Smaller City radius??

[Bubba]

I one forum Mr Fun wrote:

"3) Do not allow cities to grow beyond three square radius like Activision did. Four square radius I feel might be too much. If you want to increase it, increase from the present two square radius in Civilization II to three square radius."

I agree and would actually enjoy the city radius shrinking to what it was in Colonization (8 I believe). I always felt it strange that a standard Earth map could not easily support New York, Boston, Montreal, and Toronto. Or that in CTPII London overlapped with most of Western Europe.

Given most peoples' processor speed and the maps that can be realistically expected, a smaller city radius would make the game more historical and allow for small powerful nations (Netherlands, UK) and densely populated regions. I fail to see how this accuracy would come at the expense of fun.

Any Thoughts?

[MrFun]

I do not think that we should be too concerned that New York size or London size cities overlap into other areas where they do not in our real world.

While I favor only a maximum three-square radius, I still favor larger map sizes in Civilization III.

[Boracks]

Maybe the city radius of effect should grow with the city. Start at 1 square and only the largest grow past 3.

This could make city planning interesting. (As in the Chinese curse, 'May you live in interesting times.'.)


------------------
"Treat each day as if it were your last. Eventually, you'll be right."

[Bubba]

Mr. Fun, by increasing the map size are you not advocating the same thing as I am but in reverse? If the map is gigantic then there is room of all of these cities. It seems to be six of one, 1/2 dozen of the other.

The only difference seems to be that your solution requires ever-larger maps that tax most peoples computing power, whereas reducing the city size allows the maps to stay a reasonable size. I feel that the Colonization map size and city size was a great balance in this regard.

The other problem with requiring gigantic maps is that they are often created after the fact by "MODers", which then requires one to edit all the unit movements to recreate the scale of the out of the box game

Just a thought!
[This message has been edited by Bubba (edited January 24, 2001).]

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

quote: Originally posted by MrFun on 01-24-2001 01:07 PM I do not think that we should be too concerned that New York size or London size cities overlap into other areas where they do not in our real world. While I favor only a maximum three-square radius, I still favor larger map sizes in Civilization III.

Actually, New York does overlap several cities:

1. Brooklyn. (this is technically part of New York City, but it is still a seperate city)
2. Jersey City

Look on a map, there are about 10 seperate cities that are now (technically) part of New York.

this has also happened with Boston, Charlestown used to be seperate, but is now part of Boston.

[loinburger]

While New Jersey is not technically a city, I for one think that its classification should be changed.

I think that a city radius that grows with technology (and with city improvements) would be quite useful. The overall number of cities could be reduced if it were possible to take several smaller cities and combine them into a megalopolis once the technology was available. It would significantly reduce micromanagement in the later part of the game, and would allow for quicker expansion in the early part of the game.
[This message has been edited by technophile (edited January 24, 2001).]

[ajli@home]

I prefer the have the map size to get bigger than the city to get smaller .

[Windborne]

I think city radius size should be based on population, starting with only one square and growing as you get more and more people, also you should be able to plot out exactly how your city radius expands, allowing some cities to stretch along the coast and others to follow a road all the way between two sectons of the empire, as the city grows unclaimed space is used up, limiting a cities growth in various area. The use of borders could also limit a cities expansion, as expanding accross a border would be an act of war under most treaties.

You're absolutely right windborne, city radious should deppend on city size....if you build a metopolis, then you also have the headaches of overlapping cities

[Lancer]

Yes, decrease city size. There will still be overlapping with smaller cities, which is historicly accurate, but also there will be more room for smaller civs. I think that cities that grow together should be allowed to be controled as one city however, to keep things moving along. Also, since cities will take in less resources, a player should be able to create remote work camps. For instance, in our world not all coal exists within a city radius. In real life people go out to the coal, and ship it to the cities. So, if you have a coal outside of the city radius, you can reach out with a railroad and mining complex, and get it. If you have fish too far out to sea, you can send fishing ships and a processing ship.

Perhaps each city could go out and remote-work one or two things, depending on its population.

[Zeevico]

I like the idea but what if you don't what an increase in city radius? then you get apartment buildings and ones that are squeezed together. This would make irrevocable pollution in your cities (although the irrevocable amount is reduced by solar plants AND recycling centres cumulative). The point is there will always be at least 10 skulls in your city management area.

[David James]

David revives an old thread!

I like the idea of smaller city radii as well, but I feel that a 9 square city is too small. My idea is for a 13 square city - take the current 21 square cities and knock off the 8 "corner" squares. If you open up Civ2 and place cities this way you can actually achieve quite a high packing density, yet allowing for plenty of room for population growth/workers. That's a city size of 12, not including hangers on, which is actually quite respectable if you think about if for a moment - normally one doesn't get cities that large until the proto-industrial era in Civ2.

------------------
Yes, as a matter of fact, going to Queen's does make me better than you.

I have already pose this question to Firaxis over a week ago. Still waiting for a answer. My question was basically are you going to maintain 21 tiles cities (Civ 2) or move up the 71 tile cities (CTP 2)?

------------------

[David James]

I don't have CtP2 ... how do you get 71 tiles with a fairly evenly distributed radius? I can get 61 or 69 or 73 but not 71, at least using the Civ model of diamond/square tiles. Worse, using hexagons I get 61 tiles as well...

------------------
Yes, as a matter of fact, going to Queen's does make me better than you.

I sat here one and counted each tile. I though is was 71, but maybe it is 69. I'm go to load CTP 2 now and recount.

------------------

I would like a city radius of only 1 square out from the city (9 in the beginning), but allow the actual cities to grow as population increases... at say 7 pop, your city occupies 2 squares but now has an influence of 12 tiles...

X- influence
C- city tile

size 1-6
XXX
XCX
XXX

size 7-12
XXX...or...XXXX
XCX.........XCCX
XCX.........XXXX
XXX

size 13-18
XXX...or...XXXXX...or...XXXX
XCX.........XCCCX.........XCCX
XCX.........XXXXX.........XCXX
XCX...........................XXX
XXX

etc.

as cities grow, they would favor better tiles, often growing over farms or along shores (as in real-life).

if a city runs out of room to grow, happiness would decrease due to overcrowding.
[This message has been edited by Trachmir (edited February 11, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Trachmir (edited February 11, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Trachmir (edited February 11, 2001).]