Slight exageration, prosperity and... place the damn city closer. Of course that's not really an option for the capital, true. But it is for any other city.
No I'm actually pretty sure I was under-rating it. Also we had the place the city closer thingy already, you made it impossible remember? And let's ignore the problems for the most important city in your empire, amirite?
Assumptions against AI will prove different in MP-play...
Yeah, but untill we actually get MP, it's a wee bit pointless to speculate about it. Of course one would need to play differently against a competent opponent than AI. For example, human opponents don't cheat, so killing them off might be easier...just saying...
How often does that happen? Seriously? And if it does, just your bad luck. But then again, the opponent can have the same happen to him/her.
yeah, I don't know about you, but for me it's pretty common to have a resource node or two at that distance from capitol. That's 42 hexes we're talking about in the danger zone. It'd be more accurate to ask, how often does that not happen?
You already have to right now anyways, or suffer similar situations which are far harder to 'control' or predict.
Only in the sense of, on which side of a particular resource do I place the city for maximum gain, and minimal hindrance for future cities. It's quite common to see a situation where you see a two resources separated by one or two empty hexes. By putting my city on the opposite side of resource A allows me to nab resource B for another city, that can use it better.
Indeed. Place cities in consideration where you want your other cities, rather than just planting them down everywhere just to have one massive kingdom path.
Yeah well no amount of consideration will save some resources, or push them so far back that they're essentially useless.
And here are so many people complaining Warlock lacks complexity. Although I agree "useless" would be bad. I just don't agree it would be useless, instead making city spread better and more important. Which is from where I play, a good improvement upon the current situation.
Funny thing, people complaining about a facet of a game on an internet forum. Good thing we always balance things around those well constructed complaints, amirite? Also I don't find there to be a lack of complexity in the game. Do you? Sure there are some balance issues which reduce the complexity, but I'd rather see the balance issues fixed than artificially make it more tedious, because you dislike ICS. To me useless in this instance means, unneeded, and something that doesn't really add strategic dept. Just makes it more tedious. You might disagree, and that is your right. Just note that this would be an unwanted change for some people, and you could achieve your goal in better ways. Like the one i suggested earlier.
Indeed I noticed. The current situation lets you nab both. For mine, you would have to make some considerations, maybe offer quick access to one for the other. I did say it added a strategic element, didn't I? Here's one such example. Of course if you see weighing pro/con of your new city as "useless extra complexity" you might see it differently.
See here's the thing though, no matter how you twist it, it would end in wasted resources, which I would rather not see just to fullfill your dislike of ICS. Come up with a better idea, and I might be ok with it. Untill that time though...
I see you got my point. Good.
So your point is wasted resources? Ooh, that's a nice gameplay mechanic right there, for so good reasons. It's a good thing there are never any rare resources close to each other. /sarcasm
Then plan accordingly so there's no city blocking easy access to the resource. I believe you called it... "first grade math" IIRC. And yes, if you happen to construct a city 4 hexes from a resource it becomes hard to get. Which makes it more important to just use cities sparsely on key locations for vital resources rather than wherever you feel the need to. Which was also part of my suggestion's intention...
Yeah, too bad you can't "plan city placement better" so well that you get all the resources no matter what, with their current density. See above for waste.
Well, there's always the population spell. Might become a bit nicer too then wouldn't you say? Which isn't a bad thing!
Also, I repeat "too late" in SP would pretty much be the start of your battle with a MP-opponent.
Two in fact. Too bad those are such underpowered spells in need of buffs, and oh so reliably available. Oh wait...
Also it's really nice that we add more luck factor to the fortune wheel of the spell research, by making some spells even more mandatory. There's no way that would have any balance issues in multiplayer, amirite?
Also what makes you think MP games would take more time? Cause I'd wager they're resolved faster than SP simply because the fights are more deadly, higher pressure for taking the initiative and the enemy won't regularily cheat more units out. You do realise the importance of taking the initiative in MP, right?
I don't call "you can have them pretty much everywhere and every resource" as requiring any... *planning*
Well it's not exactly complex planning, but you can still optimize city spots. Also see the close together resources example in the beginning.
I'm worried about gamebalance than not liking it (which I stated many times over). Because I kind of see a big issue with many goldfarms and a kingdom having every resource available for balance. Which a battle against a lesser buffed AI or monster force quickly should show you too...
Yeah the AI is kinda bad in using the resources. That clearly means we should handicap ourselves to compensate. I mean there's no way this change would make AI even worse at using the resources...oh wait...
And the game is currently balanced around having rather large income available, what with the perk prices, and elite unite prices, not to mention upkeep. Now does it get a bit silly towards the very end game? Yeah it does, and that is worth looking into, but the game is pretty much won at that point in any case, so not exatly something you should make sweeping changes around.
Not really. You still get to use them one layer around your city, and later 2, and later 3. You just need to make a good "path" with inbetween non-road. Instead of having road EVERYWHERE. Which isn't much of a strategic decision either, would you say?
The gaps would be huge before the 10 pop. That's not a road, that's a little bonus movement on occasion. Currently it is a strategic decision in the start of the game, but hey, since you only want to balance things around for end game only...
As you can see, I did think about the facets of the plan. That you see all it's benefits (having to choose instead of having cake and eat it) as cons is just a matter of opinion though... However, we will probably all quickly learn after MP goes live how balance will be with ICS. And my predicition, it's not good...
I can see you thought you did. You just don't have any consideration for other players preferences. And before you accuse me of the same, I did offer an alternative solution a while ago. Also, I don't think ICS will be as much of a problem in MP. Why? Because unlike the AI, a smart enemy won't let you just freely spam out cities. Also, the bigger your empire, and smaller your cities, the harder it is to defend.
Haven't we already gone over this. That's SP talk. With MP the opponent has exactly the SAME perked up temple units. Not low-life unbuffed scum as the AI. And then your game is far from over... actually, the war will just begin. I doubt MP-games will be over as fast as SP-games, unless someone leaves their capital undefended and it gets demolished.
Yeah cause there's no way smart opponents would take measures to prevent your expansion, and will just sit on their hands untill everyone has full elite armies, amirite? The only reason you are able to freely ICS currently is because the AI gives you free reign to do so. Also note, that with several people expanding fast, the available land for expansion is lessened.
Games will last longer anyways with a competent oponent. Which means ICS resources added per turn, for more turns than SP, meaning a lot of units. And it goes on longer... and longer.
This is actually somewhat of a plan to make it last not as long by making such insane income a lot harder to acquire... but I already mentioned that before to you IIRC.
Again assuming the games will last that long...
Maybe after the patch (I generally do so anyway, but never really made an effort to always do so). Still, it wouldn't show much against a weak AI where even the weakest strategies or self-nerfing can still give a win.
I doubt you would much like the result (less resources, choices between resource points) anyway compared to the current system.
You're right, I wouldn't. Though you should be aware that I don't usually space my cities 3 hexes apart now either. Not the best available tactic. I do make some effort to get more optimized city locations, even without you making it a bother. Only difference is, i don't waste resources.
It's pretty hard to view a system where it would be more versatile though, working properly with the current game. Making a city be able to produce gold and food and mana might be a bit overpowered, even if doing so in smaller quantities. Same with getting easy access to all top tier units in all cities :/
This part I agree with.