Thanks rolo.
I was thinking, if you changed the minimal distance between cities to 4-5 hexes, wouldn't it help a lot against ICS ?
I dislike this idea, the game would become a huge huge land war then. People would still REX (through conquering). In fact, in some of my games my cities have good spacing even though I'm churning out settlers as fast as humanly possible. I'm just not "honeycombing". I'd much rather have something implemented that makes people say "building this next city might actually hurt my economy until I get new techs / buildings up".Zogar said:I was thinking, if you changed the minimal distance between cities to 4-5 hexes, wouldn't it help a lot against ICS ?
Oh SURE, link him your thread and not mine!r_rolo1 said:Here is the main one ( and the first one ). There are others dealing with ICS as well, but more specific game bounding .
. I'd much rather have something implemented that makes people say "building this next city might actually hurt my economy until I get new techs / buildings up".
This is an important point, I think. Hard limits like "4 spaces between cities" should be considered as an absolutely last resort. Preferably, the game should be structured such that you can do whatever you like, and have the consequences of building to close together keep you from doing so. One of the things that makes these games fun is situations like having a pair of cities 2 spaces apart normally be disastrous for both cities, except in some odd combination where the exploitation of some resource, or some crucial strategic value (like controlling a strait) balances it out. A hard limit doesn't give the option to shoot yourself in the foot, and any time options are limited, it's one step closer to a depressing "greased rails to victory" game.
...
It is not a fact in Civ V that the acquisition and consolidation of a big empire opens up an opportunity to out-tech the enemy. Since tech is dependent on population, each conquest speeds up research. Out building is possible in the case of Very Unhappy Civs, but those Civs do not have incentives to stop their conquests anymore, which leads us to the last point - Civs that are large by dint of conquest usually have outstandingly strong armies. Given the mobility of units in Civ 5, there isn't really an opportunity to attack the stronger Civ without encountering his army of death.
Yes, and so does Civ5. But it's low enough that it doesn't really hurt your decision making too much. If they allowed me to plant cities closer in Civ4, I don't know how many times I would. In contrast in Civ5, if they let me, I'd probably place cities a step closer, in fact if I had the Maritimes up and buildings for specialists, I'd probably place a city on near every tile.While I agree with that for the most part, didn't CivIV have a hard rule as to how close cities could be?
Nah, I was just trying to bug Rolo . That thread's old and I probably disagree with it (though the selling of happiness buildings makes this strat really really easy to pull off).Celevin,
You mean this one? http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=382812
just a quick post to say im a fan of the new system no slider
makes more logical sense that one tunr you can divert your entire economy one way or the other
makes more strategic sense that you have to plan ahead
adds to value of currency. Wealth has long been overlooked in civ
my 2 pence stated!
I really dislike the fact that I cannot change the tech rate when I want.
If I realise I have happiness issues, instead of upping the slider, I must check every city and build/buy colosseums everywhere needed. To me it's a chore.
I feel I have no control over science. I just have to grow a lot of population, and the only way to concentrate on tech is through building or research agreements. I feel like a whole part of the game has been removed, to be honest. If I managed to micromanage my cities I could increase the tech slider and get more tech, now I have to micromanage cities and the consequences will be long term, but negligible when compared to the output of research agreements (not to talk of maritime city states).
You mean you have a problem that you have to plan ahead to play the game well?
You mean you have a problem that you have to plan ahead to play the game well?
You mean you have a problem that you have to plan ahead to play the game well?
just a quick post to say im a fan of the new system no slider
makes more logical sense that one tunr you can divert your entire economy one way or the other
Is this a flame bait? With slider I can decide for myself how much resources I want to spend for science with one click, in Civ5 with no science overflow I have to visit several cities and click galore to prevent wasting a lot of beakers, and then turn later do the same crap again. And you call that improvement?