So Basically We Have Civ 3...but in 3D?

[yin26]

Aro: Shh!

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I never said it does, and neither did Spiffor. It destroyed ICS as an exploit. ICS is no longer a way to exploit an unintentional consequence of the game mechanics - it gives you a free pop point - but rather a valid strategy that uses the advantages and disadvantages provided in the game in the way they were intended to be used.

The settler should stay at costing two population.

[Hamdinger]

I was just thinking some about ICS and I wonder if the way population growth works in Civ is part of the problem. The time it takes to gain a population point in a city increases with the size of the city. So two cities with population 5 will each get to 6 (for a total of 12) before one city with population 10 will reach even 11, let alone 12. What if population increase was instead inversely proportional to city size? Would that improve or ruin the game? Any thoughts?

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by Hamdinger
I was just thinking some about ICS and I wonder if the way population growth works in Civ is part of the problem. The time it takes to gain a population point in a city increases with the size of the city. So two cities with population 5 will each get to 6 (for a total of 12) before one city with population 10 will reach even 11, let alone 12. What if population increase was instead inversely proportional to city size? Would that improve or ruin the game? Any thoughts?

I think that would destory the early game, since it would become incredibly tedious and boring.

[Hamdinger]

Yeah, I thought about that actually. It would take forever to get going if you started with just a settler and worker like in Civ III. Maybe if you started with either an already placed city or maybe a settler and several units to add to the population immediately or something like that.

I think Master of Orion 2 had something similar to what I'm thinking about. You started with a home world whose population was halfway to the max or so. When you settled on a new planet, you'd have to transport people from more established worlds as the initial population growth was very slow. You could maybe do the same in Civ. New cities would require population transplants from older more populous cities. You could even have units called "colonists" or something that would essentially be workers without the ability to make tile improvements, only add to a city population.

As a side effect of this kind of population growth, I'd have a reason for not bleeding the population of an enemy city. Normally I try to whittle it down to keep from having problems with rebellion and culture flip. If it was harder to get it back up again, I might consider dealing with the unrest.

[Brad Mayer]

"I never said it does, and neither did Spiffor. It destroyed ICS as an exploit. ICS is no longer a way to exploit an unintentional consequence of the game mechanics - it gives you a free pop point - but rather a valid strategy that uses the advantages and disadvantages provided in the game in the way they were intended to be used."

But ICS (with or without the exploit) is not just 'a' strategy, it is 'the' strategy. That is, given Player A with a consistent ICS strategy and Player B with any other strategy, and equal gameplay (or even slightly inferior gameplay on A's part), Player A wins every time.

Every time. And that's a problem, whose root is in the persistence of the single-square city model as the core of CIV gameplay.

Really, how difficult would it have been for Firaxis to innovate in this key area, along, say, the lines of Yin's area management system? Especialy as they rebuilt the game code from the ground up, reinventing the same old stone age wheel here is a bit dissapointing.

Having to operate on a city-centric level from beginning to end is at the heart of the limitations of the series.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Brad Mayer
Every time. And that's a problem, whose root is in the persistence of the single-square city model as the core of CIV gameplay.

Really, how difficult would it have been for Firaxis to innovate in this key area, along, say, the lines of Yin's area management system? Especialy as they rebuilt the game code from the ground up, reinventing the same old stone age wheel here is a bit dissapointing.

Having to operate on a city-centric level from beginning to end is at the heart of the limitations of the series.

You, and so many others in this and older threads, underlined very good points about ICS.

Civ has been changed, but their roots are still on a map of square tiles.

I'd loved a radical twist on city concept (natural grown up by immigration from villages, by example), but that should have been counted more than 30% innovation, so no way...

On history, there is no way that a couple of large city civ can cope with 10-15 medium size town, IMHO; I still understand that for gameplay reason is not a good idea to limit the strategy to an ICS rush.

Changing the "bonus tile" effect seems a good idea, as it should be some kind of "extra bonus" (as the defensive one already in place) if your city grown up to 12 or 18, or whatsoever balancing effect.

Money, research and culture bonus can be important, just for an example.