stupid city building rules and the changes needed

[blacksheep]

anyone realize after they changed the city settlement rule you could only get two of anything on the spot you settled? in other words now you should never settle on any good terrain because you will just lose shields, food, or money. if you dont settle on the terrain you can get its maximum benefit within the town boudaries. what's the point of settling on resources now???!!! this is a dumb way to contain ics as it limits territory and resources. the best way to limit ics is to limit the construction of towns to outside of each towns building boudaries. no overlap. this way you dont get cities right next to each other and can only build as many towns as you have land space available. anyone else agree?

[Coracle]

I agree.

I rarely settle on good terrain.

But of all the dumb things about Civ 3 this is pretty low on the list.
Which shows you how flawed it is.

[blacksheep]

ai city building

i just realized...is the ai still programmed to settle on resources? if so that is another major ai flaw as we humans know not to settle on them. if the ai does settle on them then the ai loses the extra ability of its resources and we begin to outpace them. i hope this isnt the case.

[ACooper]

DL
DL
DL
DL

Whoo, whoo

DL
DL
DL

[MOHonor]

Ok for those of you just joining us here are some easy steps to help you care about what Coracle thinks:

1. Drink a massive amount of grain alcohol, smoke about 200 dollars worth of crack and avoid sleeping for 36 hours.
2. Avoid reading any of his dogmatic action figure like posts (my spidey senses are tingling, someone call for a webslinger?) so that when you hear the exact same thing spouted for the 49th time you can act like it's news.
3. Pretend you're from a universe where stating the same point over and over again to a derisive uncaring public marks you as the greatest 12 year old with a DSL of all time.

[ALPHA WOLF 64]

as fair as i've seen, settling on a resource gives you extra.

[MiloMilo]

Resources will give you extra commerce, so settling on gold or luxury resources is a good idea. Plus, then an enemy can't raze it and deny you that resource.

They will not give you extra food however, which I think is as it should be: what good is that wheat inside your town? You can't farm your city center, after all.

I'm not sure about shields. Has anybody settled over iron or coal?

[Cyclotron]

If settling on gold increases your city tile output, I would assume settling on strat resources does the same thing, but I'm not sure. At any reate, settling on strat/lux resources does keep them safe from the enemy (well, until they capture your city...)

[Ming]

Originally posted by MOHonor
Ok for those of you just joining us here are some easy steps to help you care about what Coracle think:...

One more personal attack like that MOHonor, and you will be restricted.

[Puupertti Ruma]

Settling on plains gives you extra shield, I'm not sure on the other hand, if this comes out only after city is a city or metropolis (ie. 7+ in size).

I've found out that in some cities (7+ size), there is 4 commerce, without the aid of commercial civilization or river. I think it's because they were coastal cities with harbors, didn't check if they're related though.

Settling next to river gives the extra commerce given with rivershore tiles, and of course the fresh water source without aqueduct.

[ShredZ]

I could be wrong, but last night while playing I (culturally) took over a Aztec city, the city was built right on top of Horses but within the city Horses was not shown in the Strategic Resource box in the top left, IIRC...

Ill check again when I get home from work...

[punkbass2000]

Am imagining, or did you post this at CivFanatics too?

[blacksheep]

settling on resources

as far as commerce goes yes i do believe the get the correct amount. but shields and food are limited to 2. and that is without irrigation, mining, or roads. so why would you want to limit your resource output plus disallow any additional benefits from irrigation, mining, roads? plus any mods made to resources bringing them above 2 output are erased. thus why would you want to settle on a resource other than what has already been said about keeping your foes from the resource. cant you still do this if the resource is within your town boundaries? preventing towns from overlapping during settlement seems like a much better prevention system of ICS than limiting resources.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by MiloMilo
They will not give you extra food however, which I think is as it should be: what good is that wheat inside your town? You can't farm your city center, after all.

That depends on how literally you want to take the size of the cityas depicted on a map, and on how large you think a terrain square is. Since we're talking about a map of the world, saying that a square is one hundred miles on a side on huge maps (and much more on smaller maps) isn't much of a stretch; at that scale, having farming in the same squre as the city is certainly possible, if not unavoidable.

[Jethro83]

Settling on a good square isn't at all that good an action to take. I even have trouble gripping the fact that I have to settle the floodplains just to be on the banks of a river, since even under despotism, their food production when irrigated is so great.

However, there are certain situations where I might consider settling on a resource.

One of them being if there are a heap of that resource many squares around (I've seen huge amounts of ivory concentrated in one small area. To take advantage of all of it, you'd need to settle on top of one)

Also, I take overlapping into consideration. I hate overlapping my cities, and will work hard to avoid it. Sometimes, if this means building on top of the odd horse, or spice, so be it. This applies to resources with relatively low bonuses to food, shields and commerce though.

Resources with HUGE bonuses to food, shields and commerce (eg. gold, gems, cattle, coal from hills, etc.) are one's I'll tolerate even overlapping to settle around, rather than on top of them.