{The List} Terrain and terrain improvements

[alva]

Looks fine to me..
-
Seriously, what I mean is that late industrial/early modern, so many workers are around to manage and for that alone, I do like rails as they are now.

It's bad enough to control them as it is without having to make sure how to get them to work as soon as possible(shortest route) or worse, wich worker I should use on what tile.
With rails this isn't that much of a problem as you can take one from the other end of your empire to come and help finish a task. etc..

Better now?

So the question is, how can could this be handled without having infinite rails?
One answer could be for example to give workers infinite moves,, say starting modern, while other units don't.

[hexagonian]

But why...

Workers are considered units, same as any military unit - they can be captured. So your worker will take several turns to reach its destination. Plan ahead and be patient...

[alva]

Sure, the thing is, if you a hundred of the little sods running around it might get a tad tedious.

[Nikolai]

I agree that the model as for today is a bit...tedious. But maybe this discussion is better suited under a topic about units? Just to hold the discussion into terrain and terrain improvements.

[Kuciwalker]

I'd like pollution to be removed. It doesn't really provide the player with any strategic choices (come on... are you actually going to forgo building Factories and Hospitals? It wouldn't help you anyways, even in the long run.) and it is incredibly annoying.

[alva]

3 - Worker jobs
3.1 - More worker jobs

I like both the CtP and CivIII version of terrain improvements, but just for the sake of arguement, I will be going from the perspective of CivIII. I want to either be able to add worker jobs or already have them in. Examples: Loved the ability to Irragate a second time in CivII. Give this back.
(Posted by donegeal)

3.2 - Public Works, not workers

PUBLIC WORKS : exactly like in CTP.
(Posted by J-S)

This is from this threads summary. Some subject are always going to overlap certain area's.

[alva]

I'd like pollution to be removed.

I would like to see some implementation of pollution, having said that, I do agree that the current model is annoying and little to gameplay.
How about making it so that it affects production and income.
(people are more often sic, blahblahblah) IE average production will be lower due to pollution (could be on a wordwide level with cities producing most pollution being affected more ).

Edit: some major typos

[alva]

RE: pollution: trees really should reduce pollution!

[Nikolai]

You're right, alva. Things do overlap.
Btw, I just updated the list.

[Peter Triggs]

Can't you turn pollution off in Civ3, i.e., play without it?

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by alva
Sure, the thing is, if you a hundred of the little sods running around it might get a tad tedious.

At least you can group similar units and you can path them to a destination, so the bottom line is that it only takes a few more turns to get to there. This doesn't make it any more tedious than it is currently.

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by Peter Triggs
Can't you turn pollution off in Civ3, i.e., play without it?

AFAIK, no.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by alva

I'd like pollution to be removed.

I would like to see some implementation of pollution, having said that, I do agree that the current model is annoying and little to gameplay.
How about making it so that it affects production and income.
(people are more often sic, blahblahblah) IE avertain production will be last due to pollution (could be on a wordwide level with cities producing most pollution being affected more ).

The thing is, pollution is supposed to create a strategic decision between industrializing and not industrializing. However, it is INSANELY STUPID not to industrialize, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Should not industrializing be a viable strategy to win the game? No, because it is inconceivable that anything like that could ever happen IRL.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Nikolai
Sorry, but I must have missed that. Can you give me a link? How strong is the support btw?

Radical ideas thread.
A few posts right at the top.

This one's an older one.
I haven't read this one, but I'm sure it's worth reading if you're interested in the topic.

And how strong is the support? Well.... I sure like the idea.
The topic has come up in various threads over the past few years, and there are always strong arguments on the side of spherical maps (ha). Perhaps a poll is in order though, to determine what the people posting in this thread right now think.

[wrylachlan]

1.1B/1.7B

Certain terrains have a percentage chance each turn you move through them of taking away hitpoints. It could be as though the terrain itself were a unit and it "attacks" you as you go by. Certain units or civs would be more immune than others to these effects ie. Mayans have no jungle penalty or a late game Special Forces unit that is imune to all terrain penalties...

1.4B/5.1B

When a city gets to a certain size, any additional growth has a chance of happening not in the city center, but in a suburb. This turns a surrounding tile into a "suburb" tile. These tiles do not produce food, or shields, but can hold up to 5 citizens which can be made into tax collectors, or workers, or whatever.

The upside is that it gives you a lot of flexibility in terms of whether you want the city to be commercial or producing or science, etc. The down side is that you have to double irrigate, or farm other tiles to feed them. And you have to defend them from enemy attack.

4. Railroads/Roads

This is a huge pet peeve of mine and I think an easy fix. Why aren't there roads and railroads across 100% of the land in real life? Because they cost money to upkeep. Why do we have them at all? Because they provide an ecomic benefit in being able to get from place to place, and that benefit offsets their cost. But there is a law of diminishing returns where after you have one RR between two cities, the second costs more than its economic benefit.

How this translates to Civ is to give Roads and RR's an upkeep. Then make their economic benefit dependant on the number of nearby cities they have a direct line to - maybe a 5% commerce bonus for the first one, 4% for the next, etc. etc. That way a line directly from city A to B might cost 5 gold, but give you 8 for a net of 3, from A to C nets 2, A to D nets 1, A to E is a wash, and anything after that is a loosing proposition.

4.1 Railroad Movement
Keep unlimited movement, but add a 1 turn embarking/disembarking penalty for railroad use. If you want to get on a railroad, you can embark and go to your destination all in one turn. But in order to get off you need to wait till your next turn.

A corrolary to this is that you can only embark/dismbark at a city or worker built "train depot". Also if your unit is in a city at the end of its turn, it can be used for defense. But if you're waiting at a train depot, you can't defend with units waiting to disembark. If that train depot tile falls, the depot is destroyed and your units are automatically disembarked with severe damage.

4.? River Transportation
Having rivers between tiles for strategic importance is pretty cool. On the other hand having the early scouts travel along rivers was pretty cool too. How to Reconcile these two things?

This one's a little complicated to explain, but easy to see if maybe someone could do a mock up for me... anyhoo...

The rivers exist between the land tiles and act just like they do in CIV3 in terms of a movement penalty to cross plus defense bonuses, etc. However a unit can "embark" on the river. What this does is it costs one movement point, and shifts the grid a half square over and down which puts the river at the center of the square from the point of view of the unit. The unit can then enjoy the improved movement of the river and "disembark" when it wants to return to land.