Tweet
Originally posted by Kucinich
hmmm...
RoN did this.
hmmm...
RoN did this.
). If think it could kill ICS...
-
Never played it (my computer is very old, you see ). If think it could kill ICS...
Let us be lazy in everything, except in loving and drinking, except in being lazy – Lessing -
But it doesn't destroy ICS in the sense that you still have masses of cities very close together very early. And these close-together cities are more powerful than if the cities were further apart.Originally posted by Kucinich
Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Civ 3 attempts to curb ICS
- 2-cost settlers just delay the building of cities. As shown by REX, masses of cities still get built.
This actually destroys ICS, at least the original sense of it. The problem in C2 was that you effectively got a "free pop point" because of the center square. Now that's not true anymore.I'm building a wagon! On some other part of the internets, obviously (but not that other site).Comment
-
Originally posted by Dauphin
I don't think that multiple queues adds anything that overflow with a single queue can't acheive. If overflow is so large as to be able to produce another unit/improvement within a turn then simply allow it to. e.g if you have 5 warriors at 10 shields queued up and have 50 shields per turn then the city produces 5 warriors next turn.
I'm building a wagon! On some other part of the internets, obviously (but not that other site).Comment
-
I like the idea of multiple city queues, but I have a deathly fear that it would just turn into another MoO3 debacle...Comment
-
One thing I always wondered about in Civ games is why the city square gives its resources without any of the population heads working on it. With that thought I think ICS could be stopped (or nearly stopped) dead in its tracks if
1. The city square doesn't give its common resources unless a laborer works on the square.
2. The first city of a civilization gets a 3-nutrient square adjacent to it, so that the city is able to produce workers and settlers and expand into an empire.
3. Non-city squares are generally worth a tiny bit more than city squares.
Since city squares can't easily be mined, irrigated, etc, this would mean that four cities each working on four tiles usually could not produce as much as one larger city working on those 16 tiles.
Do note that this is merely an idea I have, and I would like to know if it's a good one.Known in most other places as Anon Zytose.
+3 Research, +2 Efficiency, -1 Growth, -2 Industry, -2 Support.
http://anonzytose.deviantart.com/Comment
-
ICS not destroyed i sue it whenever playing the higher levels , works very well, a city separated by one square.. and lots ofo themOriginally posted by Kucinich
Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Civ 3 attempts to curb ICS
- 2-cost settlers just delay the building of cities. As shown by REX, masses of cities still get built.
This actually destroys ICS, at least the original sense of it. The problem in C2 was that you effectively got a "free pop point" because of the center square. Now that's not true anymore.GM of MAFIA #40 ,#41, #43, #45,#47,#49-#51,#53-#58,#61,#68,#70, #71Comment
-
I don't think that the center square should change. It is much easier to work land, if the city is built on it.Comment
-
Rather than penalize ICS why not reward players for building larger more robust cities (afterall nobody likes their play style being penalized). Make the city improvements more worthwhile to be gotten. Particularly make there more improvements that increase production, espicellay earlier on.
Multiple build quenes would only involve more micromangment and wouldn't solve the situation all that much more than keeping it as a single build quene so I doubt that is an effective solution. However, the overflow model is both accurate and would probably help promote larger more powerful cities.
Increasing the spaces between building cities would be just annoying. It would drive a lot of people away from the game. Having a penalization system for cities that are too close together would also be annoying and complicated. allow people to build cities near each other if they so chose.
A solution for the center city square, maybe rather than get rid of it make it so that the larger the city the more of a bonus the center city square gives. Maybe have it so that towards the beginning it gives more of a bonus towards food but as the city grows have it give more of a production and commerce bonus.
make it so that larger cities can support far more units than smaller ones
One thing though, the current corruption models got to go, its so annoying.
Rather than trying to get rid of ICS, make having fewer large cities just as good of a strategyLet us unite together as one nation, a world nation" - Gundam Wing
"The God of War will destroy all mortals whom dare stand in his way"Comment
-
It's both sides of the same coin. If it makes you feel better do consider cities and metropolises are rewarded instead of villages and towns penalisedOriginally posted by Mars
Rather than penalize ICS why not reward players for building larger more robust cities (afterall nobody likes their play style being penalized).
Trade bonuses would be good. It simply says goods fetch a higher price in large cities. Makes sense.Originally posted by Mars
A solution for the center city square, maybe rather than get rid of it make it so that the larger the city the more of a bonus the center city square gives. Maybe have it so that towards the beginning it gives more of a bonus towards food but as the city grows have it give more of a production and commerce bonus.(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."Comment
-
Several other ideas:
1. Labour. Currently, Civ requires only shields for the construction of city improvements and units. This is silly. Make it so that constructions will remove population temorarily from other production activities, while creating army units will permanently take that away. Therefore, large cities with a surplus of population will have an advantage.
2. City defense militia. A certain amount of population will take up arms against outside invaders. This makes bigger cities tougher.
3. Bigger cities bigger city improvements. Most obvious example is City Wall. A bigger city would have thicker and taller city walls.
4. Bigger cities higher arrow bonuses. Covered above, this also represents a more active intra-city commerce.(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."Comment
-
this strikes me as something weird to say. ics is really the only style of play that's very powerful. so if you don't penalize ics in comparsion to other play styles you are just going to make ics that much worse.Originally posted by Mars
(afterall nobody likes their play style being penalized).Eschewing obfuscation and transcending conformity since 1982. Embrace the flux.Comment
-
Theoretically, it would be a good idea to be able to build several improvements at the same time in a city. But then, we'd also have to talk about that if Civ had realistic times for building, you should be able to build an improvement (except wonders, maybe) in one turn. Or maybe even several improvements.Comment
-
vulture was right - civ models are too linear. change them to exponential growth models, and you will get rid of ICS in no time.
but you need to make sure that there is still incentive to found new cities, so dont make the model too steep."Everything for the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State" - Benito MussoliniComment
-
As it is now, you lose walls when your city passes size sixOriginally posted by Urban Ranger
Several other ideas:
1. Labour. Currently, Civ requires only shields for the construction of city improvements and units. This is silly. Make it so that constructions will remove population temorarily from other production activities, while creating army units will permanently take that away. Therefore, large cities with a surplus of population will have an advantage.
2. City defense militia. A certain amount of population will take up arms against outside invaders. This makes bigger cities tougher.
3. Bigger cities bigger city improvements. Most obvious example is City Wall. A bigger city would have thicker and taller city walls.
4. Bigger cities higher arrow bonuses. Covered above, this also represents a more active intra-city commerce.
Comment
-
From a Civ3 perspective, Rhye's of Civilization (RoC) does a great job at restricting ICS. Its main form is on a huge Earth map with 31 civs.
In RoC settlers come in 3 types, based on the current Age. Off the top of my head, it's: Ancient Settlers 3 population/120 shields; Medieval Settlers 4 pop/190 shields; Industrial Settlers 5 pop/290 shields. Makes for a historical growth rate.
Workers cost 20 shields and all the worker jobs are much more expensive. Forests in particular have a chopping time of 28, and you can't build cities on forests!Comment
Comment