More realistic number of cities

[mc4156]

This may have been addressed before, but my biggest complaint with CIV3 is the insane land grab whereby the entire habitable surface of the world is covered in cities by the middle ages or sooner. IMHO this is one of the most unrealistic aspects of the game

My recommendation is that:

1) Settler units should cost more. Founding new cities should be a larger investment that requires players to select the very best locations for cities in lieu of churnning out settler units to cover every bit of ground before the AI.

2) There should be a limit on the number of cities that can be effectively controlled. This number should gradually rise with the discovery of new technologies that allow for better administration and control, new forms of government, or small wonders like the Forbidden Palace.

3) If a civilization builds or captures cities above its limit, the new cities should have a substantial risk of revolt based on a number of factors including size, distance from capital, number of military police in the city, etc. Cities that revolt can operate similar to barbarian captured cities in previous versions of CIV (e.g. limited mostly to military production) or they can revert the previous civilization.

This system would allow for much more realistic game play. CIVs would compete over the best city locations and prime locations may change hands several times. Early warmonger players would have more options: Enemy cities could be destroyed or sacked for gold (including tribute per turn), technology or slaves but rarely assimilated unless they were near to the capital or had high strategic value. Players who prefer to build could focus on defending their cities and building cultural improvements.

 

[mastertyguy]

1) But if you don't settle, the AI will have it. I don't like it, but anyway, if the AI is not agressive, you will have everything, causing balanc lacks, and if it is to aggressive, they will settle every single tile.

2) which is OCN

3) which is culture flips

 

[mc4156]

Thanks for the reply. Here is my reply:

1) But if you don't settle, the AI will have it. I don't like it, but anyway, if the AI is not agressive, you will have everything, causing balanc lacks, and if it is to aggressive, they will settle every single tile.

I think that my point was that if the game were arranged so that there was not incentive to settle every square inch of land (and in fact their was a huge disincentive to do this) that the game would be more realistic. In realty civilizations settled cities in areas by lakes, rivers and harbors first while large cities didn't spring up in other areas until more advanced technologies made it more feasible.

I agree that the game is more fun with an aggressive AI but I think it would be more realistic if the aggressive AI was fighting you for best city spots instead of fighting you for any small gaps in your cultural boundaries.

2) which is OCN

Not exactly. OCN will add corruption for additional cities but the OCN number remains constant throughout the game. What I suggested was an OCN that starts small (with additional consequences for exceeding it such as revolt) and then grows larger throughout the game as your civilization develops new technologies and governments that allow you to administer a larger empire.

3) which is culture flips

I think my suggestion is different from culture flips since revolts would not come about primairly due to the cultural strength of another civ. Plus revolts would not necessarily convert the city to another civ. As I suggested, revolting cities could become "city-states." This would be similar to cities captured by Barbarians in the original civ.

 

[Rik Meleet]

1) hmmmm.... I think the only thing you'll accomplish with more expensive settlers is a longer expansion phase. The more cities you have, the more units you can build, the more research, the more power etc. so the expansio phase won't be sacrificed, even by making settlers more expensive. Although your idea is intruiging, making settlers more expensive might not be the solution.

Not that I'd like it; but a way of limiting cities and expansion phase is to not be able to build settlers at all. When you discover tech A, or accomplish some other goal like 10 archers alive, you can build 2 more settlers. When you've discovered tech B or build 20 swords, you can build 2 more settlers. etc.

It might be more realistic, but not my choice. I like it the way it is, but I'm willing to think along your lines.