vieuxchat

But even with a low density of cities, you still get better results with more cities due to the caravans system and the resources distribution.

Maybe. But it don't take into account the reasons players choose to spam cities. I would prefer some ways that would be lore-dependant or intersting. Instead of being forced to, I would like to have choices. So I prefer to be able to create fort, to get gold other way than just caravans, get research in other way than just population (and schools just give a better %age from your population, they don't give you another way to research) BoogieBac stated they want to follow the

lifekatana : I read your porposition, but dev already stated they surely never stop the "city-spreading" because you really feel the land reviving. But I like your idea about the way it spreads. Something different from circle would be a good thing. Demiansky : I know this is a beta. And that dev can crunch numbers the way they want it. But they could also find good idea that don't need number crunching. I was proposing other options to spend your money, instead of rethinking the food

After re-re-reading your post, I see that I didn't understand you. Sorry. Now, I see you propose the same system as MoM. Generalized food. Max population limited by food nearby. That worked good for anti-city-spamming, but ... the empire building thing was too dull because there were no way to control land without a new town. The map was so empty. And starting points could be too harsh sometimes. It could lead to unfair starting points. At the moment, availibilty of farms is a

@cauldyth. humm .. you're right about unit producing. But in the long time 5 cities will be better then 2 cities. But for population growth you forget to add the prestige bonus ! A city of 500 and a pop growth of 10% would get 50 more pop and a percentage due to prestige. And prestige doesn't automatically grow. So 5 cities will get you more prestige than one city, unless you build a lot of prestige buildings in your only town. Another thing also in favor of 5 city vs 1 : you get more tiles t

And why not using the lore to prevent city spamming ? Each turn, cities can lose some of their people due to radiations, earthquake, marauders, trolls, spiders, any nasty thing you can think of. So you would need to carefully prepare each of your new city. I would love to play versus other players AND versus the earth.

Before spaming cities, you have to spam outposts :P And more cities also means more population : with one city you have the prestige bonus and the growth bonus. with two cities you have twice your prestige bonus and the growth bonus. So, a high level in prestige will let you have a lot of population (and gold and research) with the more city you can build. And the sooner you build your first outposts (that will be cities someday) the sooner you'll get the better version of houses, res

Food won't prevent someone to build 5 cities of 100 population instead of 2 cities of 250 population. 500 population still need the same amount of food in the game (it's linear). So spamming won't be avoided. Getting 5 cities instead of 2 will let you have : more gold, more resources, more units built per turn (5 instead of 2), faster population growth (thus more gold and research).

Food won't discourage players to spam 5 cities with 100 pop in it instead of two cities with 250 population. Same population, but in one case you spam cities, in other you try to stay at least grouped. One thing that would force players to stay in few cities would be the harsh living. If you know that your low level town could be easily devasted by natural raiders, by trolls, or whatever, then you would reconsider the building of your 10th city. I really liked the fact

@outlaw : When you "spam" cities, you have the choice to put your gold in another project. My ideas come from the fact that if it's more interesting to expand already existing cities, then you won't spam. Imagine you have 4 cities. Why would you build a 5th city if expanding one of your already existing cities get you better results ? That's what I tried to show : we build cities to get more roads, to get more population, to get more research, to get more units to build. My ideas try

I don't like food-prints. It's just too abstract, and use a different layer than the one we already have. What are the causes of city-spam ? More roads, and then more resources More population, then more units to build More population, then more research points More population, then more gold To get improvements (forest, mine, shard, farm, etc.) Tapping improvements doesn't resolve the other points. Let's discuss e

[quote who="Shurdus" reply="79" id="2546366"] [quote who="vieuxchat" reply="77"]The problem of limited tiles for cities isn't still taken care of. Cities are spammed because : You need more resources You need more gold, then you create more cities for the roads that are created You need to control a chokepoint on the map You need to expand your zone of influence So, if for all of those reason the player has a better way to achieve tha

The problem of limited tiles for cities isn't still taken care of. Cities are spammed because : You need more resources You need more gold, then you create more cities for the roads that are created You need to control a chokepoint on the map You need to expand your zone of influence So, if for all of those reason the player has a better way to achieve that, he won't spam cities. What cities are for ?

And if we want to let a governor to go out for trouble ? Is he obliged to stay in the city forever ? Can't he go sometimes outside ? I still don't like the cap from the level of governor. If I need an outpost to harvest a shard and I want to build some barracks and a wall to defend it, but I don't have the right governor ? I can't ? I want to be able to do it AND pay the price. Maybe instead of a governor, we could "attach" a unit (or more) with the right requirement. If I can build w

What about "hit and run" tactics from speedy units ? Will the auto resolve allow to simulate such things ? Or formations (magicians behind, tank in front) ?

I wasn't speaking of connecting existing cities. That would be .. well .. cheesy like you say ;) I was speaking of something more organic : Your town needs to be fully built to get to th enext "level" : you earn one more tile to build on, but you have to wait as much turns as many tiles you have. And that would be with no cap. A town with 45 tiles fully built ? wait 45 turns and you'll have a 46th tile to build on. etc. You could plan since the first turn a ver

[quote who="BoogieBac" reply="79" id="2543481"] Population explosion leads to population migration. I beleive that's part of the plan for the next phase of citybuilding. risinglegend and the rest: Seriously, I think you should just wait until 1G to see this all in practice. I assure the following things... -you will NOT have mansions in every city just by reaching top level -huts don't just become houses without some sinificant effort on the pla

[quote who="Shurdus" reply="67" id="2543134"]@vieuxchat, I like the idea of the city slowly growing. Having just one monstrous city as an empire... That is brilliant. [/quote] Thanks. The more I put thought into that idea, the more I like it.

[quote who="Tkins" reply="21" id="2543026"]Rise. Of. Nations. Did them all.[/quote] So true ... No other rts was as good as it. Even Rise of legends.

[quote who="Denryu" reply="58" id="2542942"]Well the OP just convinces me that I need to try one of the Anno games before EWOM comes out! I really like the idea that resources are treated as finite units and you could practically track a piece of wood from the tree to the finished item. And yes, I am one of those crying with pigeonx2 that resources won't be tracked to "almost the atomic level".[/quote] You would love anno 1404.

[quote who="BoogieBac" reply="33" id="2542511"]We'll be tweaking things up until gold to ensure the systems in place don't feel 'gamey' (read: artificial) yet can't be 'gamed' (read: manipulated for easy gains). We've talked internally about the idea of 'equation-driven buildable tiles' but we always came to the conclusion that... 1. No matter how much balancing goes into it, a system like that would get 'gamed'. and... 2. If we DID balance it, it'd be to the po

[quote who="AnthonySalter" reply="5" id="2542382"]GhostKingGeorge: Right now you can research and then built better city walls, which will give units in your city defensive bonuses in combat (we're still working out the details). I don't think we're planning on turrets. vieuxchat: No, the upgrade will be triggered by either the city levelling up or you researching the correct improvement. So you don't have to worry; it'll upgrade either way

A question : An hamlet upgrades to a village, but I don't have better tech for my houses. If I research a better housing tech AFTER the ciuty upgrade, will it automatically improve ? Or do I have to carefully plan those free upgrades ?

That would be a nice addition to the dynasty system.

Warfare When two forces meet, players can choose to have those battles instantly resolve or go into a tactical battle mode to either watch the battle take place or control the action turn by turn. In battle, players can cast devastating spells, flank enemy positions, go for the high ground and much more. Turn by turn action ? Like the usual MoM ? Or a semi turn based with an active pause ? Or real time that you can pause wh