Minor suggestion...

[Frugal_Gourmet]

Ok, this is not a radical disease model or the design of a complex system of supply lines or anything that outrageous, so relax..

Just a simple, easy-to-implement addition that might be fun.

How about the ability to impose city-build-limits on any game? Just a configurable check-box when you start a new game. Now, there won't be a need to "starve" cities like in CTP, because this is merely a limit on how many you can build.

The reason being: When my friends and I play a multiplayer game, we often impose "house rules" -- one such being the limits of how many cities each player can build. There are no limits on how many we can "have" mind you, but each player can only build a predesignated set of cities.

The fun in this comes from:

• Faster games: Less Micromanagement
• Greater attachment and love for ones cities
• No "Cheesy" tactics, such as ICS (actually, we find that the person with the most cities always wins anyway and that's kind of boring)
• More focus on other (more fun) game tactics besides massive expansion.

Anyhow, just a thought. It would be a nice, little feature.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Frugal_Gourmet
Ok, this is not a radical disease model...

My original idea of a desease-model suggested several months ago, was that normal (optimal) foods-, shields-, coins- and lightbulbes-production only could be achieved if you invested in city-improvements like granary, bathhouse, aqueduct, sewersystem, hospital and so on, and avoided prolonged wars (= trade-restrictions, famines). Beneath "full health" meant that all these areas suffered gradually and accordingly.

I havent read anything about any health/disease-factor being implemented in Civ-3 so far, though.

How about the ability to impose city-build-limits on any game? Just a configurable check-box when you start a new game. [...]

The reason being: When my friends and I play a multiplayer game, we often impose "house rules" -- one such being the limits of how many cities each player can build. There are no limits on how many we can "have" mind you, but each player can only build a predesignated set of cities.

Well, why not? Im all for unconventional (but optional) house-rules added to multiplayer-games. The player who initiates a new multiplay-game could then choose (or not choose) to checkbox this or that special house-rule. And if he does, these rules is automatically enforced for all participating players.

• Faster games: Less Micromanagement
• Greater attachment and love for ones cities
• No "Cheesy" tactics, such as ICS (actually, we find that the person with the most cities always wins anyway and that's kind of boring)
• More focus on other (more fun) game tactics besides massive expansion.

Above is exactly the reasons why I never guite have understand the "fun" of voluntarily managing enormoes 50, 100 or even 150+ cities HP empires, with at least 2-3 times as many units. I just dont get it. Such an gameplay approach just becomes so obviously inflationary in the end. I am a "quality-before-quantity" man myself.

[Frugal_Gourmet]

Cool!

Glad to see at least someone out there thinks it's a reasonable idea...

I just think the whole mass management of cities and units seriousy bogs down the fun (especially when you have to wait for the other player).

I sometimes intentionally play on smaller maps so that I have to make do with less cities and "lebensraum".

And when you get into one of those races with another player where you're just cranking out cities/units, it starts to interfere with the basic fun of the game...

[jadlakha]

Good Idea I guess. Dont see any negatives to it.