Poll: City radius

[Henrik]

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 02-17-2001 04:09 AM Firaxis has mentioned that they already playes around with a very early & premature beta-version of the game. If so; any such elementary game core-element as for example what city-radius model they should apply, has most probably already been decided, designed and irreversibly implemented. So any present & future polls dealing with core-elements of Civ-3 is basically a waste of time. At this stage; polls should instead be about minor addon features, or minor tweaks & changes in the game.

Well, in colonization they changed the city radius the same week as they released the game, why wouldn't they be able to change it now?

[Socialist Dictator]

One more vote for number 3.

[Chuckles]

I like the idea of 3 as well. Perhaps I've just been trained this way since civ1 but I like it. I don't want cities getting out of hand.

[Adm.Naismith]

quote: Firaxis has mentioned that they already playes around with a very early & premature beta-version of the game. If so; any such elementary game core-element as for example what city-radius model they should apply, has most probably already been decided, designed and irreversibly implemented.

Ralf, you may be right, but Firaxis told the very same about early beta developed for Dino, and now we had discovered Dino never taked off!
At that stage they haven't decided yet if the game had to be First person, TBS, RTS!

So I'm not taking anything for sure until Firaxis tell us in bold letter, therefore I suppose we can chat about almost everything

Ehi, I'm not sure only Firaxis team is reading the forum: you can never be sure where do "The Next Big Game" will come from!

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

[Tiberius]

Results so far:

Choice............................................ .........Votes
1.expanding, more than 3 circles radius.........3
2.expanding, max. 3 circles radius.................8
3.expanding, max. 2 circles radius.................5
4.fixed style city radius, with 2 circles............3
5.I don't know/I don't care............................1


Note: Ralf, I counted your vote as 4
[This message has been edited by Tiberius (edited February 20, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Tiberius (edited February 20, 2001).]

[yin26]

Hmmm, not sure.

Just because you build a city doesn't exactly mean that its people are doing anything with the area all around it, right? So I think a city's radius should directly reflect the development you designate...no limit except for the fact that the further the tile from the city, the greater the efficiency penalty.

So while I could technically have a city radius of 10 circles, it would hardly be worthwhile to do so, pushing me then to either make more cities (which I hope we fix with anti-ICS stuff anyway) or by making my current tiles much more efficient (which is really what I hope will have to happen).

You choose which category that puts me in...1, I guess.

[Tiberius]

Interesting idea Yin, to allow unlimited number of radius circles and link the efficiency of tiles to the distance from the city.
What I don't understand is how can you control the city and the radius size ? I mean, if the radius grows automatically with every k citizen "head", how can you stop your city to grow beyond n circles radius? Through efficiency? For ex: in the 5th circle the efficiency will be so low, that the city coudn't gather enough food to grow?
I guess certain discoveries will raise your farm's efficiency level, allowing further growing.

Not bad. I'll count your vote as 1, anyway

[Gastrifitis]

I like the cities normally having a fixed radius, but I think there should be a Wonder of the World which allows a specific city to have an expanded radius. That would keep things from getting too out of hand.

[Boracks]

2. I'd like to see cities grow, shucks, I'd like to see smaller cities merge into bigger entities (like Toronto).


------------------
"Treat each day as if it were your last. Eventually, you'll be right."

[Cyclotron]

quote: Originally posted by Gastrifitis on 02-21-2001 04:46 PM I like the cities normally having a fixed radius, but I think there should be a Wonder of the World which allows a specific city to have an expanded radius. That would keep things from getting too out of hand.

Or an improvement, like mass transit, subways, or streetcars. Just as aqueducts and sewers increase maximum population, there would be improvements to increase maximum city size. Improved local transportation was the major force in creating the large, sprawling cities of today and inventing suburbia.

------------------
"Any shred of compassion left in me was snuffed out forever when they cast me into the flames..."
- Marsil, called the Pretender

[Adm.Naismith]

Yin26, when city population growth, I think that things that will limit city to enlarge its size are:

a) surrounding natural limit (e.g. mountains, deserts, sea shore, sometime large rivers)
b) available movement facilities (e.g. road, bridge, navigable river)
c) natural resources (mainly food, but stones and woods also, until good transport let move them from far
d) cost of estate and buildings (not sure of words, I mean that citizen try to balance between cost of building higher palace inside existing city wall -because of need for protection, too- and cost of terrain outside -so pushing city limit a bit far-.

That given, cities grow, not necessary in exact circle shape

I think that Cyclotron7 suggestion is good: city infrastructure can affect city size as pop. number.

I played with other suggestions (by stuff2 and others) on the Satellite cities thread , developing a tentative model.

I think it can be mentioned here too, because is related to way to manage cities growth.

All started by suggestion of "village" or "suburb" concept. I liked the concept, but I'm more inclined to model them borrowing feature from 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;

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). Someone should balance this.

2) Once built, 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).

This is very easy to apply: let the unit have two movement points, apply movement rules and automate its "found village here" at the end, as fighter crash "out of fuel" in Civ 2

With variable city radius mode 2 implemented, 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 left where is (as happens in SMAC with supply, you negate city workers use of that square) or disbanded (Original city gain half production as usual) as if villager "join the city" but without change on Population number.

Using this "village" you visually simulate suburbs and related village, without introducing revolution on Civ2/SMAC already tested design solutions.

I let open another possibility, that may be is too much micromgmt hassle: migration.

A village can be moved ("ghost town" ) on a new place, negating village production for that turn (as in civ artillery fire rules):

- if resources become consumed (random event - no penalty for migration)
- simply because you change your mind about use of that square, e.g. letting them free for your city (forced migration, may be a minor atrocity under not tyrannic government)

I bet it can be nice on visual side, too: think about lot of small icons of villages, placed on best resources squares, visually using the space now left empty between cities.


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

[Tiberius]

Great idea, Admiral!
I like it very much!

My opinion about the "villager" unit: The "villager" unit can be the settler, but when inside a radius of 2 from the main city (or maybe 2 x road/railroad multiplier x terrain multiplier) you will have (beside the usual b-build command) a v-village command.

Also, when the city grows and expand, including now the village inside the city's border, the village can't join the city without a certain discovery or city improvement (for example mass-transit). IMO disbanding/relocating the village should be harder or less profitable than joining it to the city.

Oh, one more question: when the city has a radius of 2, but can't gather a behind-the-mountain/river resource, can you send a villager there?

Once again, GREAT IDEA!

[Straybow]

3. Already suggested in various ways, for example, in the Movement section of the List (building a trail or road required to link tiles farther than 1 from center).

PS: Grumbold's vote, "2. But expanding only from 1 to 2 square radius" is actually a vote for #3.

[Optimizer]

Interesting!

This could be included into the PW system. You should also be able to upgrade a village to a city at a certain cost.

------------------
90% of the casualties in a 21st century war are civilians. Join the army!

[down th' pub]

1 (please)