I think cities should only take up the orginal 9 squares only and no more. There should be ways to increase food production more. I think this is needed because cities always take up to much space and always leave open useless land
city size and land use
- Thread starter Colonel
- Start date
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
I sort of see where you are going, but that limit shoudl eventually be lifted. Maybe certain technological and facility landmarks, along with culture, could expand borders. THis way eventually you could also use beyond the 21 squares, but rather to the next circle and eventualy 5 or 6 tiles away.
Yuri2356
Test Screening
There would have to be a down side to this, like the tiles surrounding the city could become "urbaized" and no londer produce. This would reflect the increasing spread of uban sprawl. Some of the best farmland in Canada is covered in suburb. In fact, I live on top of some.
Yuri2356
Test Screening
Urbanized land would still produce commerce, and possibly shields, but not food. And there would be a limit on urbanizing, either only one or two squares arround the city. For each new sectin of urban land, the city radius would grow slightly allowing for more production overall. Just an Idea.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
Just for arbitrary reasons here could be a formula.
Every (7-Difficulty Level) citizens past 15 would take up a square of land adjacent to the city. this way low difficulty could also make developing harder, since that is what civ should ultimately aim for.
Every (7-Difficulty Level) citizens past 15 would take up a square of land adjacent to the city. this way low difficulty could also make developing harder, since that is what civ should ultimately aim for.
Trade-peror
UET Economist
I think cities should NEVER be limited to the generic 21-square pattern, and be allowed to expand as they please. The catch, however, is that cities must maintain a level of culture that is strong enough to bind a city together, or some of the outlying citizens may break away and form a city of their own, emigrate, and so forth.
In addition, cities and their citizens should physically exist on the map, and so another disadvantage of oversized sizes in the earlier eras is that resource production may not reach the city in a timely fashion, since the level of "connectivity" a citizen has with his city depends upon the number of movement points required to reach the city. A citizen with low connectivity would be inefficient in that it may take 2 or more turns for his resources to reach the city where it is actually exported or consumed.
This generalized model, however, allows for large metropolis cities such as New York and London to develop with advances in technology. Therefore, large cities will develop in a more reasonable and realistic manner.
In any case, my entire model is largely explained in my Urban Sprawl Model . I will also soon be integrating it into my general economic model, the UET II .
In addition, cities and their citizens should physically exist on the map, and so another disadvantage of oversized sizes in the earlier eras is that resource production may not reach the city in a timely fashion, since the level of "connectivity" a citizen has with his city depends upon the number of movement points required to reach the city. A citizen with low connectivity would be inefficient in that it may take 2 or more turns for his resources to reach the city where it is actually exported or consumed.
This generalized model, however, allows for large metropolis cities such as New York and London to develop with advances in technology. Therefore, large cities will develop in a more reasonable and realistic manner.
In any case, my entire model is largely explained in my Urban Sprawl Model . I will also soon be integrating it into my general economic model, the UET II .
