Anyone else disappointed in the low number of cities in RTW?

[TinCow]

How so? As long as they have the same quality of battles (why would they downgrade the battles?) the more politcal the better. And it beats trying to go to the RTS crowd...

My concerns come from the realities of software publishing, not what I would actually like to see in a perfect world. The next TW game (full, not XP) will almost certainly be yet another game engine build, this means from the ground up. The more time spent on improving the campaign map, the less time spent on perfecting and tweaking the battle system. I am simply afraid that due to time and budget constraints, any resources spent on these improvements would actually harm the battle system. This might result in the TW game doing a poor job at both aspects and I would rather have it do an excellent job at one.

Of course if CA is able to get the resources and support from publishers to allow it to expand further into the civilization simulation market, I would be very happy. I guess I'm just a bit cautious about TW reaching for the dream and falling on its face.

@TinCow,
I haven't played alpha centauri or civ 3, but you describe what I envision well. Cities will have spheres of influence based on their size and surrounding areas. And my opinion is , yes we want that in TW games. Sure it will make it more of an empire building game. That does not mean the tactical aspects are lessened. In fact, the main reason I want more cities is to enhance the tactical aspect of the game. Which route do you take into a province? Do you bother with the small border forts or try to bypass them? etc... I think Steppe Marc answered your point on that one.

Here are a few screenshots I found on the net that show Civ 3 with the borders: