Satellite cities

[wittlich]

How about "Hamlets" during the middle ages?

I guess it does matter what these gatherings of hovels are called...but the whole concept is intriguing.

[Adm.Naismith]

I liked the concept of "village", but I'm more inclined to define them as an evolution of SMAC Supply Unit (the Crawler).

A normal (i.e. CIV II style) city can build not only "Settler" units - at the expense of 1 population point - but also "Village" units (looking for a better name ) at no population cost.

As in SMAC you can move your Village unit outside city radius and then "Plant" it where you want to use a terrain resource.

The village can't grow, can't be managed as a city, can be forced to move up again (migration) if resources become consumed (random event - no penalty for migration) or simply because you change your mind (forced migration, a minor atrocity under not tyrannic government)

Limits I suggest for balancing reason:

1) The village unit only use the square where it's "planted", as Supply unit do, and the resources are automatically routed to original city (Support city). I'm pondering if it can only exploit a resource at a time (chosing from mineral, trade or food, as in SMAC), or it can exploit all available resource, but consuming one point each for self maintenance. E.g. working on a square that give 2 food, 2 trade, 1 mineral, the Original city will gain 1 food and 1 trade (village use 1 food, 1 trade, 1 mineral for self support).
NOTE: I'm afraid that giving Village a radius, a growth, etc., they become too much like cities, then adding them to the hated ICS problem.


2) The Village unit can be moved no far than 2 movement point from Original city - if you have a connecting road or a river it count as 4 square - railroad count 6 square). With this limit we avoid that village become unrealistical far from original city (SMAC weak point, IMHO).

If variable city radius are implemented too, we can have a good simulation of early village exploiting precious resource 2 square far from original town, then included in city radius as city grow.

Included village can be moved on a new place (with a penalty?) or disbanded (Original city gain half production as usual) as if villager "join the city" but without change on Population number.

I agree about no special defense value for Village (I mean, they can have a low one itself, as any settler unit): friendly units can stack up, enemy units must destroy village unit to occupy the square (sort of a pillage). You can buil a fort on the square, as usual, to help defence, but that's all.

Sorry, I changed a bit your good idea, but I hope someone can share my modified points... or correct it

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[Nikolai]

From The List":

quote: The Village Model In the context of Civ 2: Villages function as terrain improvers, by either farming or mining. They are all size 1, though size 2 might be possible late in the game, increasing productivity. Food and Mined resources are automatically sent to a nearby host city, whose population either gathers resources from it's own square, or processes the resources the villages send them (all population in a city not gathering from its own square are either labourers, traders, or scientists). Otherwise, cities function the same as in Civ 2. New Benefits: “City radius is no longer used. You can use every square in your territory if you desire, and keep the cities in logical places, like on the coast and river junctions, where cities historically thrived.” Rural population is represented and strategically important (to capture or defend). Makes the logical split between resources and industry easier to manage. Further, the villages belong to a region and send food straight to it. Cities in the region receive it as needed. Infrastructure is still placed in individual cities, but the industry is calculated centrally, to ease micromanagement. Regions are likewise good for reducing micromanagment, and the overall model more accurately shows the rural/urban population shift brought about by better agriculture.

quote: Discussion: Villages are the only place to put non-specialists. These would work the village squares, gathering materials from the square they were on and nowhere else. Cities contain only specialists -- labourers produce industry, which is used to process the resources harvested in the countryside. “…Villages would be built by a "public works" type system, rather than by a unit. They could be autobuilt by the AI or queued by the player… Villages don't count towards any particular city, but are shared within a region. …The maximum distance from the main city would be dependant upon the technology level, or whether it is linked by road, railroad, etc.” It was suggested that you can transfer villagers along a clear road, so if the enemy blocks off your road, the only place you can put the villagers is in the city – which would have a maximum capacity beyond which negative effects begin to be felt. In times of war, villagers come into the city. Ocean square villages would spawn fishing villages, and oil platforms later.

It also stands MUCH more than this, but it is so much that I don't think you would read it.....READ THE LIST(it stands under the topic "Radical Ideas" 3.4)!!!

------------------
Who am I? What am I? Do we need Civ? Well....
[This message has been edited by Nikolai (edited February 16, 2001).]

[Adm.Naismith]

Good bookmark, Nikolai.

I remembered previus discussion about village and a substitution for Supply unit, but I forgot to check "The List" once more.

To be true, your quote is about a different, more radical model change. Mine suggestion is a bit more on the line of existing concept (SMAC Supply unit), where I'm trying to save best part and modify weak point.

Of course I can be wrong, as usual I'm just suggesting concept to Firaxis professional for their "idea crunching" moment

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[Roman]

I have only read the first post on this idea, but I love it. Sattelite towns would work very well, IMHO.

[Stuff2]

Here are some replies.

To airdrik: You are probably right about the defence thing. I don't know. I was thinking about that if an enemy captured it it would actually become a city (possible to build city walls and stuff in it). I'm not sure. Maybe it's best to keep it as a satellite town even though it belongs to a different civ than the city it belongs to. (Did you understand that? I didn't hehe) . Or just simply have it destroyed. A good way of getting territory without actually capturing a city. I'll have to think about this...

To henrik and wittlich: You are probably right about satellite cities not being a good name for it. villages or suburbs or whatever. I don't really care i just think it would be a good idea to implement whatever it would be called.

To adm.naismith: Take no offence but I hated the supply crawler in SMAC. To me it was just alot of stupid micromanegement. Seems to me that villages moving around would just be a pain to keep track of and not a bit realistic either.

To nikolai: I've read the village idea and in a way i like it. But it is simply too much micromanegent. It will get too complex. I found it to be a pain to manage more than 40 cities. With hundreds (or thousands on a big map) of villages also I would simply go nut. Villages on every square worked on is just too much.

[Adm.Naismith]

quote: To adm.naismith: Take no offence but I hated the supply crawler in SMAC. To me it was just alot of stupid micromanegement. Seems to me that villages moving around would just be a pain to keep track of and not a bit realistic either.

Why should I take offence? I hope we are free to politely disagree

Me too don't love the SMAC supply crawler, but I'm not always on the mood to throw away the baby with the bath water

I suppose Firaxis can reuse the concept, so when you suggested to found new "half cities" (by settler, I supposed) I wanted to differentiate proper cities from villages (suburbs) by a different unit: i.e. the idea to define this almost-settler as an evolved supply unit.

To be true, I don't really understand why do you think my idea add more micromgmt than yours:

a) you build a city - by common settler? - in city radius: me too, only using a dedicated unit, a unit that don't cost population points just because I don't think a village/suburb will be used in a game if it cost as a normal settler BUT used to build only a village can pay less in long term than building a proper separate city.

b) you define satellite town almost a common
city but introduce difference in satellite town management AND in original city (you need an expanded city screen to manage added square now owned by original city, or are you thinking about PW like CTP?)
I'm leaving original city rules as is: village only add resources as in SMAC

c) you move settler to found satellite city inside original city radius: I suggested limit more related to movement (transport) than city radius, but that can be simplified if you like.

d) you need to manage village growth to proper city in particular condition: I suggest to assimilate village as original city growth OR manage Village exodus, just because I don't like the idea to lose the original "village unit" resources, and I want to reproduce some "city suburb" moving.

If village exodus is too much micromgmt for you, well: only keep the "automatic disband village" I suggested as alternative.

In short, anyone can like or dislike my proposal, of course , but I don't understand well your point about "too much micromgmt".

Oh, I liked more radical city idea too, as city growing from city "seed" and natural aggregation points, with citizen coming from native people living on the territory. But that's another thread, here I'm writing more traditionalist

Stuff2, sorry in advance if I misunderstand something, don't forget I'm not very good with english writing and reading.

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[Stuff2]

Adm.naismith: You have some good points!
It was exactly for comments like this that I wrote the post in the beginning. You are absolutely right about that villages should not be built by ordinary settlers. And making the village managable as an own city is 'too much' micromanaging.

In fact i just suddenly realized that the only thing we actually disagree about is where villages can be placed and how much they will add .

My idea is that you place it within the cities origin radius and when that's done the village will add it's own 2-circled radius to the cities radius. Yes I am talking about an expanded city-screen. Moving the village is not possible in the way you are proposing, and not needed either since the village will contribute between 5 and 11 new squares to your existing city.

Your idea is to place villages x number of squares away, better infrastructure makes it possible to build even further away. But every village only brings resources from the square it's placed on. Am i right?
[This message has been edited by Stuff2 (edited February 19, 2001).]

[Adm.Naismith]

quote: Am i right?

Yes, you are!

You can use them near city, to use great resources until city growth and "absorb" them as common city working area
OR
You can put them as far as you can to simulate old village of miners (in real world usually they raise with the mine, then disappear: only sometime they become proper town), little community of farmers or fishers, little trade post.

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[Straybow]

There has been lots of discussion on this type of thing. See City Layout for a distillation of my ideas.