Such drastic CityMinDist creates unrealistic and very annoying problems. In LT38 CMD was 5 and city radius was 3. I didn't realise this at first and later it turned out I have a few strips of unused land that I couldn't use because there were cities on both sides 4 tiles away. Ok, you can say that I am stupid and that players should check the rules, but this thing will happen a lot. And no, repeating stuff in the chat will only help a little. You are simply avoiding the fact that the sole concept of minimum distance between cities is unnatural and unrealistic. If you must, make it at most one tile more than city radius. But it's the wrong thing to do in general.wieder wrote:To illustrate the difference we could have cities working on 4 tiles away with citymindist 6 and with 3x moves or cities working on 2 tiles away with citymindist 3 and with 2x moves. The current cities on LT40 can work on more tiles than the cities on LT38.
You can't have conquest victory with +5/1 unhappiness step. If the base limit is 25, this means that your problem increase gradually, and not steeply, but they do increase.The happiness issues are there to make the game something else than just war simulator. What else than powerful enough city limits could prevent too probable conquest victory?
So, this basically means that you can't have more than 150% of the average. Ever. Maybe a few more, but simply, with one additional city under those circumstances the cost outweights the benefits. It's a no-brainer, the players don't have to make a decision, the admin made it for them.The actual limits for the land has not been set but the idea is to have enough land for everyone to have - on average - about 70% of the max cities. With 10 cities it could be set to 7 cities and with 30 cities to 21 cities. Now with about 25 cities there could be space for something like 19-20 cities. This could also be 60% or more or less.
Yes, and because of this you want to hit the other extreme? What happened to the "golden mean"?In normal games the happiness limits are barely hit. In lots of cases they are never hit.
The +5/1 also prevents you from eating everyone.With this kind of setup you could do pretty much anything as you would do in a regular game, except becoming so big you could eat everyone.
No, you couldn't. 10 cities above the limit means 10 more unhappy citizens in every city. Forget it.And you could even do that but with very very a heavy price.
I see all these problems as a consequence of the rescaling you started a while ago. You wanted to increase citymindist so you increased city range. With increased city range, the dynamics of the city have also changed so now, in a size-30 city, five more unhappy citizens maybe don't mean so much. But in a size-20 city that would be a real show stopper, not to speak of smaller sizes. Also, I understand that there are people more interested in military than in civilian aspect. Big cities are a charm to them: not much hassle with management and swarms of units to go around and smash things. However, there are people who prefer the other way round. Civilization is supposed to be halfway between Farmville and Warcraft and you keep pushing it toward the latter, even when it doesn't seem like it. You removed the original Granary system, why? So that cities can grow more quickly, so that you can have more stuff sooner. You removed rapture to prevent that way of growing cities, why? Because then Democracy is "too powerful", and if everybody has Democracy, then there is less war, so you move to make "other governments more competitive". In order to make war easier. Well, that is not Civilization. In Civilization you have war, but as means of growing your nation. What you have made it is a game where you grow your nation in order to have war.
Rant over.