Piers/docks/harbors

Yes, you have to start next to rivers to build piers/etc. now.  It's mildly annoying.

Ok, thank you. It doesn't make a lot of sense, but as long as it's consistent, I suppose I can just build my cities a bit closer.

It used to be that you could built a pier when your city spread to the river.  I liked it much better that way.  I hope they change it back.  It simply makes no sense the way it is right now.  Here is the damn river, why can't I build a pier?!

^This

No wonder my faction grows so slowly, when the teenage wraiths are kept from making out under the board walk.

  totally agree!!!

Bumping this thread to ask the question again:

In 0.980, has the 'no-snaking allowed' bug been fixed? Can we now build cities away from rivers and forests and snake over to build piers + lumbermills respectively???

Bumping also to request that we go back to the previous status - it MAKES NO SENSE to only have the piers, logging camps etc. only available based on the initial city placement, and it was great fun to expand towards a river or a forest ...

What's the difference, as long as everyone's playing by the same rules.

First people call to nerf snaking cities, now you want a reason to snake them again?

Get real.

I must say, I can't see how it's a problem, either. It's just nice knowing where to build your cities, but with the whole city-placement eligibility being as obscure as it is, it's not like you can do a lot of planning, apart from just plodding down a settlement and seeing where the next one can be placed.

I can see Brad's next poll.  Do you want a 3 grain / 3 material / 1 essence city right next to a river or be one tile away in a 3 grain / 3 material / 2 essence city that can't build piers.  Oh the choices .... 

I think if anything the UI should tell you in which range of WHAT you will be able to build lumbermills and docks/piers.

I still think both lumbermills and docks/piers should be buildable if within the city's borders though, and the building would show up on the overland map but there would just be for show.

sincerely
~ Kongdej

I never called for the elimination of snaking cities. That was one of the MOST unique features that attracted me to playing this game. I really like how Stardock has limited the snaking as it has greatly improved the game. However, by eliminating the ability to snake towards these two specific resources, they are doing the following:

1) They are not being consistent, as you can snake towards ANY other resource, pushing it to be within your cultral borders so that you can improve upon it. Rivers and Forests should be no different.

2) Snaking is awesome and should be allowed.

3) Of the few cities that you build in a game, it's nice to be able to get the most out of them, even if that means you have to strategically decide HOW you want your city to grow so that you can snake to these resources.

imo, if players don't want to play with 'select build location', that's they're choice, but they should be missing out on the snaking aspect of the game. Just the same as if someone didn't want to play with 'tatical battles'...

Good points.  I agree with you.

I am pleasantly surprised. Now to get Stardock's attention.

I just tried to snake to make a pier and I couldn't make a pier. Looks like the snaking punishment is still in place.

For forests I notice that if you are diagonal to the forest you can build a lumber mill after you build a building first. But I haven't confirmed that the snaking to the forest is not possible.

I seriously hope SD doesn't listen to you guys. The snaking mechanic was awful. Unique? Sure. Unintended side effect of a feature? Yes. Completely immersion killing? You bet. Horrible exploit that the AI could never match? Totally.

1) I actually agree with you there, it is not consistent. So other resources should be changed so they are also not included in the town when it touches the towns border.

2) Snaking is awful and should be killed.

3) I think this is the main problem; for some reason you expect that when you settle a city, you should be able to fully exploit everything that is within sight. I think this makes for a bad game, as it completely removes any strategic planning you need to do. If you want the pier improvement, you're going to have to settle next to the river. If you want the logging camp, you're going to have to settle next to the forest. If you want both, you're going to have to find a place that is both next to a river and a forest. And if that tile happens to have a slightly worse tile yield, that's just though luck, you can't have everything.

I've no problem with this, but 1 tile away from your city should not be a limitation in this snaking requirement. I don't mind that if a resource is 3 to 4 tiles away that I can't take advantage, but 1 tile away seems mildly silly, as my city because engulfed in a forest and yet my perfectly round (non-snaking) city doesn't have a lumbermill. This is really my complaint on the matter. I do not want to remove this strategic immersion, but I want the mechanic to be more reasonable.

Suggestion: Put a radius of 2 tiles away to enjoy the resource improvement of pier or lumber mill. If the resource is more than 2 tiles, then no ability to build the resource.

I disagree. It's different strategic planning, and imo, more dynamic.

In the case where snaking is NOT allowed: You require strategic planning in where you rigidly build your cities.

In the case where snaking IS allowed: You still require that strategic planning in where you build your cities, but there is some flexibility when doing so. However, you also require strategic planning in HOW you build your cities, as development locations impact future resources.

Out of the two cases, since you only build once and have to manage for the rest, I'd rather my strategic decisions take place over the course of the game instead of a one shot deal. It makes for a more dynamic game.

That's the way I see it though.

@parrottmath : Agreed. Snaking shouldn't be abusable to the extreme case, but that's why Stardock redesigned city development to only have cities grow out 1-2 squares. There is a natural boundary to how far a city can snake...

Snaking like we used to wasn't too great, but in the current system you can auto-place, get a more-or-less round city, grow to be next to a river, and NOT be able to take advantage of it.  I don't call that snaking.  And call-it-snaking-or-not, a huge city next to a river but with no river buildings doesn't make sense.

Well, I love snaking. 

May come from having grown in a city that looked like a T.  The horizontal bar was snaked along the river, and the vertical bar was along the road to the country capital.  Until the city started growing in the 80s, most buildings were between the river and the crests of the hills between which it ran.

In game terms, I love being able to use my cities to push the enemy's dominion and deny passage and resources.  In my book, having more options and choices is great.  Abuse is only bad if it unrealistic to the point of breaking immersion, or destroys choices.

Sorry, but you are wrong. There is not much strategy involved, nor is it very dynamic.

Without snaking you have to carefully weigh all the possible options against each other, and determine what the best place for a city is. Do you go for the best tile yield? Or do you want access to a river? Is there a resource that needs to be protected? Is there a valuable choke point that needs blocking? Strategy games are about making these kind of choices. Once in a while you'll come across a place that meets more than one or two criteria, making that a very valuable spot to settle. But those should be the exception, not the rule. True, it is not very dynamic, but again that is what strategy games are all about; making a choice and dealing with the consequences.

With snaking on the other hand, you can have it all. You can have the best tile yield AND access to all possible bonuses AND include resources in the city AND block choke points AND shape the area of influence to benefit you most AND create a highway for your units. There is no downside, you're only slightly limited by the number of buildings you can place. No strategy involved. It's not very dynamic either, 95% percent of these objectives are known at the moment you settle the city. Reaching them by carefully placing buildings is just busywork.

The problem here is that Stardock didn't go with one-tile cities with internal building, but stuck with on the map placement of buildings. It removes a sense of scale. In civ, no one complains that stuff that is on the tiles next to a city is not somehow included in that city. People understand that those are separate regions. But in Elemental, your city expands into these tiles, making the map seem smaller in scale. At the city scale, it makes less sense then that you can't expand beyond the first ring of tiles. But if you look at this at the strategic level, that city has become so big that moving around it takes several turns for an average unit to move around it, which makes even less sense.

Not necessarily true.  In building all those buildings, you sacrifice the opportunity to build troops in that city.

Personally, I am not a fan of snaking cities; I like the smaller ones we have now.  I would like forests and harbors to be natural resource tiles that you can control with outposts like wild grain, and mines.  Haz cake, tis eaten as well.