Poll: City radius

[Tiberius]

Do you want to see expanding city radius in Civ3?

1. Yes, I love it! Give me expanding, huge cities with 4 or 5 circles radius!

2. I like it, but don't let cities grow beyond 3 circles radius.

3. I like the idea of expanding city radius, but 2 circles radius (Civ2) is enough.

4. No! I like the Civ2 style fixed city radius (2 circles).

5. I don't know / I don't care.

Note: city radius = the circles around a city, without the city itself

Vote
[This message has been edited by Tiberius (edited February 15, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Tiberius (edited February 15, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Tiberius (edited February 16, 2001).]

[Tiberius]

OK, my vote goes for 2: expanding city radius, but no more than 3 circles.

In the same time, I'd like to see benefits for big cities, like trade/tourism/production/science bonuses, but some negative effects too: overcrowding, crime, deseases, etc.

The point is, well managed big cities should become important region centers, not "only" cities.

[Grumbold]

2. But expanding only from 1 to 2 square radius.

I already believe the civ "cities" are just approximate representations of the regional population and infrastructure. The one big city could in fact be two, three or even more urban centres.

[bagdar]

2

and please a solution for large cities shrinking and growing again at the later stages of the game.

[Henrik]

A mix of 1 and 2. the max would be four circles (one more than in civ2). But only for extremly big cities.
[This message has been edited by Henrik (edited February 14, 2001).]

[jglidewell]

1. yes yes yes

This is crucial as to when I buy the Game. If the Map is dynamic then I will buy right at release 48$ but if not will wait a year and buy at the discount 9-18$

The Regiaonal ides put forth thus far should be included.

[Nikolai]

4. I like the one as it is today, but I haven't tried the CTP2 one. therefor I don't want to hold one over another.

------------------
Who am I? What am I? Do we need Civ? Well....

I have to place my ballot for #2. I like expanding city radii, as long as it doesn't get carried away

Actually I want the cities to expand from 1 tile to 2, 3, 4, etc. And as the actual city expands, the radius would also increase... but I think the radius should only be one square.

[monolith94]

A reaching area of four or five would be absolutely ridiculous, not to mention ludicrous. Instead of having Paris, or Lyons, you would only have one city, France!

I say the max should be set at a radius of 2, at absolute MAX. Growing from 1 to 2 is fine with me though, though I may learn to eat those words.

[AzNtoccata]

I got an idea, how about increasing radius as population increase? of course there is a limit...

[Tiberius]

I added a new nr. 3, so I will count your votes according to the new numbering.

Results so far:

Choice.....Votes
1.............1
2.............4
3.............2
4.............0
5.............1

Henrik: cities in Civ2 have 2 circles radius. (without the city itself, of course; sorry if I didn't mention that)
Trachmir: think about how big is actually a map tile in Civ2, if you make the right scaling ...
AzNtoccata: What do you mean? The city radius is supposed to grow when the population reaches a certain limit (for ex: city size 1-8: 1 circle, 9-16: 2 circles, 17-24: 3 circles, etc)
[This message has been edited by Tiberius (edited February 15, 2001).]

1 of course, thats the way it is.

What? are you pussies too scared to tackle real life problems?

[Stuff2]

I vote for number 4

[Adm.Naismith]

I know CTP2 players complained about city radius problems, but I don't know why (someone can give me a hint?) and I searched in CTP2 forum without a succesful result.

So far, I vote for 2) Expanding, but don't let cities grow beyond 3 circles radius (starting with a radius of 1).

I would like to consider City radius not exactly a circle: I mean, if a city is near unpassable mountains it must limit the radius in that direction, as 1 square limit in sea shore direction (large fishing far from coast is unrealistic until proper tech advance, i.e. port facility).

I don't think this should be balanced from a radius stretch into "permitted" directions, i.e. having coastal city area growing more square following the coast line, but I'm open to different opinion.

It's more complex than usual circle method, but it could be more interesting, at least if some kind of CTP2 "public works" will be implemented.

Of course the player should have some "point cursor here to show city usable area" function, to check before moving a settler to found a new city.

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[Grumbold]

The CtP problems with expanding city radius are varied. Its difficult to distinguish it from the many balance problems the game has. A radius 2 city can easily support all the buildings so many radius 2 cities are better than a quarter the number of radius 4 ones, particularly at the start of the game. Because CtP2 does not allocate workers to tiles, the rollover points when the radius expands can actually see a fall in worker productivity because the effort is distributed evenly over less beneficial and less improved tiles. The government-set limit on cities is the biggest incentive to build further apart but that is offset by the poor defensibility (when not playing against the timid AI.)

[Tiberius]

Interesting idea, Adm.Naismith.

Let's see how many possibilities do we have:
1. far sea tiles - port facility
2. tiles behind high mountains - road/railroad ?
3. tiles on the other side of rivers - bridge building
4.... something else ?

Anyway, since you voted nr.2, the problem with far tiles could start only with the second circle, which means (probably) 8 size cities.

[The Viceroy]

#1 gets my vote.

Although it would be nice to have it optional for scenario's.

[Sabre2th]

I vote for #2. I liked the expanding radius idea, but Activision went too far.

[airdrik]

My vote goes to 2), but like Adm.Naismith said, I want the city radii to be dynamic ie. you start with the tile the city starts on, and one adjacent tile, then you/the computer picks between one of the adjacent tiles to those tiles you started on each time your city grows. then you could have city radii that look like this:
wwwww
w...w
w..wwwww
.....cw
.....wwwww
or
wwwwww
.....www
......cwww...ww
........w.....w
....wwwwwwwwwwww
rather than
.www
wwwww
wwcww
wwwww
.www

[This message has been edited by airdrik (edited February 15, 2001).]

quote: Originally posted by airdrik on 02-15-2001 12:16 PM My vote goes to 2), but like Adm.Naismith said, I want the city radii to be dynamic ie. you start with the tile the city starts on, and one adjacent tile, then you/the computer picks between one of the adjacent tiles to those tiles you started on each time your city grows. then you could have city radii that look like this: wwwww w...w w..wwwww .....cw .....wwwww or wwwwww .....www ......cwww...ww ........w.....w ....wwwwwwwwwwww rather than .www wwwww wwcww wwwww .www [This message has been edited by airdrik (edited February 15, 2001).]

Intersting idea Airdrik. I think I see what you are getting at - with your suggestion a player would be able to control/mold how his city expands. I like it!

[Sarxis]

I like the idea, but when Activision implemented it into CTP2, it didn't work well. This is due to the fact that you can't assign a city's workers in CTP2, which means you get locked in to which squares are worked by which cities. But if you can pick and choose which bases work which sqaures, the expanding system might be worth while.

[Tiberius]

Results so far:

Choice......Votes
1..............3
2..............7
3..............2
4..............1
5..............1

I guess my vote goes to #3 then... but I think the cities should grow... for example I live in Miami, if you count Miami/Ft. Lauderdale/Homestead/West Palm Beach all as one city (which in civ terms you could), they do indeed expand the urban centers over hundreds of miles.

[Jonny]

I vote for 2. I liked the idea in CTP2, but Activision didn't implement it very well. Also, please let us choose where our workers go!

Jonny
[This message has been edited by Jonny (edited February 16, 2001).]

[Youngsun]

I recall someone mentioned 9 squres(Colonisation)with distant workcamps(Imperialism)and that sounds very interesting.

.......w.
.........
.w.......
...www...
...wcw...
...www...
.........
w......w.

work camps can be connected to the city by railways or road.

I'm also interested in Admiral's idea too.
Bravo Admiral!
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited February 17, 2001).]

[Ralf]

Firaxis has mentioned that they already playes around with a very early & premature beta-version of the game. If so; any such elementary game core-element as for example what city-radius model they should apply, has most probably already been decided, designed and irreversibly implemented.

So any present & future polls dealing with core-elements of Civ-3 is basically a waste of time.
At this stage; polls should instead be about minor addon features, or minor tweaks & changes in the game.

About my viewpoints on the city-area issue; well, Im all in for building on what we already got in Civ-2: Enhancements based on the good old fixed 21-square city-area model, together with that ingenious clickable city-area view. Check out The pitfalls of expanding city-areas in Civ-3 to find out more why any type of expanding city-areas is alltogether bad and weak ideas.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited February 17, 2001).]

[Roman]

I think the Civ2 system of city management worked just fine, so I vote to keep it.

[Stuff2]

I've posted a different idea on this subject. The post is called "Satellite cities". Yes i know it's a silly name but it's actually about this topic.

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by Stuff2 on 02-17-2001 01:46 PM I've posted a different idea on this subject. The post is called "Satellite cities". Yes i know it's a silly name but it's actually about this topic.

I have seen that thread and I love the idea.