City-area overlapping allowed On/Off option?

[Inverse Icarus]

i voted no.

although it would stop ICS well, i would hate to take over an AI city, or have a size 3 city from a village in a stupid spot, making me so i cant reach a whale or two

[Urban Ranger]

What is the rationale of not allowing overlapping city radii?

I don't think this should be an option because:

1. Too artificial. There are better ways to fight ICS
2. Slightly overlapping cities allows all squares to be used.
3. City centres 3 squares apart allows "foot" units to move from one city to another in one turn using roads.
4. If you don't want your cities overlap it's entirely up to you.
5. More options = more chances for bugs
6. To allow for better use of resources

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Gramphos
I don't care.

The question isnt so much about if one personally dont care, or if one like it/ dont like it. The question is instead more about if such a feature could interest enough civ-customers, to make it worthwhile to implement. I realize now that I should have tweaked the Poll differently - but now its to late.
The fact that some civers actually like these kind of optional tweaks (the more the merrier) - why couldnt this fact alone be enough reason to implement it, under the condition that the Firaxis-team themselves have no serious objections against it?

Lets say this poll was about PBEM. Most customers dont play by internet (at least not currently, thanks to slow 56K modems), and even less play by PBEM. Is this reason enough to enforce a "I personally must agree, otherwise no PBEM" attitude?

Like I hinted before: These "just make it an option" arguments has its limits. Especially then it comes to fullblown game-structural parameters, like if "Religion should play a MAJOR role in Civ-3 (similar to EU); dont agree - OK, just make it an option". Its obviously isnt that easy, of course.
But this isnt about "fullblown game-structural parameters" - its about small optional tweak-additions that deals with already existing parameters. Theres a difference, you know.

Originally posted by Uberkrux
although it would stop ICS well, i would hate to take over an AI city, or have a size 3 city from a village in a stupid spot, making me so i cant reach a whale or two

And - again - this is the reason why it should be an optional free toggle-choice (or Rules.txt choice), with "City-area overlapping IS allowed" as game-default.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
What is the rationale of not allowing overlapping city radii?

Well, what is the rationale of NOT allowing that as an free option?

1. Too artificial. There are better ways to fight ICS.

This isnt primarily about "fighting ICS". Its about adding an optional free tweak: a free choice to bend the existing settler-surveyor parameters somewhat.

2. Slightly overlapping cities allows all squares to be used.
3. City centres 3 squares apart allows "foot" units to move from one city to another in one turn using roads.
[...]
6. To allow for better use of resources.

OK, so play by the game-default settler-surveyor rules then.
Its really that simple - Im not trying to pursuade you to personally use this option, you know.

4. If you don't want your cities overlap it's entirely up to you.

No it isnt. I can only play by these rules myself. I want to have the option to enforce these rules on the AI-civs, as well.

5. More options = more chances for bugs

Many computer-games are very linear, and most games doesnt allow the player that many options at all. NO extensive SMAC-style preference-screen and certainly no tweakable Civ-2/SMAC-style Rules.txt files. Guess what - they STILL have bugs though.

Im beginning to suspect that the REAL reason why some civers are so drop-dead against optional "house-rules", is mostly multiplayer-related. To give the MP-host the optional power of enforcing a rigid max number of cities per player, or if city-area overlapping should be allowed/ not allowed, is just more then some ICS-style MP-players can bear.

Well, as this poll actually proves; there always gonna be enough Civ-enthusiastic MP-hosts that never would enforce such (from their viewpoint) stupid house-rules. And you can always appoint yourself as MP-host, also. So dont worry.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
5. More options = more chances for bugs

You're talking about a Sid Meier game where bugs a killed (at least most of them) compared to other games, most games has tons of bugs but no (or very little) gameplay related options, while games with the name Sid Meier on the box has little bugs and a few gameplay related options

More options = More chances of people having more fun playing the game

If it's just because of MP games, then simply be the host and use the standard rules (or convert the host to use standard rules). I know, if I someday would play a MP game it wouldn't be hard to make me use the standard rules, though I offline would use my own rules...It is that simple

[Urban Ranger]

Ralf,

"Well, what is the rationale of NOT allowing that as an free option?"

Well we could go around in circles forever, but the truth of the matter is you need to establish a case for your suggestion.

" Many computer-games are very linear, and most games doesnt allow the player that many options at all. NO extensive SMAC-style preference-screen and certainly no tweakable Civ-2/SMAC-style Rules.txt files. Guess what - they STILL have bugs though."

That just proves my point

The less options there are, the less chances things will go wrong. If it's not a device for fighting ICS, what's it for?

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Ralf,

" Many computer-games are very linear, and most games doesnt allow the player that many options at all. NO extensive SMAC-style preference-screen and certainly no tweakable Civ-2/SMAC-style Rules.txt files. Guess what - they STILL have bugs though."

That just proves my point

The less options there are, the less chances things will go wrong. If it's not a device for fighting ICS, what's it for?

That exactly doesn't prove your point! At least not if I understand it right, I understand it this way:

Games with NO tweakable options has the same amount of bugs (or even more) as games with such options.