what if... cities could work beyond 3rd ring tiles? :)

[pitonsnaboca]

(I'm not "beaching" about this, nor I'm saying it should be like this... this is just a thread open to good old conversation, if that is still possible on the internet :) )

IRL you have cities like Paris, Mexico City, Rio de Janeiro, New York, etc, etc... lots of examples of cities that strecht far beyond "regular sized cities", to the point of starting to engulf smaller towns/villages around them into new neighbourhoods of that huge metropolis.

how great would it be to have huge mega-metropolis beyond the 3rd ring tiles where you could put more districts/wonders/farms to the growing population?
for instance, you could buy tiles up to the 3rd ring (as it is, now) but not from the 4th ring. you would only expand to the 4th ring after the inner rings were all completed and with an outraging amount of culture per tile.

BUT, if you had another city close by, being able to use those tiles in the bigger city (at the expense of that other city, whose growth would be condemned by less tiles to work on)

[Corgisaurus]

+1 Districts replace Tiles, Wonders replace tiles. We need more workable tiles.

[ambershee]

A three tile radius gives a potential 36 tiles to work with?

[pitonsnaboca]

Originally posted by ambershee:

A three tile radius gives a potential 36 tiles to work with?

yes, I think that is correct

[SamBC]

Yes, it is. And you can work districts as well, with specialists - though specialist yields are a bit pathetic.

[Jirki88]

IMO, the hard limit should be something like 7-10 tiles away, but after the initial 3 you should start seeing diminishing returns (more for production and gold than for food). Meaning it could be possible to build one HUGE metropolis, but it would be much more effective to have multiple cities.

[pitonsnaboca]

Originally posted by Jirki88:

IMO, the hard limit should be something like 7-10 tiles away, but after the initial 3 you should start seeing diminishing returns (more for production and gold than for food). Meaning it could be possible to build one HUGE metropolis, but it would be much more effective to have multiple cities.

I wouldn't go as far as 7-10 tiles. I would go for tiles until the 5th ring, with other cities on a radius of 8-10 tiles distance (city center-wise) being unable to work tiles outside the normal 3rd ring. That would limit the amount of metropolis that a civ could have.

Border growth would be like it is now, but as soon as the first tile from the 4th ring started being worked by the metropolis, there would be a penalty on the cultural cost of each next tiles (maybe some +5%, because at that time, tiles are supposed to be already costly, I think). Oh, and at this point, with the ability to chose which tile to acquire.

[ambershee]

Originally posted by Jirki88:

IMO, the hard limit should be something like 7-10 tiles away, but after the initial 3 you should start seeing diminishing returns (more for production and gold than for food). Meaning it could be possible to build one HUGE metropolis, but it would be much more effective to have multiple cities.

7-10 tiles? That's absurd.That's 158 to 320 tiles - when are you ever going to have 158 population / wonders?

[pitonsnaboca]

after the 3rd ring, you wouldn't have to complete the 4th ring to get a tile on the 5th (needless to say, a tile on the 5th would need a tile on the 4th connecting it to the metropolis)

but I think above the 5th ring is way too much.
with the 4th ring you get potential 61 tiles and the 5th ring it goes up for 91 potential tiles.
more than enough, imo.
but it would take forever to have enough culture to occupy/populate all of them (if even possible).

[Corgisaurus]

4th ring is good enough, just to compensate for land that Wonders and Districts use up. I shouldn't have to sacrifice productivity just to build wonders and districts; that's just stupid. I should rephrase that. Stop nerfing Tall play by taking away productive land. There was nothing wrong with it, don't fix what's not broken. Wide Play and Tall Play are not mutually exclusively concepts; stop giving to one by taking from the other.

If Wonders and Districts outside the city are supposed to be better than in the City then you shouldn't impose an extra opportunity cost just to do so. That just makes districts feel more like an obstacle than a plus to the game.

Devs could always limit maximum working tiles to 36 if they feel that's too much. This would also make settling near Mountains NOT a liability in the late game. Also solves the major weakness of coastal cities which not only lack fresh water but also productive tiles because plain ocean tiles are clearly useless. (Really? They didn't learn from the uselessness of ocean tiles from civ 5?)

[hopsblues]

Originally posted by pitonsnaboca:

after the 3rd ring, you wouldn't have to complete the 4th ring to get a tile on the 5th (needless to say, a tile on the 5th would need a tile on the 4th connecting it to the metropolis)

but I think above the 5th ring is way too much.
with the 4th ring you get potential 61 tiles and the 5th ring it goes up for 91 potential tiles.
more than enough, imo.
but it would take forever to have enough culture to occupy/populate all of them (if even possible).

I like this. Not all cities are circular. Some cities follow the reources. Then there are metro areas like LA and Denver which just sprawl on infanite. All directions, well except into the ocean.

[Jirki88]

Originally posted by ambershee:

Originally posted by Jirki88:

IMO, the hard limit should be something like 7-10 tiles away, but after the initial 3 you should start seeing diminishing returns (more for production and gold than for food). Meaning it could be possible to build one HUGE metropolis, but it would be much more effective to have multiple cities.

7-10 tiles? That's absurd.That's 158 to 320 tiles - when are you ever going to have 158 population / wonders?

As I said, diminishing returns. And border growth should also have diminishing returns. It'd be hard and ineffective to build a huge metropolis. But, if dedicated, possible.

[Rob'sEvilTwin]

One of the "Call to Power" games had cities that went out several rings, IIRC.
It was a bit silly, as it encouraged something like a one city per continent tall strategy.

[Jirki88]

Originally posted by Rob'sEvilTwin:

One of the "Call to Power" games had cities that went out several rings, IIRC.
It was a bit silly, as it encouraged something like a one city per continent tall strategy.

Yeah, that shouldn't really be encouraged. But it should be possible.

[Leon Declis]

I'd like it; just put a soft cap on the city after the 3rd ring.

I dislike having to put down a city because one resource is in the middle of the desert and one tile away from my 3rd ring.

Also, it currently feels like a punishment to build farms.

[ambershee]

Originally posted by Jirki88:

Originally posted by ambershee:

7-10 tiles? That's absurd.That's 158 to 320 tiles - when are you ever going to have 158 population / wonders?

As I said, diminishing returns. And border growth should also have diminishing returns. It'd be hard and ineffective to build a huge metropolis. But, if dedicated, possible.

It's actually impossible. You wouldn't be able to grow a population that large, nor generate enough culture to expand the city borders. Getting a city past 30 population is a slog for most Civs.