Cities grow using an unrealistic model

Gigalope · November 18, 2001, 00:23

After playing several games, it seems to me that one aspect of the city as individual units forming the empire is extremely unrealistic and takes some of the shine off of the game.

Basically, it seems that the cities are too independent. Since when in modern times does a city's growth depend exclusively on its ability to grow food in the surrounding land? While this may be true for ancient cities and to some extent cities in time all the way up to the 19th century, I don't think any city's growth in a modern civilization in the 20th or 21st centuries has anything to do with its ability to grow food.

New York did not get to be the largest city in the US because of its farmland! In fact, no major city that I can think of in the US is large because of its ability to grow food. But in CivIII, that is the only way a city becomes large and sustains its population - even in the modern eras.

Lets face it, people in New York, Chicago, or LA or any other major city in the world today do not starve because of the lack of outlying farmland. Virtually every modern city imports its food - and every large "successful" city grows in size because of its commerce.

It seems to me that a more realistic model would be that food in the modern eras should be shared between cities and growth should be a function of commerce - not food availability in the city!

It just bothers me that while playing CivIII, I'll make a new city in the 20th century and it can't grow (and sometimes will face starvation) because of the lack of food units in the surrounding land, while other cities are producing abundant amounts of food. In a modern civilization, this food would be traded between cities. This just doesn't sit right in my stomach while I'm playing.

There should be a modern age tech that allows cities to grow as its commerce grows. In addition, commerce should be tied to trade in some manner. That would be more realistic.

Just my two cents.

yavoon · November 18, 2001, 00:24

thats nice dearie.

Simpleton · November 18, 2001, 00:32

It's a game. You have to suspend belief just accept the "unrealistic" part of it. How realistic is Doom or Quake? Is it realistic that one person can wipe out 500 monsters/enemies and survive? What about AOE/AOK? Is it realistic that one person (the player) could really control all units and make every decision in an empire? Or to take the Civ3 realism/unrelalism further, is it really realistic that a person would rule a civilization for 6000 years?
The answer to all of the above is no it is not realistic but in the end suspending realism is fun. That's the reason we play games, so we don't have to worry about the real world.

Gigalope · November 18, 2001, 00:48

The point is that it can be hard to suspend disbelief sometimes. I have no problems suspending disbelief while playing Quake, because its supposed to be fantastical.

Take AoK for instance: in no way was it "realistic" but it presented itself in a consistent albeit fantastical manner, making it a model that was interesting to play.

The problem with CivIII is that its not self-consistent in the sense that some aspects of the game are very complex and well thought-out, whereas other aspects (namely city growth and combat) resemble an elementary board game.

It just makes the game "feel" weird.

just my 3 cents...

Stromprophet · November 18, 2001, 00:58

I think by now it should have occurred to everyone on the planet that no game accurately reflects life. I'm play Metal Gear Solid 2 right now, should I be able to sneak up behind trained Russian soldiers and break their neck, nooooooooooooo. But I can.

And since when was city growth ever realistic in Civ? It never has been. If it was realistic we would have micromanagement beyound belief.

This is the idea fostered in Master of Orion 3, and they couldn't do it. They had to cut half the stuff they wanted for the game because it was too much, likely this will affect the product. They actually had the probability of creating 10,000 worlds in a system, can you imagine managing that? They tried to create an AI to do it, but I mean comeon, we know an AI can't manage.

That's why this is an idealized model. So we can actually play. If you want to rule an actual empire, why don't you start a real one now.

Gigalope · November 18, 2001, 01:54

I'm trying, but its hard.

Malthis · November 18, 2001, 02:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Gigalope
I'm trying, but its hard.

For the record, I agree with your statements. Civ series has never had an appropriate model for the industrial and modern eras. One can only hope new changes will be made for Civ 4.

Infanteer · November 18, 2001, 05:36

I just pretend the city is a state...and I name it as such....man its getting late...why am I babbling....one-more-turn..........

DarkMatter · November 18, 2001, 05:45

It's been one more turn for the last three hours for me.

Deathray · November 18, 2001, 06:31

I'd just like to point out that the cities in Civ are a fairly abstract concept anyway. They really represent the industrial centre of an area, and their radius is all the other towns and cities in that area.