FIRAXIS please do this (with POLL!!)

[jdogg]

meant to put a poll in the first one - if a mod could delete it that'd be swell

Should the AI be allowed to settle if the 9 block grid it is in is all tundra/mountain. I don't believe they should since the cities are mostly useless - they become more of a drag on system resources and usually don't really make any stiring contribution to the game

Revision:

I still have to say I do not like cities in tundra. Now you bring up a valid point about resources ... so restrict the ban to a nine city square with only bare/forested tundra spots (i mentioned mountains because if the city has one mountain in the 9 radius and 8 tundra it still shouldn't be built there - variations of this included). I simply thought it was unrealistic to have tons and tons of small cities in tundra where as in real life there aren't all that many ... at least there are none where there are no resources.

And for those who want to up settlers from 2 to 3 pop: I believe changing the value of settlers only makes overall expansion slower (which in turn affects the whole game) I'm saying that you just over all prevent cities from being built with no real value ... how many of you out there actually build cities in tundra squares when there are NO resources nearby? I wouldn't do it cause its a waste, I don't see why the AI should. Of course there is the issue of what if the AI has run out of space ... maybe throw in some sort of city cap to (maybe once a civ has 10 cities it will no longer just plop cities down in useless 9 squares)

This isn't supposed to be some massive game fix ... I think it would be just a nice tweak which would not really affect game play (since these cities really wouldn't contribute anything - no resourses, no significant size, no significant production) but also would speed up the game a little (because you don't have to wait for the AI to scroll through its 20 "all-tundra no-resource" cities.

 

[rev063]

This is a poorly designed poll. The question in the forum article and the question in the poll header have opposite senses!

I voted wrongly, so move one vote from No to Yes (the AI should be able to settle anywhere). Tundra-only cities can be quite successful, and you (or the AI) can't settle in mountains in any case.

- rev

 

[jdogg]

I wouldn't say i have a bad poll design simply because you did NOT read the question carefully. Anyways, I reworded my original post to avoid confusion. I have to say im suprised that no one seems to agree with me now ... especially considering that from the number of articles i have read, the general consensus seems to agree with my view.

 

[rev063]

Actually, cities in tundra can be very valuable. Load them up with mines and roads, and you can get good production. Add game and/or rails, and they can get to a good size. Just don't pack them too tightly.

But the best use of tundra cities is to claim territory, especially to secure resources like oil.

- rev

 

[Exile_Ian]

I don't think its a problem - in fact I've done exactly the thing you're suggesting shouldn't be allowed.

The game already blocks you building on a mountain anyway, so its only Tundra that you seem to be complaining about.

I've seen some very unfavorable territory (from a food point of view) that was full of resources (Gems) and I wanted to secure it before the AI did. Sure a city can't grow that easily, but by the time your culture gets build up, you move beyond the initial boundaries anyway. Besides there's nothing wrong with having a city with population of 1 - regard it as a sort of super-colony.

 

[Ghengis Brom]

If the AI can't build in Tundra then I don't think it would be fair if the player could. Personally I don't mind building in all tundra if the resources, bonus or otherwise, are there.

 

[PaulNAdhe]

Tundra can be very effective with Electricity. Plant the sucker with forests and go to town!!! And you can only get furs from the Tundra. And you usually get oil in the tundra. I like the Tundra.

I don't think you can build a city in a 9 mountain grid. Can you?

 

[PaulNAdhe]

Originally posted by Exile_Ian
I don't think its a problem - in fact I've done exactly the thing you're suggesting shouldn't be allowed.

The game already blocks you building on a mountain anyway, so its only Tundra that you seem to be complaining about.

I've seen some very unfavorable territory (from a food point of view) that was full of resources (Gems) and I wanted to secure it before the AI did. Sure a city can't grow that easily, but by the time your culture gets build up, you move beyond the initial boundaries anyway. Besides there's nothing wrong with having a city with population of 1 - regard it as a sort of super-colony.

If there are any resources in the mountains, I'll definitely look for the closest place to build a city. I don't care whether the city grows past 2 the entire game. The resources are the important part.

And I don't think it will provide a noticeable speed improvement. Theres' just too much other stuff pulling the engine down.

 

[Bamspeedy]

You could do what I've seen done in some other mods. Make a settler cost 3 citizens instead of 2, so you need a pop 4 city before producing a settler. This makes cities far more expensive, so the player and (hopefully) the AI be a little smarter in where they place their cities.

 

[NY Hoya]

it would actually give colonies a purpose if a tundra building restriction were imposed. I mean, there aren't that many real cities built entirely on tundra in real life. I think you can change this in the editor though.

 

[Klasanov]

Yes, they should. A tundra area with 5 gem resources can be pretty good, you know, even if it's all tundra. Unfortunately, I never bothered to settle it so the Russians got to it first.

 

[Zachriel]

I would like to see the "bad" terrain undeveloped until the invention of engineering at least. That would provide a haven for barbarians to attack, similar to the steppe hordes. Barbarians need to upgrade, too, and capture cities.

Of course, the rule must be the same for human and AI.

 

[Park Ranger]

Originally posted by Zachriel
I would like to see the "bad" terrain undeveloped until the invention of engineering at least. That would provide a haven for barbarians to attack, similar to the steppe hordes.

So allow colonies, but not cities. You don't need engineering, but distant resources of furs and oil will require a significant effort, and it will be a long time before cultural borders replace the need for vigilance against barbarians.

 

[jdogg]

I still have to say I do not like cities in tundra. Now you bring up a valid point about resources ... so restrict the ban to a nine city square with only bare/forested tundra spots (i mentioned mountains because if the city has one mountain in the 9 radius and 8 tundra it still shouldn't be built there - variations of this included). I simply thought it was unrealistic to have tons and tons of small cities in tundra where as in real life there aren't all that many ... at least there are none where there are no resources.

Oh and bamspeedy, changing the value of settlers only makes overall expansion slower (which in turn affects the whole game) I'm saying that you just over all prevent cities from being built with no real value ... how many of you out there actually build cities in tundra squares when there are NO resources nearby? I wouldn't do it cause its a waste, I don't see why the AI should. Of course there is the issue of what if the AI has run out of space ... maybe throw in some sort of city cap to (maybe once a civ has 10 cities it will no longer just plop cities down anywhere)

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Just for fun I`ll block building towns on Tundra and desert squares. We`ll see, but I think that will give meaning to colonies.....

 

[Talar]

I think the real problem is that you can't play a game where the AI don't settle every single square of land no matter how useless.

The reason for placing a new city should be that you want a good city that could contribute to your empire within a reasonable time, not just to expand your territory at any cost to increase your score.

As it is now a large, corrupt empire with a lot of small useless "landgrabbing" cities will earn more points/turn compared to a smaller but a lot more efficient one with only good useful cities.

 

[outlaw]

If the AI wants to settle the land, let it. The Russians have a vast amount of "useless" land sparcely settled which they use for a combination of defence in depth and minerals. If your forces have to fight their way over those distances, then the main defending forces have time to prepare their counterattack using their interior lines of communication

 

[royfurr]

A question, you all. This talk of using colonies instead of cities in these poor locations, esp. if one increased the cost of settlers to 3 pop points rather then 2, has me wondering. I had given up on colonies after having them "occupied" by an ai city a few times.

How LONG a distance can you go from an established city to a colony? Is there a limit?

Thanks. Sorry for the OT aspect. Getting back on topic-

I vote NO, let the dummy AI build them where-ever. But increase the city limit from 512. Yes yes I know it'll slow down the game but I can accept that. I would NOT make the limit too large however, say 7 or 800. Maybe 650?? Better yet, make it an editor accessable item and let each of us select what we can live with.

Civ on.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Killer
Just for fun I`ll block building towns on Tundra and desert squares. We`ll see, but I think that will give meaning to colonies.....

Let us know your results.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Park Ranger
So allow colonies, but not cities. You don't need engineering, but distant resources of furs and oil will require a significant effort, and it will be a long time before cultural borders replace the need for vigilance against barbarians.

Yes, and you would have to protect the connecting road.