|
Author
|
|
Topic: 255 City Limit |  |
|
drake
Prince
of Medford, MA, US
Oct 2000
|
 |
posted December 06, 2000 13:50
    | 
 |
 |  |
A most discouraging and limiting factor to civ 2. I hope this variable can be increased to allow atleast 500 or so cities in civ 3. NOTHING is more discouraging than finding a great spot for your settler, hitting build city and getting a "too many cities" message....>  |
Zero_Tolerance
Warlord
of Warlords
Oct 2000
|
 |
posted December 06, 2000 14:16
|
|
| |
Well, in all actuality I think the number of cities should be limited by only the size of the map. This way the limit will be the maximum number of cities the largest possible map can accomodate. Problem solved!!  ------------------
Zero (formerly jrhughes98) |
Ralf
Warlord
Sweden
Mar 2000
|
 |
posted December 06, 2000 14:24
|
|
| |
quote:
Originally posted by drake on 12-06-2000 01:50 PM
I hope this variable can be increased to allow atleast 500 or so cities in civ 3.
|
Historical quote: "You can conquer an empire from a horseback, but you cannot rule an empire from a horseback". I think above was said about the Huns, but im not sure. Anyway, the Civ-game sense moral should be: Please, dont make huge empire expansion an easy and self-evident settler-producing process, only. The larger the empire, the harder it should be to keep it together, both economically and politically - until it more or less break apart. |
Zero_Tolerance
Warlord
of Warlords
Oct 2000
|
 |
posted December 06, 2000 15:10
|
|
| |
quote:
Originally posted by Ralf on 12-06-2000 02:24 PM
The larger the empire, the harder it should be to keep it together, both economically and politically - until it more or less breaks apart.
|
Yeah, but with lots of civs this problem can be eliminated.  |
Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto
Warlord
Salt Lake City, USA
Oct 2000
|
|
posted December 06, 2000 16:10
|
|
| |
I totally agree with Ralf, in civ2, the bigger your empire, the easier, in civ3, it should be just the opposite. |
Tical_2000
Warlord
Oct 2000
|
|
posted December 06, 2000 17:46
|
|
| |
cities schmities! Give me an AI that can beat me into a pulp! How cool would that be? |
UltraSonix
King
Melbourne, Australia
May 2000
|
|
posted December 08, 2000 07:01
 |
|
| |
The city limit should be higher than 255. That said, ICS should definitely be addressed.------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary... (And no, koalas don't usually speak!) |
drake
Prince
of Medford, MA, US
Oct 2000
|
|
posted December 08, 2000 12:17
|
|
| |
quote:
Well, in all actuality I think the number of cities should be limited by only the size of the map. This way the limit will be the maximum number of cities the largest possible map can accomodate. Problem solved!!
|
I have no problem with a percentage based total, this is a fine idea. You obviously don't need 500 cities on a small sized map, but you might need 7or800 on a gigamap.......nice idea. |
Grumbold
Chieftain
London, UK
Mar 2000
|
|
posted December 08, 2000 12:24
|
|
| |
I agree. Possible number of cities should be limited by the number of civilisations and their government structures, not some internal system variable. The concept of even a modern nation being able to control the entire world is pretty ridiculous, though. I want the world map to be large enough that playing China, USSR or the US I don't want to expand my borders much more because I already have enough on my plate and government processes will deteriorate if I sieze more! |
Tical_2000
Warlord
Oct 2000
|
|
posted December 08, 2000 16:35
|
|
| |
Wow! 800 cities! Has anyone considered how complicated this would make the game? I mean, there would be literally thousands of units waltzing around the map every turn!!! I think the limit needs to be higher than 255, but lets not go nuts here! |
hHydro
Chieftain
Vancouver, Canada,
Nov 2000
|
|
posted December 08, 2000 18:05
|
|
| |
No I agree.. There should be some serious penalties to having an empire that frikkin' huge. Inefficiency penalties should be higher. Unless you are willing to spend a HUGE amount of resources keeping the empire running, then penalties should range from minor riots and production penalties right up to full blown civil war.That deterrent alone might help ICS. |
DarkCloud
King
of Clouds
Jul 2000
|
|
posted December 08, 2000 21:59
|
|
| |
500 is a good limit for # of cities. |
Yog-Sothoth
Settler
Norway
Sep 2000
|
|
posted December 09, 2000 16:19
|
|
| |
I don't think a permanent limit is a good idea. Each map should have their own limit, and there should be an option to alter this limit if you want to. quote:
Originally posted by Ralf on 12-06-2000 02:24 PM
Historical quote: "You can conquer an empire from a horseback, but you cannot rule an empire from a horseback". I think above was said about the Huns, but im not sure. Anyway, the Civ-game sense moral should be: Please, dont make huge empire expansion an easy and self-evident settler-producing process, only. The larger the empire, the harder it should be to keep it together, both economically and politically - until it more or less break apart.
|
I 100% agree with this, and if this is implemented in the game it will make it so hard to maintain a huge empire that a low city limit to regulate this is not necessary. |
Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto
Warlord
Salt Lake City, USA
Oct 2000
|
|
posted December 09, 2000 17:24
|
|
| |
I agree that there should be more total cities, depending upon the size of the map, small map, 100 cites. Medium map, 200 cities, large map, 300 cities, x-large map, 400 cities. Giga-map, 500 cities.But I do have to say though, I dont know what it is like to run out of city limits, Ive never reached the limit before! |
Ribannah
Warlord
Castle Gobs, Enroth
Aug 2000
|
|
posted December 10, 2000 15:51
|
|
| |
quote:
Originally posted by UltraSonix on 12-08-2000 07:01 AM
The city limit should be higher than 255. That said, ICS should definitely be addressed.
|
There is no need to have a city limit at all.
The easiest way to address ICS, by the way, is to make it harder for a new city to produce the next Settlers.
My suggestion is to have a new village build a Town Hall before it can become a city and grow beyond size 1. ------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire |
Grrr
Chieftain
New Zealand
Dec 2000
|
|
posted December 11, 2000 22:09
|
|
| |
I agree, and also find that there should be no limit to the number of units in a game, as it is really cheating, building 500 or so fanatics and then whenever an opponent whould like to build a unit a message "To many units" comes up quote:
Originally posted by drake on 12-06-2000 01:50 PM
A most discouraging and limiting factor to civ 2. I hope this variable can be increased to allow atleast 500 or so cities in civ 3. NOTHING is more discouraging than finding a great spot for your settler, hitting build city and getting a "too many cities" message....>
|
|
Grrr
Chieftain
New Zealand
Dec 2000
|
|
posted December 16, 2000 19:54
|
|
| |
Just an ICS concern, in Civ CTP when I play on Gigantic map, I sometimes have problems that once I have nearly taken control of the entire world, all my cities start revolting because of the ‘number of cities unhappiness’. This brings me back to square one, unless I buy a Mind Controller in every city, or build the AI Entity, which usually takes my whole civ in one of the next 20 turns or so. I now just nuke my opponents cities to pieces, especially seeing as though this is not an act of war, so I get peace bonus points! This is a major problem, which has been created by an ICS solution, which limits government control. Don’t do this in Civ III, it must be possible to win without having to destroy half the world. |
Tical_2000
Warlord
Oct 2000
|
|
posted December 16, 2000 21:29
|
|
| |
Yeahhhhh (chuckle)...Call to power is such a stupid game!!! |
orange
King
Moderator at the Civilization Gaming Network
Feb 2000
|
 |
posted December 17, 2000 12:20
|
|
| |
Being a pacifist/perfectionist I have never once gotten the "too many cities" message. In civ 3 there should be no limits on cities, but I would certainly not like to see any empire be held together with more than 100 cities. And by my thinking, there will be generally more cities in Civ 3 because of an expanded map (yes firaxis...bigger map  ) so a landmass the size of the US can hold about 45-50 cities as opposed to Civ 2 where 20 cities can be CRAMMED into the same space. So in this regard, no civ should hold an empire larger in size then the former soviet union for more than 20-50 years. The larger your empire, the more prone to civil war/revolution.
I don't see how they let this slip by in Civ 2. I've played against immense empires and you just stop and think "how the hell could every city in this civ be content??" More revolution, more rise and fall of empires, more discontent. Definitely necesary in Civ 3.  ------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr" |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
