How many cities in an empire?

[ChrisShaffer]

Take a look at the world map in the lower left corner of the GameSpot diplomacy screenshot - http://gamespot.com/gamespot/images/..._screen002.jpg . The Germans have fourteen cities, and from what can be seen that's #1. At the bottom right, you can see it's 1620 AD, so pretty late in the game.

Makes me wonder how many cities there will be in an empire? Is this an example of a small game, or are all the players just slow to build cities, or did the anti-ICS measures really work that well?

Inquiring minds want to know...

[Ralf]

Im all positive to anti-inflationary game-design measures.

In Civ-2 you could always expand yourself to 100% assured success. With the exception of added micro-management, bigger was always and only better. Not so in Civ-3, I hope.

[Footie Mad]

I like this to, a large population should not mean immediate succes as it did in civ 2, there are many real life examples of this but who cares? I just think it will make the game more fun.

[Ribannah]

There have been taken at least three anti-ICS measures:

(1) Producing Settlers costs TWO population heads instead of one
(2) Producing Workers costs a population head
(3) No cities on mountain tops

Of course we can now play OCC-Colony sleeze

[General Ludd]

Size of the empire is directly related to the size of the map. As you can see, in that game the map is completely full, if they where playing on a larger map, there would likely be more cities.

But yes, they have taken some steps to reduce the speed and efficiency that an empire can expand at.

[ChrisShaffer]

Originally posted by Osweld
Size of the empire is directly related to the size of the map. As you can see, in that game the map is completely full, if they where playing on a larger map, there would likely be more cities.

Um, yes, true, but that was the point of the original question. What size is this map? Does the screenshot show a small, medium, or large map? It's obvious that if they were playing on a larger map there would be more cities. What I asked was "is this a large map, if not how much larger can they be?"

[Footie Mad]

Originally posted by Ribannah
There have been taken at least three anti-ICS measures:

Of course we can now play OCC-Colony sleeze

Must I remind you of one of the gaming commandments: THOU SHALT NOT SLEEZE/CHEESE

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by ChrisShaffer


Um, yes, true, but that was the point of the original question. What size is this map? Does the screenshot show a small, medium, or large map? It's obvious that if they were playing on a larger map there would be more cities. What I asked was "is this a large map, if not how much larger can they be?"

The word is that the maximum size will be 6x as large as in Civ2.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

I like the fact that you can build as many cities as you want, and not to have some artificial border, like in CTP when you had unhapiness increasing to unplayable level after you reached certain number of cities, and if yo uconquered some more you had to disband them to keep unhapiness at bay which made the gameplay worse for me.

[barefootbadass]

You won't be able to expand as fast as in civ2, sure, but it will be even more important to expand as rapidly as you can and put your cities closer together when low on room, so you can get more armies, or at least this is what I would expect. But I may be wrong, there may also be cultural penalties(or missing out on cultural bonuses) for having lots of small cities.

[dearmad]

My guess is that that map is a pretty small one- judging by the white square displaying what is on the screen. However, I am all FOR less cities in the game overall to avoid the headaches of twenty+ cities- it becomes less a story of the history of my empire and too much about numbers and one city begins to blur into the other and it all turns bland... I want my cities to be numbered so that they have more "personality" to them: "ah, this is my big west coast port, and this is my hearltand food producer, and here I am checking in on the secret desert technology research center, and whoops- Barbarians near my souther outpost!?" THAT is what makes the game for me.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
I like the fact that you can build as many cities as you want, and not to have some artificial border, like in CTP when you had unhapiness increasing to unplayable level after you reached certain number of cities, and if yo uconquered some more you had to disband them to keep unhapiness at bay which made the gameplay worse for me.

There must be rubberband-limits how many cities you can have without gradually increasing domestic problems. Otherwise we go back to square one: just expand yourself to 100% assured success, Civ-2 style.

I dont like CTP-style unhappiness directly because of size only, but rather increasing corruption and economical burdens, and perhaps unhappiness and potential revolts indirectly because of these latter factors.

Finally; its also VERY important that small empires is given some counter-balancing attractive advantages that huge empires dont have (and vice-versa, of course). Perhaps really big individual cities is easier to nuture in small empires, then in huge empires? Or something like that.

[DarkCloud]

The First thing I am going to do if 16 cities is the best I can do in a game... I will change the terrain to produce 10 food!

I like big cities
I like big empires

If I switch civs in the middle of the game it makes it extremely challenging!

[Inverse Icarus]

firaxis said maps could be 6x larger than those of civ2. so i guess this is a rather small map.

the "viewing square" is a thrid of the map in height, and a fifth of the map in width.

[Executor]

Originally posted by Ribannah
There have been taken at least three anti-ICS measures:

(1) Producing Settlers costs TWO population heads instead of one

Democracy and a 50% Luxury rate will fix that. Once your population goes through the roof, you won't have to worry about losing two citizens instead of one.

Originally posted by Ribannah
(2) Producing Workers costs a population head

Same as above.

Originally posted by Ribannah
(3) No cities on mountain tops

I never built cities on mountaintops anyway. If I needed a defensive city, I placed it on a hill.

[ChrisShaffer]

Democracy and a 50% Luxury rate will fix that. Once your population goes through the roof, you won't have to worry about losing two citizens instead of one.

I'm pretty sure there isn't a population boom in Civ3, so I don't think that democracy + luxuries will significantly increase population size. At any rate, democracy comes pretty late in the game and newer cities will have lower culture ratings....

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Executor
Democracy and a 50% Luxury rate will fix that. Once your population goes through the roof, you won't have to worry about losing two citizens instead of one.

You talking about Civ-2, and Civ-2 style democracy. What makes you believe they havent tweaked democracy differently in Civ-3? We just dont know yet how the game-mechanics actually works yet, do we? They have added both anti-ICS measures (and they are more then those Ribannah counts up) and anti-BAB measures (bigger is always better) in Civ-3.

Why, for instanse should republic/democratic city-pops jump up 1 point for each and every "We love the King day"? Its an obvious misguided bonus that only gets misused by some veteran players. Also, in Civ-2 there where no effective rubber-band limits in how many cities your empire could found, without increasing economical problems, and as a result of the latter; increasing political unrest.

[Admiral PJ]

I may be wrong, but it appears each city may cost an amount of maintenance (in money or pooled shields), according to civ3.com,
that states Colonies don't need upkeep or maintenance unlike Cities, upkeep being building upkeep.

If SO, city proliferation(lots of cities) will be penalised by costing money even for small 1 sized cities.

After all no new 'city' (colony?) is self supporting, needing outside support.. perhaps early city support could be another limiter (or just make Settler units more expensive to make some cost as that for building up the houses and infrastructure of new city)

It makes me question wether resource Colonies (ie plantations) should be free to maintain, maybe they could after a Tech of Colonisation is received, see my new Scenario
Colonial Empires which actually encompasses the whole civ timespan from 4000bc to 2100ad roughly

LordPeter

[Roman]

I am all for anti-ICS and anti BAB measures, but I hope Firaxis doesn't confuse those with artificial limits like the 255 city limit in Civ II. I truly hate those limits.

[Admiral PJ]

I do hope theres a good City rebbelion model too..
what better way to reduce ICS than have your cities turn against you and join another civ/barbarians, and i mean 1 city at a time,
not just the Civil war thing from the old Civs.

Hmm I think I would sell my mother to buy the Civ3 game
Its sounds exciting , I just hope it won't distract from making my own God strategy scifi game (but hey gameplay is RESEARCH like i tell my family )

[Executor]

It all depends on what Firaxis decides should happen when a Republican/Democratic city is under We Love the President. If there's still a population boom, then I won't have to worry about rebellions with 50% Luxury and a decent Culture rating. Even maintenance won't be a problem, as the cities will pay for themselves in a dozen turns. Democracy is a cash cow anyway.

[lockstep]

Wasn´t the SMAC equivalent to Civ2´s "We Love The Leader Day" called "Golden Age"?

Perhaps, in Civ3 a city full of happy citizens does not mean a population boom, but the same thing that can occur also once in your whole empire: all worked tiles contribute one additional trade and shield per turn.

[campmajor!]

I just hope there won't be absolute limits like in ctp.

I really hated it when I conquered the weak AI civ and finding out that I now had too many cities.
There is no such thing as too many cities!
The bigger the empire the more culture you should have, because people will be proud to be member of this big empire!

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by campmajor!
I just hope there won't be absolute limits like in ctp.

I really hated it when I conquered the weak AI civ and finding out that I now had too many cities.
There is no such thing as too many cities!
The bigger the empire the more culture you should have, because people will be proud to be member of this big empire!

I agree,

And if you dont like to deal with more than 20 cities play on a small map.

It should not be so easy to expand and win as it was, but if it is still easy to expand and win, Firaxis should teach AI to use ICS, and than the game will become even more challenging.

It would really hurt gameplay if you got to some artificial limit in happines or corruption, where there was no improvement or science to help you advance ovet that. The only point is to teach the AI too.

[Barnabee]

For me the real question is the number of civ than you can play at the same time. There was quite a huge debate a few months ago but I didn't followed it really up to the end. Could someone tell me if Firaxis has made an official announce about it??
I fear now that you could only face 7 civs in a world 6x bigger than the biggest in civ2 which would let far too much space to expand whithout limit.....


anyone can inform me? thanks

[campmajor!]

Well Firaxis has announced that standard there are 8 civs max in the game, so 7 opponents. But it can be tweaked to 14 opposing civs, only some screens will not be able to support that....

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by campmajor!
I just hope there won't be absolute limits like in ctp.

I really hated it when I conquered the weak AI civ and finding out that I now had too many cities.
There is no such thing as too many cities!
The bigger the empire the more culture you should have, because people will be proud to be member of this big empire!

Sorry, but larger empires do not necessarily mean better empires. (Look at Rome, 18th-19th century England, 16th-17th century Spain - and the problems they had maintaining a far-flung empire once they became huge) Having restraints on your empire based on size is a good thing, because it forces a player to not just ICS, or roll over smaller empires because he now has double the production capability of the next ranked civ in place due to the fact that he has just conquered a lot of cities. Don't get me wrong, if you like to play the game as a conqueror, so be it, but there should be consequences to that approach. (It may mean that you build less cities during the course of the game to take into account a militaristic bent.)

Personally, I would rather not have the 'blank check' approach of no limits, because then I have to consider the consequences of my strategy - which makes for a more challenging game.

(...misconception about CTP setup - there is a happiness penalty due to exceeding the empire size or distance limitation, but this penalty also translates into a higher crime rate which eats away gold/food/production - i.e., the corruption effect.)

[Inverse Icarus]

there is no "luxury rate" in civ3. luxuries are now resuorces you have to link via road.

[Executor]

Originally posted by UberKruX
there is no "luxury rate" in civ3. luxuries are now resuorces you have to link via road.

Are you sure? That will make it kind of hard to keep your citizens happy. What about the tax and science rates?

[Andrew1999]

A couple of other things I noticed in the map screenshot were:

1. The civs expanded pretty much evenly (looks like 10-15 cities each). In SMAC you'd usually have a couple of expansionist factions with 20 bases each and the rest would have two or three.

2. The AI colonized new continents and islands. Again, in SMAC they would usually just stick with whatever land mass they started on and leave half the world empty.

Both of these were also problems sometimes in Civ 2, but they were much more noticeable in Alpha Centauri.