I agree, I prefer situations where not everything is arranged so that one setup is clearly preferable. Especially if the alternatives are both important cities that deserve to be present in the mod (Edinburgh vs. Inverness isn't really an example of that though).
Suggestions and Requests
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
LacsiraxAriscal
Below Settler
Edinburgh v York certainly is, of course (home town bias FTW!)
Does it really matter, as long as the resources are in Edinburgh's 3rd ring there's no need to maximize gains. Besides, maximizing gains probably means founding the 3 cities (London, Newcastle & Inverness) because it improves stability which is a good tradeoff versus a fur and a whale.
I don't think you need to found London anymore anyway. Southampton is free of cow so you aren't losing anything by founding there AFAIK. There's plenty of possibilities with England which is nice!
I don't think you need to found London anymore anyway. Southampton is free of cow so you aren't losing anything by founding there AFAIK. There's plenty of possibilities with England which is nice!
LacsiraxAriscal
Below Settler
England is a tricky one because unlike, say, France or Spain, all the major cities are really really bunched up in the middle. I think it's futile to say "what cities are most important" - historically, London, Bristol, Norwich and York; more recently London, Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool. There is literally no way to make those set-ups work; out of those, York and Manchester are the furthest away cities from London and most people would agree that's too close on the DoC map. It's just kinda one of those things; you're never going to see a coexisting Kyoto and Osaka, or Washington and Philadelphia, or Milan Turin Genoa Florence Rome and Venice - likewise, England is never gonna look quite right.
Imperator Knoedel
Currently obsessed with The Owl House
Hmmm, maybe we could add RoM's feature of cities being able to work their third ring with a high enough culture level? We could cover all of Great Britain and sea resources with only two cities.
Imperator Knoedel
Currently obsessed with The Owl House
It is, considering there is only one city in Great Britain important enough to be properly represented as a city in the game anyway. Might as well do away with the facade and just have London work everything in GB as one humongous super city.
Imperator Knoedel
Currently obsessed with The Owl House
I'm being half serious though, imagine the benefits: For one, it's easier on RAM (I read somewhere that number of cities and number of civs are the two main memory sinks), secondly it requires less micromanagement, and thirdly it allows good tiles which aren't near any real life important cities to be worked without having to found an ahistorically large city nearby, which is the specific issue we are having with Great Britain. Just split it between London, Edinburgh/York/Manchester/whatever and Dublin and you're good.
This would also address the situation in Siberia where there's Deer and Fur outside the working range of any possible city without having to enable settling on non coastal tundra.
Maybe we could enable cities within working range of other cities to be turned into village or town improvements depending on population size, with all surplus population, buildings and settled specialists being relocated to a city being able to work it in the form of food, hammers and, well, settled specialists respectively, maybe gain a Settler and/or worker for free depending on culture level. Cities which contain wonders or are holy shouldn't be able to be downgraded like that though. This would allow you to spam lots of closely packed cities early game while they are small so you still have enough tiles for all to work and disband them later on when your population gets too large and you acquire some colonies. You can have your cake and eat it too that way: If we take England for example, in the Medieval age you would control London, Plymouth, York, Edinburgh, Inverness, Dublin and Belfast (don't know the exact locations of some of those cities so this specific combination might not even be possible, but it's just an example) and sometime between the Renaissance and the Industrial era you disband one after the other while at the same time building up a Colonial Empire, until you are finally left with only three cities in Great Britain and Ireland working lots of juicy towns.
Lastly this would allow players to do away with badly placed cities without razing them, and for someone like me who would invade his best friend in multiplayer against all rhyme, reason or hope for survival if they dare to settle a city in a suboptimal position that is not to be underestimated.
ales_
Heir
Decided to double-check what SNP is and google it. Single-nucleotide polymorphism was the first suggestion...
ales_
Heir
Yes, thank you, I know it now. It was the second suggestion for SNP on Google.
Going back to the Plymouth thing, I always assumed cities like Plymouth (Britain), Brest (France), Santander (Spain) and that 1 island core in Portugal were for stability. Sure the cities might be but if you give London it's fat cross you'll pay a little maintenance for a lot more stability.
Thats what I kind of liked about the old setup. Human France can settle Brest and human Britain can settle Plymouth for that extra stability needed for any victory (they both share a fish resource).
Thats what I kind of liked about the old setup. Human France can settle Brest and human Britain can settle Plymouth for that extra stability needed for any victory (they both share a fish resource).
Imperator Knoedel
Currently obsessed with The Owl House
Which would be bad because...?
Imperator Knoedel
Currently obsessed with The Owl House
But... I... But... Less memory usage... But... Less cluttered maps... I'll just go into my corner and sulk I guess.
Similar threads
