city space

[bill2505]

this is the secont part of my suggestion that is linked with the previous.in vanilla civ 4 you could build all building in the city without caring about limitations .even if you have built your city in the most remote mountain you city could be as big(both in pop and in number of buildings) as a city build in a huge grassland .so i suggest this
every city will start will some space or (capacity) points. if you build you town in a mountain you will have less points that building the city in a huge grasland.every building would would reduce the city capacity points.small building by 1(just an example) while bigger buildings more. houses and farms cost a lot of space and should reduce the city by many points . how you can increase your city points? by building some special building like the the administration series of buildings, some techs( urbanization would reduce the number of space that houses need) and maybe something else.
with this system you will have to plan your city. do you want city in mountains which will be small but will have defence and production bonus or a big city in a vast grassland which will be big but has defence difficulties.
i hope you like my suggestion

 

[MaXimillionZero]

So move even more towards a civ 5 like system where instead of determining what to build next you're determining of what you never want to build? The wonder caps already bring us too close to that IMO, it just doesn't make for fun gameplay.

 

[bill2505]

So move even more towards a civ 5 like system where instead of determining what to build next you're determining of what you never want to build? The wonder caps already bring us too close to that IMO, it just doesn't make for fun gameplay.

first i didnt get this idea from civ 5(i hate it) .second having a huge city in the mountains with all buildings is better?
you dont get it. i am not suggesting building cap or something. i am suggesting a system where your choise of first city tile will be more importand. do you want a small city in the mointains that will be more productive and more defencive but you will not be able to build all building( or at least you need to prioritize what to build) or in the second case a city in a grassland which in the "end" you will be able to build most building but with some planning . but still you will not be able in the same city have many huge house buildings and huge farms. this is realistic too
for example
a city in mountain will have 500 city space or cappacity points
after building some special buildings ,reasearch some techs (some will give you more points some like urbanization will make houses cost less points) your city points will increase to 1000(just an example
a city in a huge grassland will start with 1500 (random number) and after all the above the limit will rise to 3000(placeholder number

 

[rightfuture]

So your idea means creating an internal strategy for choosing buildings in different terrains?

I like the idea for earlier eras. Limitations could become irrelevant with technology and era progression.

I see three ideas.

Capacity . Cities, in earlier eras or tech, could have limited slots for buildings, also based on terrain. A swamp or mountain would have less room for building until conseq techs expand the limits, swamp draining/ inca mountain building architecture. For those upset by limited slots, the capacity limits would go away in earlier eras.

Order Strategy. Maybe the order of buildings built could matter. A city with a granary, courthouse, or library built first or central, could have a small bonus for the city. choosing build order could matter.

Tech strategy - picking the right strat could improve building bonuses and capacities.
Technologies like cliff dwelling or engineering could expand city building possilities in hills and cliffs.
Roads , public transportation, engineering techs, dam building, canal building can improve accessibility or strategy for buildings.

My favorite example is New Orleans, which I grew up relatively closely., swamp and the Mississippi River limited building to a very specific area, which increased over time as they learned to expand the area built. Even in modern times areas of swamp cannot be built on. six flags in new Orleans was very hard to build in a swampy area, and hurricane Katrina basically destroyed it out of business. buildings like the leaning tower of Pisa can sink, or have higher risk for building or destruction.

 

[bill2505]

So your idea means creating an internal strategy for choosing buildings in different terrains?

I like the idea for earlier eras. Limitations could become irrelevant with technology and era progression.

I see three ideas.

Capacity . Cities, in earlier eras or tech, could have limited slots for buildings, also based on terrain. A swamp or mountain would have less room for building until conseq techs expand the limits, swamp draining/ inca mountain building architecture. For those upset by limited slots, the capacity limits would go away in earlier eras.

Order Strategy. Maybe the order of buildings built could matter. A city with a granary, courthouse, or library built first or central, could have a small bonus for the city. choosing build order could matter.

Tech strategy - picking the right strat could improve building bonuses and capacities.
Technologies like cliff dwelling or engineering could expand city building possilities in hills and cliffs.
Roads , public transportation, engineering techs, dam building, canal building can improve accessibility or strategy for buildings.

My favorite example is New Orleans, which I grew up relatively closely., swamp and the Mississippi River limited building to a very specific area, which increased over time as they learned to expand the area built. Even in modern times areas of swamp cannot be built on. six flags in new Orleans was very hard to build in a swampy area, and hurricane Katrina basically destroyed it out of business. buildings like the leaning tower of Pisa can sink, or have higher risk for building or destruction.

your are closer yea. but even in the space age cities in mountains will still have less room than the one in grassland. until the space age (industrial mostly) you will face many consequences if you dont plan your city. the difference is with my suggestion when you progress tech you can build more not because your city is bigger but because you are more urbanized(houses cost less points) but also because new buildings will be smaller

 

[BlueGenie]

I'm against it.
As I see it the same amount of buildings, enterprises if you so will, can still be around in any setting of a city, just smaller perhaps, or not as sprawling, as in a tighter setting city, nor as many of that type (i.e. I don't see a Hat Shop as only a single building).
A mountain city without many flatland plots in City Vicinity will not grow as large as a city placed in an area where many farm improvements can be built anyway, at least not until food is of no concern any more, via vertical farming, in which case any arbitrary limits on what amount of enterprises a city can have should long be gone.
As for population people move to where the work is, not where the food is, and the food is transported in later to accommodate for the population. Sometimes there can be starvation, or at least a lack of food for a period, until merchants and farmers have realized the potential for income and are supplying the city with what they need.

Cheers

 

[JosEPh_II]

Is this idea based on the vanilla Civ IV fat X city or the expanded (Modded) 3 tile radius city?

Some ppl use the 3 radius exclusively while other don't use it at all is why I ask.

JosEPh

 

[bill2505]

Is this idea based on the vanilla Civ IV fat X city or the expanded (Modded) 3 tile radius city?

Some ppl use the 3 radius exclusively while other don't use it at all is why I ask.

JosEPh

no. it doesnt have anything to do with this

 

[P A Y N E]

Just as BlueGenie said, this is a pretty impractical idea as it stands. It basically defeats the purpose of ever settling a city on a peak, especially when all you need to do to alleviate the problem is to settle next to a peak and use the peak as a production tile. Granted, you get around the same surrounding tiles AND you aren't restricted by "capacities".

As a matter of fact, most areas with mountains don't even have any fresh water/good farmland anyway.

 

[Thunderbrd]

The idea makes perfect sense to me. However, an idea I have for FAR down the road would put this consideration far more in directly observable consideration so for now I'm thinking I'd personally just find it a bit annoying. However, if tiles with limited space for building simply created a drag or a penalty on the time or hammers to construct a building, yet offered greater protection, I can completely see how that could be workable. Humans tend to overcome whatever limitations they have. If we built a city in a mountain and ran out of space for the city, not only would the city immediately start extending down to the terrain around it but we'd also start building chambers inside the mountain itself, which would take more time, but would not stop us from the ability to continue expanding.

 

[bill2505]

The idea makes perfect sense to me. However, an idea I have for FAR down the road would put this consideration far more in directly observable consideration so for now I'm thinking I'd personally just find it a bit annoying. However, if tiles with limited space for building simply created a drag or a penalty on the time or hammers to construct a building, yet offered greater protection, I can completely see how that could be workable. Humans tend to overcome whatever limitations they have. If we built a city in a mountain and ran out of space for the city, not only would the city immediately start extending down to the terrain around it but we'd also start building chambers inside the mountain itself, which would take more time, but would not stop us from the ability to continue expanding.

yea that would work for darf nation . second i dont uderstand this. cities on mountains will have less space than cities in vast grashlands. this will happen always.now how many building you can build has to do with buildings space too.of course the gap will become somewhat closer throught tech advancement but still