandon cities? Abandoned cities would lose their city radius and the cultural border they provided, and everything they did for the (former) owner would stop happening.
So if someone made a Great Library, and then abandoned the city, then the Great Library would stop working for that person. The culture it provided would stop....
Then all that would have to be done to capture it would be to get a worker and "join city", so that citizens are flooded in and everything begins to work again. All improvements are retrained, and it begins producing culture again. AND all the wonders in that city would begin working for whomever is the knew owner.
What does everyone else think?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Tassadar5000:
Uhm ... what's the point of having abandoned cities? As it stands now, you can lose them to enemies or barbarians, or you can cede them or you can disband captured cities. With that in mind, having abandoned cities sounds like overkill. Unless, of course, abandoned cities turn into goody huts.
Gatekeeper |
Maybe for possible scenario use. Having a couple of abandoned cities in the center of a huge map that are technologically advanced, or have wonders in them and you have to race to get them.
Or yeah, if a city goes into civil unrest, there is a chance that the city will abandon and you'll need to sacrafice a worker (or possibly increase this number) in order to regain it, or risk it:
1. Begin taken over by a rival.
2. Turning into a goody hut
3. Becoming a technologically advanced barbarian camp.
Although in order for number 3 to be effective, barbarian camps would need to be improved upon quite a bit.
Or using them to settle cities elsewhere (although that may make them way too powerful...)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Darkworld Ark
|
|
of the Capitalists
May 2002 time: 05:20
|
|
I hope that something to this general extent would happen with the city ruins they've shown in the E3 movie, so if a city with a wonder gets destroyed, you can have a settler or worker go to the ruins, refound the city, & get back the wonder.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
jsw363
|
|
I would like to see ruins after a city has been destroyed or abandoned. It would be great if the ruins could provide some additional benefit to another city founded on the spot like culture points, basic city improvements, etc.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
JoeDaddy715
|
|
Indiana
Jun 2002 time: 00:20
|
|
Just my opinion.....
Ruins are a great idea, so-called abandoned cities isn't. Nobody could maintain the buildings in the city, you can't just shut down banks and leave money in the vaults. If nobody maintains that aqueduct, it's gonna stop carrying water effectively or even burst. Wonders usually need maintained too, look at the improvements on the statue of liberty that occurred recently.
Ruins would be cool because they would add realism, perhaps though they should foul the land they were built on, especially for large or advanced cities. I wouldn't expect crops to grow on destroyed buildings and rubble remains....
It would be cool to see the ruins, kind of a path of destruction.... They could make a cool city animation to go with razing the city pretty easily, which could then be replaced by the ruins graphic.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
jsw363
|
|
quote: Originally posted by JoeDaddy715
Just my opinion.....
Ruins are a great idea, so-called abandoned cities isn't. Nobody could maintain the buildings in the city, you can't just shut down banks and leave money in the vaults. If nobody maintains that aqueduct, it's gonna stop carrying water effectively or even burst. Wonders usually need maintained too, look at the improvements on the statue of liberty that occurred recently. |
I disagree about maintainence of buildings, wonders, infrastructure. There are still Roman roads in use today though no one has maintained them. The same goes for Incan agricultural terraces and aquaducts. Yes, some buildings and wonders do need constant care, but others like Stonehenge or Mayan and Aztec temples, or the Great Wall are still valuable despite their abandonement.
I understand that banks will not be able to funciton without funds, but what about harbors which have been dredged? They wouldn't close for many years. Or walls that have been built?Many city improvements would still function after years of disuse. I don't think you can dismiss the benefits of ruins so easily.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20. Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|