Do you think ICS has been solved adequately?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
FWIW though, I agree that building cities is one of the main functions of an empire. In Civilization games, at the least.

I agree with that.

Though building up cities is not the same thing as building cities.

[Rasputin]

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova

* Enigma_Nova slaps Rasputin around a bit with a large trout
Skanky's correct on this one.



That's not exactly possible, Ras.
Games exist because most of us aren't prepared to kill everything in sight with an M16, but would enjoy doing so.

Oh, and fix the typos - poorly presented arguments are regarded as irrelevant, even if you know what you're on about.

not interested in presenting a wel ltyped up argument. i just think that people have lost track of what civilisation is about.

it is not a world simulator, im sure there are other software that provide that avenue. If we remove city building and developing from the game it becomses just a war game. too many sessions end like that already without removing the only alternative to war, which is develop culture and larger citys

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I agree with that.

Though building up cities is not the same thing as building cities.

In current Civ games, you have peaceful horizontal expansion (building new cities), vertical expansion (improving already built cities) or hostile horizontal expansion (taking other people's cities).

If you remove the player's ability to build cities, then a full 3rd of player options are suddenly taken away. The only choice they can make in each city is to build military or to build improvements.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Rasputin
If i wanted total realism i would become a world leader. i want the game to remain fun and not become too real ,which would impact the game badly.

I think its possible to be a world leader and to have fun. I'm working on both right now.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
If you remove the player's ability to build cities, then a full 3rd of player options are suddenly taken away. The only choice they can make in each city is to build military or to build improvements.

Instead, they can enact policies and take actions that foster cities to come into existence. This also helps with the feeling of Civ playing more like a nation building game instead of mucking with a collection of cities.

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns


In current Civ games, you have peaceful horizontal expansion (building new cities), vertical expansion (improving already built cities) or hostile horizontal expansion (taking other people's cities).

If you remove the player's ability to build cities, then a full 3rd of player options are suddenly taken away. The only choice they can make in each city is to build military or to build improvements.

I agree with you. And if that's not good enough for you, Sid Meier also agrees with you. Here is what he has to say about the first Civ prototype:

The first prototype of Civilization that I did was a real-time game like SimCity, in that you placed cities and moved things around, but cities grew without you. You basically seeded the world in a kind of SimCity-esque way. Instead of zoning, you seeded things, and you said I want a city over there, and why don't you do some farming over here. What I didn't like in that version of Civilization is that you did a lot more watching than you did playing.

[Vince278]

If you take away control of the cities then you may as well be playing Empire, a spiritual ancestor of Civ.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Vince278
If you take away control of the cities then you may as well be playing Empire, a spiritual ancestor of Civ.

Taking away the ability to found cities wherever and whenever you feel like is not the same as taking control of cities away.

Besides, cities don't grow in Empire.

[Robert Plomp]

To make cIV more an empire building-game then a build-a-bunch-of-cities game the player should not only get benefits for the cities he has, but also for what the cities combined add to the empire. The empire should be more then the sum of the cities.

ie. some cities might grow out as cities of study. (culturally, by some random change, and of course by some influence the player can have on it)
Other ideas might be: commerce, war, seafaring, argiculture, etc. etc.

Building certain improvements might higher the change of a city to gain these special skills. (wonders!! )
But pherhaps as well things like make your citizen work specific tiles, or pherhaps don't let them work at all but keep them in home to study the arts....

A city of science might build a university complex, and that university works like a palace, but only for science.
And all cities within a certain radius will benefit from the scientific city.

If your empire grows, you need more of these cities.

[Drachasor]

I agree in general with Cybershy that in order to feel like an Empire, there need to be more ways cities directly interact with each other. The more an individual city doesn't replicate a small nation, the closer you are to feeling like your collection of cities feels like a nation.

The best way to handle this is to allow cities to influence other cities more. Trade is part of that, but imho production and food should be transferrable between cities (basically you have a national storage of these two items, and cities can add to and draw from it, with some limit/turn for each city based on population). Right now cities are just too independent and that leads one to feel you just have a collection of cities and not a state.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, some things that would curb ICS (many of these have been suggested):

1. Give cities realistic growth values so long as they are supplied with adequate food. That is, a city with 100,000 individuals vs. four cities with 25,000 each would all grow at the same rate, given the same amount of food. This lessens ICS because those Settlers you send out *cost* population and won't be reproducing while they are in settler form. Since growth rates should be exponential, you'll have a bigger benefit from building less cities and letting them grow more.

2. Increase the distance cities need to be from each other to two or three squares. Sure, this is an arbitrary amount, but so is the current distance requirement.

3. Make high population *count*. Give cities with high populations extra bonuses. That size 20 city has much more than twice as many citizens as the size 10 neighbor, even if it doesn't have more population points. Have that extra population give the city some bonuses. Then going ICS early on will be painful in the long run. Perhaps let size 20+ cities easily ship off extra population to low population cities.

4. Along the lines of 3, perhaps there should be some empire-wise benefit for having a high average city size. Hence having 50 cities of size 10 wouldn't be as good as having 25 cities of size 20. Better yet, use the median city size. As you might recall from math class, the median is the number you get if you line up all the numbers in order from highest to lowest and take the middle number (if you two are in the middle, you average). So if you have cities of sizes 1, 1, 1, 4, 10, 10, 10, 11, 11, and 11, then your median size is 10. This makes it so you won't be penalized for a few new cities now and then. (the average here is 7).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the idea of getting rid of city-building, I don't see how it would effectively different. What is going to stop people from forcing cities to form near each other, and the proceeding along happily with ICS? If you impose some artificial restriction, how is that different from increasing the distance cities have to be from each other? Seems to me manually deciding where your cities are will be more fun, and have less hassle, with the same effect.

-Drachasor

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Drachasor
Trade is part of that, but imho production and food should be transferrable between cities (basically you have a national storage of these two items, and cities can add to and draw from it, with some limit/turn for each city based on population).

My idea is merchants (invisible to the players) perform this function automatically. For example, they will buy food from an area with surplus food and sell it in an area with a food shortage. This of course drives up food price in that latter area and decreases quality of life.

Originally posted by Drachasor
As for the idea of getting rid of city-building, I don't see how it would effectively different. What is going to stop people from forcing cities to form near each other, and the proceeding along happily with ICS?

Because you can't. If there's an existing city, it acts as a magnet for the people in the countryside due to higher quality of life (culture, education, wage levels, etc.) in the city.

If you have two cities close to each other, the better city is going to suck people away from the lesser one.

[Robert Plomp]

Pherhaps that should be possible to happen when people build two cities too close to each other, the culture of city A might 'suck' the people from city B within it's walls, and city B will be a ruin wasting a good resource tile for ages.

A little bit as with culture between two nations.

And a big cultural city will always grow because of people from other cities who join it.
Thus every city should have:

population: 40.000

new population last turn/year: 1028 people

new from food: 532 people
food from worked tiles: 456 people
food from other cities (UR idea): 76 people

from other cities: 496 people (per year/turn)
From Napels: 269 people
from Rome: 149 people
From Citya: 32 people
from Cityb: 19 people

lost population: 495 people

died: 215 people
old age: 151 people
disease: 22 people
crime: 18 people
war: 18 people

to other cities:
Citya: 90
Cityb: 76
Cityc: 54
Cityd: 40
citye: 20

If you know for what reason people are leaving a city you want to grow (bc of the good production area ie) you can investigate on what to do.
Should I invest more in shopping area's so the people won't leave?
Should I prevent diseases more?

how can I attract more people?
etc.etc.

I see some: "Too much micromanagement" answers.
And yes: I like that

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


My idea is merchants (invisible to the players) perform this function automatically. For example, they will buy food from an area with surplus food and sell it in an area with a food shortage. This of course drives up food price in that latter area and decreases quality of life.

Food shortages don't decrease the standard of living if merchant trading to make up the shortfall is taken as given. There are, and have been in the past, many areas that do not grow enough food to support themselves and import the necessary shortfall from another part of the country/empire without batting an eyelid.

If you are talking famine or disruption to trade then that would be a variable in quality of life.

[Arrian]

I say leave the system basically as-is, but include some pop requirements for buildings and also increase the bonuses that come with large cities. Temples, barracks, libraries, markets, cathedrals, universities, banks, stock exchanges, and wonders (not that you would build a wonder in a size1 city anyway) spring to mind for the buildings that would require certain levels of pop. The bonuses... well, maybe give +2s/+2c (or 3, even) to the city tile every time the city hits a new size bracket. Towns (which, IMO, should start at size 2 or 3, with size1s being villages) could get +50%, cities (starting around size 8) could get 100%, and metros (starting around 14) could get 150% and some sort of guerilla militia.

Another possibility would be to have the game calculate your empire's city density - how many total tiles are in your borders, and how many cities do you have? This could be then tied to empire-wide happiness. Too much density = happiness penalty. Lots of open space = happiness bonus. Moderation = neither. Of course, I imagine we all have different opinions as to what density is "just right."

-Arrian

[Max Sinister]

It's a possibility, but is it realistic? Are the Canadians and the Russians and the Australians so much happier than Americans (let's not even talk about Europeans and Japanese!) because they have so much more space per citizen?

If Civ would simulate how big the houses / apartments of the people are, that would be different...

[punkbass2000]

To further curb ICS, they could place similar restrictions on unit building. A reasonable rule of thumb would be the city has to be as large as the unit's highest attribue in order to build it (ie., size 1 cities can build warriors, size 2 spearmen/archers, size three swordsman/pikeman, etc.) Special allowances may need to be made for UUs, however (might not be fair to force Greeks to wait till size three just build a hoplite).

[GePap]

I agree that population caps are a huge reason for ICS.

The negative of huge cities should be the possiblity of revolt or mass riots, as well as increased possibility of disease and pandemics. At the same time you produce massive amounts of wealth, influence, culture and have a mass of surplus population to send of to die in making empires.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
My idea is merchants (invisible to the players) perform this function automatically. For example, they will buy food from an area with surplus food and sell it in an area with a food shortage. This of course drives up food price in that latter area and decreases quality of life.

I prefer player control over this aspect. This represents that the government can influence what is going on. The fact is that effective players will basically do the merchant's job, but they will feel in control of what is going on. Also, you avoid messy AI issues that might crop up (and take forever for an official patch)*. Lastly, players might find new and creative ways to apply the system that the computer AI wouldn't think of. Any automatic system here should be optional for many players will want personal control (and they should get it, it's a game).

As for decreasing the quality of life...well, aren't those people getting money and trade from those merchants? That should be increasing it. Trading is beneficial to both parties.

Originally posted by Drachasor
As for the idea of getting rid of city-building, I don't see how it would effectively different. What is going to stop people from forcing cities to form near each other, and the proceeding along happily with ICS?

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Because you can't. If there's an existing city, it acts as a magnet for the people in the countryside due to higher quality of life (culture, education, wage levels, etc.) in the city.

If you have two cities close to each other, the better city is going to suck people away from the lesser one.

This is effectively the same as increasing the distance minimum distance between cities. Or, if you want to have cities suck population away from other cities, then provide those factors in the empire/city system. There are too many benefits from the settler system (greater player control, colonizing other continents by sending emmigrants, etc) to toss it away for something basically equivalent.

-Drachasor

*IMHO bad AI in how your empire acts is a lot less acceptable than bad AI in how other empires act.

[Arrian]

If CivIV is to have population figure into the building of military units, then obviously that can be used to boost the power of big cities (as Punkbass and GePap suggest).

I agree my idea about city density doesn't do very well from a realism standpoint, btw.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

One more thing:

Count me as STRONGLY opposed to having cities just sprout up outside of the player's direct control. I like sending a settler to found a city directly. It's something I like about Civ, despite the fact that it's unrealistic (except w/respect to founding overseas colonies).

-Arrian

[Dauphin]

I agree. City location is one of the most important decisions in Civ. It has to be a human decision and not indirectly controlled.

[joncnunn]

You know, if a requirement that a city had to be pop 6+ to build a settler was added [still using 2 pop points], it would largely solve ICS right there.

Additionaly, requirements could be added to most modern era strutures and units to require pop 15+ cities and for most industrial era structrues and units to require pop 12+ cities, most middle ages era structrues and units to require pop 9+ cities, and some other advanced ancient era structures and units to require pop 6+ cities.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Rasputin
ICS not destroyed i sue it whenever playing the higher levels , works very well, a city separated by one square.. and lots ofo them

You miss my point. ICS was an exploit in C2 because it essentially gave you a free pop point.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by TimeTraveler
One thing I always wondered about in Civ games is why the city square gives its resources without any of the population heads working on it. With that thought I think ICS could be stopped (or nearly stopped) dead in its tracks if

1. The city square doesn't give its common resources unless a laborer works on the square.

Essentially done in C3 (settlers cost 2 pop; there's an "invisible" laborer on that square). Your conception of ICS does not exist in C3.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Arrian
One more thing:

Count me as STRONGLY opposed to having cities just sprout up outside of the player's direct control. I like sending a settler to found a city directly. It's something I like about Civ, despite the fact that it's unrealistic (except w/respect to founding overseas colonies).

-Arrian

I agree. That is entering the realm of MoO3, someplace I pray to Allah that Soren doesn't take Civ to.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
My idea is merchants (invisible to the players) perform this function automatically. For example, they will buy food from an area with surplus food and sell it in an area with a food shortage. This of course drives up food price in that latter area and decreases quality of life.

And you call yourself a commie?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by joncnunn
You know, if a requirement that a city had to be pop 6+ to build a settler was added [still using 2 pop points], it would largely solve ICS right there.

Alternatively, change the pop limit before aqueduct to 2 - so you either have to build an aqueduct or next to a river to have a city that can make settlers.

[Dauphin]

That would be in the running for the prize for the most annoying feature.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Quote:

Originally posted by TimeTraveler One thing I always wondered about in Civ games is why the city square gives its resources without any of the population heads working on it. With that thought I think ICS could be stopped (or nearly stopped) dead in its tracks if 1. The city square doesn't give its common resources unless a laborer works on the square.

Essentially done in C3 (settlers cost 2 pop; there's an "invisible" laborer on that square). Your conception of ICS does not exist in C3.

There is still the problem of greatly increasing the growth rate of your empire. Two size 1 cities grow faster than a Size 2, meaning the former get two pop points before the Size 2 even gets one. That is one of the main powers of ICS, and I think it is also an exploit.

-Drachasor

[Arrian]

The way around that, I guess, is to tie growth more to happiness and/or prosperity than to having excess food.

-Arrian