ColtSeavers
Prince
I'm afraid so!Is it moving in direction Scotland?

I'm afraid so!Is it moving in direction Scotland?
This is a problem of inconsistent scale and it’s unavoidable in a game where the map is divided into tiles that are all the same physical size but theoretically must abstract different distances. I don’t think the physical scale of anything in civ has ever been absolutely relative, even when comparing two of the same object type.But that’s not the real problem. The real problem with city sprawl is that the distance from the NW-most quadrant of Chalkis to its wharf (a walk that one of my citizens could presumably make in an hour or so) is the same distance as from my city to the frontier city of a rival nation: 5 hexes.
You don't even need that kind of calculation. Google tells me that right this minute only 3% of the earth's surface is covered by cities!For context, the general rule of thumb is that in pre-modern agrarian societies something like ~80-90% of the population are farmers. It's safe to assume that each farmer farms considerably more acreage than is covered by a city dweller's house. So there should probably be at least 20x more area covered by farms than cities.
If only there were some way of moving between different of those scales, each important to various satisfactions that the game supplies. Say with a mouse click or something.This is a problem of inconsistent scale and it’s unavoidable in a game where the map is divided into tiles that are all the same physical size but theoretically must abstract different distances.
...as it is in Civ 3.If only there were some way of moving between different of those scales, each important to various satisfactions that the game supplies. Say with a mouse click or something.![]()
And the Eiffel Tower is famously in Paris, not Tokyo, but Civ still lets me build it there.The City of London was (is) famously one square mile. Google says that it wasn't until the 18th c. that it developed significantly outside of that boundary. (I feel like I once read a thing that said it started happening 16th c.) (But still!)
But this isn't an argument about realism, but probability of accurance.And the Eiffel Tower is famously in Paris, not Tokyo, but Civ still lets me build it there.
I just don’t think historical realism is a convincing argument for most mechanics in Civ.
I think these are the same ideas.But this isn't an argument about realism, but probability of accurance.
Ancient cities could be plenty huge. Rome is nearly 500 square miles large. But that's besides the point: there is zero way to make city sprawl make "realistic" sense in a game where tiles are all the same size and some approximate thousands of miles. No city that has ever existed would fill a hex to the largest degree it can be abstracted to. To scale it, cities should never take up an entire tile in the first place (which I think would be a bad idea).There is 0 probability of that kind of a sprawl in the city thousands of years ago.
Well it's the same view many others have for cities. They're larger for beauty and visibility.I don't have any issue with units being out of scale for visibility purposes - boats are absolutely beautiful actually.
That's how it is though. Tile distances are liminal, not consistent. In fact, nothing physical in the game is consistent. How else do you make sense of wonders with the same footprint as an entire city center?However, if I have to abstract myself into thinking that one tile inside the city is 100 meters and one tile outside is a thousand kilometers, it breaks that empire building feeling for me.
Not sure how this relates to the rest of the post, but that is not something I have a problem with myself.Also, having a plantation right beside the city center is also not ideal - every plant and animal should be movable within it's biome.
There is that distinction though. It's just organic and baked in the gameplay. Towns cannot have urban district buildings, so they're surrounded by rural districts. They naturally have far less sprawl. It's actually an extremely elegant solution to the point you're making.Having this distinction between cities and towns and not been able to do that is a lost opportunity.
one tile inside the city is 100 meters and one tile outside is a thousand kilometers, it breaks that empire building feeling for me.
Not if we talk about Eiffel Tower not being build in Paris. If, history would be different, it's probable to be erected in a different place.I think these are the same ideas.
Yes, but again, You talk realism in concurrence of what have happened, and probability is about what could have happened if there would be a slight change in condition.Ancient cities could be plenty huge. Rome is nearly 500 square miles large. But that's besides the point: there is zero way to make city sprawl make "realistic" sense in a game where tiles are all the same size and some approximate thousands of miles. No city that has ever existed would fill a hex to the largest degree it can be abstracted to. To scale it, cities should never take up an entire tile in the first place (which I think would be a bad idea).
We could argue that sprawl less visible when zoomed out on bigger map would look better.Well it's the same view many others have for cities. They're larger for beauty and visibility.
Yes, but again, if map would be big enough that would make it less jarring, but then settlements would have to have a larger working area then 3 tiles.That's how it is though. Tile distances are liminal, not consistent. In fact, nothing physical in the game is consistent. How else do you make sense of wonders with the same footprint as an entire city center?
That one was a additional point besides the argument, sorry if it was confusing.Not sure how this relates to the rest of the post, but that is not something I have a problem with myself.
I meant that - because we have a distinction between them, not being able to move a plantation a little further from the city center, just to make it sprawl urban more organically is a lost opportunity.There is that distinction though. It's just organic and baked in the gameplay. Towns cannot have urban district buildings, so they're surrounded by rural districts. They naturally have far less sprawl. It's actually an extremely elegant solution to the point you're making.
I those who have a problem with the sprawl are forgetting that not all your settlements will be cities. More will be towns, which cannot have the same level of sprawl.
I'm not a fan of a separate city screen either. For me, it's not only a matter of the clicks - even though that matters also - but also a question of: What would be the point? The whole idea of unstacking the cities is to work with the terrain, but that more or less gets lost of all of city is contained within one hex on the map.This is a problem of inconsistent scale and it’s unavoidable in a game where the map is divided into tiles that are all the same physical size but theoretically must abstract different distances. I don’t think the physical scale of anything in civ has ever been absolutely relative, even when comparing two of the same object type.
This perhaps would be improved with cities able to expand out more than 3 tiles, and with wider distances between cities (a territory system like Humankind for instance).
I like the immediacy of single map layer but I don't really see a big problem with having a dual layer map either. Both have pros and cons.I don't really understand how people can be anti click about a dual layer map, but totally fine with clicking into different bland windows for civics, tech, governments, trade routes, building in your city, narrative events, resolving crises, picking a civ to swap too, etc etc.
I would much rather have any of those windows replaced with another map, thats far more interesting to interact with to me than a serious of text boxes on a screen.
If anyone can explain why those things are different to them, I would love to hear your thoughts
Pretty sure pokiehl addressed this like twice already. It's not about having to click to access information, it's about having to perform series of clicks to see a comprehesive visualisation of your progress. Specifically, click on each city to see how it has grown rather than just pan through the map. It is extremly inconvinient for that.I don't really understand how people can be anti click about a dual layer map, but totally fine with clicking into different bland windows for civics, tech, governments, trade routes, building in your city, narrative events, resolving crises, picking a civ to swap too, etc etc.
I would much rather have any of those windows replaced with another map, thats far more interesting to interact with to me than a serious of text boxes on a screen.
If anyone can explain why those things are different to them, I would love to hear your thoughts