Limiting the Amount of City Border Overlap

[polypheus]

In an earlier thread entitled Babarian Hostility=1/Cultural Density: The Solution to ICS, I explained how ICS is solved by making barbarians more hostile and more prone to attack your cities (with greater frequency and numbers) if your culture points is low relative to the number of cities you have. This makes it impossible to build too many cities and neglect development as the barbarian hordes will simply become too overwhelming at some point. I still believe this is a good model for defeating ICS and also encourages more even development and discourages over-expansion.

However, there is another model which is very simple and will also defeat ICS. In addition, it also solves many other problems as well.

This model is the "maximum number of shared tiles" model and it is a very simple model. Everytime you want to build a new city, it is allowed only if the the new city and all neighboring cities do not share more than a certain number of tiles once that new city is built.

Therefore the new city itself cannot share more than a certain number of tiles with its neighbors. Furthermore, the new city cannot cause the older, neighboring cities to share more than a certain number of tiles.

This will force cities to be more evenly spaced apart. The number of sharable tiles could be alterable in a txt file but should be determined by playtesting to see what works best. At the most extreme, zero sharable tiles would mean no overlap is allowed at all but I think a number like 8 would be good.

By forcing cities to be further apart, ICS is effectively dead because it is simply impossible to build too many cities if they are forced to be further apart than currently allowed. (In Civ2, the only limiting is that you cannot build a new city inside the borders of an existing city so this idea is really just an extension/improvement of that).

[connorkimbro]

i disagree with this.

i think you should be able to put a city wherever you want.

the key to limiting ICS is to make realistic response, based on the nature of ICS. the barbarian idea does that. . this idea, while limiting to ICS players, sure. . will also be unnecessarily limiting to the player, should he want to group cities close together for other reasons.

[polypheus]

Originally posted by connorkimbro
i disagree with this.

i think you should be able to put a city wherever you want.
. . this idea, while limiting to ICS players, sure. . will also be unnecessarily limiting to the player, should he want to group cities close together for other reasons.

Even in Civ2, you could not put a city wherever you wanted. You could not found a new city within the borders of a pre-existing city. My idea simply extends the Civ2 rule of not being allowed to found a city within another city's border a little bit further so that now you cannot found a city if it causes greater than a certain amount of overlap.

If the maximum overlap allowed per city was 8 tiles, you could still put cities fairly close together but just not too close, which is what ICSers do.

[Father Beast]

I don't like this idea. it is an artificial solution to ICS, not an address to the real problem. I think the 2 pop settler will go a long way to dealing with the real problem, if not all the way.

Imagine the cries of horror when vet gamers find out they can't win by plopping down millions of cities.

By the way, in civ2, you could build a city in another city's borders, just not on adjacent squares. Even that limitation I think is absurd and artificial.

[Sabre2th]

I agree. This is not needed.

[Ralf]

Im all for it, but despite the fact that I presented it as an optional feature, with game-default set to "city-area overlapping IS allowed", in the City-area overlapping allowed On/Off option? thread, most replies was reserved or negative. Beats me why, because with game-default set to "city-area overlapping IS allowed", tucked away in the preference-screen or in the Rules.txt file, most Civ-3 customers would take time to even notice this free-to-choose option.

One could even have a global number-variable in the Rules-txt file there one could decide the max number of overlapped layers one could except, with default set to the 1 layer (Civ-2 style = no new cities directly adjacent to already excisting city-tile).

I guess some civers reacts instinctively against every feature that they dont personally going to use - even if its a free optional one. Its a little sad that one shoudnt be able to discuss ideas over a "personal use? No - then Im dead against" level. I hope that the team at Firaxis is a little more open-minded about these things.

[TechWins]

Polypheus, I can't believe you didn't give credit to the creator of this idea, Ralf. It doesn't really matter much to me, it's just that you shouldn't claim an idea that you didn't come up with.

I don't really like the idea myself because I would never use it. Although, if it could be easily implemented into Civ3 and a good portion of people might actually use it, I see no reason not to include it as an option. I say good portion of people because Firaxis can't implement some option just so two Apolyton posters can use the option. They don't need to spend their time on some stupid option that nobdoy will use. Again, if it were to be used by people, I am all for an option.

Here are some of the reasons why I'm against using the option personally:

1)Sometimes you have to overlap cities for land issues. An example of this is that you could be stuck on an island which could only support two with no overlapping of cities at all. If you were to have one city square overlap another city square the island would be able to have three good cities with only minor city overlapping.

2)Sometimes you need to place a city in a strategical spot for military reasons. An occurrence of city overlapping might arise from doing that.

3)It would take away from some realism. While not adding a fun factor to it.

4)I don't ICS and nobody I play MP against does either.

[Jeje2]

Well,
as I stated maybe a year ago, my college had an similiar solution.

His (not an apolytoner) idea is something like:
Use the happiness penalty for overlapping squares exponentially.
This way for having one square the penalty could be set to null and for two i's still small.
With three you get into small problemss and if you have up to five, well good luck...

This way you could choose were to put cities, but be prepared for problems if too close.
Problem with this idea is how to teach the AI to understand that rule smartly.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by TechWins
Polypheus, I can't believe you didn't give credit to the creator of this idea, Ralf. It doesn't really matter much to me, it's just that you shouldn't claim an idea that you didn't come up with.

No big deal.

I say good portion of people because Firaxis can't implement some option just so two Apolyton posters can use the option. They don't need to spend their time on some stupid option that nobdoy will use. Again, if it were to be used by people, I am all for an option.

There are about 15-30 civers who regurlary posts replies in the Apolyton Civ-3 section. And perhaps yet another 30-100+ who occasionally posts replies. From this you draw conclusions what a future possible customer-base of 1-4 million+ customers is likely to appreciate, or not appreciate?

Many gamers have played Civ-2 "to the death" - meaning that the Civ-formula stands the very real risk of being a "vicime of its own success". The standard game, with its default rules/graphics, is only going last so long. This is why they must invest heavily in all kinds of scenario-, modpacks-, AI- and game Rules.txt tweak possibilities they can come up with.

An example of this is that you could be stuck on an island which could only support two with no overlapping of cities at all.

Techwins, if the player actively must choose the "No/limited overlaps" option (and by that understanding the consequences of this option), dont you think he is capable of adjusting his city-founding strategies accordingly?

2)Sometimes you need to place a city in a strategical spot for military reasons. An occurrence of city overlapping might arise from doing that.

3)It would take away from some realism. While not adding a fun factor to it.

Ok, this option is not for you. So dont choose it. It is as simple as that.

4)I don't ICS and nobody I play MP against does either.

Not everybody playes like you and your MP-buddies. Besides I want to have the option to enforce this rules on the AI-civs, in regular single-player games as well.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by polypheus
Even in Civ2, you could not put a city wherever you wanted. You could not found a new city within the borders of a pre-existing city.

This is not entirely correct. In Civ-2 one couldnt found a city directly adjacent to an already excisting city. As I wrote previosly, one can have a global number-variable (between 1-6) in the Rules-txt file:

- 1 layer (Civ-2 default): You cannot found cities directly adjacent to already excisting cities.
- 6 layers The other extreme: You cannot overlapp city-areas at all.

Above is probably to complicated after all, so I suggest only two options:

- 3 layers layers (Civ-3 default): You cannot found cities within already existing city-areas. This would still allow some serious city-area overlapping though.
- 5 layers layers (optional): You can only overlap city-areas with max one city-area layer.

Above should be a nice compromize, I think.

[Grumbold]

I posted my reasoning on Ralf's previous thread but the proposal to adjust the amount of overlap would make one or two of them redundant. I still maintain this has bugger all to do with ICS, which is about the free production you get from your city tile and faster growth. It just makes the ICS pattern less densely packed while retaining the 10 size 1 cities outperform 1 size 10 city flaw that makes ICS work. If people want this then it should be something to tweak in the customisation files.

[connorkimbro]

I guess some civers reacts instinctively against every feature that they dont personally going to use - even if its a free optional one.

Ok, i think firaxis should include an option, a free one, to randomize the tech tree. It would have all the same techs. . just in a completely random order. Do you agree? I hope not. It wouldn't make sense, and it wouldn't be fun. It doesn't solve any problems in a rational manner. It's just junk.

Limiting city build locations in this manner is likewise junk. If YOU don't want to build cities close together, then don't. You don't need an option that would prevent you from doing so, in that case.

[Ralf]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by connorkimbro

Ok, i think firaxis should include an option, a free one, to randomize the tech tree. [...] just in a completely random order. Do you agree?

If you really feel the need to sweepingly dismiss the idea with a sarcastic reply - try at least to come up with a more relevant and intelligent comparison. At least give me that.

If YOU don't want to build cities close together, then don't. You don't need an option that would prevent you from doing so, in that case.

You dont get it do you? The problem is not the human player - it is the AI-civs. I always place my cities with minimal city-area overlapping. I want to be able to tweak the AI-civs to do the same.

[N35t0r]

What about changing the population model to work on Births/deaths, and so to keep cities alive, you would need to build health-related improvements...

This way, one size 10 city with a hospital would be much better than 10 cities with size 1, requiring 10 hospitals if the city is to grow some more...


Or maybe give a bonus to healthy cities...

[TechWins]

There are about 15-30 civers who regurlary posts replies in the Apolyton Civ-3 section. And perhaps yet another 30-100+ who occasionally posts replies. From this you draw conclusions what a future possible customer-base of 1-4 million+ customers is likely to appreciate, or not appreciate?

What my point is that if the option is pointless and nobody will ever use it, the option should not be included. I'm not trying to intend in any way that nobody will use it, either. If people will use an option I think Firaxis should include it. I like to have a lot of options. Some of them I don't use but if other people use them then Firaxis should include it.

Many gamers have played Civ-2 "to the death" - meaning that the Civ-formula stands the very real risk of being a "vicime of its own success". The standard game, with its default rules/graphics, is only going last so long. This is why they must invest heavily in all kinds of scenario-, modpacks-, AI- and game Rules.txt tweak possibilities they can come up with.

Yeah, options are great as long as they're useful to some people.

Techwins, if the player actively must choose the "No/limited overlaps" option (and by that understanding the consequences of this option), dont you think he is capable of adjusting his city-founding strategies accordingly?

Of course, the player should understand the rules it's just that sometimes you could get stuck on an island (no overlapping cities rule is on) and no matter where you put your cities you could only get two cites on that island. When there is perfeclty good land available that you can't use because of the no overlapping cities rule.

Ok, this option is not for you. So dont choose it. It is as simple as that.

Not everybody playes like you and your MP-buddies. Besides I want to have the option to enforce this rules on the AI-civs, in regular single-player games as well.

I think you might have got the wrong intentions from my post. This option isn't for me that's why I won't use it. I'm not against having the option as long as it is beneficial to some people.
You're the one who says to state your opinion on something and list your reasons for it. So I followed those exact guidelines.