stupid city building rules and the changes needed

blacksheep

Chieftain
Joined
May 1, 2002
Messages
10
anyone realize after they changed the city settlement rule you could only get two of anything on the spot you settled? in other words now you should never settle on any good terrain because you will just lose shields, food, or money. if you dont settle on the terrain you can get its maximum benefit within the town boudaries. what's the point of settling on resources now???!!! this is a dumb way to contain ics as it limits territory and resources. the best way to limit ics is to limit the construction of towns to outside of each towns building boudaries. no overlap. this way you dont get cities right next to each other and can only build as many towns as you have land space available. anyone else agree?
 
What is ics?

PS: Capital Letters Are Good :D
 
ICS is building cities that are spaced, so that there is only 1 or 2 tiles in between the city center squares.

I don't really see how this new rule, really affects ICS. There might be times where you might squeeze 1 or 2 of more cities on an island without building a city on a bonus resource. If you place a city, just 1 tile over, you can get almost the same number of cities. But you are right, that maybe they should set the limit of how far apart cities can be built as three tiles apart, instead of two, to limit ICS. But of course whatever the limit is, everyone will push that limit to the max.
 
And another thought, this encourages people to settle ON the BAD terrain, but is surrounded by good terrain. If there is one tile of desert surrounded by flood plains/plains, settle on the desert! The desert tile will then give you 2 food, 2 shields and gold instead of the 0 food, 1 shield!
 
ICS - infinite city sprawl - just building cities everywhere no matter what the overlap is

just realized...is the ai still programmed to settle on resources? if so that is another major ai flaw as we humans know not to settle on them. if the ai does settle on them then the ai loses the extra ability of its resources and we begin to outpace them. i hope this isnt the case.
 
Yes, the AI still sometimes builds ON the bonus resources. It makes me mad, when I see that the city I just captured was built on a cow!!
 
Sounds like another easily fixed bug Firaxis hasn't bothered to fix.
Too bad. :(
 
This is not a bug, it's clearly designed that way by the game designers. This is so all cities will have enough food to stay at size 1 and have at a minimum 1 shield/turn. It makes good sense for them to do this (what would happen if a city didn't have enough food to survive, or it had 0 shields?), and I haven't seen anyone complaining about it. Just don't settle on a bonus resource tile! :cool:
 
Originally posted by Sullla
This is not a bug, it's clearly designed that way by the game designers. This is so all cities will have enough food to stay at size 1 and have at a minimum 1 shield/turn. It makes good sense for them to do this (what would happen if a city didn't have enough food to survive, or it had 0 shields?), and I haven't seen anyone complaining about it. Just don't settle on a bonus resource tile! :cool:
You see people complaining now. :p ;)
But I agree it is not a bug, but just a bad design decision.
 
Maybe the solution would be to keep it as a minimum criteria, but if you build on a better tile, you would get the extra benefits. This would mean you could have decent cities in desert and also have a good start city built on a gold mine!
 
Another way to look at this aspect, is to consider the that some of the 'bonuses' are realy just potential bonuses. If you settle a city on a food bonus square, you basically are choosing to develop on top of rich arable land. Why would it be better to allow that food bonus when in real-life you would have to accept that loss?

Now I agree that you could say the same about luxuries. Why should you get the benefit of Spices (for instance) if you happen to build your city sprawl all over it?

Bottom-line is, why spend so much time arguing over the design decisions made, especially where there's no clearcut 'best' solution anyway? The game is all about compromises anyway - I just don't know why people have to whine about things just because they can present a different (but no more realistic) design choice.
 
sullla i do not have a problem with the design of giving 2 outputs per settlement. i just dont like the idea of limiting any extra output you would normally have. this was done to prevent ICS. i just think there is a better way of doing this in limiting city settlement to prevent overlapping.

as far as commerce goes yes i do believe the get the correct amount. but shields and food are limited to 2. and that is without irrigation, mining, or roads. so why would you want to limit your resource output plus disallow any additional benefits from irrigation, mining, roads? plus any mods made to resources bringing them above 2 output are erased. thus why would you want to settle on a resource other than what has already been said about keeping your foes from the resource. cant you still do this if the resource is within your town boundaries? preventing towns from overlapping during settlement seems like a much better prevention system of ICS than limiting resources.
 
sullla - yes u are right we can just ignore the problem and avoid settleling on resources. but can the ai ignore the problem and avoid this? the answer is no and this i just another limiting factor on the ai that i think could easily be fixed.
 
Top Bottom