Page 2 of 2
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:36 pm
CotN and SCS worked that way. You could build a city with no roads, and life would still go on.
I didn't quite like the no roads bit.
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 10:30 pm
Hi all, first post here. I'm 29 years old and have been playing CB games since sim city 2000. I've played over a dozen - the Caesars, the other Roman Empire games, Europa universalis and its ilk, Egypt themed city builders, Chinese, u name the historical or current CB and I've mastered it.
I have been waiting this whole time for a non-fantasy, non dragons-and-golems medieval cb. Here is my take on the grid issue.
In all the games I played, I've had to build cities in a grid pattern with streets at 90* angles to each other. The buildings too were in a fixed shape that would not fit properly unless the street were perfectly straight. This is annoying because u build entire cities on a neat little grid pattern. This makes everything to orderly an artificial. We ALL know that roman cities were pre planned on a grid, but other cities ESP during the medieval era (even medieval CITIES not towns that were initially roman settlements) eventually lost their grid patterns and the streets took on new, messy, meandering shapes. Look at Paris. The City of London. The city centers or oldest part of most European cities, when viewed on maps or better yet aerial views, have spidery, crazy looking streets.
The streets go in any direction and the buildings cling to the streets. If any potential "realistic" medieval CB is to be credible, an ability to build meandering streets of various widths and directions is necessary and more importantly to have non-fixed-shape buildings.
Even in modern art depictions of medieval towns (one can google these images) the artist draws a clustered jumble of buildings with streets going in any and all directions and shapes.
Fluidity of street shapes and the ability of buildings to cling to streets instead of fixed-shape, 2x2 square bldgs is necessary for Medieval Mayor to seem most real.
Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 8:14 am
I don't thing that you can ever rely on a game to be 'realistic'. It has to be fun rather, tweak an element here, tweak an element there, kind of thing.
Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 10:59 am
In fact a realistic game could be very boring. It must give the impression (Impressions
) to be realistic while being fun.
Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 7:56 pm
Nobody gets it, as usual. They have to be difficult.
Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 9:06 pm
I don't believe anyone is being difficult. It's a discussion board, and everyone has an opinion. All those opinions have some validity.
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:15 am
I do agree with your take on the grids. I appreciate that no game can be fully realistic and I can appreciate the benefits of a grid system, but much of the fun for me in citybuilding games follows from looking at a living, thriving city. Having 90 degree angles in the roads does lessen that atmosphere.
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 3:52 pm
Since the view will be 2d isometric, it would be problematic to be able to build roads parallel to the view, since it could vanish completely behind buildings. With a fixed angle like this, you are pretty set on fixed road directions.
I still hope that TM will one day go back to the CotN free 3d view, though, 90 degree road intersections or not. It's just so much more intense to freely rotate around houses and look at your city from odd angles. I still have a huge folder full of screenshots just from watching sunrise over the palace hill or following some worker around into the temple and so on, it really made a huge part of the game experience.