Can you explain why you think this is a serious problem? If you
are worried about the spread of civilization, it is in fact more
efficient to build 2 civ-4 areas than to build 1 civ-8 area, so
capping the civ level at say civ-16 doesn't really accomplish
anything that I can see.
> the simplest solution would be to henceforth
> limit construction to one type of building per province, with the
> exception of towers
I admit I would find this annoying since I have been planning and
preparing to build 8 inns in one province (to get the aformentioned
civ-4). This also would effectively cap the civ-level at a comparitively
small value (small compared to 16 anyway).
I guess I wouldn't mind so much if only there were some other way
to raise the civ level of a province; I don't relish the idea of
building towers for their civ value and then leaving them empty
for my enemies to use; I don't really mind leaving an empty inn
so much.
I guess I'd like to see something like the ability to BUILD "public
works" representing improved irrigation, bridges, roads (dirt roads,
not the stone roads discussed last month), etc. Basically, economic
development of an area, typically by the land holder, for the purpose
of raising the value (i.e. tax base) of an area. I would view this
as a single generic thing in game terms (i.e. just "BUILD improvements"
not a bunch of "BUILD bridges", "BUILD irrigation", etc.).
If such a thing were to exist, then the "civ ripple effect" should
probably be abolished. Or possibly the ripple should be limited
to a civ-1 effect regardless of the civ-value of the originating
province (e.g. if a province has civ level > 1, then the surrounding
wilderness provinces would go up to civ-1, but never higher regardless
of how high the civ-level of the first province gets).
-- Bron Campbell Nelson bron@sgi.com or possibly uunet!sgi.com!bron These statements are my own, not those of Silicon Graphics.