Cities - as battlefields

[-Tomasz-]

I don't know if this subject has been touched, but according to me, the city in the screenshot takes more than one tile. If you compare the city with the border lines on the top, you'll clearly understand what I mean. Another thing is the city's forum, located next to the palace, colosseum, amphitheatre. I believe that the main city square ( the forum ) would be in the middle of the city. This means that the buildings on the other side of the river also belong to the city.

My point. If the city takes 4 tiles for example, it would be possible during war to take a part of the city ( thus damaging the city's production capacity for example ).

This would lead to a possibility of a post war city division between different sides ( as it was with Berlin after WW2 )

If the subject was started somewhere else, please tell me so, although I believe this topic earns a right for its own thread.

What are you thoughts?


Tomasz

 

[SonicX]

I think this city takes 5 tiles
It's a perfectly square city (unfortenately) but it seems to be 45° rotated in contrast to the normal map tiles.

--+--
-+C+-
--+--

This is my guess about what this picture represents, with a city center on the original city square and 4 adjacent city edge square.
I don't know what it means though.

 

[-Tomasz-]

The buildings on the bottom left also belong to the city if you look at where the plain tile goes IMO.

Tomasz

 

[vbraun]

Civ3 cities took up more then 1 square also.

 

[Lillefix]

If you compare it with how the soldiers are placed, it looks like it takes only one tile. It's just zoomed in very much. My guess is that the thing about the borderlines is just an optical illusion.

 

[joethreeblah]

If you compare it with how the soldiers are placed, it looks like it takes only one tile. It's just zoomed in very much. My guess is that the thing about the borderlines is just an optical illusion.

I don't understand any of the screenshots I've seen so far. I can never tell where one tile ends and one begins.

 

[Melendwyr]

Civ3 cities took up more then 1 square also.

No, I don't believe they did. As they expanded, their icons did seem to encroach on the squares around them, but that was an illusion: they covered exactly one square of land at all times.

 

[Abdomination]

No, I don't believe they did. As they expanded, their icons did seem to encroach on the squares around them, but that was an illusion: they covered exactly one square of land at all times.

He is correct, they never took up more than one space

 

[frenchman]

I don't think that the cities could be battlefields... must be to hard to manage for the AI... I think it's the "maximum zoom" view of one city in the screenshot...

 

[mastertyguy]

IMHO, metropolises (or whatever is the plural of metropolis) already occupy multiple squares, at least graphically, don't they?

 

[sir_schwick]

Cities would be perfect battlefields considering the gozillas that will fight over them. Those riflemen are larger than the Stay Puft Marshmellow man. Anyone else think the units are way to big?

PS: Sorry if that was OT.

 

[-Tomasz-]

The big unit problem is in other threads, this is just about urban warfare.

Tomasz

 

[alms66]

Civ3 cities took up more then 1 square also.

I think what vbraun meant here was that it appeared as if cities took up more than one tile in civ3, and I suspect that is all we're seeing in the screenshot above...
It appears to expand outside of one tile, but in reality, it doesn't and this just gives the graphical illusion of a large city just like civ3.

 

[apatheist]

Based on the information from Firaxis, cities will appear to take up more than one tile to indicate which surrounding tiles are being worked by that city.

 

[Paasky]

Battle of Stalingrad, anyone?

If the "city defend bonus" would be used in all tiles occupied by the city, it would mean that defending the entire city (not just the center square) would be a very good idea. The usual problem with attacking cities is that the attacker has to stand in a very open space, in the middle of enemy territory. If the enemy was to take even a part of the city, they would get the same defensive bonus as the defenders & be harder to repel, right?

EDIT:

I don't understand any of the screenshots I've seen so far. I can never tell where one tile ends and one begins.

Thats because the grid isn't on. And if the tiles are not visible is a very good thing, makes it look much nicer. Just ctrl+g to actually move units and get some sense of everything

 

[Yuri2356]

Cities would be perfect battlefields considering the gozillas that will fight over them. Those riflemen are larger than the Stay Puft Marshmellow man. Anyone else think the units are way to big?

PS: Sorry if that was OT.

Oh No, it is Spear-Zilla!

*Roar*


But anyway...

Having the cities start to 'sprawl' into neigboring tiles as they grow could be interesting for battles, where the 'suburban' tiles arround the city center provide a bit of a defense bonus. It would give people an incentive to keep the fighting away from their cities, instead of just sitting back and letting the enemy come.

 

[henry k c]

It would be cool if you could build 5 units at a time.

 

[REX GRACCHVS]

actually, i think this is just one tile, as unfortunate as that may be... and the littlle houses are just the cottage tile improvements ive seen mentioned elswhere...

 

[nicae]

i dont think it will have any impact on gameplay.
tho it would be nice...

 

[777]

Cities would be perfect battlefields considering the gozillas that will fight over them. Those riflemen are larger than the Stay Puft Marshmellow man. Anyone else think the units are way to big?

Absolutely! Cities seems to look nice but units are way too big or just seems to look amusing. I would prefer more large group of smaller units (like platoon or pack)