Before someone flames me, i would first point out that below critisism only affects civer´s that have the same objectives and playing-style as i have. People who plays the game differently, with other objectives probably wont feel as much affected. Anyway:
Im one of those civer´s who...
1/ emphasize quality before quantity then expanding my empire (= fertile city-surroundings; dedicated tile- and city-improvement strategy; balanced - not too costly military upkeep), and that it should pay off nicely having this philosophy (although military perhaps somewhat risky).
In short: pursuing civil improvements because i want to do it, and building military units because i have to do it.
2/ likes to micromanage and nurture max 15-25 cities, and have the feel that this tile-improvement and city-improvement -nurturing actually makes a difference in the long run. A difference that enables me to be compared also with huge 40-60+ less nurtured and mostly undeveloped city-sleeze empires, even if they have a bigger overall population.
3/ wants city-growth to be a real challenge - not an self-evident process. Growth beyond half max city-size should be virtually impossible without at least 8-10 farmed squares, or alternatively 5-6 advanced farmed squares. Max-sized cities should require either at least 20 farmed squares, or 10-12 advanced ones.
4/ wants empire-growth to be a real economical and political challenge as well - not just a military/settler-producing one. Decisive anti-BAB (Bigger Always Better) should have been implemented in CTP-2, and it hasnt.
By anti-BAB i mean: A big empire that consists of 45 cities should (of course) have some distinctive advantages over an similarly developed empire of just 15 cities.
But also: the smaller 15 cities-empire should have some OTHER distinctive advantages (maybe much less happiness-problems then build HUGE indevidual cities) over the its bigger twin-empire counterpart.
This is basically anti-BAB, and CTP-2 dont have that, it seems. I have based all above assumptions on below review-quotes and some other tidbits of information, collected here and there.
(i hope however some of it can be tweaked through the text tweak-files, thus repairing an otherwise unbalanced game - at least seen through my specific playing-style glasses).
DARTHVEDA QUOTE:
"However, I can't let go of the fact that I could get size 20+ cities on but a single farm. In fact, farming didn't seem to do anything really useful in the game. I surrounded a size 50 city with Hydroponic Farms and a similar sized city with little farming still managed to match its rate of growth. All farming seems to do is keep the city's growth from stalling or allow players to have a city in the desert. The expanding city radius only seems to make ICS (Infinite City Sleaze), a tactic where the player only produces settlers in an expansion explosion, a whole lot easier (though I did not take advantage of it at the time)."
TILEMACHO QUOTE:
"I'm one of those guys who really liked micromanagement. I can't say that I don't like the new system but I think the main reason why it is still functional is because ICS is now even worse! Remember that the first 6 workers now work on 9 tiles...! In my last turn I have a coastal city surrounded by tundra with only 1 advanced farm and size...22!!! Something like that would never have happened in CIV2 or CTP1. In those games you should be very careful when choosing where to place you city and you should take care if you wanted it to grow (I liked that!)."
[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited November 25, 2000).]
Im one of those civer´s who...
1/ emphasize quality before quantity then expanding my empire (= fertile city-surroundings; dedicated tile- and city-improvement strategy; balanced - not too costly military upkeep), and that it should pay off nicely having this philosophy (although military perhaps somewhat risky).
In short: pursuing civil improvements because i want to do it, and building military units because i have to do it.
2/ likes to micromanage and nurture max 15-25 cities, and have the feel that this tile-improvement and city-improvement -nurturing actually makes a difference in the long run. A difference that enables me to be compared also with huge 40-60+ less nurtured and mostly undeveloped city-sleeze empires, even if they have a bigger overall population.
3/ wants city-growth to be a real challenge - not an self-evident process. Growth beyond half max city-size should be virtually impossible without at least 8-10 farmed squares, or alternatively 5-6 advanced farmed squares. Max-sized cities should require either at least 20 farmed squares, or 10-12 advanced ones.
4/ wants empire-growth to be a real economical and political challenge as well - not just a military/settler-producing one. Decisive anti-BAB (Bigger Always Better) should have been implemented in CTP-2, and it hasnt.
By anti-BAB i mean: A big empire that consists of 45 cities should (of course) have some distinctive advantages over an similarly developed empire of just 15 cities.
But also: the smaller 15 cities-empire should have some OTHER distinctive advantages (maybe much less happiness-problems then build HUGE indevidual cities) over the its bigger twin-empire counterpart.
This is basically anti-BAB, and CTP-2 dont have that, it seems. I have based all above assumptions on below review-quotes and some other tidbits of information, collected here and there.
(i hope however some of it can be tweaked through the text tweak-files, thus repairing an otherwise unbalanced game - at least seen through my specific playing-style glasses).
DARTHVEDA QUOTE:
"However, I can't let go of the fact that I could get size 20+ cities on but a single farm. In fact, farming didn't seem to do anything really useful in the game. I surrounded a size 50 city with Hydroponic Farms and a similar sized city with little farming still managed to match its rate of growth. All farming seems to do is keep the city's growth from stalling or allow players to have a city in the desert. The expanding city radius only seems to make ICS (Infinite City Sleaze), a tactic where the player only produces settlers in an expansion explosion, a whole lot easier (though I did not take advantage of it at the time)."
TILEMACHO QUOTE:
"I'm one of those guys who really liked micromanagement. I can't say that I don't like the new system but I think the main reason why it is still functional is because ICS is now even worse! Remember that the first 6 workers now work on 9 tiles...! In my last turn I have a coastal city surrounded by tundra with only 1 advanced farm and size...22!!! Something like that would never have happened in CIV2 or CTP1. In those games you should be very careful when choosing where to place you city and you should take care if you wanted it to grow (I liked that!)."
[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited November 25, 2000).]
Comment