Improvement-related empire size limits?

[Ralf]

----------------------------------- edited:
This idea have been gradually simplyfied and downtuned two times. Read further below (my 6:th post) for the final version.
-------------------------------------------

In conjunction with government-related max empire size limits, i was wondering if you think that Firaxis should add city-improvement -related limits as well.

For example:

- To expand beyond 6 cities; you must at least build a temple in city 1 to 6.
- To expand beyond 12 cities; you must at least build temple + marketplace in city 1 to 12.
- To expand beyond 18 cities; you must at least build temple + marketplace + courthouse in city 1-18.

Perhaps above example could be better - any ideas?

The configuration temple + marketplace + courthouse is the barebone minimum configuration you have to build in order to expand beyond any 24 > 30 > 36 > 42 city empire limits.

IMPORTANT:

Above could be completely tweakable through the .txt-files. You can chose any other improvements, or [None] if you simply dont like the idea. Above affects both human as well as AI-civs, of course.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited November 13, 2000).]

[Andz83]

I like the idea in general

perhaps it's a bit too strict that you need those improvements in EVERY city before you can expand further, but it makes sense, generally

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Andz83 on 11-12-2000 07:23 AM perhaps it's a bit too strict that you need those improvements in EVERY city before you can expand further, but it makes sense, generally

You probably right, Andz83! Perhaps this is better:

- To expand beyond 6 cities; you must build temples in city 1 to 6.
- To expand beyond 12 cities; you must build temples in city 1 to 12 and marketplaces in at least 6 of them.
- To expand beyond 18 cities; you must build temples in city 1 to 18, marketplaces in 12 of them and courthouses in 6 of them.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited November 12, 2000).]

[Andz83]

yes, that's my point! now some might say that it's still to hard to demand a temple in every city to expand, but THIS will definitely be a good way to prevent early ICS strategies...

[Ralf]

In theory one could add *new* types of city-improvements in order to expand beyond 24 > 30 > 36 > 42 cities, but i think that would be to unwise. Afterall, i dont think Firaxis should *force* the player to adapt a civilistic/ perfectionist playing-style.

However, what to do the existing 3 ones? Heres an example of one can make of the idea, above 24 cities:

- To expand beyond 24 cities; you must build temples in city 1 to 24, and marketplaces in 15* of them and courthouses in 9 of them.
- To expand beyond 30 cities; you must build temples in city 1-30, and marketplaces in 18 of them and courthouses in 12 of them.
- To expand beyond 36 cities; you must build temples in city 1-36, and marketplaces in 21 of them and courthouses in 15 of them.

* The minimum 15, 18, 21 number of marketplaces, instead of 18, 24, 30 is a compromise of course. The same goes for the courthouses.

Also; bear in mind that these increased demands comes step by step in 6 city increments. Building those added improvments only becomes a must, then you want to expand *beyond* the current 6 city increment. Consequently, you dont *have* to build a temple in city 25 in order to expand to city 26. The increased demands only becomes necessary then you break through the (in this example) 30 city limit.

Now, above together with government-related empire size max-limits, and the steadily increased happiness-problems in empires sizes beyond 24 > 30 > 36 > 42 cities - should be "the left plier-handle" - while more technical city-tile related anti-ICS solutions should be "the right plier-handle";

Working together they can be that "cutting-plier" that finally pinches the ICS-problem once and for all.

Any ideas about the government-related empire size max limits? Any concrete suggestions?

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited November 12, 2000).]

[Mo]

I would suggest that instead of having to build temples in all 6 of the early cities it should be in 4 of them and if there is a temple in construction and has at least x% of the way done it should count as a half of a finished temple. Instead of just restricting on the number of cities I think size of the cities should be taken into account. Say just require a temple in 75% of cities with at least a population of 2 and marketplaces in cities with at least population of 3or4.
Also I don't think it should prevent you from building more cities it should just increase unhappiness in the whole empire, especially the less developed regions. And increased corruption and chances of rebellion in those same regions.
How about if you don't meet the original requirnment, but you have an adequate road network/adequate irrigation it should partially counter act the effects.

[Apocalypse]

I think that improvement related limits are needed. What would be good is if happiness was used like corruption in Civ2. This would be more historically acurate. Many cities on the outskits of empires didn't always recieve the riches that the capital city recieved. Many of them were also exploited. Like corruption, this penalty could be eliminated with certain governments.

[Ralf]

MO:

I understand what your saying, but i think your idea is too complicated. The solution must be simple and straigtforward to understand for the newbie, when he reads about it in the manual. Also for the player then he gets those cant-expand-anymore popup messages. He must then know *exactly* how to combate this.
Finally; from a programming point of view; dont mess things up with cross-related conditions and variables unless your are absolutely *have* to. Unwritten developing rule: KISS (Keep it simple stupid)

The "Corruption/Unhappiness idea" was good, i think - compare with Apocalypse´s post.

APOCALYPSE:

Do you mean that long distances away from the capital city should not only result in increased corruption, but also in increased unhappiness on top of that?

Well, why not! Sounds OK by me.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited November 12, 2000).]

[Shadowstrike]

This is a great idea. ICS would be a dead duck with this working. Maybe if several different buildings can fill the criteria, this would be more feasible.

[Apocalypse]

Yes, both. Even on the highest levels, I (and many others I know) could expand faster and with less difficulty than real civilizations at the beginning of history. Forcing me to build temples almost right after I build a city and raising luxury rates would have slowed me down to more realistic rates.

[jdlessl]

I'm sorry, but I couldn't stand being told by the game that I can't build another city unless this other city had a particular improvement.

What would be much better would be if there is no limit on the number of cities, but as you get further away from your capital and other cities, the chance of the new city revolting gets higher. Obviously it would suck to build a city and have it revolt the next turn because it's too far away, before you have a chance to build any improvements in it. But if the city is really far away from the next closest city and even further from the capital, that's just going to happen.

I think the easiest way to implement it would be to give each city a 'distance' variable. It is not just simple # of squares from the capital. This variable is modified by improvements like temples and having military units garrisoned in the city. Now each city's distance variable is defined by how distanced it is from the next closest city. Building a courthouse in St Louis also decreases Denver's, LA's, and Seattle's distance from DC, you see? Being overseas increases the value by a very great deal, so the British Empire would have to work very hard to keep itself together.

Thus the limit is not on the population size of your empire but it's actual physical size and ability to communicate between the capital and the frontiers. As time goes on and communications techs are improved (chariots/saddles, faster ships, heliographs, heliographs improved by use of telescopes, and finally modern telecommunications) your empire can get much bigger with far less danger of revolt of outlying regions.

Jared Lessl

[airdrik]

Idea: make it so that you have to have a 1:3 temple:city ratio, 1:4-5 marketplace:city ratio, 1:6-8 courthouse ratio, 1:10-15 4th improvement, 1:20-25 5th improvement, 1:30-35 6th improvement, etc. in order to build more cities you have to meet these ratios (you can build 3 cities w/out a temple, but you must build a temple before you can build a 4th city)
[This message has been edited by airdrik (edited November 12, 2000).]

[DarkCloud]

About the temple- size 6, the game already has this; when you are size 8 you go into disorder without a temple unless you make your luxuries extremely high.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by DarkCloud on 11-12-2000 12:48 PM About the temple- size 6, the game already has this; when you are size 8 you go into disorder without a temple unless you make your luxuries extremely high.

We are talking about the size of the whole empire, DarkCloud. NOT about any indevidual city. Read the thread.

------------------------------------ edited:
AIRDRIK:

You improvement/size ratio is good in theory but bad in practice:

The 2:nd improvement is only 1:4-5 which means a 30 city empire only have to build 5-6 of them. Thats 0.233 per city. The 3:th improvement is only 1:6-8 which means a 30 city empire only have to build 4-5 of them. Thats 0.15 per city. The 4:th improvement is even less meaningful; 1:10-15, which means you can build a 30 city empire and only have to build 2-3 of them. Thats 0.083 per city.

Its too little to be meaningful.

I am of course bias, but i think the six city step increment idea; 6 > 12 > 18 > 24 > 30 cities, is more effective (yet, without hinder expansion to much):

In a 30 cities empire that translates to:

1.0 Temples per city
0.6 Marketplaces per city
0.4 Courthouses per city

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited November 12, 2000).]

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by jdlessl on 11-12-2000 11:09 PM I think the easiest way to implement it would be to give each city a 'distance' variable. It is not just simple # of squares from the capital. This variable is modified by improvements like temples and having military units garrisoned in the city. Now each city's distance variable is defined by how distanced it is from the next closest city. Building a courthouse in St Louis also decreases Denver's, LA's, and Seattle's distance from DC, you see? Being overseas increases the value by a very great deal, so the British Empire would have to work very hard to keep itself together.

Jdlessl, im sorry to repeat myself, but i can only give the exact same response to you, as i did to MO:s solution. Im not lazy - below really is a constructive spot-on critique of your solution, as well:

"I understand what your saying, but i think your idea is too complicated. The solution must be simple and straigtforward to understand for the newbie, when he reads about it in the manual. Also for the player then he gets those cant-expand-anymore popup messages [or unhappy faces - whatever you want]. He must then know *exactly* how to combate this.
Finally; from a programming point of view; dont mess things up with cross-related conditions and variables unless your are absolutely *have* to. Unwritten developing rule: KISS (Keep it simple stupid)".

Also, from a processor-workload point of view: WHY force the hardware to make so many (and repeated) cross-related variable-dependent calculations, to such a basic only-affects-you-if-you-try-to-ICS type of problem?



Think of it: in a game with, lets say a grand total of 100 cities, there really would be a LOT to calculate, if one took each and every factor in your example into account.

quote: I'm sorry, but I couldn't stand being told by the game that I can't build another city unless this other city had a particular improvement.

If you try to grow a single city beyond a certain size (without either added happiness-improvement or increased luxuries) the people of that city are going to be really unhappy (= anarchy).
Basically, you are "being told what to do", indirectly by the programmer/designer of the game.

By the way: Is there any principal difference between the following?

- The city has fallen into anarchy. You cannot controll it again, unless you add a happiness-improvement/ increase luxuries/ enforce martial law/ change to dictatorial government. You MUST do something.

- The empire cannot expand anymore. You cannot expand anymore if you dont add more city-improvements to the cities that you already have. You MUST do something.

My improvement-related empire-limit idea, can always the tweaked or downtuned. Lets say we take the temple out of the equation, and simplify the idea further:

- To expand beyond 10 cities; you must build marketplaces in 5 of them.
- To expand beyond 20 cities; you must build marketplaces in 10 of them, and courthouses in 5 of them.
- To expand beyond 30 cities; you must build marketplaces in 15 of them, and courthouses in 10 of them.

The MAIN idea of above suggestion is to give the game an added simple-to-implement anti-ICS dogleash.

And thats perhaps necessary: i *dont* think that city-area related anti-ICS prevention is going to be enough. Check out this thread over at the CTP-2 section: http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum35/HTML/000313.html?45

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited November 13, 2000).]