I don't know if this has been asked or not, but I noticed that who would want to get stuck with roads all game long... how about this fantasy mods equivilent of the railroad? I'm just saying at least... if it's already planned out then just ignore this idea if not... well you all know what to do :bounce:

Units alredy have giant movement points, with a railroad equivalent, fast movement would be too easy, and thats supposed to be the job of Obsidian Gates. That´s why The Team doesn´t wan´t it, if I recall correctly.

I see... didn't realize that until you pointed that out... so... this thread is meaningless now... MOD!!!! please close and delete this thread... lol it's no longer needed! :D

(Well, since no one needs it...*hijacks thread*)

Yeah, I was thinking about making Forts into a route instead of an improvement. My idea was that building a fort over a resource would let you harvest it regardless of city borders (as long as you had your units on it) along with the defense bonuses and possibly ZOC as well. It would also let you put other improvements under it and thus make it easier for the AI to juggle.

Any comments?

That may be a good idea.

That idea sounds good... but it's nothing new hehe, all it is, is the equivlent of the colony in Civ 3... but I like the idea... able to use resources without them being in a cities borders sounds great

Sounds like a good idea, but... is it programmable?

Alternate idea: have forts expand your cultural borders. I know that Consecrate was supposed to do much the same thing, and it didn't work properly, but I'd like that much better. Perhaps you'd have to pay some upkeep for it, too.

Sounds about right. Does anyone still have some of the old code for consecrate that I could work from?

wouldnt it be a lot easier to just make no maintenance cities with -1 culture and no build abilities except walls and such? then it would only be 1 tile of culture. and then make culture bombs and the like not work on them.

You mean like settlements, but even more nerfed?

yep, achieves all the functionality

Two problems, though:
1. It means you have to program your way around the two-square limit.
2. City are as good as impossible to remove.

3. You can't build improvements on it.
4. You've got an ugly, nerfed city screen to deal with. (At least the Kuriotates could do some things with their settlements)

Hmm... why not just have it on a single square? say you have a Iron resources that's outside your city borders that you want and it's in your borders of your civs color you only need one spot and not several... think of it as a forward resource base or something like that... hence why I said the thing about Civ 3 with the colony... it worked the same way except that it had to be outside your borders of your civ... if it was in your borders the improvment would get destroyed. Course this new improvment would only be needed as you can only use so many citys spread out and some resources you could not get with in city boundries so you can use them in that manner

Well, in Civ 4 you do not need border-internal colonies because as long as the resource is in you cultural borders and you build an improvement on it, it gets harvested. If I understood you correctly. What we're talking about is outside your cultural borders.

1. two square limit doesnt seem a big deal, i mean, if theres two resources that close then you should just build a city there.
2. why would you want to remove a city that costs nothing and has strategic importance? and once an enemy encounters it theyll destroy it automatically since it will only be size 1
3. why would you want to buid improvements on it? youre already getting the resource, because cities auto-hook up any resources theyre built on, and theres no yields to want for, since an outpost is built outside your borders.
4. youve got a free city fort with upgrade capability (build say herbalist, walls and such), that collects a resource for you.

you would prolly have to create code to disband the city once it enters cultural borders, and not allow building within cultural borders. also maybe not allow riots and cultural switches in the outpost.

the key difference from a settlement would be that its borders is a 1 sized square, and it wouldnt have any culture buildings available.

why would you want to remove a city that costs nothing

That statement is false because as long as it counts as a city, it will affect maintenance costs. The city itself won't require you to pay maintenance but the cost for all the other cities will increase. It happens with the Kuriotate settlements as well. It's the effect of the # of cities maintenance cost that the creators of CIV put in to prevent the infinite city sprawl effect that existed in Civ3.

Well, you could say that the rise in maintenance in other cities is to pay for the fortress´ costs...

also, i thought kael mentioned fixing that recently so that they weren't counted in the total.

Well I'm just stating a fact right now. I don't really know if the idea is good or not. The reasoning from Silverkiss makes sense and can be a balancing factor. As for Kael fixing that recently, all I know is that in 2.016i, unless I downloaded a messed up version, what I said is true about settlements counting towards that # of cities maintenance. Load up a diety game on a duel sized map with Cardith Lorda all alone and build a settlement after the capital. The capital will cost 1 gold at least.

Well, in Civ 4 you do not need border-internal colonies because as long as the resource is in you cultural borders and you build an improvement on it, it gets harvested. If I understood you correctly. What we're talking about is outside your cultural borders.

Point taken :D