City limits

[drphill]

I understand why cities cannot be built too close to each other.  And I understand why a city's influence does not stretch far over water.  But I had an odd situation where a city on one side of a body of water prevented the building of a city the other side of the water even though the influence of the first city did not reach the location where I wanted to build the second city.  Is this intended, or is it a bug?

I can see arguments both ways, but am interested in the reasoning.

 

Edited August 31, 2017 by drphill
erroneous reasoning deleted

[Grugnas]

Cvic Centers, Military Colony, Fortresses, Sentry/Defense Towers, Outposts have a build restriction distance independently if  the chosen place is or not in your territory influence.

[Lion.Kanzen]

CC have distance meter.

[Lion.Kanzen]

You can try build a dock. Haven't this limit.

[drphill]

10 hours ago, Grugnas said:

Cvic Centers, Military Colony, Fortresses, Sentry/Defense Towers, Outposts have a build restriction distance independently if  the chosen place is or not in your territory influence.

That was certainly my observation.  It means that building a city on one island may prevent building a city on another. 

8 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

CC have distance meter.

Could you elaborate please? or point me to documentation?

 

8 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

You can try build a dock. Haven't this limit.

I was using the city influence as a weapon (claiming territory) so a dock would not have been as useful.

[Lion.Kanzen]

The Civic Center have a radious distance based metric system 280? 

The other less restricted , the reason is that, devs don't want Conquest or add territory  by CC. It's called CC rush.

 @elexis you are a charge with this matters.

 

[drphill]

1 hour ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

The Civic Center have a radious distance based metric system 280? 

The other less restricted , the reason is that, devs don't want Conquest or add territory  by CC. It's called CC rush.

 @elexis you are a charge with this matters.

 

Ah, that makes perfect sense.  What I am doing is not new - and perhaps a little frowned upon.  

What I am doing: build a CC close to the front line; demolish or capture any enemy buildings in the area, thereby expanding my territory and denying it to the enemy.  Fortify the new border, demolish the CC and start again.

This strategy does seem to be a direct consequence of the rules 'you can only build in your territory' and 'CC has a large territory'

Preventing CC from being built too close together with a hard limit may not be the only approach. Why not escalate the cost of building CC (inflation)? Or make the building of a new CC more expensive the closer it is to an existing one (labour/resources more expensive closer to a CC as there is more competition?).  Maybe that would create more realistic dynamics?

Simple inflation (each CC costs x% more than the last) would increase the 'cost of replacement' and so make the resource worth more than it cost.  It would make capturing cities far mare attractive as a proposition.  Neither side would want to demolish them.  I like that idea a lot, as capturing and holding a city is more difficult than destroying it but perhaps more realistic as a strategy.

Would such inflation work?

[Lion.Kanzen]

The cost isn't better solution, we need something more flexible.

[Arcana33]

On 01/09/2017 at 11:41 AM, drphill said:

Or make the building of a new CC more expensive the closer it is to an existing one (labour/resources more expensive closer to a CC as there is more competition?).  Maybe that would create more realistic dynamics?

In fact, it's more the contrary. Since a city is theoretically attractive, the close areas would be more buildable but a city that create in the middle of nowhere needs to "terraform" the wild terrain (cut down trees, make flatter areas...), so it's more costly, so it wouldn't be realistic.

[Sundiata]

I think it would be nice to see visual upgrades for individual CC's, like the Han Chinese fortified CC upgrade, with a territory and defence bonus. Village phase CC's should be more rudimentary, cheaper and weaker. I think not being able to build too close to another CC (your enemy or your own) is a good thing. I also think you shouldn't be able to start a new building (including CC) in range of an enemy military structure, or in the vicinity of enemy troops.

I think this would positively influence the use of CC's and prevent other forms of building rushes.

Edited September 2, 2017 by Sundiata

[Lion.Kanzen]

7 hours ago, Sundiata said:

I think it would be nice to see visual upgrades for individual CC's, like the Han Chinese fortified CC upgrade, with a territory and defence bonus. Village phase CC's should be more rudimentary, cheaper and weaker. I think not being able to build too close to another CC (your enemy or your own) is a good thing. I also think you shouldn't be able to start a new building (including CC) in range of an enemy military structure, or in the vicinity of enemy troops.

I think this would positively influence the use of CC's and prevent other forms of building rushes.

That's is planned.

[drphill]

20 hours ago, Arcana33 said:

In fact, it's more the contrary. Since a city is theoretically attractive, the close areas would be more buildable but a city that create in the middle of nowhere needs to "terraform" the wild terrain (cut down trees, make flatter areas...), so it's more costly, so it wouldn't be realistic.

I see what you mean, though I think it could be argues either way (Infinite are the arguments of the economists).  I am not sure that this is the right place for that debate though.

[drphill]

19 hours ago, Sundiata said:

I think it would be nice to see visual upgrades for individual CC's, like the Han Chinese fortified CC upgrade, with a territory and defence bonus. Village phase CC's should be more rudimentary, cheaper and weaker. I think not being able to build too close to another CC (your enemy or your own) is a good thing. I also think you shouldn't be able to start a new building (including CC) in range of an enemy military structure, or in the vicinity of enemy troops.

I think this would positively influence the use of CC's and prevent other forms of building rushes.

'prevent [] building rush'

I am confused about this idea that building rush is bad.  In order to win the enemy must be defeated. One strand to this is denying access to resources.  In order to do this we need to occupy the land.  History (and current affairs) shows that settling the land is a weapon of war as much as occupying it with troops.

Occupation like this is often done by 'settlers' building homes in clusters (settlements) that grow to become towns and maybe cities.  The thought of settlers building a city first is somewhat odd.  

Would there be a place for every CC starting out as a village and growing to become a city?  That would be a huge departure from current gameplay and so less attractive, but it might help balance some of these concerns.  How would this work? In short I have no idea but something like:

1. Build settlement (sort of village) in own/neutral/enemy territory.  Settlement is like the stage before a village.  Settlements in enemy territory will need military support or be wiped out.  This allows military occupation to be converted to settlement with a weak initial building.
2. With enough of something (people?/houses?/resources?) settlement can advance to village, then town, then city.