01-15-2020, 12:39 AM
I have no problems with your designs, though I don't see any particular need to be terribly stringent about it.
For instance, the old version strictly coordinated population with annexes but the new version doesn't need to do that unless we artificially constrain it. Is there some particular game reason why annexes must be tied to population? Conceivably, for a city of a given population, you could built its walls to contain roughly that population. Then if more population was added later, a new annex could be created for that number of additional citizens. So you could still have a protected population and a number of annex walls to deal with, but I see no particular reason why those need to be tied together. We might even be able to allow variable levels and relationships between annexes (e.g. a central core with high walls for the privileged and a large area with lower walls completely enclosing it for the general population).
Can you think of any reason we need to maintain the old restrictions?
For instance, the old version strictly coordinated population with annexes but the new version doesn't need to do that unless we artificially constrain it. Is there some particular game reason why annexes must be tied to population? Conceivably, for a city of a given population, you could built its walls to contain roughly that population. Then if more population was added later, a new annex could be created for that number of additional citizens. So you could still have a protected population and a number of annex walls to deal with, but I see no particular reason why those need to be tied together. We might even be able to allow variable levels and relationships between annexes (e.g. a central core with high walls for the privileged and a large area with lower walls completely enclosing it for the general population).
Can you think of any reason we need to maintain the old restrictions?