Multi-square citys

[HazieDaVampire]

Anybody think that it mite be pritty cool to have extra large citys take up more squares?

These bigger citys would have a bigger work area (that fat X where you can assign laborers).

It would of course be a problem for small/smaller maps, and we could have stalingrad style combat, fighing in amoung a city, rather than fighting over it.

These are just brief ideas, anybody got anything they can add, or any comments?

[Patroklos]

I always thought the best way to do it would be a suburbs tile improvment, that woul give extra gold and production. Should take alot of effort to build though.

[DuncanK]

Try Smac or CTP2

[Sandman]

Seeing as a square represents a huge area, I think that it would be better if the city radius was flexible, so that if you built two cities close to each other, they would not lose out on squares. In this way, you could have densely packed river regions, without paying for it with decreased production.

[HazieDaVampire]

Citys should spawnout extra city squares along rivers, and out along a coastline.

I live in Sunderland, its got both a river, and its right on the coast, and it does both of this

[Sandman]

One idea which I was toying with would be to have three kinds of city. A maritime city has to be on the coast and spreads most of it's radius over the sea. A hybrid/standard city has about equal weighting to land and sea, and an inland city has no sea squares. You could build certain advanced buildings only in a certain kind of city, i.e. the Lighthouse and the Colossus would only be available in a maritime city, whereas the Great Wall would only be available in an inland city.

[Trifna]

Natural city model

I had already made a thread about it and here is the content:

We're talking about serious Civ revolutioning here.

The city modelization in Civ always have been a representation (by a tile called "city"). And ressources around just stay as they are, + improvements. But look at New York and USA's East coast! Forests? Mines? Forget it. I guess there's nothing but the city between NY and Chicago or Washington. So it changes alot on many aspects:
- tiles (forest to city, plains to city, etc.)
- production (food's production isn't 30km outside NY's center...)
- unit moves (to a certain extent)
- moving troops on opponent's field
- attacks on city
- how the map looks


So I would propose a way to arrange this. Of course, it implies to consider the growth of production by science, which is what permits such big cities (enough food, etc.).

I would see possible to graphically simply show the city taking expansion, until it even reaches tiles around. Once a tile is touched, it is touched GRADUALLY, which means it will have only it's boarders with city, then more, more, more.... until its production is a entirely a city-type production (which will go up with the city beeing more dense/effective). It also means that the value of the center tile will see its value change through expansion (since it wont be only city form the beginning).


EDIT: It's not only about a graphical issue but mainly the gameplay issue that's important here. Presently, the geographical expansion of cities isn't in Civ 3.

This system, if correctly done, is supposed to work better since it's how reality works. The only thing is to not make it overcomplicated, which doesn't seem that much of a problem.

[Kizami]

SimCity 4!

[Trifna]

Certainly not... The goal is to make something generalized, not something where you play with inner elements but something where you move the general factors. As Napoleon said, move the general stuff and all details will follow.

[HazieDaVampire]

I was thinking of the combat side of it, like, you have to take all of the squares before you totaly own the city, but certain squares mite hold of the barracks or the hospitel (You can heal your units fast).

But i did ask for feedback on both this, and more in general!

[Trifna]

Well I guess it would have the consequences it has in reality: you can occupy a part of a city (Berlin was separated, etc.) which brings to serious problems for the civ who owns the city... And many consequences (destroying everything like Germans in Poland, WWII, just take advantageous position or else).

But before speaking of combat, we will have no choice to start by getting a structure to such a view of cities.

Boy I'd like to see such a coherent economic system (and stil kept simple to newbies)...

[Shr3dZ]

"you can occupy a part of a city (Berlin was separated, etc.) which brings to serious problems for the civ who owns the city... "

It could just be in anarchy until only 1 civ owns it all...

[Datajack Franit]

Mixing civ with commandos' style would be great indeed

[Trifna]

Originally posted by Shr3dZ
"you can occupy a part of a city (Berlin was separated, etc.) which brings to serious problems for the civ who owns the city... "

It could just be in anarchy until only 1 civ owns it all...

Well it would be a non-sense I believe because it wouldn't be harder to let the city produce partially, as it'd normally really do. Of course, it would have some effects on stability and production but not necessarily to stop absolutely everything, espescially if it's a city as big as New-York, where the south part is close to Washington and North part to Boston (something like that).

About comandos, well it's very simple... units gets bonus or malus in city, that's it.

[redhat]

I think we need to include some fishing boat units so that we can acquire more food from the see/ocean apart from the coastal area.