What is going to be the breaking point of turning a town into a city ?

[tedhebert]

The devs and those modders pointed out that this is using a convoluted workaround that isn't actually working the tiles beyond the third ring, but is just tricking you into thinking it is.

Are you thinking of the part I mentioned above, where the devs were talking about how modders had managed to trick the game into "working" beyond 3 tiles? But yes you're right, the point is moot.

No it’s something they mentioned in the last livestream

 

[_hero_]

There are, in fact, vastly more towns than cities in the world. I don't see that as a problem.

The city would still be where you build wonders, units, particular projects, etc. They could have more ramifications for culture, policies, governance, etc.

Town sprawl means you'd be incentivized to actually occupy the entire map and not restrict yourself to 4-5 key cities as in Civ 5, while also not having ridiculous urban centers in the Arctic or the Sahara, as in Civ 7. Best of both worlds.

It's a problem for gameplay reasons not realism reasons. When the best way to play the game every time is to spam settlers, it cheapens the rest of the game. That's just how Civ games have always worked. Maybe you think infinite sprawl is how the game should work, but Civ devs clearly don't as they have taken measures to combat that playstyle in every version of the game for the past 20 years.

 

[Acepox]

It's a problem for gameplay reasons not realism reasons. When the best way to play the game every time is to spam settlers, it cheapens the rest of the game. That's just how Civ games have always worked. Maybe you think infinite sprawl is how the game should work, but Civ devs clearly don't as they have taken measures to combat that playstyle in every version of the game for the past 20 years.

That's just not true at all.

Civ 6 (which is what I meant to say in my previous comment) deliberately encouraged infinite sprawl.

You know how Civ games have always worked? By not changing civ twice throughout the game. "How things have been" is not an argument.

 

[pokiehl]

I’m really glad towns and cities are both capped by the settlement limit. Meaningful challenges to expansion are necessary.

 

[Nikolai II]

I agree 100% and this is my main point of contention also.

For gameplay reasons, there should be a clear distinction between towns and cities. The current set-up doesn't seem to draw such a line.

That would probably make REX/ICS the only viable option, though. Something Civ has tried to curtail since Civ3.

 

[Acepox]

That would probably make REX/ICS the only viable option, though. Something Civ has tried to curtail since Civ3.

The (Civ) world is Firaxis' oyster.

Plenty of ways they can balance things out or implement other restraints. There is no explicit settlement limit in Civ 5 yet no one would pretend Civ 5 is an ICS game. I'm just saying the new settlement cap feature should apply only to cities so as to clearly draw a distinction between towns and cities, an incentive to not make you want to upgrade every single town into a city, which I would find boring (and a hassle, because it translates into excessive endgame micromanagement)

Anyway, it's not the direction they've chosen to go, manifestly, so pointless babble on my part I suppose.

 

[Krikkit1]

The (Civ) world is Firaxis' oyster.

Plenty of ways they can balance things out or implement other restraints. There is no explicit settlement limit in Civ 5 yet no one would pretend Civ 5 is an ICS game. I'm just saying the new settlement cap feature should apply only to cities so as to clearly draw a distinction between towns and cities, an incentive to not make you want to upgrade every single town into a city, which I would find boring (and a hassle, because it translates into excessive endgame micromanagement)

Anyway, it's not the direction they've chosen to go, manifestly, so pointless babble on my part I suppose.

There is a cap in civ 5, the cap is just 0..above 0 you have penalties for additional cities. Same in Civ7