Multi-square citys

HazieDaVampire · January 22, 2003, 09:37

Anybody think that it mite be pritty cool to have extra large citys take up more squares?

These bigger citys would have a bigger work area (that fat X where you can assign laborers).

It would of course be a problem for small/smaller maps, and we could have stalingrad style combat, fighing in amoung a city, rather than fighting over it.

These are just brief ideas, anybody got anything they can add, or any comments?

Patroklos · January 22, 2003, 09:43

I always thought the best way to do it would be a suburbs tile improvment, that woul give extra gold and production. Should take alot of effort to build though.

DuncanK · January 22, 2003, 13:50

Try Smac or CTP2

Sandman · January 22, 2003, 14:40

Seeing as a square represents a huge area, I think that it would be better if the city radius was flexible, so that if you built two cities close to each other, they would not lose out on squares. In this way, you could have densely packed river regions, without paying for it with decreased production.

HazieDaVampire · January 22, 2003, 14:52

Citys should spawnout extra city squares along rivers, and out along a coastline.

I live in Sunderland, its got both a river, and its right on the coast, and it does both of this

Sandman · January 22, 2003, 16:12

One idea which I was toying with would be to have three kinds of city. A maritime city has to be on the coast and spreads most of it's radius over the sea. A hybrid/standard city has about equal weighting to land and sea, and an inland city has no sea squares. You could build certain advanced buildings only in a certain kind of city, i.e. the Lighthouse and the Colossus would only be available in a maritime city, whereas the Great Wall would only be available in an inland city.

Trifna · January 22, 2003, 16:52

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.

Kizami · January 23, 2003, 09:23

SimCity 4!

Trifna · January 23, 2003, 19:51

Certainly not... The goal is to make something generalized, not something where you play with inner elements but something where you move the general factors. As Napoleon said, move the general stuff and all details will follow.

HazieDaVampire · January 24, 2003, 12:12

I was thinking of the combat side of it, like, you have to take all of the squares before you totaly own the city, but certain squares mite hold of the barracks or the hospitel (You can heal your units fast).

But i did ask for feedback on both this, and more in general!

Trifna · January 24, 2003, 15:06

Well I guess it would have the consequences it has in reality: you can occupy a part of a city (Berlin was separated, etc.) which brings to serious problems for the civ who owns the city... And many consequences (destroying everything like Germans in Poland, WWII, just take advantageous position or else).

But before speaking of combat, we will have no choice to start by getting a structure to such a view of cities.

Boy I'd like to see such a coherent economic system (and stil kept simple to newbies)...

Shr3dZ · January 24, 2003, 15:34

"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...

Datajack Franit · January 24, 2003, 15:57

Mixing civ with commandos' style would be great indeed

Trifna · January 24, 2003, 19:09

Quote:

Originally posted by 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...

Well it would be a non-sense I believe because it wouldn't be harder to let the city produce partially, as it'd normally really do. Of course, it would have some effects on stability and production but not necessarily to stop absolutely everything, espescially if it's a city as big as New-York, where the south part is close to Washington and North part to Boston (something like that).

About comandos, well it's very simple... units gets bonus or malus in city, that's it.

redhat · January 25, 2003, 06:25

I think we need to include some fishing boat units so that we can acquire more food from the see/ocean apart from the coastal area.

redhat · January 25, 2003, 06:39

Quote:

Originally posted by HazieDaVampire
I was thinking of the combat side of it, like, you have to take all of the squares before you totaly own the city, but certain squares mite hold of the barracks or the hospitel (You can heal your units fast).

But i did ask for feedback on both this, and more in general!

I think that a city is considered yours when you eliminate all opposing force in the immediate surroundings and that the government facilities are under your control. Just put some imagination in it. Too much detail then it will become something like Caesar II.

Emma · January 25, 2003, 14:12

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.)

Trifna · January 25, 2003, 18:04

Losing the capital has very different effects depending on the advancement of the country. It has some effects but between New York and Washington DC, do you see that much difference? It's not only based on capital, espescially if the administration is advanced enough to adapt.

Rebel67 · January 25, 2003, 19:06

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 · January 25, 2003, 20:53

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 · January 26, 2003, 06:22

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 · January 26, 2003, 07:28

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.

Centauri18 · January 26, 2003, 07:28

Having separate sections for cities would make modern combat interesting - remember Stalingrad and the modern battles in the Balkans? Those went pretty much from block to block. Like the Germans at the fall of Berlin. The Russians had to fight for every block.
It would make things very interesting. And difficult.

HazieDaVampire · January 26, 2003, 07:56

and cool, your forgot that!

Trifna · January 26, 2003, 11:23

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.

Well this does not mean that it's a capital that it will havea huge impact.... you simply showed that the age of a city counts, not capital. But maybe my exemple wasn't the best though...

Rothy: The current DOES NOT represent:
- The effect of urbanized tiles on resources
- Effects on combat
- Effects on nukes beeing shot

- Effect on specialization of cities
- Graphical way to make it as you'd look at Earth from sky

Emma · January 26, 2003, 11:25

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.

Trifna · January 26, 2003, 11:27

It would also be cool for some if there was a flag on a unit nd it died if it's taken. But is it more coherent and immersive? It's not because it's a way to play that it makes some sense. Effects of taken capitals should be editable I guess....

Emma · January 26, 2003, 11:31

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 · January 26, 2003, 12:30

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