Idea: make unit cost and city improvement cost dependant on number already bult

[The diplomat]

I think RoN does this, and I was thinking it may work weel for civ4.

Why not make the cost to build a unit or a city improvement depend on how many are already built? So, each time you build a specific unit, the cost to build the next one goes up a little bit. Same with city improvements, each time you build a specific improvement, the next one would cost a little bit more.

For example, first bank would cost X, second bank would cost X+5, third bank would cost X+10 etc...

This would be a good way to counter the bigger gets even bigger phenomena.

Also, it would force players to make toughter decisions about what city improvements to build. If you have a large empire, say 30 cities, it would not be economical to build every city improvement in every city. The player would have to choose which cities deserve a city improvement the most. This would mean that cities could become more specialized. Some cities would be really good economic centers, others really good military centers.

[patcon]

Re: Idea: make unit cost and city improvement cost dependant on number already bult

Originally posted by The diplomat
I think RoN does this, and I was thinking it may work weel for civ4.

Why not make the cost to build a unit or a city improvement depend on how many are already built? So, each time you build a specific unit, the cost to build the next one goes up a little bit. Same with city improvements, each time you build a specific improvement, the next one would cost a little bit more.

For example, first bank would cost X, second bank would cost X+5, third bank would cost X+10 etc...

This would be a good way to counter the bigger gets even bigger phenomena.

Also, it would force players to make toughter decisions about what city improvements to build. If you have a large empire, say 30 cities, it would not be economical to build every city improvement in every city. The player would have to choose which cities deserve a city improvement the most. This would mean that cities could become more specialized. Some cities would be really good economic centers, others really good military centers.

NO!
This is counter-intuitive. Why should the third library (or marketplace, bank, barracks, etc.) cost more to build than the first? It seems to me that the experience your citizens gain in building previous improvements would make it easier and cheaper, not harder and more expensive. In my home county, all new libraries look the same because a single design is used for them - saves on architect fees and building costs. Have you ever noticed that all Walmarts tend to look the same?

It could lead to the ridiculous situation where it costs more to build a temple in a new city than it costs to build a cathedral in an old city. Why should this be?

Also it would be a bookkeeping nightmare (for the human player, not the computer) to keep track of how much each improvement cost if you sell back the improvement. Is that a 40-shield temple or a 60-shield temple you're selling?

And would you count only those improvements you currently own, or any you've ever built? Say I'm building my 20th temple, but in the midst of the build I lose 3 cities containing temples, have 2 more destroyed, and sell off 1 more to raise cash. Is the temple I'm building now my 14th? Do I lose the excess shields which are now not needed?
And if 2 cities are building the same improvement and could finish in the same turn, which city finishes the build first? You could have a situation where city A and city B both would need 10 shields to finish the build, A produces 15 shields and B produces 10. If A builds first, A wastes 5 shields and B is unable to complete the build that turn. But if B builds first both B and A are able to complete their builds that turn. It would become way too complicated to manage your production.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

OK, I have a very different take on this idea-though I feel certain I'll get 'flamed' for this one !
Basically I believe that a city should be able to build MULTIPLE copies of a single improvement. The # you could build would depend on your city size, and these multiple improvements would suffer from the 'law of diminishing returns', where each new copy of the improvement brings a slightly reduced benefit-until it gives you NO benefit at all! You would have to pay the full maintainance cost for them, though. So its all about maximising benefits! This system would allow for several possiblilities.

1) It would allow certain cities to become muchmore 'specialized' as either production centres or commercial hubs or the like-especially in the modern age!

2) It would allow civs who miss out on the early game 'land grab' to still compete in the late game.

3) It will give AI and human players alike multiple paths to ultimate victory.

4) It will help to simulate 'real-life' situations. Like the comparison of modern day Japan with Modern day USA. Though one nation is a WHOLE LOT smaller than the other, the two still manage to compete in economic and productivity terms! It'd be good to see this reflected in Civ4!

Anyway, thats my A$0.02c worth .

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[GePap]

for a civ type game this is not very good nor realistic. You could implement inflation, like they do in Eu2, and also make technology costs vary with size, so that a huge empire does no have a massive advantage over a small one with regards to tech- which is true, huge empires really don't have a huge tech superiority.

That I think would mirror real life much more effectively.

[patcon]

Originally posted by GePap
for a civ type game this is not very good nor realistic. You could implement inflation, like they do in Eu2, and also make technology costs vary with size, so that a huge empire does no have a massive advantage over a small one with regards to tech- which is true, huge empires really don't have a huge tech superiority.

That I think would mirror real life much more effectively.

Huge empires are already penalized by the corruption they face. This is fine with me, in that it does reflect the difficulty in coordinating the efforts of a far-flung empire. But why should it take more basic research cost for one empire to discover something than another empire simply because it's larger? If anything, scientific discovery tends to be exponential in nature (think Newton's quote on standing on the shoulders of giants), so the more you know the faster you should learn. The 4-turn minimum on tech advances keeps a check on run-away tech growth.

Perhaps a way to address this issue is to reduce the discovery cost of advances which are already known by civs you are in contact with. (dangling participle alert - it is something up with which I must put) I seem to recall reading something indicating that this may already be the case.

[taiwwa]

NO!
This is counter-intuitive. Why should the third library (or marketplace, bank, barracks, etc.) cost more to build than the first?

This is actually true though. It costs more to rent a store in Manhattan than it does in small town Kansas.

Civ 5 seems to implement diminishing returns in everything except the annoying parts, which are unit movements.