Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
I thought this was what BG's changes were supposed to reign in on? Perhaps # of City Upkeep and possibly distance to capital upkeep needs to be greatly increased now.
My hyperexpansion test to show some faults.
- Thread starter BlueGenie
- Start date
True - but not everyone plays on Eons. I prefer quicker games so play Marathon speed, which is only 3000 turns.
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
Settler cost is not defined in the XML but somewhere else. Even base BtS has the cost of a settler as 0.
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
I think one of the FFH modmods included scaling Settler cost. Would that help?
There is an extra calculated cost depending on some global defines and the food threshold of the first population (without the civics effect) but the XML iCost entry is still effective.
I think you need to bring back the old mechanic of making a settler (or tribe) not only stops the growth of the city population while building one... but costs 2 population from the city. This makes rapid early expansion much harder and makes it more natural as tribes tend to split off when too many people are in too small and area and the area can't support them all or at least too many people with too many differences, in too small an area.
That and there needs to be a mechanic where cities hate each other if they are too close. As in if two cities are touching (second ring overlap) there should be spikes in crime, flammability, unhappy/unhealthy, and maintenance as the cities fight over the same resources. There are reasons that US states have only one or two huge cities in a state. Those cities need huge areas to provide resources to keep them intact.
That and there needs to be a mechanic where cities hate each other if they are too close. As in if two cities are touching (second ring overlap) there should be spikes in crime, flammability, unhappy/unhealthy, and maintenance as the cities fight over the same resources. There are reasons that US states have only one or two huge cities in a state. Those cities need huge areas to provide resources to keep them intact.
I don't really think we need any more processes that are calculated per title, per turn. Besides, that will simply hurt the AI more than the player, which we really don't need any more of right now. The AI are still apt to burn city population, seemingly on a whim, so there's no need to make the game even harder for them.
Odd... you take that like I said those as meaningless factoids in a void. Neither of those points were. In any vaguely realistic simulation, a major city like Boston, Constantinople, London Ur, or Tokyo you need huge tracks of land to support a population center that large.
In a different thread/comment in bugs, some one stated it was more effective to spam cities with no population as compared to actually developing city tiles... to the point of first city rings touching.
This makes to sense at all.
I listed the realistic effects of putting two megacities too close previously. I'm not seriously suggesting adding in thousands of extra calculation per second... basically saying that the AI needs to actually consider city rings. Currently, the major cities can't actually share first rings (which is something it'd do if it could, from what I've seen). The AI seems to have little issue sharing second ring tiles.
This should never actually occur to the AI. Second ring overlap should be off limits. If second rings overlap all hell should break loose (as 2 posts above). All those extra calculations only theoretically exist if the AI (or player) with overlaps. No overlaps, no calculations.
The third ring (which I'm not asking for) is where things would get complicated.
On a side note, I know its likely hard coded as a CiV developer/engine thing, but I'd also wish that the AI wouldn't consider a resource as a factor in settling until the era they can actually access it. However, I'm not seeing hoards of equestrian beggars.
In a different thread/comment in bugs, some one stated it was more effective to spam cities with no population as compared to actually developing city tiles... to the point of first city rings touching.
This makes to sense at all.I listed the realistic effects of putting two megacities too close previously. I'm not seriously suggesting adding in thousands of extra calculation per second... basically saying that the AI needs to actually consider city rings. Currently, the major cities can't actually share first rings (which is something it'd do if it could, from what I've seen). The AI seems to have little issue sharing second ring tiles.
This should never actually occur to the AI. Second ring overlap should be off limits. If second rings overlap all hell should break loose (as 2 posts above). All those extra calculations only theoretically exist if the AI (or player) with overlaps. No overlaps, no calculations.
The third ring (which I'm not asking for) is where things would get complicated.
On a side note, I know its likely hard coded as a CiV developer/engine thing, but I'd also wish that the AI wouldn't consider a resource as a factor in settling until the era they can actually access it. However, I'm not seeing hoards of equestrian beggars.
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
This is trivial to do just change the XML (GlobalDefines.XML) value for MIN_CITY_RANGE from 2 to 3! It may cause problems on islands and across bays however.
JosEPh_II
TBS WarLord
Odd... you take that like I said those as meaningless factoids in a void. Neither of those points were. In any vaguely realistic simulation, a major city like Boston, Constantinople, London Ur, or Tokyo you need huge tracks of land to support a population center that large.
In a different thread/comment in bugs, some one stated it was more effective to spam cities with no population as compared to actually developing city tiles... to the point of first city rings touching.
I listed the realistic effects of putting two megacities too close previously. I'm not seriously suggesting adding in thousands of extra calculation per second... basically saying that the AI needs to actually consider city rings. Currently, the major cities can't actually share first rings (which is something it'd do if it could, from what I've seen). The AI seems to have little issue sharing second ring tiles.
This should never actually occur to the AI. Second ring overlap should be off limits. If second rings overlap all hell should break loose (as 2 posts above). All those extra calculations only theoretically exist if the AI (or player) with overlaps. No overlaps, no calculations.
The third ring (which I'm not asking for) is where things would get complicated.
On a side note, I know its likely hard coded as a CiV developer/engine thing, but I'd also wish that the AI wouldn't consider a resource as a factor in settling until the era they can actually access it. However, I'm not seeing hoards of equestrian beggars.
You are totally wrong about cities sharing 2nd ring tiles (or even 1st ring). That is a particular strategy and opinion that some Civ players want but by doing so eliminates another whole set of strategies. Because of those with similar opinions as yours, City Flipping by Culture has been basically eliminated from C2C. And Not every player is playing for Conquest only. Your observations are tunnel visioned to the way you prefer to play and infringes up other players.
As DH has pointed out if You want more space between cities adjust the file setting he's provided.
There have been many players over the years come in and say I can't play, because of x and it needs changed. When the real solution is for those that say that to adapt their way of playing. Especially when nothing is broken and it's just a preferred way to play for them. Which is the case in your argument and stance.
JosEPh
