Offical Civ III Webpage Updated!!

[MrFun]

Ralf - I always found the beginning fun, with exploration and the feeling of founding the early cities of a civilization.

[Ilkuul]

Actually this whole thing about settlers requiring 2 pop. does worry me. Not so much because of boredom - I've always enjoyed the early game, pushing back the frontiers of darkness - but won't it just slow everything down tremendously? Even if you start with 2 or 3 settlers, each city is going to suffer a massive setback in production every time you build a new one, until your cities reach 5 or more.

Any ideas on how one might be expected to compensate for this?

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by Ilkuul on 04-07-2001 04:31 PM I don't understand this -- what do you mean, a "tile worker" and a "normal worker"? I thought the distinction Firaxis was making was between settlers and workers?

Oops, sorry for the confusion. I was not refering to these units at all, merely the worker's in the cities working on the land collecting resources. In Civ2, whenever you built a new city, it was size 1, but had two resource gathering workers. One was a normal worker that you could assign to a specific tile and the other was a city-tile worker, which worked on the city tile and could not be reassigned. This was the main factor enabling the dreaded ICS.

By making settlers cost 2 population points, though, the problem is eliminated, because you "trade" two workers from the original city for two workers in the new city. Of course, there are other factors contributing to ICS, like the slowing of population growth as the city gets bigger, etc. but these are basically counterbalanced by other factors, such as the resource cost of settlers and happiness limits on large numbers of cities.

Therefore I joyiously proclaim ICS to be dead.

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by Roman on 04-07-2001 05:34 PM By making settlers cost 2 population points, though, the problem is eliminated, because you "trade" two workers from the original city for two workers in the new city.

Sorry, either I'm thick, or I've missed earlier discussion of this topic. I'm still not following you. I now get what you mean about a tile worker and a normal worker, but what has that got to do with the parent city losing 2 normal workers and the new city gaining two? You can't build settlers in a size 1 city in Civ2 anyway (without disbanding it); so how does this have any bearing on the number of workers you lose in larger cities? OK, the new 2 pop. rule will mean in Civ3 a size 2 city also can't send out settlers, so I can see how that will drastically slow expansion and inhibit ICS; but you seem to be talking about some kind of conclusive death-blow to ICS that has something to do with tile workers in a city, and that's where you've totally lost me!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ilk, each new city gets a free worker in the city tile. So, when you start a new city you actually get 2 workers instead of one. So, this would prevent that from being too much of a problem.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by MrFun on 04-07-2001 04:34 PM Ralf - I always found the beginning fun, with exploration and the feeling of founding the early cities of a civilization.

Well, the exploration part and the actual evaluation on where to place those cities was/is of course fun - I admit that.

But thanks to fact that it was so damn effective to "semi-ICS"; quickly ramp up 15-20 totally CI-empty cities, before one actually started to build any city improvements, and also; before one started to interconnect those cities with roads - one tended to stick to that strategy again and again, even though it was pretty boring and foreseeable.

I just think its time for a change then it comes to early game strategies in Civ-3. The early hyperfast expansion of new cities should be slowed down and forced to be much more organic and evolving. The whole idea of an quickly ramped up ancient 15-20 CI-empty city-empire, covering perhaps an area the size of the ancient Roman empre, but with NO significant city-improvements and little or no roads between each city - is quite frankly totally ridicules, also from a historic point of view.

Historically theres was at least two things that kept for example the Roman empire not to collapse early on, and that was good roads (= surpress rebellions) and effective government/administration.

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui on 04-07-2001 06:40 PM Ilk, each new city gets a free worker in the city tile. So, when you start a new city you actually get 2 workers instead of one. So, this would prevent that from being too much of a problem.

OK, now I get it! Thanks for spelling it out, Sid!

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui on 04-07-2001 06:40 PM Ilk, each new city gets a free worker in the city tile. So, when you start a new city you actually get 2 workers instead of one. So, this would prevent that from being too much of a problem.

No, leave it as it is. By the way; what do you mean by "instead of one"?

There is no "free" workers whatsoever in Civ-3 as I have understood it. A newly founded city isnt automatically equipped with a free worker, much less 2 of them. All worker-units must be produced - and you looses 1 pop-point after that you have produced any of them - even the first one.

The same goes for settler-units, with the exception that you now looses 2 pop-points every one produced - even the first one.

---------------------------------- edited:

Oops! sorry - I now know what you mean with a "free" worker. Your thinking about that free extra tile besides the city-tile itself in any newly founded 1 pop-point city, of course.

Well, that free extra tile should be given for free, without the need of an visible tile-improving unit - just as in Civ-2. Any visible worker-unit however must be produced.

In order to avoid further confusion; lets only talk about Settlers, Workers and Producing tiles, shall we?

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 07, 2001).]

[Jon Miller]

I think this settler idea is excellent.

Note, most casual players don't take advantage of ICS and build up more slowly. Therefore this fits their playing style perfectly. See, they don't like being bogged down with tons of units and cities which need micromanaged. Therefore this is taking away a cheat from the more experienced players and laeving the casual players with their strategy.

Jon Miller

[Sirotnikov]

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 04-07-2001 06:45 PM Well, the exploration part and the actual evaluation on where to place those cities was/is of course fun - I admit that. But thanks to fact that it was so damn effective to "semi-ICS"; quickly ramp up 15-20 totally CI-empty cities, before one actually started to build any city improvements, and also; before one started to interconnect those cities with roads - one tended to stick to that strategy again and again, even though it was pretty boring and foreseeable. I just think its time for a change then it comes to early game strategies in Civ-3. The early hyperfast expansion of new cities should be slowed down and forced to be much more organic and evolving. The whole idea of an quickly ramped up ancient 15-20 CI-empty city-empire, covering perhaps an area the size of the ancient Roman empre, but with NO significant city-improvements and little or no roads between each city - is quite frankly totally ridicules, also from a historic point of view. Historically theres was at least two things that kept for example the Roman empire not to collapse early on, and that was good roads (= surpress rebellions) and effective government/administration.

But anything different from this is boring!

That's one of the reasons I didn't like the CTP series. It just felt... boring. It took time to build cities and then you ended up with only 8 cities. A big empire must have 20 cities not 8.

This will make the game incredibly boring. I hate it when I have only 5 units instead of 20 (CTP compared to Civ2).

And think about it this way, howmuch turns do you have in a game? How much turns do you have in BC? It would take 15 turns for a city to grow and 20 to produce settler and 7 more to found a new city. So at 100AD you'll have 1 size 8 city, 1 size 6 city, 3 size 3 cities and 2 size 1 cities !!!!

This is annoying!!!

The whole Idea is first to expand as much as you can afford (depending on terrain \ time) and later being upgrading all your cities.

There comes a time when every civ player stops building cities because they are just not worth it. Because if you build a city after 1500AD by the time you finish the game, you haven't finished upgrading the city with all the needed factories / libraries / markets to be a productive city capable of serving your productive needs!

And with this system you'll only be able to build a small number of cities, each with a very big difference in size and each 60 turns after the other ! (you need defensive units as well).

And I don't want a game like CTP where your empire is huge at 12 cities.

I once played prince (or something) and had around 112 cities! I built some, but most I conquered! And though it was tedious, I felt like a big empire as I conquered the whole world!

If I conquer the whole world and it's 45 lousy cities it suck!!!

[jdlessl]

I agree, this sucks.

If you want to prevent players from making empires with many cities but no buildings, simply make it inadvisable to do so, not impossible. Make it so that rebellious cities are more likely without various improvements in the existing ones. Simply saying "you aren't allowed to make as many cities as before" is rather crude.

Things might turn out ok though if the years per turn is reduced and so new cities can be brought up to speed in something less than 1000 years. Otherwise, yeah, we'll just end up with itty-bitty empires.

--
Jared Lessl

[Comrade Tribune]

What, exactly, does a Civ "City" represent?

Imo, it represents an entire province, such as Bavaria, Alsace-Lorraine, Wessex, Iowa,... You get the point.

As You get an entire county for just ONE SETTLER, my line of thought has always been that settlers can´t be expensive enough. I would make them 2pop AND double their shield cost.

[Imran Siddiqui]

quote: The whole Idea is first to expand as much as you can afford (depending on terrain \ time) and later being upgrading all your cities.

Hence the ICS problem. By making a settler worth 2 population points you counteract the free 'production tile' (thanks Ralf) that each city gets. The previous Civ2 model lent itself to cheating simply because 10 cities of size 1 were much better than a city of size 10. Why? Because those 10 cities of size one combine for 20 producing tiles because of the free production tile for the city square. This is a cheat... A BIG cheat.

[Zanzin]

Tribune makes an interesting point. In a Civ2 world map you couldn't begin to attempt to, say, build all major American cities on the north american continent - they just wouldn't fit. It was the same in Europe and England etc. In CTP2 world map, Ireland was one tile!! So, basically, one city is really an entire region...I don't know whether this is a good thing or a bad thing.

Someone mentioned earlier that this could make the start of the game very boring. I'd have to agree. Initial expansion is going to be tedious, and anybody who starts with two settlers instead of one is going to have a large initial advantage.

[bagdar]

quote: Originally posted by Comrade Tribune on 04-07-2001 10:28 PM What, exactly, does a Civ "City" represent? Imo, it represents an entire province, such as Bavaria, Alsace-Lorraine, Wessex, Iowa,... You get the point. As You get an entire county for just ONE SETTLER, my line of thought has always been that settlers can´t be expensive enough. I would make them 2pop AND double their shield cost.

Alsace and Lorraine are two different provinces. well, maybe you meant that. And yes, I agree on this. Never mind, I just wanted to scribble someting. By the way, isn't anyone excited about having Sid as the Science advisor???