City beyond size 20??? Why do I want it ?

liupang · November 4, 2001, 17:43

Is it me, or is it really pointless to have any city beyond size 20? I mean, 1) despite rumor, city radius are still limited to 20;
2) all specialist give a lousy number of 1 tax or science, which is useless anyway.

Plus all the trouble with overpopulation and pollution, didn't it's wiser to keep ur city size 20?

The only reason I can see is to keep all 20+ to entertainers, so keep your city a "WLTK" state. But then again, with the nice marketplace , luxury, cathe and sistine(if you are lucky to build it), collesum, etc, etc, I figure it's really easy to keep people happy without overpopulation. Hence you can mine more grasslands. to get that all important productivity.

so CIVIII = say no to big apple? (instead of civ2's "super science city(usually with a size of 35+)" is every thing?")

What's your guys' idea?

Lawrence of Arabia · November 4, 2001, 17:58

In civ3, you need to have cities over size 20. Why? The bigger your cities, the less the corruption and the higher the culture which translates into more production and more respect for you from other nations hence better trade and diplomacy deals.

SerapisIV · November 4, 2001, 19:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
In civ3, you need to have cities over size 20. Why? The bigger your cities, the less the corruption and the higher the culture which translates into more production and more respect for you from other nations hence better trade and diplomacy deals.

Culture is raised by population? I thought it was only by buildings?

Capt Dizle · November 4, 2001, 22:28

Population equals culture! Of course! Look at the real life example of the Chinese. They wanted to get more cultural so they started to **** a lot and they got good at it and then had to build a great wall to keep out all of the hordes that wanted to join their culture so that they could **** a lot too!

Then when they got too many kids they developed the high cultural art of squashing students with tanks. Now thats class man, class.

Dida · November 4, 2001, 22:47

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Population equals culture! Of course! Look at the real life example of the Chinese. They wanted to get more cultural so they started to **** a lot and they got good at it and then had to build a great wall to keep out all of the hordes that wanted to join their culture so that they could **** a lot too!

Then when they got too many kids they developed the high cultural art of squashing students with tanks. Now thats class man, class.

people, please understand, this forum is for the discussion of Civ3, and not for shamelessly attacking other cultural groups. Idiots like you make me feel disgusted.

Capt Dizle · November 4, 2001, 23:14

You consider that a shameless attack? And call me an idiot?

Talk about a cultural divide.

I am impressed by your sense of humor and obvious devotion to communist oppression.

marcuspeddle · November 4, 2001, 23:28

I'm impressed by your nonsensical answers to valid questions and attacks on other cultures and forum members.
Not favourably impressed, of course . . . .
Go to Off-topic if you want to spout crap. There's a lot of people posting hate over there so maybe you can find a good friend.

Dimension · November 5, 2001, 00:07

Dida:

First off, it was a joke. Second, it was actually kinda funny.

The only part that could possibly be seen as "disgusting" was a reference to an actual event. If it disgusts you, you should be disgusted at the Chinese government.

You're a complete idiot.

J10 · November 5, 2001, 04:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Dimension
Dida:

First off, it was a joke. Second, it was actually kinda funny.

The only part that could possibly be seen as "disgusting" was a reference to an actual event. If it disgusts you, you should be disgusted at the Chinese government.

You're a complete idiot.

I agree wholeheartly, except that there's another part that could possibly be seen as "disgusting". Your face.

Okay, it was a "joke", and it was "actually kinda funny" (subject to the poster's own opinion). And with that in mind, I can say whatever the hell I want, cuz it was a "joke", and it was "kinda funny".

Dimension · November 5, 2001, 04:43

J10:

Unfortunately, your post doesn't even make any sense.

Jimmytrick was obviously making a joking comment about people who "**** a lot to develop culture." That's not exactly something that can be taken seriously.

You, on the other hand, are making a childish personal attack and trying to relate it to the original joke. It doesn't work. Simply saying, "Your face is disgusting," is obviously not an attempt at humor, at least not in the context you gave.

There's really no use in me bothering to explain. If people like you and Dida were capable of understanding such things, you wouldn't have made those kinds of whining posts to begin with. I'm sure you're both just trying to entertain yourself by pissing on random threads, so it'd be better to just not acknowledge you.

Skanky Burns · November 5, 2001, 07:56

You know what they say about jokes. If you need to explain it, its just not funny.

On the other hand, i thought it was funny

.

But bringing this back on topic: Has anyone had a useful size 20+ city?? What did the extra people add to the city, or were they all used up as entertainers to keep the others in-line??

SerapisIV · November 5, 2001, 08:58

Getting back to my question and off the tangent it took:

Is the game mechanism titled culture in the computer game Civ 3 a function of population as well of city-improvements, or is it solely a function of the city improvements built

DaFokka · November 5, 2001, 09:25

As far as I know a city's culture value is not directly affected by it's population. Larger cities produce more shields, however, and therefore produce city improvements and wonders more quickly.

MaSsConFUsi0n · November 5, 2001, 09:46

i've had cities over 30. i had acces to all the luzuries so my citites were somewhat happy. granted, some of the extra people were entertainers but most of em i turned into tax dudes. more money makes me happy and allowed me to increase the luxury rates so that almost every city in africa (MY EMPIRE

) was having wltkd. btw, i had a size 37 city on the nile.

MaSsConFUsi0n

Hipshot · November 5, 2001, 10:40

I somehow like cities the bigger the better, had a city in Civ 2 that was like 42, and I always try to make them as big as possible, cause its fun...

knott · November 5, 2001, 15:57

You gets more votes in UN

.

Dimension · November 5, 2001, 21:26

I don't see how population could have anything to do with culture. Your cultural advisor screen tells you your total culture and exactly where every point comes from, and it's just from buildings and wonders in your cities.

I can definitely see how cities over 20 would be useful just for the entertainers, like liupang was originally saying.

But, higher culture and less corruption? This has nothing to do with population.

Lawrence of Arabia · November 5, 2001, 21:41

Less corruption means less waste
Less waste means more shields available to build things
More shields means more production
More production means faster build times for units and city improvements
More city improvements means more culture
More culture means more respect diplomatically
More diplomatic respect means better deals in trade and negociations

There

Hope I made myself clear

Grumbold · November 6, 2001, 09:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
Less corruption means less waste

Hope I made myself clear

I think people are asking what the link is between higher population and less corruption. You didn't explain that.

liupang · November 6, 2001, 13:32

I am quite disappointed about replies here. Of course I understand with more people I can collect tax and yada yada yada, but the real question is :

UNLIKE civII where you collect a good lot of money or a hell of scinece, every taxman/scientist in Civ III produce a LOUSY 1 gold or 1 science. That's pretty pathetic, and in my opinion probably not worth the trouble(instead to grow all those food, I would rather mine some of my grasslands.) Also, it is stated somewhere that overpopulation create unhappiness. So, to you guys who actually build huge size cities: Does it even worth it?

in civ2, big cities was all the rave; a size 40 city is probably much better than 2 size 20 city. But in civ III, I think I will probably go for the smaller size cities. think about that, even with 10 size 30 cities, you collect a lousy lousy money of 100 per turn. Which is so pathetic IMHO, considering all the costs you have to invest to keep those size 30 city happy.

Plz, some insightful opinions , anyone? if you don't agree, give some analyse, not "I luv big cities and they rock".

Shiva · November 6, 2001, 18:56

Big cities equal big polution. You start going over 15 pop you get pollution. I have been able to get a city with a production of 99 out of a population of 17 have only four pollution markers. Pollution is tied more into pop than production.

I haven't seen any of this "bigger causes less corruption" stuff. If its true i'd really like to see some proof.

GreekyGoodness · November 6, 2001, 19:32

Commercial = more tax for more ppl
Industrial = more production for more ppl

So if your civ has either of these attributes, big cities are better than small ones cuz you get production and money bonus' for the extra ppl. That and it was mentioned that bigger cities have less corruption, which is way out of control to begin with so any reduction is helpful.

Lawrence of Arabia · November 6, 2001, 21:10

Well, to test these theories, I loaded up a civ3 game and went to the modern age to see whats better.

I play huge world 8 civs level 2 (i can't get to modern age in Regent yet

)

Even though the tax collector and scientist collects very little, if you have say 10 cities at 35, you get an extra 150 beakers or tax collected which is a lot.

hammi · November 6, 2001, 21:25

Tax collectors produce the 1 gold but scientists produce 1 RAW science point which is then modifed by libraries etc. It's clearly stated in the manual.

Lawrence of Arabia · November 6, 2001, 21:56

Thus reinforcing my point

Grumbold · November 7, 2001, 04:02

Still waiting for you to explain what the link is between higher population and less corruption

rrrob · November 7, 2001, 04:26

I remember that in Civ:CTP you could put people in factories and have to them generate production without working on a tile. That was a feature I think Civ3 is missing. It kinda makes sense doesn't it? Most production in modern times are generated inside plants around or in cities and not from hills or forests =P.

vincentz · November 7, 2001, 07:41

Actually cities larger than 22 (the max number of tiles) can be a great resource. Especially if you are playing under communism. All those free people to slaughter in order to get that Tank ready in time. The amazing possibilites! Especially since the cities grow faster than a daisy on Viagra!

Grunthex · November 7, 2001, 07:54

Quote:

Originally posted by GreekyGoodness
Commercial = more tax for more ppl
Industrial = more production for more ppl

So if your civ has either of these attributes, big cities are better than small ones cuz you get production and money bonus' for the extra ppl. That and it was mentioned that bigger cities have less corruption, which is way out of control to begin with so any reduction is helpful.

Um, the bonus is 1 production/commerce at size 7, and 1 more (+2) at size 13. Size 35 doesn't seem to help.

GreekyGoodness · November 7, 2001, 13:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Grunthex

Um, the bonus is 1 production/commerce at size 7, and 1 more (+2) at size 13. Size 35 doesn't seem to help.

Point well taken...

I guess the only benefit would be entertainers then...but if you have luxuries and a marketplace then they aren't worth the extra pollution.

Or if your a slave driving commie, then an expendable population is pretty useful