Tweet
Another "ban ICS" thread
I don’t know if this has been suggested before. I remember a thread where someone suggested to multiply resources by a factor 10, but my concept is slightly different.
As all civers know a new built city starts with working 2 tiles (city square and another). Your population at that moment is 10.000 represented by one head.
As the city grows each added head represents relatively more people while the tiles they work on don’t gather more resources. In other words you use more people to get the same result.
In my opinion this is quite odd and the reason why ICS has become a succesful strategy.
I know there are limits to the resources you can get in one square, but why keep so much unneeded workers occupied in that square.
IMO there are either two choices: Allowing to relocate excess workers to other tasks in your city or letting grow the resources per square with the number of people the city grows.
10.000 people work 2 squares each producing 2 grain 1 shield 2 trade. Totalling 4, 2, 4
30.000 people (two heads) work 3 squares but with a greater intensity to achieve the equivalent of 30.000/10.000*4=12, 3/1*2=6, 3/1*4=12. This means that each square has to produce 12/3=4,.. 2,..4
If the calculation for resources per square is based on the exponential growth of citizens instead of simply headcounting, ICS won’t be profitable. And you could still freely move your heads around the city radius to relocate labor to your needs.
There’s one little problem I foresee, large cities will get many icons representing resources per square when the symbols don’t change. I suggest different grain, shields and beaker images representing 10’s 100’s and 1000’s of them.
What do you all think?
------------------
Adopt, Adapt and Improve
As all civers know a new built city starts with working 2 tiles (city square and another). Your population at that moment is 10.000 represented by one head.
As the city grows each added head represents relatively more people while the tiles they work on don’t gather more resources. In other words you use more people to get the same result.
In my opinion this is quite odd and the reason why ICS has become a succesful strategy.
I know there are limits to the resources you can get in one square, but why keep so much unneeded workers occupied in that square.
IMO there are either two choices: Allowing to relocate excess workers to other tasks in your city or letting grow the resources per square with the number of people the city grows.
10.000 people work 2 squares each producing 2 grain 1 shield 2 trade. Totalling 4, 2, 4
30.000 people (two heads) work 3 squares but with a greater intensity to achieve the equivalent of 30.000/10.000*4=12, 3/1*2=6, 3/1*4=12. This means that each square has to produce 12/3=4,.. 2,..4
If the calculation for resources per square is based on the exponential growth of citizens instead of simply headcounting, ICS won’t be profitable. And you could still freely move your heads around the city radius to relocate labor to your needs.
There’s one little problem I foresee, large cities will get many icons representing resources per square when the symbols don’t change. I suggest different grain, shields and beaker images representing 10’s 100’s and 1000’s of them.
What do you all think?
------------------
Adopt, Adapt and Improve