Limited Cities

[12agnar0k]

maybe they simply won't have scouts anymore, i mean i haven't seen any have you?

 

[Ahriman]

I think this is entirely possible. Once warriors are 2 moves, scouts aren't really needed.

 

[Nicolas10]

I did like how-in Civ4-you were encouraged to retain some forests for the purpose of building a lumber-yard or a Forest Preserve later in the game. Now in Civ5 we're also hearing how some places will be "Landmark Terrain", which can boost the revenue of a city built near to it. Hopefully this will further encourage players to leave some parts of the land untouched, without forcing artificial caps on them.

On a side-note, I *desperately* hope that these natural wonders are more easily discovered by scouts &/or explorers, because this will make these units more valuable than they currently are.

Aussie.

I hope the lumber mill option is lower in the tech tree... I think you should be able to make a lumber mill earlier, as it's no fun to have wait so long to make forests viable for city-working.

That said, for combat's sake, forests will be quite important. Even if you're not playing as the Iroquois, you'll want to keep forests in areas where an enemy army might approach. I'm not sure we've seen the actual figures yet for terrain bonus, but it will undoubtedly high, and I bet ranged unit effectiveness for units IN a forest will be quite low.

So, you'd think chopping would be less viable (or at least have tangible negatives) in this game, especially in border cities.

As for natural wonders, the puppet state dynamic is really in play here. So long as you know where the gold bonus locations are, you can prepare for a calculated assault on the city an AI might found, especially if it's aways from his capital and hard to defend. Why put effort into settling it, if instead you can steal it away down the line (hopefully with minimal unhappiness) and reap all the financial benefits?

 

[Schuesseled]

That said, for combat's sake, forests will be quite important. Even if you're not playing as the Iroquois, you'll want to keep forests in areas where an enemy army might approach. I'm not sure we've seen the actual figures yet for terrain bonus, but it will undoubtedly high, and I bet ranged unit effectiveness for units IN a forest will be quite low.

We haven't heard about a defensive bonus for forests, but it has been said that it provides a quicker heal time for units.

As for the ranged effectiveness, we know that there are specific upgrades for improving bombardment in either rough or open terrain. So you'll be safer from half of the enemies ranged units (the ones that pick accuracy over collateral).
I suspect that there is no penalities for firing whilst concealed ina forest but im not entirely sure, we do know that you won't be able to fire behind forests (over the top).

In conclusion, as long as there are no penalties for firing from a forest tile, i think it would make sense to keep a few forest tiles in which to stage your trebuchets, but having huge belts of forest would just make it ahrder to take out the enemy via ranged attacks.

I too hope a lumber mill improvement is given earlier. There are never any forests left in my territory by replacemnt parts in Civ 4

 

[duckofspades]

but then what would be the point in the extra land being in the game, if you could build acity there without experiencing dire maintenance penalties why wouldn't you.

Having a option to limit cities dosen't mean the whole content of Europe will only have 2 cities. In civ 4 Barbarin cities showed up even after I ran out of settlers. So your frontier is always pushing forward, intill all land is claimed. It just slows progression down. So you can keep some frontier in the game and have lots of cities to.
As far as good land not being settled go's. So what. Thier will always be stuff in civ that dosen't match up with the real world perfectly. By giving a option to players to cap the cities allowed on the map the game takes a new tone. With limtless cities nonething stands out. I go to war and sack port city A Industrail city B, C and D. With limited cities I go to war and sack the Key port in western Europe and so on.
Also people complain about cities not becoming the center of trade routes. Limiting cities could make this more likley.
Limiting cities as a game option. Is a good thing.

 

[Aeon221]

So long as the player is not constrained by any costs of development, development will continue until it covers the earth entirely.

Consider workers, if you will. They have a fixed cost to produce and their operating cost is the same regardless of whether they are working, idling, or wandering around at random.

Or consider the improvements. They have a fixed time cost to produce, their results are exclusively beneficial, and they have no maintenance constraints. Why on earth would I choose to leave a piece of land undeveloped, even if I have no intention of using it?

Finally, consider that all production and food is both produced and consumed locally. Only items (silk, gold, elephants, iron) that have their origin in the landscape can be traded amongst cities. And, worse yet, these items are binary rather than analog -- you either have them, or you do not have them. Which, once saturation has been achieved internationally, means that they too are only valuable for their effects on local production and consumption. So there's no real reason to seek out strategic assets, and there's definitely no reason to leave land underdeveloped around a city, even if it's worse than land elsewhere.

Only if we end up with a situation where the location of production is no longer bound to the location of consumption, only if we end up with a situation where asset saturation is relative to population size rather than binary, only if we have maintenance costs that vary based on any number of conceivable factors, in short, only if we attempt to model reality more perfectly will we end up with a situation where wholesale development of the earth is not both logical and inevitable.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

S

Finally, consider that all production and food is both produced and consumed locally. Only items (silk, gold, elephants, iron) that have their origin in the landscape can be traded amongst cities. And, worse yet, these items are binary rather than analog -- you either have them, or you do not have them. Which, once saturation has been achieved internationally, means that they too are only valuable for their effects on local production and consumption. So there's no real reason to seek out strategic assets, and there's definitely no reason to leave land underdeveloped around a city, even if it's worse than land elsewhere.

On this point, at least we know that strategic resources are no longer binary, but are only good for a finite number of units. Here's hoping it goes deeper than that, & that this philosophy extends into health & happiness resources too!

Aussie.

 

[Ddude97]

It doesn't apply to happiness rescources (last I checked I only read stuff that says new/updated) see confirmed features thread.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I've yet to see proof, either way, of how happiness resources will work in this game. Given that Happiness is global, there is no reason I can see for *not* having happiness resources working like Strategic Resources.

Aussie.

 

[qwerty25]

I've yet to see proof, either way, of how happiness resources will work in this game. Given that Happiness is global, there is no reason I can see for *not* having happiness resources working like Strategic Resources.

Aussie.

I'm pretty sure I read an article somewhere talking about how 1 happiness resource would be good enough for the whole empire. It's supposed to get you to trade your extra happiness resources. I didn't hear anything about food though.

 

[muxec]

CiV is supposed to have limited roads this time around. Well, more precisely, they aren't limited but rather they incur additional costs. That will clean up the map quite a bit. I hope they still provide gameplay incentives for keeping your forests growing. Good politics. Good land use policy. Fun to look at in-game.

Sounds great. Now I can fire my 20 workers.

 

[duckofspades]

So long as the player is not constrained by any costs of development, development will continue until it covers the earth entirely.

Consider workers, if you will. They have a fixed cost to produce and their operating cost is the same regardless of whether they are working, idling, or wandering around at random.


How does every tile being devloped make for a better game? By letting the player choose to limit the maximim number of citys of the map, cities stand out more. As far as workers go. With less cities you need less workers. So you would just spend less.
With a city cap you can still have a insainly populated world, just gives the player more choices.

 

[jfuesting]

I'm not really a big fan of arbitrary limits; however I do agree city spam is annoying. Frequently on my games, the vast majority of the map is populated and heavily developed by the middle ages. All the attempts at limiting city spam have been ineffective. I prefer mods that have extended city radii, but this is a bit off too. Unless tile benefits are adjusted, it throws off the balance of the game. It does cut down on city spam somewhat.

You could force a rule that increases the minimum distance between cities, but this too is a bit arbitrary. You would have to make all the 'deadspace' useful or beneficial somehow.

In Civ IV, the AI spams cities like mad, and you are forced to do the same to keep up. Hopefully, the 1UPT and reworked terrain combat bonuses will make it unnecessary to city spam to keep up with production. This will only work if the AI 'knows' it doesn't need to city spam.

 

[duckofspades]

I completly agree with you on arbitrary limits. The city cap would suck if the game defined the number for you. But if the player defines it they get what they want. Granted you would play a number of games finding your cap. But thats ok. That is if they wanted to use the optional rule.

I noticed dead space is something almost no one can seem to get over. It dosen't bother me, having some. I have always thought of cities on the map representing cities large enuff to be put on a world map. Rome, Newyork etc. You could say you get a small some of gold and or culture for every undevloped piece of land you own. This could represent the small towns and communites not big enuff to make the world map.
But the problem thier is the production of that, would likely never exceed if a city was thier with devloped land.
So you could just iincrease matience penalites to the point where citys above x cost more money. They have tried to do stuff like this in the past but it never really worked. To be honest this plan is a city cap. If it worked it would be a city cap the player couldn't define. People that want to play a city spam map couldn't. They would be mad about that.
So just toss in the optional rule to cap cities. Add a small gold and or cultral bouns for undevloped land. This would work with a city cap.
Every one wins. City spam players get to play till the world is a parking lot. Everyone else gets the wilderness levels they want. Dead space gets some value.

 

[butterbail]

NO EVERY TILE IN THE GAME SHOULD BE IMPROVED.

Who cares about wilderness levels. Man has dominated the planet and always will. This is a stupid idea!

 

[Schuesseled]

In the grand scheme of things Mr Butterbail, man is an insignificant speck in time and space, and the planet not us, will prevail.

But yes every tile should be improved.

 

[duckofspades]

Wow, I got nonething left to add. But the fact remains less can be more.

 

[duckofspades]

So long as the player is not constrained by any costs of development, development will continue until it covers the earth entirely.

Or consider the improvements. They have a fixed time cost to produce, their results are exclusively beneficial, and they have no maintenance constraints. Why on earth would I choose to leave a piece of land undeveloped, even if I have no intention of using it?

.

First off every other player would have the same issue. So it's not like the Romans would come in and build the city where you wanted to. Infinite City Sprawl has been a long time civ topic. Why should a player not be given a quick and effective option to control this? Adding this option would not prevent you from improving every tile. Just don't use it.

If you don't intend on using a tile then why wast time improving it. A map which is visuily pleasing to the eye is a positive value to gameplay.

Also as far as every tile being used in the real world. Take a look at a night time shot of America from space. Yea the East cost is a endless lightbulb. The west coast has it's far share. But the central plains are pretty dark.

 

[butterbail]

What is the point of having of these extra game options. Im not gona use a city cap so WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO LOOK AT IT. I don't care if it's a optional rule.
We will when, long after are sun burns out. WE WILL BE ON MARS OR SOME OTHER PLANET

 

[hbar]

What is the point of having of these extra game options. Im not gona use a city cap so WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO LOOK AT IT. I don't care if it's a optional rule.

Wow, I never thought of it that way. I'm sorry I was ever for an option that you didn't want. How selfish of me

We will when, long after are sun burns out. WE WILL BE ON MARS OR SOME OTHER PLANET

Um, Mars has the same sun...