Also, I was reading the cruise missile thread, I think that you should be able to hit certain parts of the city (if you have the technology) and houses could be one of them, so thats a better way of killing the population of a city. Actualy, I think telling any unit to attack certain parts of a city would be a good idea.

you misunderstand me

Firstly, UltraSonix, obviously I'm not talking about a house per person. Look at it like this, the city has 2,000,000 and I would like to see it grow, so obviously, I'm gonna have to build houses for people to live in, so I click on houses in the build menu, and it builds like...200,000 houses or something, and so your city can grow to 4,000,000 over time.

It's not a whole new town! It's a whole new suburb/s!

And now, I have got houses as an option to attack in a city, I can now directly lower the population of a city, CORRECTLY!

you misunderstand me

Firstly, UltraSonix, obviously I'm not talking about a house per person. Look at it like this, the city has 2,000,000 and I would like to see it grow, so obviously, I'm gonna have to build houses for people to live in, so I click on houses in the build menu, and it builds like...200,000 houses or something, and so your city can grow to 4,000,000 over time.

It's not a whole new town! It's a whole new suburb/s!

And now, I have got houses as an option to attack in a city, I can now directly lower the population of a city, CORRECTLY!

yeah sure we can make civ 3 feature-rich to make it as realistic as possible... but would it be playable?

This idea just seems a bit over-the-top...

If you want to play a simple game! Go play civ1 for gods sake!

DON'T YOU PEOPLE HAVE ANY ****ING IMAGINATIONS!?

DO I HAVE TO ****ING EXPLAIN *E V E R Y T H I N G*??

Can't you just use your logical sense!?

OBVIOUSLY! <<<<<<< !!!!!!!!!!!!!! In the future, things are going to change, If I don't build enough houses for people to live in, I'm going to get a lot of diseases, and poverty, crime etc, THUS lowering the population, because their health is dropping to a point where they are dying!! So, you build houses to keep these problems down!

I'm soo sick and tired of explaining myself to a point where I would be writing a book on it! I expect you people to use your imaginations to your advantage! don't look at my suggestions as THE SUGGESTION, look at my suggestions (AND EVERYONE ELSES FOR THEIR SAKE) as something to work on to make it something worth putting in the game!

...Back on topic...

I do have to agree with the others though because that would be micro micro management. Maybe to progress in city size you would have to build housing complexes after the Sewer System like at size 20 and on you would have to build a bigger housing complex every other pop point to advance to a larger one.

Edit:How did this get posted here, this is for another topic???????????????

Anyway, Civ3 is about being playable by a large majority of people, not just hardcore turn-based experts. That's why Sid Meier has stated that the game won't use cutting-edge graphic so more people will be able to play. This also relates to that new graphics-engine thread of yours. Simplicity is often where elegance lies.

Each turn should be spent planning and executing your grand strategy, not micromanaging your cities.

I fully agree! Civ3 should have as little city management as possibly! Ideally the boring chores of moving around people in the cities to maximize production, trade output etc would be completely removed, and with armies you should be able to move several units as one, thus not having to move around 80 units in the game.

In stead your time should be spend on fascinating new concepts like advanced diplomacy, trade that has actual effect on your empire and simply holding your empire together.

Orange: I saw it, I'm not PO'd at you.

UltraSonic: Actualy, this forum is the only thing that pisses me off in my current life right now. And can you give me the link to where Sid Meier said they won't use cutting edge graphics?

Grier: The only reason why CTP sucked is because they put too many USELESS features in it! If they put features that make sense, then that would be a whole different game!

Ok, my idea for building suburbs ties in with migration. If you build suburbs in a city than it will act the same way a sewer system did. But slightly different b/c of the changes people have suggested to the Aqueduct and SS. I listed a system that I think illustrates my theory.

Aqueduct - cities above size 8 are more likely to have migration and disease is decreased. (NOT a requirement to go beyond size 8)

Sewer System - cities above size 15 are more likely to have migration and disease is decresased. (NOT a requirement to go beyond size 15)

Suburbs - cities above size 21 are more likely to have migration and disease is decreased. (NOT a requirement to go beyond size 21)

Along with this...
A level 9 city without an aqueduct will begin to see decreasing migration and increasing disease. But at or below 8 no changes will occur. If the city has an aqueduct and is at or below size 8 than disease in the city is decreased, no affect on migration. (Change the number and name of improvement to apply the above to SS and Suburbs)

I think the system makes sense. Loki, do I have your approval?

The juicy interview with Sid Meier is in mp3/ra at:
http://www.gemonthly.com/features/civ3/index.htm

In it he says stuff like how civ3 won't be using cutting edge graphics so that many people would be able to play.

(This will also be posted in the game engine thread.)