Tweet
After playing several games, it seems to me that one aspect of the city as individual units forming the empire is extremely unrealistic and takes some of the shine off of the game.
Basically, it seems that the cities are too independent. Since when in modern times does a city's growth depend exclusively on its ability to grow food in the surrounding land? While this may be true for ancient cities and to some extent cities in time all the way up to the 19th century, I don't think any city's growth in a modern civilization in the 20th or 21st centuries has anything to do with its ability to grow food.
New York did not get to be the largest city in the US because of its farmland! In fact, no major city that I can think of in the US is large because of its ability to grow food. But in CivIII, that is the only way a city becomes large and sustains its population - even in the modern eras.
Lets face it, people in New York, Chicago, or LA or any other major city in the world today do not starve because of the lack of outlying farmland. Virtually every modern city imports its food - and every large "successful" city grows in size because of its commerce.
It seems to me that a more realistic model would be that food in the modern eras should be shared between cities and growth should be a function of commerce - not food availability in the city!
It just bothers me that while playing CivIII, I'll make a new city in the 20th century and it can't grow (and sometimes will face starvation) because of the lack of food units in the surrounding land, while other cities are producing abundant amounts of food. In a modern civilization, this food would be traded between cities. This just doesn't sit right in my stomach while I'm playing.
There should be a modern age tech that allows cities to grow as its commerce grows. In addition, commerce should be tied to trade in some manner. That would be more realistic.
Just my two cents.
Basically, it seems that the cities are too independent. Since when in modern times does a city's growth depend exclusively on its ability to grow food in the surrounding land? While this may be true for ancient cities and to some extent cities in time all the way up to the 19th century, I don't think any city's growth in a modern civilization in the 20th or 21st centuries has anything to do with its ability to grow food.
New York did not get to be the largest city in the US because of its farmland! In fact, no major city that I can think of in the US is large because of its ability to grow food. But in CivIII, that is the only way a city becomes large and sustains its population - even in the modern eras.
Lets face it, people in New York, Chicago, or LA or any other major city in the world today do not starve because of the lack of outlying farmland. Virtually every modern city imports its food - and every large "successful" city grows in size because of its commerce.
It seems to me that a more realistic model would be that food in the modern eras should be shared between cities and growth should be a function of commerce - not food availability in the city!
It just bothers me that while playing CivIII, I'll make a new city in the 20th century and it can't grow (and sometimes will face starvation) because of the lack of food units in the surrounding land, while other cities are producing abundant amounts of food. In a modern civilization, this food would be traded between cities. This just doesn't sit right in my stomach while I'm playing.
There should be a modern age tech that allows cities to grow as its commerce grows. In addition, commerce should be tied to trade in some manner. That would be more realistic.
Just my two cents.
Comment