|
Author
|
|
Topic: List of Cities |  |
|
jdjbuffalo
Settler
Denver, CO, U.S.A.
Jan 2001
|
 |
posted January 10, 2001 13:49
  | 
 |
 |  |
I think that they should include a easily accessable list of cities that could pop up at the begining of each turn. You could of course toggle this option on and off. It would provide a quick way of jumping to your cities without having to search the map.Each city would having the following attributes:
1. Name,
2. Population
3. A red checkmark next the name at the left
indicating an event
4. A checkmark (or character icon) indicating that
something is being built or if the queue is empty Well, what do you guys think? |
Brent
Chieftain
Dec 2000
|
 |
posted January 10, 2001 18:18
 |
|
| |
What about better lists of available city names? There should be a hundred available names per civ where possible. Maybe those civs where this isn't possible would be minor civs, which as seen on other threads would be a very different thing from major ones. The abbreviations for a unit's home city could be four letters, and the folks at Firaxis might want to keep the home city consideration in mind for which names to include. Then again, I recall someone suggesting that units not be assigned to specific cities, in which case would we even need to worry about abbreviations? |
DarkCloud
King
of Clouds
Jul 2000
|
|
posted January 10, 2001 20:42
 |
|
| |
No, I would not like it to pop up at the beginning of each turn, but if they redesigned the city list the way you suggest, it would work out better.I believe that, at most there should be about 50 city names because it will be hard for them to find a lot of Aztec and other dead civ city names, however a 100 would be useful. |
JosefGiven
Chieftain
Okehampton,Devon,UK
Jan 2001
|
 |
posted January 16, 2001 17:52
|
|
| |
quote:
I think that they should include a easily accessable list of cities that could pop up at the begining of each turn. You could of course toggle this option on and off. It would provide a quick way of jumping to your cities without having to search the map.
|
jdjbuffalo
I don't think this is a particularly necessary feature, although if it were possible to switch it on/off, I don't see why it shouldn't go in.Don't you think the City Status screen does the job adequately?
quote:
What about better lists of available city names? There should be a hundred available names per civ where possible.
|
Brent
Now this, I think, is more relevant.  I like founding BIG civs, and this means I need a lot of city names!!------------------
Josef Given
josefgiven@hotmail.com
|
Brent
Chieftain
Dec 2000
|
|
posted January 16, 2001 18:16
|
|
| |
You could always make up names from words in the civ's language. were there really that few Aztec place names? Aren't tons of them still in use in Mexico? |
Steve Clark
Prince
Colorado Springs, CO
Oct 1999
|
|
posted January 16, 2001 18:22
|
|
| |
Already been done many, many times over the past few years. I forgot where, but there are modified rules.txt that have hundreds of city names for existing civs, as well as hundreds of names for replacement civs. Why do you think this hadn't been done before? |
tniem
Warlord
Grand Rapids
Apr 2000
|
|
posted January 16, 2001 20:33
|
|
| |
quote:
Originally posted by Brent on 01-10-2001 06:18 PM
What about better lists of available city names? There should be a hundred available names per civ where possible. Maybe those civs where this isn't possible would be minor civs, which as seen on other threads would be a very different thing from major ones.
|
Seems that Firaxis will design the game to make it harder to control a civilization with lots and lots of cities. The need for a hundred city names probably will not be necessary. |
JosefGiven
Chieftain
Okehampton,Devon,UK
Jan 2001
|
|
posted January 18, 2001 15:14
|
|
| |
quote:
Originally posted by tniem on 01-16-2001 08:33 PM
Seems that Firaxis will design the game to make it harder to control a civilization with lots and lots of cities. The need for a hundred city names probably will not be necessary.
|
What makes you say this? I refuse to believe it!  What happens to those of us with monster civs who then go on to conquer other, very large civs? Well? Eh? EH? ------------------
Josef Given
josefgiven@hotmail.com
[This message has been edited by JosefGiven (edited January 18, 2001).] |
Brent
Chieftain
Dec 2000
|
|
posted January 18, 2001 15:22
|
|
| |
If it's not sold in stores, I can't use it. Maybe you should be able to plug in your own list of names like in SMAC, but with a hundred slots. I was thinking they should provide the names to educate people, but I guess it would be better to do my own research. |
Cannes
Chieftain
Copenhagen, Denmark
Jan 2001
|
|
posted January 18, 2001 18:10
|
|
| |
The city screen in CTP works great for all the purposes that hfjdhgdfwhateverbuffalo wants. |
tniem
Warlord
Grand Rapids
Apr 2000
|
|
posted January 21, 2001 16:16
|
|
| |
In Civ I and II the best way to win was to build huge armies with tons of cities. The strategy is known as ICS. It is one of the most complained about strategies, bugs, whatever in the Civ series. In order to stop this strategy Firaxis is going to employ some way of keeping you from building to large of empires. Some type of corruption factor, even larger than Civ II would be expected, making it near impossible to control an ever expanding large empire. This fits in with many ideas of rising and falling of civilizations. Rome expanded to great heights but eventually toppled due to its own weight. Very historical to make it hard to build to large a Civ and it will add a great deal to the game as you try to balance your need for that new city and the negatives to building it. |
JosefGiven
Chieftain
Okehampton,Devon,UK
Jan 2001
|
 |
posted January 21, 2001 17:09
|
|
| |
quote:
Originally posted by tniem on 01-21-2001 04:16 PM
In Civ I and II the best way to win was to build huge armies with tons of cities. The strategy is known as ICS. It is one of the most complained about strategies, bugs, whatever in the Civ series.
|
Right, so this is what ICS is. I have heard much about ICS in this forum, and the ferocity of contempt that is generally levelled at it! Allow me to demonstrate my ignorance by asking the good people of this forum, what does ICS stand for? Other than the hotseat version, I have never played a multiplayer game, so I imagine I have never seen the drawbacks of this strategy. Do players hate it so much because in internet games it causes massive lag during turns? ------------------
Josef Given
josefgiven@hotmail.com
|
Biddles
Prince
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Mar 99
|
|
posted January 21, 2001 21:06
 |
|
| |
One area CTP did extremely well. That little popup button on the side of the screen was the easiest way to handle this that I have seen yet. |
Cannes
Chieftain
Copenhagen, Denmark
Jan 2001
|
|
posted January 22, 2001 08:28
|
|
| |
quote:
Originally posted by JosefGiven on 01-21-2001 05:09 PM
Right, so this is what ICS is. I have heard much about ICS in this forum, and the ferocity of contempt that is generally levelled at it! Allow me to demonstrate my ignorance by asking the good people of this forum, what does ICS stand for?Other than the hotseat version, I have never played a multiplayer game, so I imagine I have never seen the drawbacks of this strategy. Do players hate it so much because in internet games it causes massive lag during turns?
|
ICS stands for Infinite City Strategy/Sprawl/Sleaze...
Whichever you prefer. It is a strategy where you make a huge amount of cities and never let any of them grow past size 2. Constantly creating more settlers thus constantly exponentially increasing the number of cities in your empire packing them as tightly together as the game mechanics will allow. It is a VERY effective strategy in civI/II. |
Brent
Chieftain
Dec 2000
|
|
posted January 22, 2001 15:51
|
|
| |
I was wondering about that too. Maybe people should try to mention what an acronym stands for at least once in a thread. |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
