Multi-square citys

[redhat]

Originally posted by 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!

I think that a city is considered yours when you eliminate all opposing force in the immediate surroundings and that the government facilities are under your control. Just put some imagination in it. Too much detail then it will become something like Caesar II.

[Emma]

maybe if you had that as a small wonder. so your allowed one extra huge city in your empire. but it needs a river and a coast maybe (or one of the two.)
that or only your capital can become extra huge. then it would also make capturing the capital worth it. i think it would be more realistic if loosing the capital has crippling effect on the civ. (like it would be in real life, for most countries.)

[Trifna]

Losing the capital has very different effects depending on the advancement of the country. It has some effects but between New York and Washington DC, do you see that much difference? It's not only based on capital, espescially if the administration is advanced enough to adapt.

[Rebel67]

This has been done in CTP2, and it was great fun, But since Civ is better (In my opinion) I would love to see it done. Don't know if it's possible though, in CTP" i think it was done using SLIC, so the only way to do it in CIV would be to add another tile improvement, or change an existing one (unless someone can think of a better way). Does the editor in PTW let you change or add tile improvements?

[LDiCesare]

CtP2 had two featues which allowed that:
1) natural expansion of city borders (starts with 1 ring, can end with 4 rings around the core as city size increases). Civ doesn't have that, and you can't code it in.
2) mod to show suburbs etc. This used SLIC. Firaxis people said that a scripting language was just a bag of bugs to give to the players, so there is nothing approaching that in Civ3.
I don't see that possible in civ3, unless maybe you can hack into the culture radius of your civ?

[Emma]

well yes it's not like washington and new york. but then you must admitt that washington is not 4000 years old. most capitals aren't, but most are much older than washington. like london for instance, if england suddenly lost london, or france lost paris. ok, doesn't work for germany, they'd be better off without berlin ;-)
but that's only because of the east west devide and all.
egypt? there wouldn't really be egypt without kairo. italy different again, only recently (historical view) has the state of italy existed. after the roman empire fell italy was in a mess and devided into kingdoms. so if rome fell you'd have milan. but in roman times if rome fell... well as we all know then the roman empire fell.
greece has two cities, athens and Thessaloniki. if athens fell, well... greece would lose at least half it's population.

[Worthingtons]

This is always one of my favorite subjects, City Expansion, I dont believe in any models that increase City expansion mainly because the size represented by Cities is ALREADY big enough, in fact it's too big.

But, I'd like to a Model which allows Cities to span into the 10's of Millions, Like NY or Tokyo or something. How it could be done i dont know, but the idea behind Suburbs is a good one...
What i like is the idea that a City square can hold Triple the population of a non city square , meaning in some shape or form, if you have more 'city' squares in a city then it will grow much quicker.

[Centauri18]

Having separate sections for cities would make modern combat interesting - remember Stalingrad and the modern battles in the Balkans? Those went pretty much from block to block. Like the Germans at the fall of Berlin. The Russians had to fight for every block.
It would make things very interesting. And difficult.

[HazieDaVampire]

and cool, your forgot that!

[Trifna]

Originally posted by Emma
well yes it's not like washington and new york. but then you must admitt that washington is not 4000 years old. most capitals aren't, but most are much older than washington. like london for instance, if england suddenly lost london, or france lost paris. ok, doesn't work for germany, they'd be better off without berlin ;-)
but that's only because of the east west devide and all.
egypt? there wouldn't really be egypt without kairo. italy different again, only recently (historical view) has the state of italy existed. after the roman empire fell italy was in a mess and devided into kingdoms. so if rome fell you'd have milan. but in roman times if rome fell... well as we all know then the roman empire fell.
greece has two cities, athens and Thessaloniki. if athens fell, well... greece would lose at least half it's population.

Well this does not mean that it's a capital that it will havea huge impact.... you simply showed that the age of a city counts, not capital. But maybe my exemple wasn't the best though...

Rothy: The current DOES NOT represent:
- The effect of urbanized tiles on resources
- Effects on combat
- Effects on nukes beeing shot
- Effect on specialization of cities
- Graphical way to make it as you'd look at Earth from sky

[Emma]

i once had a cool game like that. one of my first civ 3 games. i thought it would all be over if i lost my capital and i had bunkers on all the surrownding city squares. so it was
bunker, bunker, bunker
bunker, city , bunker
bunker, city , bunker
that was pretty cool, though i lost the city in the end. if the capital was worth a lot then it would end up like that. the ai would do anything to defend the capital as soon as troops approach. and if the capital had extra squares to work on then loosing a bit of production to the bunkers wouldn't be too bad.

[Trifna]

It would also be cool for some if there was a flag on a unit nd it died if it's taken. But is it more coherent and immersive? It's not because it's a way to play that it makes some sense. Effects of taken capitals should be editable I guess....

[Emma]

the only way i found i could do that was to make a scenario where no improvements could be built and the capital had them all, but the other cities coudn't even build aquaduct or temple.

[epics]

Originally posted by Emma
the only way i found i could do that was to make a scenario where no improvements could be built and the capital had them all, but the other cities coudn't even build aquaduct or temple.

quite interesting , but very unrealistic

Originally posted by Emma

well yes it's not like washington and new york. but then you must admitt that washington is not 4000 years old. most capitals aren't, but most are much older than washington. like london for instance, if england suddenly lost london, or france lost paris. ok, doesn't work for germany, they'd be better off without berlin ;-)
but that's only because of the east west devide and all.
egypt? there wouldn't really be egypt without kairo. italy different again, only recently (historical view) has the state of italy existed. after the roman empire fell italy was in a mess and devided into kingdoms. so if rome fell you'd have milan. but in roman times if rome fell... well as we all know then the roman empire fell.
greece has two cities, athens and Thessaloniki. if athens fell, well... greece would lose at least half it's population.

YOUR FORGETTING SOMETHING!!!!
where is Warsaw (Warszawa) or Krakov , you know that we had an uprising in Warszaw in '45