Multi-Tile City discussion

One thing for sure: by separating the scales of a city's representation, you gain A LOT of flexibility, AND performance, while nothing is actually lost.

I really don't see the downside here.

Of course the various sub-mechanics would have to be balanced but the main idea is a winner. I truly hope it's not an April's fool or something. 

I agree, I like 1 tile city idea.

I like the idea. I don't like it's graphical representation (second screenshot). Sub-tiles should be much smaller than the city hub. This lumber mill is enormous (or city hub is tiny)!

I always let the game place my tiles, so for me the solution with "one tile" is ok. That being said, I would like some cool mechanic for culture wars (like in civ iv, when you built culture producing buildings to push the opponents borders back. 

Personally I like the new specialization system because we have too many buildings on the main map which makes cities cheesy and look like blobs. You can't really tell cities apart because there are so many improvements and most of them are built in every city. The new system would actually make every city look unique as it specializes and grows. There is no reason to place every bakery and workshop. In this case small cities is better. I'm not sure if a sub screen for placing improvements is necessary.

However if you move to the new system the graphic style of cities should probably change, the above picture is ugly. Instead of city centers and improvements being one large building each new section should be composed of multiple buildings so cities actually look like cities. So you place districts instead of buildings. Also in regards to unique art for each race please don't make them too different. All the improvements should look similar so you can tell what it is. Variations on a theme instead of totally new art.

 

I've made my preference for 1-tile cities well-known, but I'll reiterate some thoughts why here:

1. Large multi-tile cities, even non-snaking ones, are aesthetically unpleasant.  They just look like random collections of things, and occupy so much space on the map that it no longer makes the map feel right.
2. The strategic use of the current system of placing buildings is questionable.  Either you use the mechanic to strategically expand your ZOC towards important resources, in which case you have these horrible snaking cities, or you resist the urge and instead build more sensible cities, in which case the mechanic is largely meaningless.
3. If the current mechanic is forcing the developers to not add new buildings to the game that they would otherwise like to add, then that's enough justification right there to do away with the current system.  We'd be sacrificing the added depth and city specialization that these new buildings would bring for the questionable strategic depth and aesthetic unpleasantness brought by multi-tile cities.
4. Teleporting.  Enough said.

That said, I was hoping the 1-tile cities would look a little more... city-ish.  I was envisioning a city hub that looked like a city, not like a single building.  If we're going the route of adding an extra sub-tile for specialization, I was expecting those sub-tiles to also look city-ish.  Would that be the ultimate intent, and the buildings in the screenshot here are just placeholders?

 

Keep in mind that Fb is only giving us a rough example there. Once we move to the 1 tile system, the tile art can be changed in scale. It might look more like this:

 

You see, the tile can use more objects in a 1 tile system. It would allow for more intricate looking cities. Cities that look larger, have a better flow and take up less space. Yes Please!

I really want 1-tile cities, but they have to look good (see seanw3's pic).

 

I also want the city screen to show surrounding terrain around the city. If there's a river in the background, it should be on the screen.

 

My thoughts are this: the current city system looks amazing, it feels just right to see your city snake across the landscape. But the proportion is wack. If you're building a great civilization, you'll end up with more land actually covered by city buildings than not. Something drastic is needed to restore balance to the visual identity of the game.

I'm all in favor for one tile cities, and always have been. It will make design of sieges easier as well, no more snaking and teleporting. Late game maps will look soooo much better too, with alot more open land. 

Just remember to give the cities a good zone of control (and make it a bad choice to build everywhere and on little furtile land), I don't want cities to be buildt so close in this game as in the Civilization series. I want alot of countryside and forests and wilderness between the cities.

These news made me so happy. They really are serious when they say they scrap design that isnt working, with no mercy! I thought the cities as they are to day was the last holy cow. This opens many new possibilities as well, such as bonuses on worked tiles arround the city..... Please give us workers.

 

Yes, go for a new system. I have never enjoyed the city building so far, the cities are boring to build and terrible to look at. If the current system is a resource hog as well, then imo it's a no-brainer.

Beautiful!  That's exactly what I was thinking of.

That would be awesome.

 

Dont really need full tile buildings with 1 tile cities, they should all be just 1/4 tile.

But, ya this seems like it could work.

One of the reasons for snaking cities is that certain buildings cannot be built unless a resource (forest, river) are adjacent to the city.  In Frogboy's 1 tile city example above, it looks like he's got a lumber mill even though the city is not adjacent to a forest.  If this means that with 1 tile cities those restrictions are relaxed, then I'm all for it.  I have no problem with a separate window to view/construct a city. 

Indeed.

 

Personally, I currently really like how large, multi tile, cities look (non snaking of course).

 

As far as that 'level 5' city in the OP ... why did it show the buildings that it did? I think the various city types (per faction) should each have a distinct and abstract look ... and the only actual "buildings" shown should be wonders imho. (on the world map)

and then on the city map ... you get the actual cityscape that would normally be on the map (pre 'small abstract' city implementation)

I very much support 1 tile cities, though I preferred this image over the one posted above.  Mostly that's due to the fact that the city tile in Fb's post looks so... drab compared to the one with a one-tile radius.  As long as the central city hub evolves as it grows, though, I'd be happy limiting the external buildings to ones chosen at levelup.

I kind of like the last picture on the post there, A city with a 4-5 tiles as a high level city seems to be a good idea. I'll have to see how the interface flows when I get the new build though.

I love the idea of going to one tile. Especially if the hub changes with the city specialization and they all look different for the various factions. Please make it where we can create new hubs for any new factions we create as well.

Put me down in the One Tile City column also.  I think that it would be more efficient as you describe it... and honestly, I just let the game auto place the buildings anyway...It doesn't really matter to me.

I do like the way this game is looking, it has a high addictiveness to it at this stage, but I still get plenty of crashes, hoping that those get ironed out.  Crashes occur in late game, and are hopefully something that will get largely ironed out...Other than that..NICE WORK, TEAM!!!

I like the one tile city scheme.

I am confused/unclear on how specialization will be implemented.  If a settlement's specialization is derived from the mix of improvements it contains, then the new system with its added screen are great; the only addition needed would be greater variety and diversification of improvements.

However, if a settlement's specialization is per level (like with gardens and gallows and the like at present), then the new screen isn't needed, as improvements would be chosen on the settlement level up screen.

tile rubberstamp cities have already been done by many other similar games. The creative, involving element that city building currently has is one of the major attractions the game has for me. Snake" cities are the majority of real life cities not the minority. Especially when they are young.

Of the reasons listed by froggy only game performance is a legitimate reason to do away with it. Better solution would be to fix whatever is making the building so demanding..I honestly dont find them that "beautiful" or "intricate"."Going to a one tile system just leaves me wondering why I am playing FE instead of Warlock:MA or HOMM. Cutting defining characteristic of your game is a horrible idea.

 

As long as opening up this detail city screen isn't a frequent necessity. The size of the current cities is too large for the map.

I'm all for 1-tile cities, personally. As someone else said somewhere else, the map starts to look like Jersey in the late game with the multi-tile system in. I think that limiting the building area to one tile surrounding the hub might be a workable idea, but that limit does feel kind of arbitrary. And, as Sean insightfully pointed out, I think that this will lead people to raze buildings in the late-game to make room for the upper-tier ones. And that just doesn't feel right.

Plus, it kind of ties the hands of some of the modders who have started to take a crack at city development. I'm blanking on the author's name, but he has introduced a cool governance system with new resources and buildings. You might be able to strike a tile limit that feels right for the vanilla game, but it might not work once lots of buildings get added through mods. 

There's no gameplay mechanic for tile placement OTHER than to snake cities to rivers, forest, and special tiles.  If you don't like that gameplay mechanic because you think it's gamey or cheesy, then get rid of the entire mechanic and go to one tile.  Having "one tile around the city" doesn't do anything for gameplay, and one tile per level doesn't do anything either.  Give me a big roman numeral I through V floating over the city when I hover over it, and list the improvements in a configurable list when I hover over it, and be done with it.

I would be a bit sad to lose the current city building system. It is one aspect of the game that's really unique and makes the game stand out from others in the genre. In all my time playing WOM, I never even thought to build a "snaking city". The idea didn't cross my mind until I read about it on these forums. That said, I would also be absolutely fine with moving to a 1-tile city system. I love the Civ games and have no issues with their implementation of cities. So I say go with whatever system works better in the context of the game's overall design. If a 1-tile city system would allow for better city specialization and solve problems with the current multi-tile system, then go for it. But make sure it's done well, with good city tile graphics (I assume the screenshot shown above is a mock-up to demonstrate the concept; I agree with others who say it looks terrible). Take your time and do it right, I don't care if there's a Beta 5, 6, and 7 if that's what it takes.

I like the cities as they are now. They spread well, they look good. And it's not a bad thing that cities are big on the world map when they're actually big.

Obviously things need to change but saying "there's bathwater here, we need to get rid of this baby!" isn't productive. Cities that actually exist in the same plane of reality as armies and monsters are a good thing. The fact that gamist actions can occur doesn't mean we should warp cities of any size to magically fit in a tiny area.