Urban Sprawl? (like ctp2)

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Locutus
No, from your point of view it's the right solution for the wrong problem. From a gameplay point of view, CtP2's solution works nicely (as UR explained). From a historical point of view, it works just as poorly as any other part of Civ (or CtP). I mean, really, when you think abou it, what part of civ is actually remotely historically accurate? Combat is unrealistic, trade, scientific advancement, city production, resource collection, etc. Nothing is remotely accurate, yet it's a fun game. To quote Chris Crawford (game designer and founder of the GDC):

Civ may be a game about history, but let's not pretend it's actually trying to be accurate in it's portrayal of it...

BTW, note how in the list effort and other suggestions posted in this forum, people do often have the tendecy to pile it on

The historical inaccuracy usually (exception: my avatar) does not manifest itself as blatantly and constantly. The player spends almost the entire time staring at the map with cities on it. It makes it a lot harder to suspend disbelief.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I've said that the entire system is fundamentally flawed.

Then suggest another system.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The historical inaccuracy usually (exception: my avatar) does not manifest itself as blatantly and constantly. The player spends almost the entire time staring at the map with cities on it. It makes it a lot harder to suspend disbelief.

Yes, because it's so realistic that a single Archer can conquer an entire city. Or that it can easily take that unit 100 years to travel from one city to the next. Or that it every unit can see in a radius of hundreds of miles around, even when inside forests and jungles. Or that having a single source of iron can provide all your cities with an infinite amount of iron, yet you can't share any of it with your allies. Or that even the slightest interruption in your road network completely can shut down the entire supplyline to one or more cities. Or that the outline of emperial borders is determined entirely by how many churches and temples you build (or is just plain fixed, as in CtP2). Or that units are the size of giants compared to the terrain and cities and that many buildings in cities are higher than the highest mountain. Or that the countryside is completely devoid of population. Etc, etc, I don't think I need to continue...

When you break things down, *nothing* about Civ is remotely relatistic or historically accurate, not a single element of the game. And these examples are some of the things that strike immediately, blatantly and constantly. Show Civ to someone from the 19th century and they wouldn't have a clue of what's going on on the screen. Heck, my mom doesn't know what the f*ck is going on when I show her the game. Show her a movie or a state-of-the-art FPS though and she knows exactly what she sees. Civ works more like a book than like a movie or FPS: the game elements are merely symbols that only have meaning because of their context and your own preexisting knowledge. The game doesn't draw you into what's visually depicted onto your monitor, it draws you into your own imagination.

[Max Sinister]

I've got an idea, actually. People in our world who migrate use to go to where the jobs & the money are. I.e. mostly the big cities, and they emerge where the trade routes are - along rivers and coasts, and probably not in the middle of a desert or a big forest or mountains. Of course, food is important in the beginning (cause else people couldn't found a city at all), but later you can trade for it and pay with the products you can only make in the city.

[realpolitic]

Since realism is already dubious, I still think urban spawl is interesting, it adds greatly to the stategy.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Locutus
Yes, because it's so realistic that a single Archer can conquer an entire city. Or that it can easily take that unit 100 years to travel from one city to the next. Or that it every unit can see in a radius of hundreds of miles around, even when inside forests and jungles. Or that having a single source of iron can provide all your cities with an infinite amount of iron, yet you can't share any of it with your allies. Or that even the slightest interruption in your road network completely can shut down the entire supplyline to one or more cities. Or that the outline of emperial borders is determined entirely by how many churches and temples you build (or is just plain fixed, as in CtP2). Or that units are the size of giants compared to the terrain and cities and that many buildings in cities are higher than the highest mountain. Or that the countryside is completely devoid of population. Etc, etc, I don't think I need to continue...

When you break things down, *nothing* about Civ is remotely relatistic or historically accurate, not a single element of the game. And these examples are some of the things that strike immediately, blatantly and constantly. Show Civ to someone from the 19th century and they wouldn't have a clue of what's going on on the screen. Heck, my mom doesn't know what the f*ck is going on when I show her the game. Show her a movie or a state-of-the-art FPS though and she knows exactly what she sees. Civ works more like a book than like a movie or FPS: the game elements are merely symbols that only have meaning because of their context and your own preexisting knowledge. The game doesn't draw you into what's visually depicted onto your monitor, it draws you into your own imagination.

You missed the entire point. Those things are relatively* easy to ignore, but you CAN'T ignore the map just looking wrong.

*obviously not entirely, since there are regular complaints about them

[hexagonian]

Funny, I have a harder time ignoring the stuff Locutus brings up than the urban sprawl issue.

Guess it's just a matter of perspective and opinion on what is important regarding gameplay issues...

[realpolitic]

Aren't regions like the Midwest relatively rare outside America? America has only had a few centuries of colonization from high tech countries. Most of the habitable regions of Earth have a higher population density than America, doesn't this mean they're more urbanized?

[Max Sinister]

They certainly are - if you're talking about Western Europe here. Russia (and to a lesser extent, the Ukraine) are inhabited by people several centuries longer than America, but compared to Western Europe they're settled very thin.

[realpolitic]

Ok, but it's certainly coooooold there. Russian winters defeated Hitler and napolean.

[Max Sinister]

True - but by that alone, Chicago should never've become the 10 million metropolis it is...