One tile equals over 100 square miles of land. Never seen a city from the old country get much bigger than this. 

I think the one tile cities should also scale height-wise on the strategic map.  My level 5 capital should have the towering majesty of Minas Tirith with cramped housing overflowing at the base of the old city walls.  Maybe the central keep could gain an additional tower for each level.

Crux, I get it.  In fact, if you look back at my posts from three years ago on this topic, I was an ardent defender of putting multiple tile cities out there, and argued strongly that there should be as much gameplay in planning your cities as in planning your armies moves and what armies you'll field.  To do that, however, requires some interaction between tiles, so that you have a "guns or butter" like choice as you plan and build cities.  It's become clear to me, over the intervening years, however, that this particular game mechanism isn't going to go into this game.  So, there is simply no gameplay value to multitile cities other than snaking at this point, whether that be for getting to resources, or blocking off sections of the map.  In both of those cases, better game mechanisms exist than this one to do it, that are more fun and present data in an easier fashion.  A right click pull down menu of buildable things in your city.  Civ's sidebar build list.  Any of these keep the level of gameplay at the map level without having to go down a level, and work just fine.  If I thought there was a hope for tile placement being part of the game mechanism in a real and thoughtful way, I'd be all over this subject.  But there is simply no baby in this bathwater, because tile placement having an effect on city production doesn't appear to be on the table for discussion.  That ship sailed and sank two years ago.  It's not that I'm trying not to be productive, it's that multitiles, as they stand rignt now, only exist to be exploited.  So, they gotta go.  And once you've come to that conclusion, some middling "one tile per level" thing or "only the nine tiles around the city" thing isn't a stopgap or middle ground, it's mollification.  Don't do it, get a better design, clean up the interface, and get rid of all the tiles.

Unless we want to reopen the discussion of tile placement having a real effect, something to counteract the drive to snake.

I like the plan, however i am curious about the idea of tile placement bonuses. The only kind of bonus i can think of is an example of productivity improvement when like tiles/ buildings are placed next to each other and that would only slow snaking down not stop it.

I like having the big cities on the map, but it sounds like the current system is restricting the game design and I really don't want that.

So as long as the new system will look cool and have interesting decisions about what to build in the city, I'm for it.  

I like the look of the multi-tile cities, but I think from a game standpoint I would really prefer the 1 tile cities. 

I assume there will be artwork created for these tiles. This would look very neat! While the current system is a really cool idea, like other posters mentioned, the cities do tend to get jumbled-looking and are out of proportion to the rest of the map. A one-tile system will solve all of this.

FB: Will there be one tile for each city level per faction? IE: Gilden's tiles will look different from Umbers?

I think the new system proposed looks good... though it looks like we will lose the ability to place buildings :( 

While I enjoyed the positive aspects of the WOM-style, I believe that the negative aspects out-weigh these, or rather: the positive aspects of a hybrid system (hub, slightly larger for level 2, 3, 4, 5) outweigh the drawbacks and "feel". So I am looking forward to the new system in Beta 4

I support 1-tile-cities.

I would like it to be accompanied with a change to Zone of Control. If Zone of Control took into consideration the TYPE of terrain when spreading, it would allow for kingdoms to from in much more interesting ways:

• ZoC would spread at normal rate on hills and grassland
• ZoC wouldn't spread over impassable mountains
• ZoC would spread slower in forests, swamps etc
• ZoC wouldn't spread across water unless you have harbors
• ZoC would spread slower across rivers
• ZoC would spread faster along roads & bridges

A kind of a flow mechanism for ZoC. You have a certain amount of initial "pressure" from the city and you gain ZoC as far as that pressure reaches taking into account the "friction" each tile has.

The new system sounds good to me as well.  I like specialization and more choices and the like.  I would however say that the picture of the changed system doesn't scream high level powerful epic city.  More farming village.

I'm not sure if the current AI counters raised mountains, but small cities could be more prone to being fenced in by them under the new system.  One possible exploit that could be more common under the new system.

But liking all of the sneak peeks lately, makes things seem quite exciting.  Are we past the point in time where we're supposed to assume FE will give us a disease?

As long as the city actually GROWS as it increases in level, I'm totally on board with this change.  I like the multi-tile approach because of the visual impact it gives my cities.  If we can simulate that visual impact, while removing the need to arbitrary building placement and snaking, then I say it's a fair compromise.

The only issue I have is that the growth of the city needs to be quite visible.  If I have a massive level 5 city, I want it to look, feel and sound like a massive city.  It needs to have that visual impact.  Civ IV's cities don't really have that impact - you can see them, and they get bigger, but ultimately they're just a collection of models.  If you can give us something more, I'm all for it.

A seperate screen for city building has been on the very top of my wish-list for years now.

• Cleaner look on the map
• Possibility for sieges
• No more weird movement behaviour for traveling units
• Possibility for controlled city-size on the map, based on city level

I like to think back to Master of Orion 2 and Civ 3 (might have been 2 or 4, they are a blur by now)  for examples of how to do this well.

Also, separate city building screen allows for all sorts of modding opportunities, if you can have a tile placement system within the city screen. A real sim city minigame will be possible (via a mod only, of course).

And that, together with Frogboy's list in the OP, should be the end of this discussion.

Seems like a closed case to me- the pros outweigh the cons to go to a 1-tile system. The biggest requirement will be to make it visually obvious that a "big" city is different than a "small" one without using tiles to do that.

Others have mentioned giving some love to ZoC. I'd second that. The current system is unclear as to where the bonuses are coming from, how they can be changed/improved, when ZoC will expand, and where/how it will expand. And we still need pioneers to display their ZoC before building an outpost.

As I wrote in the other thread, I am all in favor on 1-tile cities if for no other reason (and there are lots of other reasons) that it will allow for city sieges, a vital tactic in medieval warfare.  Plus, by limiting the size of cities, I would think some meaningful choices for the player would suddenly materialize as you couldn't just pack every city with every building.  Last, as Frogboy has said, it will go a long way in keeping the scale of the game at an appropriate level as we won't have massive, sprawling cities taking up a ridiculous amount of space. 

All in all, I am very excited by this possible change.

Though I see I am in the minority, I have to say that, as one said above, that city building is one of the primary identities Elemental from others.  I would terribly miss the look of the current system if it was gone.

That being said, I do see the problem with the design, both performance and exploit.  So I would propose a comptomise, a blending of the two.  Can we extend the buildable boundaries of the one-tile city out a little per level, leading to a larger area to build your city to your aesthetic desire, but still controlled enough to not become as sprawling as it can currently be.  Perhaps some buildings don't show on the overworld map?  Or a newer or upgraded version of a similar building is replaced by a larger, more complex graphic?

There seems to a division between what is visually appealing (large, relevant appearing cities) and the game mechanics associated with giving players the ability to create visually appealing cities (i.e. "teleportation" and "snaking"). Something should definately be done to bridge these.

I don't think that one should come at the expense of the other. 1-tile city hubs look so wimpy compared with their surroundings!

If the player's ability to create by hand these cities is being taken away (as it so seems), then may I suggest that city hubs can expand? Or that a few purely-visual buildings existed that would be auto-placed when the city reached certain pop. thresholds (e.g. levels, or by 50s). Cities could then expand without the threat of players exploiting something that was meant to be purely visual in the first place. If it was something purely visual, than it could be something toggled "off" for players with less elite computers.

I'm certain this has been voiced before. It was a favorite visual feature of Civ IV and V for myself and others I'd suspect. Natural growth is a beautiful thing to witness.

Scale is certainly an issue with the current scheme, especially on smaller maps. The one tile city solves so many serious problems that is seems like almost a no-brainer. The major remaining issue being that the one tile city does not look as nice.

One solution that I haven't seen anyone suggest is to simply create a new type of "suburban/city" terrain tile (or several for randomization purposes) and then have that organically grown outward from the city tile each time the city levels up. It will look like city without actually being city. This solves a lot of issues, I think.

It's just another type of terrain, like forest or plains so you won't have the city skip movement issues. In fact, the city terrain movement bonus/penalty can be adjusted to fit. Maybe +1 movement for the owner of the city and perhaps a -1 movement penalty for empires you are at war with and no bonus or penalty for neutrals. This can create fairly large tactical and strategic considerations when attacking another city or defending yours against intruders.

A leveled up city would look impressive but all of it except the central core tile would just be 'city' terrain. The core tile would be the only one with walls and would be the one you'd need to attack to capture/raze. This would actually be similar to how towns in Europe sprang up around castles to support them, and where the center castle had the walls/defenses.

By using this approach, you'd have something that looks similar to what we have now in appearance, but it would still just be one tile for the city and you'd have a city screen too to build your improvements on.

I'm guessing that using spreading "city" terrain would not cause any memory or performace issues since it would just be another type of terrain.

So, with this approach, we should be able to have our cake and eat it too. Win, win.

Neat ideas, I would suggest that cities on hilltops would have better defensive bonuses and maybe improved ZOC due to watchtowers.  Could really make the terrain matter if they added defensibility ratings to a given tile like food/materials.  Maybe my third city is awful for food, but i get +50% defense due to being on a hilltop between a swamp and a mountain...

How about something like a cross between one tile city and current system. Level 1 and 2 cities would be 1 tile (with different graphics), 3-4 4 tiles and level 5 would be 9 tiles. The extra tiles would be 'flavoured' towards the main types of resource(s) the city is using. This would allow players to easily gauge the level and type of city, keeps them more to scale with the map (I play on tiny/small maps for quicker games and cities do tend to look silly when they stretch from coast to coast...) and reduces the graphical/memory impacts. A seperate screen for tinkering with the city as per original suggestion would be used to administer the city.

I think this would help with any seige warfare mods that may be created and would mean that the tactical maps could refelct the city as per the city type zoning someone suggested earlier (rambling).

Does anyone remember Dragonshard? I thought the base mechanic in that game was pretty unique. Not suggesting for here mind you but this discussion reminded me of it...

Cheers,

I'm totally in favor of 1-tile cities that graphically expand as the city expands.  It would also be nice to have expanding number of buildable tiles available as cities grow, too.  But if you do that, you should rethink the interaction between space and city level requirements for buildings.  If a building requires a lot of space, it should have reduced city level requirements, for example.

The idea here is to present interesting gameplay mechanics, and even the process of placing buildings on a city build screen should be considered for removal if it doesn't present you with something interesting to think about when you are doing it.

Glad to see you're willing to kill a sacred cow in order to deliver a better experience.  That wasn't what happened with WoM, and the game suffered greatly for it.

I like the 1 tile idea because:

1. It would allow more cities on map.

2. Close cities would not stunt growths, as in can not build that close to another city.

I dislike the idea because:

1. Cities would have a harder time getting woods, river, coastal bonus tiles.

2. The lack of being able to protect resources. One of the main reasons people sprawl cities is to absorb the resource into the borders for protection. As in it not being destroyed every other turn by wandering monsters or armies.

3. Sprawling cities added flavor and customization to the game.

4. You can no longer sprawl a city to block a mountain pass or pennisula.

With the removal of using city sprawling for strategic value on a map it needs to be replaced with something similar. An ability to create walls, defendable outposts, cheaper army to protect resources, or the city army protects the resource in its influence.

If you are going in this route, I request one thing (and I'm not sure why, because it really doesn't "matter" anymore): enable the players to choose the improvements'/buildings' locations.

I really enjoy the Sim-City vibe of placing buildings.