 |
| |
|
|
Trifna
|
 |
of anchovies
Jul 2001
time: 13:25
|
|
I had already made a thread about it and here is the content:
quote:
We're talking about serious Civ revolutioning here.
The city modelization in Civ always have been a representation (by a tile called "city"). And ressources around just stay as they are, + improvements. But look at New York and USA's East coast! Forests? Mines? Forget it. I guess there's nothing but the city between NY and Chicago or Washington. So it changes alot on many aspects:
- tiles (forest to city, plains to city, etc.)
- production (food's production isn't 30km outside NY's center...)
- unit moves (to a certain extent)
- moving troops on opponent's field
- attacks on city
- how the map looks
So I would propose a way to arrange this. Of course, it implies to consider the growth of production by science, which is what permits such big cities (enough food, etc.).
I would see possible to graphically simply show the city taking expansion, until it even reaches tiles around. Once a tile is touched, it is touched GRADUALLY, which means it will have only it's boarders with city, then more, more, more.... until its production is a entirely a city-type production (which will go up with the city beeing more dense/effective). It also means that the value of the center tile will see its value change through expansion (since it wont be only city form the beginning).
EDIT: It's not only about a graphical issue but mainly the gameplay issue that's important here. Presently, the geographical expansion of cities isn't in Civ 3.
|
This system, if correctly done, is supposed to work better since it's how reality works. The only thing is to not make it overcomplicated, which doesn't seem that much of a problem.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shr3dZ
|
|
"you can occupy a part of a city (Berlin was separated, etc.) which brings to serious problems for the civ who owns the city... "
It could just be in anarchy until only 1 civ owns it all...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Emma
|
|
maybe if you had that as a small wonder. so your allowed one extra huge city in your empire. but it needs a river and a coast maybe (or one of the two.)
that or only your capital can become extra huge. then it would also make capturing the capital worth it. i think it would be more realistic if loosing the capital has crippling effect on the civ. (like it would be in real life, for most countries.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rebel67
|
|
This has been done in CTP2, and it was great fun, But since Civ is better (In my opinion) I would love to see it done. Don't know if it's possible though, in CTP" i think it was done using SLIC, so the only way to do it in CIV would be to add another tile improvement, or change an existing one (unless someone can think of a better way). Does the editor in PTW let you change or add tile improvements?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:25
|
|
CtP2 had two featues which allowed that:
1) natural expansion of city borders (starts with 1 ring, can end with 4 rings around the core as city size increases). Civ doesn't have that, and you can't code it in.
2) mod to show suburbs etc. This used SLIC. Firaxis people said that a scripting language was just a bag of bugs to give to the players, so there is nothing approaching that in Civ3.
I don't see that possible in civ3, unless maybe you can hack into the culture radius of your civ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Emma
|
|
well yes it's not like washington and new york. but then you must admitt that washington is not 4000 years old. most capitals aren't, but most are much older than washington. like london for instance, if england suddenly lost london, or france lost paris. ok, doesn't work for germany, they'd be better off without berlin ;-)
but that's only because of the east west devide and all.
egypt? there wouldn't really be egypt without kairo. italy different again, only recently (historical view) has the state of italy existed. after the roman empire fell italy was in a mess and devided into kingdoms. so if rome fell you'd have milan. but in roman times if rome fell... well as we all know then the roman empire fell.
greece has two cities, athens and Thessaloniki. if athens fell, well... greece would lose at least half it's population.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Worthingtons
|
|
Pride Park,Derby
Jan 2002
time: 05:25
|
|
This is always one of my favorite subjects, City Expansion, I dont believe in any models that increase City expansion mainly because the size represented by Cities is ALREADY big enough, in fact it's too big.
But, I'd like to a Model which allows Cities to span into the 10's of Millions, Like NY or Tokyo or something. How it could be done i dont know, but the idea behind Suburbs is a good one...
What i like is the idea that a City square can hold Triple the population of a non city square , meaning in some shape or form, if you have more 'city' squares in a city then it will grow much quicker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Emma
|
|
i once had a cool game like that. one of my first civ 3 games. i thought it would all be over if i lost my capital and i had bunkers on all the surrownding city squares. so it was
bunker, bunker, bunker
bunker, city , bunker
bunker, city , bunker
that was pretty cool, though i lost the city in the end. if the capital was worth a lot then it would end up like that. the ai would do anything to defend the capital as soon as troops approach. and if the capital had extra squares to work on then loosing a bit of production to the bunkers wouldn't be too bad.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Emma
|
|
the only way i found i could do that was to make a scenario where no improvements could be built and the capital had them all, but the other cities coudn't even build aquaduct or temple.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
epics
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Emma
the only way i found i could do that was to make a scenario where no improvements could be built and the capital had them all, but the other cities coudn't even build aquaduct or temple. |
quite interesting  , but very unrealistic
quote:
Originally posted by Emma
well yes it's not like washington and new york. but then you must admitt that washington is not 4000 years old. most capitals aren't, but most are much older than washington. like london for instance, if england suddenly lost london, or france lost paris. ok, doesn't work for germany, they'd be better off without berlin ;-)
but that's only because of the east west devide and all.
egypt? there wouldn't really be egypt without kairo. italy different again, only recently (historical view) has the state of italy existed. after the roman empire fell italy was in a mess and devided into kingdoms. so if rome fell you'd have milan. but in roman times if rome fell... well as we all know then the roman empire fell.
greece has two cities, athens and Thessaloniki. if athens fell, well... greece would lose at least half it's population. |
YOUR FORGETTING SOMETHING!!!!
where is Warsaw (Warszawa) or Krakov  , you know that we had an uprising in Warszaw in '45 
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-01-2003 18:37
|