Merging Cities - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Old Test Forums
  Merging Cities

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Merging Cities

Rang posted 11-24-98 11:57 PM ET
I'd like to see the ability to merge cities in SMAC. After 2 neighboring cities get to be a certain size, I'd like to be able to merge them. This would make micromanagement easier since you only have to deal with one city. And the combined city would control the combined resources and territories of the two former cities.
The historical precedent would be London, New York, etc. New York, and I think London, is built from several smaller towns. This is also similar to the Japanese Megapolis and the Atlantic seaboard merger proposed in many novels.
DJ RRebel posted 11-25-98 12:07 AM ET
I don't see that as being realistic for game play Rang !!!
In Civ, cities had to be at least 2 spaces apart !!! This would mean merged cities would be at least 3 map spaces in size ... then after that, another city would join to make it 5 spaces ... then imagine another one, 7 spaces .. at this point, the city could be a wall !!! Kinda unrealistic in combat terms !!! The 4 cities could even be placed in a box shape so it would actually be one city of 3 by 3 map spaces for a total of 9 map places !!! I don't see that as being realistic for game play !!! If it were a SimWorld type of thing, I'd say it was a good idea, but since combat is involved, I don't think so !!!
Roland posted 11-25-98 05:42 AM ET
Reminds me of an idea I once had for civII.
Take 5-10 cities and merge them to a province. The province gets an average of the cities' improvements. New improvements = "normal" nr of shields * nr of merged cities. The same for happiness etc. So you'd only manage those cities together - for combat it'll stay the same. If you lose one city, province improvements etc stay the same. If you recapture it, you have to reintegrate it as in the original merger.
Would need some thinking through, but IMO it would have been a good way to deal with micromanagement - eg 15 provinces instead of 100 cities.
DJ RRebel posted 11-25-98 08:45 AM ET
Now that's a bit more realistic !!!
I like that idea .. but what would you do for units ??? Cities each develop at their own rate !!!
What they should have done, is let you make a few template cities that are only hipothetical and don't really exist in the game !!!
In those cities, you would make a priority list for all improvements ... so lets say, you build a new city ... "New Montreal" ... you'd set production to "Hypotheical City A" or "Hyp. City B" or whatever ... you would always be able to change the setting when needed, but as long as "Hyp. City A" was selected in the production, "New Montreal" would follow the production list of "Hyp. City A" !!!
I think that would be a little more realistic !!!
Roland posted 11-25-98 09:06 AM ET
Well, units would be sustained by the entire province, with a pooled shield production.
City development: agricultural surplus could stay per city, we-love-days would be calculated for the entire province, giving each city +1 if celebrated. That's all CIVII terms, of course...
Rang posted 11-25-98 05:11 PM ET
Yes, I like your province idea very much, Roland. It would certainly simplify micro-management. When building things, you can draw from the pooled production and choose which city to situate the improvement in. This is similar in effect to convoys carrying production from one city to another. And troops would manufactured rather quickly.
Firehawk posted 11-26-98 01:53 AM ET
Yes, that would help the micromanagement problem a lot...the thing is, though, micromanagement won't nearly be as bad in SMAC as Civ II because of AI Governors, unit stacks, build queues (sp?), etc. Fortunately FIRAXIS (cap.d for respect, not as yelling or for emphasis) has realized the micromanagement problem and is addressing it.
DJ RRebel posted 11-26-98 02:21 AM ET
I agree with you there Firehawk .. the queing will help alot !!!
As for the governers ... I don't think I'd trust them .. I remember in civ2, when I looked at what the advisors recommended that I should build, they always picked inefficient things !!!
Spoe posted 11-26-98 02:45 PM ET
True. ISTR they AI deciding to build Police Stattions all over the place even though I was under Fundamentalism at the time. What were the advisors trying to do? Incite a revolution?
Firehawk posted 11-26-98 02:49 PM ET
Yeah, I hated the Civ II advisors too. Hopefully (and probably) they will be better in SMAC. Woohoo, this is my 30th post. Finally a Member again. It took *way* longer this time.
Titan posted 11-26-98 05:00 PM ET
The advisors in civ2 were pathetic. i only uses autobuild for the last few cities I conquered since they meant nothing. Building queue will be very helpful as MOO2 has proven to me. As for the governors in SMAC, I will try them, but I will look at their work often untill I am sure they won't start to buy the Appolo program or something like that in a one sized new-founded city.
Kurn posted 11-26-98 08:11 PM ET
OK, I hear a lot of people complaining about the auto build in civ2. If you had the conflicts in civ add on, you could make a text file (called citypref i think)and simply list the order you want your autobuild to build in. Easy, right? also for those of you who hate it when your cities keep building defenders, type in NO DEFENDER to eliminate that
WCT posted 11-27-98 02:13 PM ET
Actually, it wouldn't be that unrealistic to have "walls" of cities. Look at satellite maps of most major cities in the US (and possibly other industrial countries) today, and what do you see? Long, massive cities (which are theoretically divided up into smaller cities - or, in the case of Boston to DC, states - but, in practice, are just one big city with regional governments). If such a thing is possible now, why would it not be possible (and potentially desirable, under some circumstances) for SMAC? (Or would this be better as just a line of adjacent cities?)
DJ RRebel posted 11-27-98 02:34 PM ET
I didn't know you could tinker with the advisors !!! Although it didn't sound excessivly easy !!!
As for the super cities, don't forget, SMAC will start each faction with a population of about 1000 (10,000/8 - casualties) ... given that Earth's population on average doubles at every 40 years, it would take 4000 years for any given faction to reach a population of 1 million !!! Another 400 to reach one billion, only then, after 800 years of super growth (wish shouldn't happen in a hostile environment and with wars) will super cities start, but even then ... one game square will probably represent about 200KM, and there aren't any cities right now that could claim they will reach 600KM by 200KM (two cities merged would actually be at least 3 spaces) in any forceable future !!!
I could see someone saying the atlantic seaboard, but those cities don't go in 200KM from the coast !!!
Hex posted 11-27-98 04:16 PM ET
Dj: I think you forgot that advancesed cloneing (Damm english spelling) techs could make that in much, much shorter time.
But at least in the beginning your right. But for how long?
Q Cubed posted 11-28-98 12:00 AM ET
it's cloning, and not only that, but the birth rate would also be high to maximize the survival of the colony. it's been demonstrated before in the Ami colonies and other developing populations. even though i'm male, i feel kinda sorry for all the women for all the kids they'll have to have.
DJ RRebel posted 11-28-98 10:25 AM ET
Yes .. granted .. but those benefits will be more than offset by them having to adapt to a new planet ... many will die before the first child is born .. there will surely be negative population growth in the early years !!!
And don't forget wars !!! Global conflicts with the advanced weaponry compared to our time will make death rates much higher in SMAC war !!!
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Merging Cities
Rang	posted 11-24-98 11:57 PM ET I'd like to see the ability to merge cities in SMAC. After 2 neighboring cities get to be a certain size, I'd like to be able to merge them. This would make micromanagement easier since you only have to deal with one city. And the combined city would control the combined resources and territories of the two former cities. The historical precedent would be London, New York, etc. New York, and I think London, is built from several smaller towns. This is also similar to the Japanese Megapolis and the Atlantic seaboard merger proposed in many novels.
DJ RRebel	posted 11-25-98 12:07 AM ET I don't see that as being realistic for game play Rang !!! In Civ, cities had to be at least 2 spaces apart !!! This would mean merged cities would be at least 3 map spaces in size ... then after that, another city would join to make it 5 spaces ... then imagine another one, 7 spaces .. at this point, the city could be a wall !!! Kinda unrealistic in combat terms !!! The 4 cities could even be placed in a box shape so it would actually be one city of 3 by 3 map spaces for a total of 9 map places !!! I don't see that as being realistic for game play !!! If it were a SimWorld type of thing, I'd say it was a good idea, but since combat is involved, I don't think so !!!
Roland	posted 11-25-98 05:42 AM ET Reminds me of an idea I once had for civII. Take 5-10 cities and merge them to a province. The province gets an average of the cities' improvements. New improvements = "normal" nr of shields * nr of merged cities. The same for happiness etc. So you'd only manage those cities together - for combat it'll stay the same. If you lose one city, province improvements etc stay the same. If you recapture it, you have to reintegrate it as in the original merger. Would need some thinking through, but IMO it would have been a good way to deal with micromanagement - eg 15 provinces instead of 100 cities.
DJ RRebel	posted 11-25-98 08:45 AM ET Now that's a bit more realistic !!! I like that idea .. but what would you do for units ??? Cities each develop at their own rate !!! What they should have done, is let you make a few template cities that are only hipothetical and don't really exist in the game !!! In those cities, you would make a priority list for all improvements ... so lets say, you build a new city ... "New Montreal" ... you'd set production to "Hypotheical City A" or "Hyp. City B" or whatever ... you would always be able to change the setting when needed, but as long as "Hyp. City A" was selected in the production, "New Montreal" would follow the production list of "Hyp. City A" !!! I think that would be a little more realistic !!!
Roland	posted 11-25-98 09:06 AM ET Well, units would be sustained by the entire province, with a pooled shield production. City development: agricultural surplus could stay per city, we-love-days would be calculated for the entire province, giving each city +1 if celebrated. That's all CIVII terms, of course...
Rang	posted 11-25-98 05:11 PM ET Yes, I like your province idea very much, Roland. It would certainly simplify micro-management. When building things, you can draw from the pooled production and choose which city to situate the improvement in. This is similar in effect to convoys carrying production from one city to another. And troops would manufactured rather quickly.
Firehawk	posted 11-26-98 01:53 AM ET Yes, that would help the micromanagement problem a lot...the thing is, though, micromanagement won't nearly be as bad in SMAC as Civ II because of AI Governors, unit stacks, build queues (sp?), etc. Fortunately FIRAXIS (cap.d for respect, not as yelling or for emphasis) has realized the micromanagement problem and is addressing it.
DJ RRebel	posted 11-26-98 02:21 AM ET I agree with you there Firehawk .. the queing will help alot !!! As for the governers ... I don't think I'd trust them .. I remember in civ2, when I looked at what the advisors recommended that I should build, they always picked inefficient things !!!
Spoe	posted 11-26-98 02:45 PM ET True. ISTR they AI deciding to build Police Stattions all over the place even though I was under Fundamentalism at the time. What were the advisors trying to do? Incite a revolution?
Firehawk	posted 11-26-98 02:49 PM ET Yeah, I hated the Civ II advisors too. Hopefully (and probably) they will be better in SMAC. Woohoo, this is my 30th post. Finally a Member again. It took way longer this time.
Titan	posted 11-26-98 05:00 PM ET The advisors in civ2 were pathetic. i only uses autobuild for the last few cities I conquered since they meant nothing. Building queue will be very helpful as MOO2 has proven to me. As for the governors in SMAC, I will try them, but I will look at their work often untill I am sure they won't start to buy the Appolo program or something like that in a one sized new-founded city.
Kurn	posted 11-26-98 08:11 PM ET OK, I hear a lot of people complaining about the auto build in civ2. If you had the conflicts in civ add on, you could make a text file (called citypref i think)and simply list the order you want your autobuild to build in. Easy, right? also for those of you who hate it when your cities keep building defenders, type in NO DEFENDER to eliminate that
WCT	posted 11-27-98 02:13 PM ET Actually, it wouldn't be that unrealistic to have "walls" of cities. Look at satellite maps of most major cities in the US (and possibly other industrial countries) today, and what do you see? Long, massive cities (which are theoretically divided up into smaller cities - or, in the case of Boston to DC, states - but, in practice, are just one big city with regional governments). If such a thing is possible now, why would it not be possible (and potentially desirable, under some circumstances) for SMAC? (Or would this be better as just a line of adjacent cities?)
DJ RRebel	posted 11-27-98 02:34 PM ET I didn't know you could tinker with the advisors !!! Although it didn't sound excessivly easy !!! As for the super cities, don't forget, SMAC will start each faction with a population of about 1000 (10,000/8 - casualties) ... given that Earth's population on average doubles at every 40 years, it would take 4000 years for any given faction to reach a population of 1 million !!! Another 400 to reach one billion, only then, after 800 years of super growth (wish shouldn't happen in a hostile environment and with wars) will super cities start, but even then ... one game square will probably represent about 200KM, and there aren't any cities right now that could claim they will reach 600KM by 200KM (two cities merged would actually be at least 3 spaces) in any forceable future !!! I could see someone saying the atlantic seaboard, but those cities don't go in 200KM from the coast !!!
Hex	posted 11-27-98 04:16 PM ET Dj: I think you forgot that advancesed cloneing (Damm english spelling) techs could make that in much, much shorter time. But at least in the beginning your right. But for how long?
Q Cubed	posted 11-28-98 12:00 AM ET it's cloning, and not only that, but the birth rate would also be high to maximize the survival of the colony. it's been demonstrated before in the Ami colonies and other developing populations. even though i'm male, i feel kinda sorry for all the women for all the kids they'll have to have.
DJ RRebel	posted 11-28-98 10:25 AM ET Yes .. granted .. but those benefits will be more than offset by them having to adapt to a new planet ... many will die before the first child is born .. there will surely be negative population growth in the early years !!! And don't forget wars !!! Global conflicts with the advanced weaponry compared to our time will make death rates much higher in SMAC war !!!