kristopherb
Protective/Charismatic
I'm surprised they didn't put the 3 radius city in BTS.
No-3 radius cities?
- Thread starter kristopherb
- Start date
ew0054
Troll Extraordinaire
They have used the "fat cross" radius since Civ I. I can't see them changing it. It's like on of Civ's instantly recognizable features.
Gaius Octavius
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2006
- Messages
- 4,016
I never understood the advantage of having a "fat x" instead of a full square. It just makes city placement more annoying to me. I don't see that it adds one iota to strategy.
ew0054
Troll Extraordinaire
Fat X is closer to a circle. Thats probably why they used it. I think it adds for interesting city placement as opposed to monotonous patchwork.
I think it comes from the pretense that it is more round, as opposed to a square grid. That being said, it *IS* a square grid game, so I'll have to agree with Gaius Octavius on this one.
The "Fat X" makes the game more interesting...
I always have problems in estabilish new cities, because of the "X" and the resources/river/lakes/shores location. But if it was a square, it would be so easy. I like the idea of having "problems" in establish cities, It makes the land more important.
It also defines the Empire form
.
I always have problems in estabilish new cities, because of the "X" and the resources/river/lakes/shores location. But if it was a square, it would be so easy. I like the idea of having "problems" in establish cities, It makes the land more important.
It also defines the Empire form
.
OTAKUjbski
TK421
To me, square tiles make it even more apparent that there has to be a fat cross and not a fat square.
Consider this:
-- my 2
Consider this:
- A city's radius is two (2) tiles.
- The distance from corner to corner of each tile is 1.41 [units] (Sid has always rounded this to 1.5).
- From the city tile in the center to the corner tile of a 5x5 tile grid is 2.82 (Sid's math says, "3" tiles).
- Since 3 > 2, the corner is inaccessible.
-- my 2
winddbourne
Prince
I like the fat cross because of the difficulties it provides and I wouldn't want even an option for a square. It is important that you use strategy to get the most resources, suffering sometimes from either overlapping or losing the workable tile.
On the other hand . . . more options for shapes wouldn't be a bad thing. For example a longer squished cross for coastlines and/or mountain ranges.
On the other hand . . . more options for shapes wouldn't be a bad thing. For example a longer squished cross for coastlines and/or mountain ranges.
TAfirehawk
WoC Team Manager
We will certainly have the 3 City Radius in World of Civilization, just as it is in ViSa for Warlords.
TheLastOne36
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,045
Idea to modders, making it changeable whenever you start a game in Custom Games!
TAfirehawk
WoC Team Manager
Is there any other way to do it?
I know the original isn't selectable, but in ViSa it is already.....
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
In FfH the Sprawling trait (possessed only by one leader, Cardith Lorda) gives a building in some cities (3 on a normal map, adjusted by map size) use the third ring, but their other cities are given a building that makes them practically worthless (they can only build walls, monuments, and the building that makes them 3 ring full cities if they don't have too many)
Personally, I think that they should do away with the city radius entirely, but make tiles less and less useful the further they are from the city. Preferably, the penalty should be extreme in the early game and slowly diminish as you research more advanced technology and build things like mass transit. It might also be appropriate for the distance calculation used in determining a tiles productivity to be measured by how long it would take a unit to travel to the tile, i.e., roads/railroads would be essential to increase the effective radius. This system would make game play far more realistic in the latter ages, since food for a metropolis is rarely farmed within the city radius. Perhaps that is how it could work in Civ V.
Personally, I think that they should do away with the city radius entirely, but make tiles less and less useful the further they are from the city. Preferably, the penalty should be extreme in the early game and slowly diminish as you research more advanced technology and build things like mass transit. It might also be appropriate for the distance calculation used in determining a tiles productivity to be measured by how long it would take a unit to travel to the tile, i.e., roads/railroads would be essential to increase the effective radius. This system would make game play far more realistic in the latter ages, since food for a metropolis is rarely farmed within the city radius. Perhaps that is how it could work in Civ V.
winddbourne
Prince
That would be a nice idea Cultuum, and while they are at it they could include telephone and telegraph technologies to lower the "Distance" cost for city maintanence in the late game; so that you could have a larger empire more easilly in an era with mass transit and communications.
To me, square tiles make it even more apparent that there has to be a fat cross and not a fat square.
Consider this:
- A city's radius is two (2) tiles.
- The distance from corner to corner of each tile is 1.41 [units] (Sid has always rounded this to 1.5).
- From the city tile in the center to the corner tile of a 5x5 tile grid is 2.82 (Sid's math says, "3" tiles).
- Since 3 > 2, the corner is inaccessible.
-- my 2
I have no idea what you mean. What are you trying to say with your point (d) ?
TheLastOne36
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,045
Is there any other way to do it?
I know the original isn't selectable, but in ViSa it is already.....
Well if that's possible that is...
CTH
Prince
I think one way of diong larger cities would be that when a city grow beyond like 20 in pop, the citysquare will grow in tile and the cultural border will grow a litle. That would give us larger cities and a factor of growing to think about. If you got a city that you think won't grow over 20 you could build another city closer to it, otherwise you have to leave som space.
Rince
King
The corner tile that is not included in the fat cross is 3 squares away which is outside the 2 square radius.
Rince
Hmm. I thought he meant something else. My point is, I don't see how square tiles makes anything more apparent about the fat cross being necessary. There would be nothing wrong with a square cross, so to speak, except that the fat cross just looks more round and I think that's it.
Rince
King
The perfect shape would be a circle, right? But this is not feasible since the smallest map unit is a square. So the next best thing is the fat cross, not a 5x5 square.
Code:
###
#####
##O##
#####
###
is closer to a circle than
#####
#####
##O##
#####
#####Rince
