How about capping the max number of workers a city can use at the max population it can house? Would that be doable?

I'm not sure. I like the concept.  I am wondering, however, if we might be better off having the limited number of tiles that a city can build per level again.

.

I've been wanting the location of a city to matter more for a while now. It would be nice if the city got a bonus for being near certain enviornments.

For example, being adjacent (as in the city is in the adjacent square)

Mountain: +10% unit def when defending.

Woods: +10% materials.

Water: +10% food.

Just some ideas. To simplify this idea, you could always make the bonus only apply if the founding square is adjacent to one of these terrain types. That way you don't get string bean cities touching all the resources.

Oops, I posted in the other topic.

I would agree with a city tile limit for each level of a city, but as long as that bug where you hit the tile limit and then the city stays stuck in "too many tiles" mode (even when the city levels up or you delete buildings) doesn't make a reappearance.

Best regards,
Steven.

If the cost for the Nth study is the same no matter where you build it, how does that help with city spam?

You could build 10 in one city or one in ten.

It helps in two ways,

first cities that level up get a % bonus if you choose to do so. That means you should place them in a few high-level cities rather than many low-level cities.

second, high-level cities also gain access to new buildings from the civ tech tree, which further boost production by a %.

I, for one, am more anxious how the AI will handle this. The AI already has problems managing its population.

Here is an idea I had for the MOM mod:

The more you add, the less efficient they are. For example:

Your frst workshop gives 3 point, while your second gives 2 while your last gives 1. You can build all 3 if you want, but it consume much more space. (Space was much more limited in the mod design).

So it was an opposition between having a more specialised but less optimised city VERSUS having a more generalised but optimised city.

I think that could work.

Right now I'm thinking the best model would be 1 supercity, then satellite cities for resources/troop production.  Because of this, and to give an incentive for levelling up multiple cities, I'm thinking certain types of equipment should require a certain level of city.

Maybe dumping the archery ranges/weaponsmiths/armorers isn't a good idea- but I'd reduce the time it took to build them by a large amount.  Maybe, in addition, super bowyers/weaponsmiths/armorers should be hero types, which can give the ability to lower level cities, and maybe boost the buildings if they are produced.

Now I'm really racing with wild ideas, so I'll stop.

I like this idea. If anyone has ever played Cossacks: European Wars, you'll notice that it uses the same progressive cost system for buildings.

This has always bothered me as well.  Picture this: I have 2 cities.  One is a thriving metropolis, possibly full of martial academies and top-tier soldiery, while the other is a podunk backwater with 5 guys living in mud huts.  And you know what?  That podunk backwater can produce an army both exactly as quickly and with every bit as much quality as the thriving metropolis.  Now I'm all for unrealistic game mechanics if they make a game more fun, but I feel that this particular overly level playing field takes away from both how special the metropolis is, and from how unspecial the backwater is.

So, while it's Waaaay outside of the scope of anything that will ever get into the game, my ideal city troop training progression would be something like:

1. lvl 1-2, queue allows 1 military unit, raw recruits only, no mounts

2. lvl 3: allows 2 units to be trained simultaneously, can have 1 lvl of training, cavalry can be trained (requires cavalry training ground)

3. lvl 4: allows 3 units simultaneously, can have 2 levels of training

4. lvl 5: allows 5 units simultaneously, can have 3 levels of training

All training levels and extra capabilities must have been unlocked in-game already (research, top level hero or unit reaches a certain level, hero or unit of a certain level in the city training, whatever).

You could possibly have additional capability limitations; for example, need a blacksmith for each unit being trained with metal equipment, etc.  Could learn special weapon moves starting at lvl 4 city (if you use the weapon but don't know the move, go to a lvl 4 city for additional training).

Thus, focusing on that big city becomes more and more rewarding...  and cool.

I like the idea that back water cities can produce full capacity unit for game purpose. It's always a trouble to be force to build you units in the same high tech cities. I like when upgrades would affect your whole empire. Still it might not be very logical.

A solution could be to assume that there is supply lines between cities and maybe increase the cost of the units represent that they must be able to ship the required material from the high tech cities.

Other ideas:

Building units in higher level cities is cheaper in terms of materials used (more efficiency)  If you need that knight in the border hovel, you can get it, but it will be more expensive to get the stuff there.  Experience levels could be capped by buildings that require city levels such as training grounds.

Another idea, higher level cities get more value out of the resources in their domain.  Shards produce more mana,lost libraries more research,  gold more gold, metal more metal, etc.

Both really good ideas!