Urban Sprawl? (like ctp2)

[realpolitic]

I like how cities expand in ctp2:

Size 1-6 the citizens occcupy the ring of 8 tiles around the city (each citizen occupies 1/6 of a tile

size 7-18 they occupy the classic civ X shape city site

as population grows, the city radius expands.

Ctp2 also automatically assigns workers to tiles, this streamlines the game, and to my surprise IMHO doesn't detract from the game.

I'm sure I haven't included all varaints in my poll, so post any others here.

[Max Sinister]

I'm not sure. On the one hand it's realistic that the radius expands with the population, OTOH it doesn't make planning easier. In the long run I want big cities, maybe - but in the short term I want many cities, or I'm disadvantaged. Maybe it should become possible to "unite" nearby cities, like New York, Brooklyn etc?

[Kuciwalker]

CtP2's system is stupid and has the opposite effect that it should, because urban sprawl doesn't occur over the scale represented by a dozen tiles. Urban sprawl in civ scales would be represented by more densely packed cities, not less densely packed ones.

[Maquiladora]

Its not even "urban sprawl". In CtP2 the radius a city collects resources from expands as the city grows, which makes sense. Its got nothing to do with densely packed cities.

I prefer the civ system still but only because in CtP2 it isnt balanced right WRT tile improvements and specialists.

[Kuciwalker]

Its not even "urban sprawl". In CtP2 the radius a city collects resources from expands as the city grows, which makes sense.

Not really, not in the way CtP2 does it. NYC doesn't collect resources from some expanding radius around it, it gets resources from all over the place. The problem is that the entire system is broken once one goes into modern times, and a lot before as well. Egypt fed Rome. There's no way to have that happen in C3 or CtP2, and it's somewhat clunky in C2.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Its not even "urban sprawl". In CtP2 the radius a city collects resources from expands as the city grows, which makes sense.

Not really, not in the way CtP2 does it. NYC doesn't collect resources from some expanding radius around it, it gets resources from all over the place. The problem is that the entire system is broken once one goes into modern times, and a lot before as well. Egypt fed Rome. There's no way to have that happen in C3 or CtP2, and it's somewhat clunky in C2.

It makes more sense than a fixed border for the whole of history.

Of course if someone wanted resource collection could be changed in any way in CtP2, it will never change in civ3.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
CtP2's system is stupid and has the opposite effect that it should, because urban sprawl doesn't occur over the scale represented by a dozen tiles. Urban sprawl in civ scales would be represented by more densely packed cities, not less densely packed ones.

Not necessaily true - here in Chicago, sprawl is continually occuring outward. Areas that were farmland 10 years ago to the west of the city are now suburbs and are considered part of the Chicagoland metro area.

Having said that, scale is a laughing matter in all civ games, because none of the games accurately reflect it.

[Kuciwalker]

Not necessaily true - here in Chicago, sprawl is continually occuring outward.

Sprawl is not expanding a few hundred or a thousand miles outward. It's still within one tile on a map.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
It makes more sense than a fixed border for the whole of history.

Not really. CtP2's system ensures that the optimal arrangement of large cities is *very* far apart, when the opposite is true - in reality, the large cities cluster together, and other areas stay very rural. If the world was CtP2, some city in the middle of the Midwest would grow to 20 times the size of NYC.

[realpolitic]

When I left the city Pheonix in '87 it was 650 square miles 2/3 the size of the state of Rhode Island, they kept on annexing dessert. Cities most often expand by adding subburbs. The metropolis from Boston to Washington DC is one example, another is Los Angeles.

If a city's population doesn't expand upward it has to expand outward, or get more cramped.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Not really. CtP2's system ensures that the optimal arrangement of large cities is *very* far apart, when the opposite is true - in reality, the large cities cluster together, and other areas stay very rural. If the world was CtP2, some city in the middle of the Midwest would grow to 20 times the size of NYC.

And consider that the NY metro area consists of many smaller cities in New Jersey, as well as suburbs. Heck, even LA is one huge collection of city-sized suburbs which, last I checked, are entities in of themselves while still part of the LA umbrella

Same with Chicago...
Naperville, and Aurora both have 100,000+ people each, yet are considered part of Metro Chicago.

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Sprawl is not expanding a few hundred or a thousand miles outward. It's still within one tile on a map.

Please go back to the second half of my post - scale, as represented in a civstyle game is laughable.

Anyone here believe that it takes many turns for a ship to sail across an ocean while a train can haul units across the map in one turn??

Happens in the civ3 world all the time...

[Donegeal]

People who know me, knew this was coming....

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Not necessaily true - here in Chicago, sprawl is continually occuring outward.

Sprawl is not expanding a few hundred or a thousand miles outward. It's still within one tile on a map.

Originally Post in the List
Worker builds suburbs

I have also be wanting a good way to deal with Urban Sprawl/Suburbs. Currently, for astetic reasons, I use the Urban Sprawl graphic for rail roads. Looks good, but then you get the Urban Sprawl everywhere. I have been wanting a "Suburb" tile improvement. The graphic would be similar to a "town". Suburbs would only be allowed to be built in the inner eight squares surrounding the actual city (maybe even giving cities the ability to build naval/costal things even if they are one tile back of the coast) and only on flat terrain (Grassland, Plains, Desert). Have a suburb add one or two of each food/shield/commerce (added food to show that the city is now larger population wise, added shield to show that there is infact more than one city working to complete something, and added commerce for all the extra trade that goes on). Building a Suburb comsumes the worker.

Think about this. It really solves ALOT of proplems.

[realpolitic]

I am familiar with the thread about globalising a city's food production, that's an additional intriguing idea, tho frought with problems. I consider it fairly independant at this stage of design, we could adopt one, none, or some combination of both. I wish I'd included in my poll cities that grow slower than linearly, so we could get some kind of vote on that.

[hexagonian]

Funny thing is, we already pulled off the suburb idea a while back in modded CTP2

City sprawl in CTP2 is not really any different than it is in civ3. You have to plan for city placement in both, allowing for eventual growth. The growth margins are just greater in CTP2, and actually promote the idea that the farflung tiles are less productive, which also happens in society.

Most countries are a collection of cities and small towns. All areas on a map generally have some sort of production/commerce value. In civ3, you normally have more gaps in your empire that do not produce anything. In CTP2, those gaps are rarer because of greater sprawl, and better reflect that even the most rural areas in a country has something to contribute to society.

[Optimizer]

I think that the city radius should expand with improved transportation systems. Tiles 2 steps from the city would require roads (or a river) to be included in the radius, tiles 3 steps away would require rail, and tiles 3 steps away would require motorways.